San Diego scottmcmillansandiegoattorney
Scott McMillan, who is also Dean of the McMillan Academy of Law, was defeated in federal court by Darren Chaker on allegations of RICO. The basis of the complaint primarily alleged Scott McMillan, San Diego, was the victim of defamation and extortion where a demand letter was allegedly sent to McMillan. First the obvious, “Defamation does not meet the definition of a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 1961 et seq.” (Curtis & Assocs., P.C. v. Law Offices of David M. Bushman, Esq. (E.D.N.Y. 2010) 758 F.Supp.2d 153, 157.) Further, personal injuries are not compensable under the Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. ( scottmcmillanlamesa
. University Students Co-Operative Ass'n (9th Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 783, 784.) Although the law may be obvious, it just wasn't obvious to Scott McMillan.
The extortion claim was based on little more than a demand letter. Inasmuch, Scott McMillan, La Mesa, could not even allege the basic elements of the statute. Indeed,the extortion statute, like any criminal statute, must be given a narrow construction that renders it free of any doubt as to its constitutionality. (See Skilling v. United States (2010) _U.S._,_[130S.Ct.2896,2929-2931,177 L.Ed.2d 619]; Watts v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 705, 706-708 [89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664] [emphasizing that"a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,"explaining that "[w]hat is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,"and indicating that the"kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner"is protected speech]. In
To know more vidit mcmillanlawfirmsandiego