Who is my new client? El Chapo? Al Capone? Much, much worse….

kipissippi wrote:What a nasty twit.

I think you misspelled that.

Lehrer wrote:

kipissippi wrote:What a nasty twit.

I think you misspelled that.

A double

on that one. (after it kicked in)

Trailrunner wrote: Ignore her and she'll ride off into the sunset. 

I don't know about that TR.  I think you got a real hard case of personality disorder here and not easily disposed of in the conventional norms.

I believe you're right, Slainte, she certainly is a cut above.

Sociopath. Needs to be put down.

borderreiver, you seem to be advocating violence against a woman? Tell me that's not so. I'm wondering if maybe the only sociopath of concern here is the one you see in the mirror.

Sometimes people are judged on character before gender.  That was my take on it.

I highly respect Spencer. And was shocked when she decided to attack him. She seems to be taking on the world :(

MexicoPete wrote:I highly respect Spencer. And was shocked when she decided to attack him. She seems to be taking on the world :(

I suspect she will discover that she has made a huge mistake. I respect Spencer and rely on him for good legal work.

She is pissed that Spencer posted her FB message to the people she was trying threaten. Hence she has upped the ante. Hopefully Spencer will rebut with extreme measures. He will have no lack of finding character witnesses to bring to bear.......

She's a whole lot of entertainment.

A friend emailed me the link. I went to the story. Here it is.

“In the last week or so, we have seen the unraveling of the integrity of one of our popular attorneys, Spencer McMullen. The degree of invectives, untruths, public posting of protected information (also taken out of context and manipulated), and efforts to incite cyber-bullying against another professional organization, client, and professional associate is beyond the pale of ethical and professional behavior in any decent society.

While lawyers in Mexico are not required to abide by any ethics rules, the Mexican Bar Association, of which McMullen does not appear to be a member, does has a code of ethics. The code in Spanish is here. A Google translation of it to English is here.

Based on McMullen’s behavior recently, we count 7 articles that have been violated. To wit:

Art. 3º- Honesty

The lawyer must act with probity and good faith. It must not advise intentional acts, affirm or deny with falsehood, make inaccurate, mutilated or malicious statements, or perform any act that hinders the good and expeditious administration of justice.

Art. 10º- Professional secrecy

To keep the professional secret constitutes a duty and a right of the lawyer. It is towards the clients a duty that lasts at all even after they have stopped providing their services;

Art. 14º- Advertising pending litigation

The lawyer must not use the press to discuss the matters entrusted to him,

Art. 15º- Advertising media jobs for consultations

Lack of professional dignity is the lawyer who usually gives consultations or issues opinions through newspapers, radio or any other means of publicity, about specific legal business that may arise, whether their services are free or not. (This is an ongoing problem for McMullen)

Art. 16º- Direct or indirect incitement to litigate

It is not in accordance with professional dignity, that a lawyer spontaneously offers his services or gives opinion on a certain matter, with the purpose of provoking a judgment or winning a client; except when ties of kinship or intimate friendship induce him to do so. (This is also an ongoing problem for McMullen)

Art. 30º- Conflict of interests

It is seriously wrong to sponsor or serve professionally in any way those who have conflicting interests, except when the parties expressly authorize it, after fully and fully knowing the circumstances of the case.

Art. 32º – Wrong behavior of a client

The lawyer must ensure that his client respects both the judges and other officials, as well as the counterpart, his lawyers and third parties involved in the matter, and not to perform improper acts. If the client persists in his reprehensible attitude, the lawyer must renounce sponsorship.

We are in the process of writing an article that will unequivocally show (and we will name names, events, and timeframes) that McMullen has violated the above articles, and that he is not only knowingly abetting con artists and subverting justice, but lying about it, and running a smear campaign through social media of the investigative reporter who has uncovered it.

Members of the community are encouraged to remember that only one side of a complicated matter, involving five people, has been revealed to date. And, there is a real victim involved. The community is therefore encouraged to wait until the article is published before coming to any conclusions in the matter. The article will also make clear why publishing it has needed to be delayed.”

Here are the comments from her fans on this article:

She deleted the comments on the second article that LO posted above.

Anyone want to wager that her "tell all" follow up story will require a subscription?

Anyone want to wager there won't be a "tell all" follow up?

Rosa Venus wrote:
Anyone want to wager there won't be a "tell all" follow up?

Just like there was no follow up of the Yoly story. She got called to the MP office as far as I know she never attended.

I get caught up in intrigue of this nature and probably should just disengage; but my curiosity won't let me. I noticed that LCR apparently knows no bounds and posted the link below to further besmirch Spencer. (It dates back to 2009, and I certainly would not have defended against it by calling it a "joke," because it isn't funny at all!)

https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/spencer-mcmullen/santa-barbara-california/spencer-mcmullen-thief-santa-barbara-california-410337

Posted by a guy calling himself "Mexican Beaner"......?????? That just further proves the level of credibility and ethics the LCR maintains.

CanuckBob wrote:Posted by a guy calling himself "Mexican Beaner"......?????? That just further proves the level of credibility and ethics the LCR maintains.

Actually posted by Richard of Mexican Beaner, New Mexico, USA -- but still in all likelihood fictitious. I didn't want to waste time looking for that locale, because it undoubtedly doesn't exist. I agree with your judgment of "credibility and ethics." The sad fact of the matter is that this report remains permanent, regardless of facts.

"Mexican Beaner" is an extremely racist slang. It would be like saying you are Jamie of Chinese Chink.

CanuckBob wrote:"Mexican Beaner" is an extremely racist slang. It would be like saying you are Jamie of Chinese Chink.

There's no need to explain it to me -- I was born & reared in Taylor County, Texas -- where "wetback" was the vernacular, along with other derisive nomenclatures (all of which I'm familiar with). The term "Mexican Beaner" did not escape me. I have to say, though, that most of my best friends in school were "wetbacks"!

Well, as far as I know - nothing happened.  There is a LOT more to this story that is simply not disclosed here.  The tenants are still in the house and so the plaintiff contends, have a very large debt of unpaid rent to the landlady (a prominent and highly respected local business person).  Unfortunately, those of us who live in the area and know the parties involved can't quite understand why they are still in there - I guess Spencer must be doing a great job for them.  Apparently this is not the first eviction order that these people have been involved in.  There is a long line of potential renters hoping to replace the existing tenants - not just LJ.

(a prominent and highly respected local business person). (Ezzie)

There are some serious differences of opinion on that description of the person being referred to. Personally, I don't know the parties involved, but I do know Spencer since he's my attorney, and have nothing but positive things to say about him.

I'm still waiting for Lisa's "tell all" tale. Where is Lisa? Has anyone seen her lately?