Major Loss for Scott McMillan attorney San Diego where he could not represent himself successfully in a lawsuit. First, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan filed a lawsuit in federal court to have public records concerning his involvement in sexual molestation and numerous cases he lost removed from the internet. The sexual molestation report is in San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-0036344.
Scott McMillan , office at 4670 Nebo Drive, La Mesa, California, lost the federal lawsuit based on RICO. See the order here. In short, the judge found the case to be without merit. However, Scott McMillan attorney La Mesa , filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit. Scott McMillan also filed a cross-appeal. The irony of it all is that Scott McMillan was unable to come up with any persuasive argument to file an opening brief. Just a week ago the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case since an opening brief was not filed. See image of court order.
It was just last year that San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost two major lawsuits he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. During oral argument a Ninth Circuit judge called his lawsuit “silly”, resulting in Scott McMillan pursuing a case that was lost when it was filed. See judge’s comments on video here. In this same case, Scott McMillan filed a declaration alleging federal agents stole property, intimidated him, and harassed him.
Scott McMillan is not only an attorney but he also has his very own law school – McMillan_Academy_of_Law , that he runs out of his dilapidated, small office. However, there are no graduates from the purported law school in over 10 years! Recently, the State Bar of California pointed out that in over a decade, Scott McMillan has not had a single graduate:
“Since opening, only three students have ever completed MAOL’s first-year curriculum and were able to take the First Year Law Students’ Examination; two of the students eventually passed the examination but each then left MAOL and transferred to other law schools. Since MAOL has had no students nor has held any classes in almost five years, its program of legal education has now been dormant for more than four years. As a result, and as confirmed by the inspection, MAOL is noncompliant as to three material requirements: Its law library is noncompliant since its hardcopy legal authorities have not been updated since 2013; without any tuition income, the law school’s current and future financial viability appears questionable; and its website and written materials offer outdated and misleading information to both the general public and potential applicants.”
See full report here, http://www.bppe.ca.gov/annual_report/2013/41500915_pfs.pdf