Scott McMillan Attorney San Diego Alleges Police Abuse / scott mcmillan law firm la mesa, files declaration alleges federal agents broke law
For most who thought of hiring Scott McMillan La Mesa Attorney, The_McMillan_Law_Firm, we all know he and former associate are sued for fraud in Brightwell v. Scott McMillan, Michelle Volk, The McMillan Law Firm (La Mesa) are sued in San Diego in San Diego federal court, Case No. 16-CV-01696-W-MDD . As recent as two weeks ago, the court refuses to dismiss the lawsuit. See press release, http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510992237-the-mcmillan-law-firm-allegedly-sent-inflated-bill-to-client
We also know, in McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir. 2002) 31 F.App'x 371, 374. [Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 95-CV-3934TW(LAB), Scott McMillan was labeled a "vexatious litigant" by defense counsel, and Scott McMillan, of course lost that case, and then appealed, but also lost the appeal. The appellate court stated, "None of the three main episodes that McMillan offers supports granting a mistrial. McMillan first asserts that defense counsel violated the court's in limine ruling barring reference to McMillan as a "vexatious litigant" by referring to McMillan's other lawsuits in his opening statement."
You may also know Scott McMillan sued the federal government again in United States v. Commercial Real Prop. (9th Cir. July 18, 1994, No. [protected] F.3d 635, the court said after trying to sue to government, failed to make a buck by interfering in legitimate case. As the federal court stated in part, "Scott and Shawn McMillan appeal pro se the district court's order striking their claim against Commercial Real Property…Here, the McMillans cannot claim an ownership interest in Commercial Real Property based on the assertion that the property lacked evidence of title….Accordingly, the district court did not err by striking the McMillan's claim for lack of standing." Lack of standing might have been a polite way of the court to say the legal claim is vexatious, meritless, and has no legal basis. The court continued to destroy the legal theory of Scott McMillan, "In order to obtain title by adverse possession, the property must be held and possessed adversely to the legal title of the actual holder of title for five years. Cal.Civ.Proc.Code Sec. 321; Machado v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 284 Cal.Rptr. 560, 564 (1991). The McMillans failed to meet this requirement."
Lycurgan, Inc. v. Todd Jones (ATF Chief) Case 3:14-cv-01679-JLS-BGS McMillan declaration alleges federal agents abused him, vandalized and stole property:
However, did you know Scott McMillan, in what I think was a last ditch effort to save yet another losing case filed a declaration stating,
"I believe that ATF agents took the missing unfinished lower receivers as what they perceive as "war booty." As the ATF agents as a group had already internally dehumanized my client and his company, stealing Lycurgan's property was no different than vandalizing the premises at National City. Although the agents were sworn to uphold the law, they found neither act particularly morally repugnant, and both in some way gratifying. Although the damaged store cannot be unvandalized, certainly the "war booty" can and should be returned."
See declaration, http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/07-Lycurgan-v-Jones-Lycurgan-I_Supplemental-Declaration-of-Scott-A-McMillan-in-Support-of-Plaintiff-Lycurgan-Incs-Reply-Brief.pdf If the statements were true, why weren't any of the agents charged with crimes, or any mention were disciplined? Incredibly, this is the same lawsuit a federal judge called "silly" embarrassing Scott McMillan in the Court of Appeal, see clip https://vimeo.com/229474298
All of this is very very concerning to me where Scott McMillan claims to have a great track record, but I do not see it personally. Does any one have anything that would make forget the dozens of losses Scott McMillan has or the fraud case against him now?
Updated by ScottMcMillanLawSanDiego, Nov 26, 2017
Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney, with The_McMillan_Law_Firm La Mesa, 4670 Nebo Drive, was sued for fraud, see the lawsuit at https://www.docdroid.net/MMujagR/scott-mcmillan-la-mesa-fraud.pdf Although the lawsuit against Michelle Volk San Diego Attorney, and Scott McMillan was challenged, the court did not dismiss it. In a puzzled haste, Scott McMillan filed a lawsuit against the victim of his fraud, only to be discarded by the court. Of course, please review the court file for the most up to date information in Brightwell v. The McMillan Law Firm, Scott McMillan, Michelle Volk, Southern District of California Case 16-CV-1696 W (NLS).
