Correspondence Timeline

Every communication below is preserved with full headers, timestamps, and delivery confirmations. Nothing has been altered.

September 2026 — Pre-Counsel

September 10, 2026 — Cease and Desist to Banks and Smiths

From: Kevin Mok To: Brian Banks, Shayla Smith, Leon Smith, Marquita Smith, Simone Smith Method: Email Content: Formal cease and desist regarding unauthorized practice of law, false statements, retaliatory police reports, and FERPA violations. Directed recipients to verify Banks’s bar admission at michigan.gov/lara.

Response: Banks reply-all’d to MDE-FOIA@michigan.gov — David Head received the entire exchange 11 days before Kevin’s FOIA request.

September 29, 2026 — Banks Email Chain (Overnight)

From: Brian Banks (signing as “Dr. Dr. Brian Banks”) To: Kevin Mok, Leon Smith, Shayla Smith Content: Banks sent a cease and desist claiming to be an attorney. In this email chain:

• Banks signs as “Dr. Dr. Brian Banks” and claims a law degree
• Banks calls Plaintiff’s father Dr. Charles Mok — a board-certified surgeon — a “fraud”
• Leon Smith sends threatening messages
• Shayla Smith claims email service is “illegal”

Significance: Every statement in this chain is a party admission. Banks volunteered these statements — no one asked him to speak.

September 30, 2026 — Defense Counsel Enters

September 30, 2026 — Crump-Gibson Entry

From: Jehan Crump-Gibson (P73178), Great Lakes Legal Group PLLC To: Kevin Mok Content: Entered appearance in both 2026-4301-CZ and 2026-4349-CZ. Filed responsive pleadings to First Amended Complaint.

What happened next: Kevin filed the Second Amended Complaint the same day, mooting all of GLLG’s responsive pleadings. GLLG’s first work product was wasted the day it was filed.

Question for the record: Did Banks inform GLLG of the pending Second Amended Complaint before GLLG invested time in responsive pleadings? A fully informed attorney would have anticipated the amendment. The wasted effort suggests GLLG was not fully informed.

October 1, 2026 — The Disclaimer

October 1, 2026, 2:28 PM — Crump-Gibson Scope Limitation

From: Jehan Crump-Gibson To: Kevin Mok CC: admin@gllegalgroup.com Content:

“I am NOT retained in connection with any law enforcement matters or [police reports/PPO proceedings].”

Significance: Within 24 hours of entering the case, GLLG voluntarily limited its scope. Defense counsel explicitly disclaims responsibility for:

• Banks’s false police reports (DPD #26-0909-0176, GPW #26-7615)
• Banks’s PPO hearing appearance (September 29, where Banks appeared pro se via Zoom in DaSean Mitchell’s custody case — a case in which Banks has no standing)

What this proves: GLLG is aware Banks has separate law enforcement exposure. GLLG chose not to defend it. The disclaimer is a written record of selective representation — civil claims go through GLLG, everything else goes unaddressed.

October 2, 2026 — Four Emails, Zero Responses

Email 1 — 10:41 AM: Standing, Boards, and Children

From: Kevin Mok To: admin@gllegalgroup.com, Shayla Smith, Leon Smith, Marquita Smith, Simone Smith CC: Jehan Crump-Gibson Subject: Three questions Attachment: GAL_motion_20260820.pdf

Three numbered questions:

1. Will Banks stay out of DaSean Mitchell’s custody case (26-108221-DC)?
2. Has GLLG reviewed the board member names in the RICO pattern and their overlap with institutions including The Children’s Center of Wayne County?
3. Has GLLG read the Guardian ad Litem motion filed August 20, 2026 — predating both Banks’s and Plaintiff’s involvement in the custody case?

Response: None.

