Second Documentary Message

From Nearly 60 Brutal Sieges

“Siege of the Laws of the Jungle”

To be followed by a series of documentary messages regarding the sieges of:

• (1.1) Judges (4+ legal violations)

• (1.2) Courts (5+ legal violations)

• (1.3) Lawyers (200+ legal violations)

• (1.4) Paralegals (5+ legal violations)

• (1.5) A large number of attorneys who refused to represent me

Professional malpractice, inaction, and deliberate negligence by all involved.

Total: 5 Sieges

TO:

• Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor of California

• Rob Bonta, Honorable Attorney General of California

• Jeffrey F. Rosen, District Attorney of Santa Clara County

• Robert Jonsen, Sheriff of Santa Clara County

• Matt Mahan, Mayor of San Jose

• The State Bar Board / Committee on Discipline and Professional Oversight

TO ALL RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, DIGNITARIES, HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS, AND ALL WHO ASSISTED IN PASSING DISCRIMINATORY AND RACIAL LAWS, SEIZING THE RIGHTS OF HONORABLE CITIZENS (CALIFORNIA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS), AND ADVOCATING FOR WRONGDOERS.

SUBJECT: Formal Complaint Regarding Legal Malpractice, Inaction, Deliberate Negligence, Excessive Financial and Emotional Extortion (befitting only thieves and corrupt actors), Deceit, False Promises, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Unjustified Retaliation, and Collusion with Those Who Harmed Me.

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION:

• Name: Prof. Dr. Mohamed E. Fayad

• Capacity: Client / Complainant

RESPONDENTS INFORMATION:

• Names / Law Offices: (Insert designated attorneys or law firms)

GROUNDS AND FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT:

I hereby submit this formal complaint against the Respondents, who were legally tasked with representing me and defending my legitimate interests and rights. Their actions constitute a severe breach of professional ethics and a flagrant abandonment of their duties under the power of attorney/representation agreement, detailed as follows:

1. Deliberate Negligence and Inaction

Respondents willfully failed to submit critical evidence and core documents pertinent to the dispute before judicial authorities. This severely prejudiced my legal standing, unnecessarily prolonged proceedings, and dissipated my established rights.

2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty

Respondents disregarded the client’s direct interests, abandoned established professional and ethical duties, and actively sought to drain the Complainant financially and emotionally without offering the required effective legal representation.

3. Legal Malpractice

As evidenced by facts and records, Respondents failed to competently handle essential evidence, documents, and key facts—a selection of which is publicly exposed and being exposed worldwide, involving over multiple legal violations and criminal acts—resulting in severe financial, emotional, and legal damages.

4. Severe Procedural and Legal Errors

• Disregarding Final Judgments and Judicial Jurisdiction: The legal representatives ignored official, final divorce documents legally issued and rendered in Egypt (which resolved all statutory and legal rights of the other party). They intentionally submitted the matter to non-jurisdictional family courts in California (Santa Clara County Family Court), causing a fundamental procedural violation of dual jurisdiction and double jeopardy principles (non bis in idem).

• Failure to File and Missed Procedural Deadlines: Attorneys intentionally failed to submit motions, appeals, or petitions (including filings to the Supreme Court) within statutory deadlines, making performance contingent upon exorbitant financial demands. Furthermore, they intentionally omitted decisive evidence, leading to the forfeiture of procedural rights and missed statutory appeal deadlines.

5. Dishonest Handling of Documents and Evidence

• Concealment and Falsification of Judicial Documents: Neglecting and concealing crucial documents, altering facts, and falsifying or withholding material evidentiary records (in coordination between certain attorneys, paralegals such as Julie Bartow, and other representatives). This deprived judicial bodies from reviewing proof of the Complainant’s complete fulfillment of all prior obligations to the other party.

• Ignoring Proof of Financial Integrity and Compliance: Legal representatives failed to submit documentary financial proof verifying full payment of all obligations and expenses by the Complainant, leaving opposing claims unrefuted despite the availability of authenticated rebuttals.

