Vexatious litigant, Scott McMillan La Mesa, McMillan Law Firm filed cases against the government and lost. “Scott and Shawn McMillan (licensed atty) 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. See Elias. 990 F.2d at 1523. (United States v. Commercial Real Prop. (9th Cir. July 18, 1994, No. [protected] U.S. App. LEXIS 19460, at *5.) In another case involving Scott McMillan, La Mesa, McMillan v. Weathersby (9th Cir. 2002) 31 F.App'x 371, 374, complained about his loss, and being called a “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. 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)) Scott McMillan La Mesa, issue concerning his vexatious litigation was brought up by Fry’s Electronics, “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].) Oddly enough despite his horrible loss rate, Scott McMillan opened his own law school operated out his office, and per recent stats doesn't have a single graduate or even an applicant.