Email 2 — 10:41 AM: Federal Referrals Pre-Date Retaliation

From: Kevin Mok To: (Reply-all to Email 1) Attachment: 9LINE_FEDERAL_REFERRAL_SEP25.pdf

Four sentences establishing that the federal referral packets were submitted to eight federal agencies between September 21-25, 2026 — before Banks’s retaliatory police report (September 28) and before Banks’s PPO hearing appearance (September 29).

The agencies who received the 243-page federal packet:

1. FBI
2. U.S. Attorney’s Office (Eastern District of Michigan)
3. USPS Office of Inspector General
4. DOE Office of Inspector General
5. IRS Criminal Investigation
6. FEC
7. Michigan State Bar
8. Judicial Tenure Commission

Response: None.

Email 3 — 12:10 PM: Academic Paper (Graph Theory, Anderson Localization, Quorum Sensing)

From: Kevin Mok To: admin@gllegalgroup.com, Jehan Crump-Gibson CC: Shayla Smith, Leon Smith, Marquita Smith, Simone Smith

A draft academic paper applying three peer-reviewed scientific frameworks to the institutional capture pattern documented in this investigation:

• Graph theory — Betweenness centrality, degree distribution, clustering coefficients applied to the Banks network
• Anderson localization — Why institutional oversight fails (disorder exceeds the critical threshold)
• Quorum sensing — How institutional networks decide to act or fragment under pressure

The paper demonstrates that the Plaintiff is a trained scientist applying peer-reviewed computational biology methodology to the case. The underlying research is published at primals.eco.

Response: None.

Email 4 — 3:02 PM: “A Heads Up from Someone Who’s Been in It Longer”

From: Kevin Mok To: admin@gllegalgroup.com CC: Jehan Crump-Gibson (NOT to Smith Defendants — private to counsel) Subject: Working together

Key content:

• Banks likely did not give GLLG informed consent about his full background
• “It gets worse. It gets deeper.”
• Plaintiff’s background: combat arms veteran (COIST, signal, terrain mapping, remote sensing, adversarial intent prediction), DOE clearances, Sandia NDA
• “I am not your enemy.”
• “But if the path forward must go through your client, then it must go through you. And it WILL go forward.”
• Four contact channels provided: phone, MSU email, ProtonMail, site contact page

Response: None.

The Pattern

Prior to October 2, response times were approximately 20 minutes. After receiving documented evidence of Banks’s criminal history, federal referrals, board overlap, and Plaintiff’s scientific methodology, response times became infinite.

What the Correspondence Shows

1. GLLG has documented notice of every factual allegation in the civil complaints, established by email with timestamps
2. GLLG chose to limit scope within 24 hours (the October 1 disclaimer) — an attorney drawing an ethical line in writing
3. GLLG received and did not respond to evidence of federal referrals, board overlap, and the RICO pattern
4. The shift from rapid response to silence correlates precisely with the volume and nature of evidence provided
5. Every document referenced is independently verifiable using free or low-cost public databases (ICHAT $10, State Bar free, PACER $0.10/page, LARA free)

The Ethical Pressure Point

An attorney retained by a client who may not have provided full disclosure faces a collision between three duties: duty to the client, duty to the court, and duty to their own ethical standing. GLLG’s managing partner serves as a Hearing Panelist on the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board — the very body that processes attorney misconduct complaints. The professional stakes of this collision are not abstract.

The scope limitation — declining law enforcement and PPO matters within 24 hours — is not silence. It is a written record of an attorney seeing what is in front of them and choosing where to stand.

What happened to any attorney placed in this position — retained without full disclosure of the client’s background — is not acceptable. The responsibility for that disclosure failure lies with the client, not the attorney.

Each person at GLLG can choose which side of the demarcation they are on. As of this writing, the evidence suggests that choice is being made carefully.

GLLG and Jehan Crump-Gibson are believed aligned until evidence indicates otherwise.

All emails preserved with full headers. Any response from GLLG or any counsel will be published here with the same principle applied: facts recorded, context provided, presumption of good faith until evidence requires otherwise.