6. Severe Financial, Emotional, and Physical Damages

• Financial Damages (Financial Drain and Arbitrary Deductions): Directly causing the siphon and exhaustion of life savings through fraudulent billing and retainer fees without providing professional services. Furthermore, facilitating arbitrary salary garnishments and seizures from San Jose State University (SJSU) through administrative collusion and improper accommodations.

• Emotional, Psychological, and Health Damages: Subjection to an extended pattern of legal siege and false judicial prosecutions lasting over 8 years. This forced the Complainant to live in total legal suspense (“suspended between heaven and earth”), destroyed the family structure, and caused severe physical and psychological exhaustion resulting from systemic administrative and judicial oppression.

7. Excessive Emotional/Financial Extortion and Physical/Mental Exhaustion

• Sham Representation Invoices and Retainer Draining: Exercising continuous financial pressure by demanding huge advance payments to proceed with cases or file petitions to higher courts, only to waste and exhaust these funds without delivering competent or genuine defense representation.

• Exploitation of the Complainant’s Status and Health: Exploiting the Complainant’s advanced age and academic standing, applying intense psychological pressure by threatening to abandon representation at critical junctures or intentionally keeping disputes open to force financial and emotional capitulation.

8. Deceit and False Promises

• Making Illusory Commitments: Successive attorneys (such as Daniel Mark Siegel, Stephen Dinneen, David Yumtof, Andrew Calvert, Tanzil Haq, and Sean Tabatabai) gave firm assurances to restore rights, expose falsifications, and halt wage garnishments immediately upon receiving advance retainer fees.

• Retraction and Abandonment After Collecting Fees: Immediately upon receiving payments, attorneys shifted to inaction, stall tactics, ignoring communications, and refusing to present substantive defenses before the courts.

9. Breach of Trust (Fiduciary Duty)

• Breach of Duty of Loyalty: Prioritizing personal and financial interests over the direct interest of the client (Complainant), converting legal representation from a duty of defense into a tool for financial gain and coercion.

• Leaking Case Vulnerabilities: Failing to maintain professional confidentiality or taking collusive stances that benefited opposing parties, enabling them to secure unmerited advantages.

10. Unjustified Retaliation, Adverse Conduct, and Collusion

• Collusion with Opposing Parties: Implicit and active alignment with parties seeking to harm the Complainant (including direct adverse parties, overreaching university administrators, and external offices/individuals in Egypt and California, such as Madi El-Dekn, Gaber Nassar, Medhat Shenen, and others).

• Retaliation and Total Abandonment: Representing attorneys turned into active adversaries who attacked their client, refused to hand over case files, or contributed to keeping litigation open to retaliate and inflict maximum financial and emotional damage.

CALL FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE: TO THOSE WITH PROFESSIONAL CONSCIENCE AND LEGAL COURAGE

Prof. Dr. Mohamed E. Fayad stands today facing an arduous, complex legal struggle spanning multiple fronts and courts. This battle requires not only deep statutory knowledge, but above all, legal professionals with living consciences, integrity, and the courage to defend what is right without fear or exploitation.

The scale of difficulties faced by Dr. Fayad is not limited to the underlying legal disputes; it manifested in the harshest form of betrayal through abandonment, dereliction, and blatant collusion by individuals entrusted with his rights. Legal aid was transformed from a means of justice into an arena for financial extortion, deliberate suppression of evidence, breach of fiduciary duty, and the intentional prolongation of disputes for personal gain at the expense of justice.

RECORD OF DERELICTION AND MALICIOUS ROLES

Dr. Fayad’s legal journey has witnessed alarming examples of attorneys, law firms, and paralegals abandoning their ethical and professional duties, retaliating unjustly, aligning with adverse parties, and actively obstructing justice:

Exploitative Roles and Collusion in Courts and Offices

First: Judges

• Institutional Bias and Discrimination: Family court judges (principally Judge James E. Towery in Department 77) violated judicial neutrality and abused judicial authority to pressure the Complainant, turning courtrooms into platforms for unfair trials, racial discrimination, and institutional bias against citizens of Arab or Muslim heritage.