Only a few months ago in 2017, a 9th Circuit judge mockingly called a lawsuit filed by Scott McMillan La Mesa Attorney, a "Silly" lawsuit that lacked merit principle. The video clip of the judges comments can be found in this video clip, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjCfjHgW-S0 So unfortunate to have the USA defend volumes of papers filed by The McMillan Law Firm La Mesa, only for the court to call the case "silly."
Wasting judicial resources is concerning for me since courts have limited time to deal with meritorious cases. People who waste judicial resources are known as a vexatious litigant. In yet another case involving Scott McMillan, La Mesa, McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir. 2002) 31 F.App'x 371, 374, complained about one of his many losses. The Court discarded the argument of Scott McMillan and found that, "None of the three main episodes that McMillan offers supports granting a mistrial. McMillan first asserts that defense counsel violated the court's in limine ruling barring reference to McMillan as a "vexatious litigant" by referring to McMillan's other lawsuits in his opening statement." McMillan LOST that case.
When Scott McMillan sued the San Diego Sheriff over its Facebook account, filed a request for preliminary injunctive relief but was DENIED as moot. (Karras v. Gore (S.D.Cal. Jan. 5, 2015, No. 14CV2564 BEN (KSC)) Ultimately San Diego attorney Scott McMillan was able to obtain
$20 for his client. See San Diego Union-Tribune Article date 2/20/15, Sheriff's Facebook Suit Settles for $20
Vexatious litigation was again the subject of a case Scott McMillan La Mesa, was involved in before the Court of Appeal in San Diego. The defendant, Fry's Electronics, filed a motion entitled, "Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay to Prohibit Conflicting and Vexatious Litigation Based on Changed Facts or Alternatively, Motion for Reconsideration of November 22, 2002 Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction and grant judgment on the pleadings in favor of Fry's" (Lytwyn v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. [protected] Cal.App.4th 1455, 1464 [25 Cal.Rptr.3d 791].)
Additional information about San Diego attorney Scott McMillan losing to Muick Peeler law firm will be forthcoming as it deserves its own entry. Yes, it is seriously embarrassing The_McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa lost that case too just a few weeks ago.
Updated by ScottMcMillanLawSanDiego, Nov 26, 2017
McMillan Academy of Law, Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney, Michelle Volk, La Mesa has what looks like serious issues with fraud. I reviewed online websites alerting me to La Mesa Attorney Scott McMillan, who is also the Dean of McMillan School of Law. I believe it is of great concern Scott McMillan, and Michelle Volk, were sued in federal court for fraud and malpractice in federal court, Brightwell v. The McMillan Law Firm, et al. Case 3:16-cv-01696. A national firm sued McMillan and the court did not dismiss the case. See press release, http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510992237-the-mcmillan-law-firm-allegedly-sent-inflated-bill-to-client
Although a lawsuit against the McMillan Academy of Law, La Mesa, California, 4670 Nebo Drive, has not been filed, it is of great concern to me the "law school" has not created a single attorney in over a decade per a law school review. Another issue with the purported law school, in my humble opinion gives all outward appearances as being a front for tax deductions since (1) it operates out of the same law office as Scott McMillan law firm does, and (2) remains in business (not due to profit, but by keeping its license active). So when a business doesn't make a profit but still exists, there must be some benefit for the proprietor. But I could be wrong too. The McMillan_Academy_of_Law may actually qualify as a "hobby" under IRS standards since the school doesn't have any apparent profit to speak of since its profit comes from students - which according to law dragon, does not have any students.
"Is it a Business or a Hobby? A key feature of a business is that people do it to make a profit. People engage in a hobby for sport or recreation, not to make a profit. Consider nine factors when determining whether an activity is a hobby. Make sure to base the determination on all the facts and circumstances. For more about ‘not-for-profit' rules, see Publication 535, Business Expenses." https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/hobby-or-business-irs-offers-tips-to-decide
Be careful of who you hire to be your attorney. Do you really want a potential juror Googling your attorney and seeing he is being sued for fraud in federal court, or has his own law school, quite laughably operated out of his office as a hobby? Think about it...