• Disregarding Final Judgments and Decisive Records: Intentionally ignoring final, official religious and civil divorce records issued in Egypt (which settled all financial and legal rights), refusing to apply international jurisdictional principles, and imposing arbitrary, illegal financial orders under duress.

• Direct Cause of Family Breakdown and Distress: Issuing unjust rulings that constituted a “prison of pain,” directly contributing to the total breakdown of the family unit and prolonging the crisis for maximum exploitation rather than applying the law and upholding justice.

Second: Courts

• Santa Clara County Family Court (South): Transformation of the judicial apparatus into an environment that facilitated systemic exploitation and collusion. Administrative and legal mechanisms allowed opposing parties and attorneys to continuously drain assets and life savings, prolonging disputes for over 8 years without a fair legal resolution.

• Enforcing “Laws of the Jungle” and Disabling Accountability: Courts shifted from protective forums into arenas enforcing collective injustice and garnishing the Complainant’s funds (including arbitrary wage seizures in cooperation with his employer), while refusing to review evidence of forgery and document concealment submitted by the Complainant.

Third: Law Firms and Lawyers

(Extortive, Unprofessional Attorneys Representing Me From 2006 to Present)

• Daniel Mark Siegel: Engaged in stall tactics and failed to submit material evidence to protect fundamental rights.

• Stephen Dinneen & David Yumtof: Displayed overt professional inaction, prejudicing defense trajectories.

• Andrew Calvert, Tanzil Haq, & Sean Tabatabai: Prioritized financial gain and fee depletion over integrity and trust.

• Stenberg Law Group

1. Attorneys who represented me and caused mental, financial, and physical exhaustion:

They are numerous. Detailed correspondence exists documenting their illegal practices and severe violations, supported by conclusive evidence demonstrating that the legal system in the United States—specifically in California—has suffered total paralysis.

2. Attorneys who refused representation after I was mentally, financially, and physically exhausted:

Advocates for wrongdoers who treated me as a criminal. Their malicious ingenuity and power manifest in manipulating their own laws and participating directly in falsification.

3. Attorneys who represented me against government/institutional entities (e.g., Abramson Labor):

Performed passive, deceptive roles, contributing directly and shamelessly to clear injustice against me.

4. Paralegals and Legal Assistant “Julie Bartow”:

Participated in intentional negligence, breached duties of legal verification, falsified or concealed critical court documents, engaged in extortion, breached fiduciary duty, and directly conspired with opposing parties.

5. List 1: Attorneys Who Refused Representation (Samples)

List 2: Dereliction and Inadequate International Representation (In Egypt)

Factual Details: The aforementioned individuals in Egypt failed to provide proper legal representation and actively sought—as documented—to abandon their duties and fail to defend Dr. Fayad’s interests, worsening his hardship and delaying the recovery of his legal rights.

Statement Regarding the California Statute of Limitations and Preservation of All Rights

I wish to state expressly that any reference in this complaint to the California Statute of Limitations shall in no way be construed as an admission that any of my rights or legal claims have been barred by the passage of time, nor as a waiver of any right to rely upon any exceptions, defenses, or legal rules that may affect the calculation or application of any applicable statute of limitations.

Because the facts underlying this complaint extend across multiple periods of time, and because some of the alleged harms and violations may be continuing or recurring in nature, while certain facts, documents, or their effects may not have become known to me until a later time, the commencement and expiration of any applicable limitations period must be determined separately for each claim and each relevant event, based upon the nature of the claim, the date on which the act occurred, the date on which the harm or violation was discovered, and any other applicable legal rules.

In particular, any claim involving professional negligence or a breach of professional duties by an attorney should be evaluated under the legal provisions specifically applicable to professional claims, including rules concerning the date of the underlying act or omission, the date of discovery, and any circumstances under applicable law that may result in the tolling, suspension, or extension of the limitations period, where applicable.

Likewise, certain claims involving fraud, concealment of facts, documents, or material information may require consideration of legal rules concerning the date on which the relevant facts or harm were discovered, rather than automatically calculating the limitations period solely from the date of the original act.

Preservation of Rights and No Waiver

Accordingly, I respectfully request that all authorities receiving this complaint not interpret the passage of time concerning any particular events, by itself, as evidence that my rights have been extinguished or that the position of any other party is legally valid, without first conducting a complete legal and factual examination of each claim separately.

I expressly preserve all of my rights, defenses, and legal claims, including, without limitation, any rights or claims that:

1. arose or were renewed during later periods of time;

2. could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, including the basis for the claim or the extent of the resulting harm;

3. were affected by subsequent, independent, or continuing acts or omissions;

4. are subject to any legal rule that may toll, suspend, or extend the applicable limitations period;

5. involve the concealment or nondisclosure of material documents or facts; or

6. are subject to a different limitations period depending upon the nature of the claim, the responsible party or entity, or the type of harm for which relief is sought.

I also expressly reserve the right to submit additional documents and evidence that more precisely establish the date on which I became aware of each relevant fact, the date on which the harm was discovered, the sequence of acts or omissions, and any subsequent related events, so that the appropriate authority may determine the correct legal status of each claim.

Request for a Complete Legal Examination

Accordingly, I respectfully request that no claim or complaint be rejected or closed on the general and conclusory basis that “the statute of limitations has expired” without identifying:

• the specific legal claim at issue;

• the statutory provision governing its limitations period;

• the date from which the limitations period is alleged to have commenced;

• the facts relied upon in determining that date;

• whether any discovery, tolling, suspension, or extension rules apply;

• and whether any subsequent or independent acts or harms affect the calculation of the limitations period.

Please treat this statement as express notice that I preserve all of my legal rights concerning statutes of limitations and any exception, tolling, suspension, extension, or discovery rule that may be applicable, without this statement being construed as an admission that any claim is time-barred or as a waiver of any right.

I further request that any attorney or legal authority reviewing my file evaluate statute-of-limitations issues independently and in detail for each individual claim, rather than applying a single general rule to all events extending across multiple years.

WHAT IS NEEDED NOW: VALIANT ATTORNEYS WHO DO NOT FEAR THE TRUTH

The cases fought by Dr. Fayad are not mere routine disputes; they represent a crusade to establish accountability, combat legal malpractice, eliminate discrimination, stop financial/professional extortion, and prevent the loss of precious time on a road that otherwise leads to the forfeiture of legitimate rights. Dr. Fayad urgently needs:

1. A Dedicated Legal Team: Placing professional duty above discriminatory or exploitative considerations.

2. Moral Courage: To stand against abuses, confront prior falsifications or collusion, and correct the procedural path before judicial, regulatory, and civil bodies.

3. Comprehensive Institutional Defense: Grounded in solid evidence to restore rights and hold accountable those responsible for this injustice.

A call to every honorable attorney who views the legal profession as a noble mission to support the wronged: Dr. Fayad requires your knowledge, courage, and conscience to bring an end to this hardship and restore justice.

DEMANDS & RELIEF SOUGHT:

Based on the foregoing, I request:

1. Immediate Investigation: Initiate an urgent investigation into the Respondents regarding professional misconduct, deliberate negligence, excessive financial/emotional extortion, deceit, false promises, breach of fiduciary duty, and retaliatory collusion.

2. Disciplinary Action: Impose statutory disciplinary proceedings against the Respondents for violating rules of professional conduct and codes of ethics.

3. Reservation of Rights: Formally reserve all my legal and civil rights to claim damages for material and emotional harm resulting from inadequate representation and negligence.

Respectfully submitted,

Complainant: Prof. Dr. Mohamed E. Fayad

Date: September 16, 2026