Brian D. McGinnis is petitioning the law firm of Hinden & Breslavsky to file a complaint against Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and Costco's chief legal counsel, Joel Benoliel, citing violations of his Sixth Amendment rights and multiple counts of judicial misconduct and conspiracy. The document outlines grievances related to prior cases and alleged ethical violations by these firms, highlighting significant court orders and the need for an investigation into the matter by the Los Angeles District Attorney's office. McGinnis emphasizes a potential conflict of interest in dismissals of previous complaints connected to Sheppard Mullin's actions and the broader implications for due process.

1. May 5, 2013
Attn: Mr. Stephen M. Hinden Esq.
HINDEN & BRESLAVSKY
4661 Pico Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90019
Re: “BRIAN D. McGINNIS (PETITIONER REQUEST T HE LAW FIRM OF HINDON & BRESLAVSKY TO FILE A
PRIVATE CITIZENS” COMPLAINT AGAINST THE LAW FIRM OF SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER
& HAMPTON LLP.; ALSO, AGAINST COSTCO’S ADMINISTRATION & CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL
JOEL BENOLIEL FOR VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDEMENT,”, “THE RIGHT OF DUE
PROCESS”, “JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT”, “ OBSTRUCTION OF JUDTICE” , FRAUD”, AND, “CONSPIRACY”
AND , INCONJUNCT WITH LOS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE DEBRA K. WINTRAUB’S ORDER REGARDING
THE CUDAHY (MATTHEW MONFORTON CASE; INCONJUNCT WITH JUDGE WEINTRAUB’S
RECOMMENDATION TO MS. KAMALA HARRIS, OF THE ATTORNEY GENRALS OFFICE, THAT AN
IMMEDIATE “INVESTIGATION” BE CONDUCTED, ALSO, IN SUPPORT OF THE 2009 EITHICS ROUNDUP,
“ATTORENY-CLIENT PRIVILEGES” OF ETHICIAL VIOLATIONS.
Dear Mr. Stephen m. Hinden,
My name is Brian D. McGinnis (Petitioner) case no. ADJ 7950019, SC114162, SS022063-SS022066,
B243154; AN, SANTOS GARCIA C A NO BC 458642)) the petitioner is petitioning the law firm of Hinden &
Breslavsky, as a private citizen, to file a complaint first with The Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office,
“Bureau of Investigations”, Chief Dominick Rivetti, against Senior Vice President & Administration &
Legal Officer Joel Benoliel and the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (Sheppard
Mullin) “Direct Writer” Matthew S. McConnell, Lisa S. Wilcox and Mark G. Rackers for violation of the
petitioners Sixth Amendment Rights the “Right of Due Process”, “Obstruction of Justice”, “Judicial
Misconduct”, “Fraud”, and “Conspiracy” which are criminal acts.
Second, the petitioner is, also, requesting the law firm of Hinden & Breslavsky to forward the petitioners
“private citizens” complaint to the Los Angeles District Attorneys office, in conjunct with Los Angeles
Superior Court Judge Debra K. Weintraub’s February 18, 2011 ORDER
(NOTE: At the exact same time Judge Weintraub was requesting Kamala Harris
Of the United State Attorney General’s Office the petitioners witnesses, in his
civil case, were being interrogated by Ms. Lisa S. Wilcox, from the law
firm of Sheppard Mullin’s, ruled that the “Crime-Fraud” exception, in the
City of Cudahy v. Sheppard Mullin et al, in the Matthew G. Monforton case,
a former Los Angeles Deputy.)
District attorney who filed a motion to compel production of documents in
1

2. (Monforton’s) his qui tam case against Sheppard, Mullin.)
Whereupon, Judge Weintraub, after ordering Sheppard Mullin to produce records requested Kamala
Harris, from the United States Attorney General Office that an immediate “Investigation” be conducted,
against the law firm of Sheppard Mullins.
Third, in 2009 the Los Angeles County Bar Association cited Costco (Administration and Chief Legal
Officer Joel Benoliel) and Sheppard Mullins for Ethics violations and were rounded up. At issue was were
statements made by employees interviewed by a Sheppard Mullin partner confidential and protected by
the attorney-client privilege.
Two years later and at the same with Lisa S. Wilcox, from the law firm of Sheppard Mullins, standing
befrorethe Honorable Debra K. Weintraub, knowing that the law firm was already cited for violation of
the ‘attoreny-client” privilege interviewed the same witness the rounded up and cited f or ethics and
violation of the “Attorney-client” privilege under the supervision and guidance of Costco’s Chief was
cited in the Los Angeles County Bar Association article dated March 2010, Vol. 33, No. 1, states that
federal criminal cases collapsed due to prosecutorial misconduct Judge Cormac J. Carney denounced the
prosecutors “shameful intimidation of witnesses, which he said, “distort the truth-finding process and
compromised the integrity of the trial. The same facts are evident below.
The article goes on to say, on page 2 “Attorney Client Privilege”, was the subject of significant decisions
in 2009. In the Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court granted a
review after Los Angeles Superior Court ordered the production of portions of an opinion letter from
Sheppard Mullin law firm to its client Costco, and the Second District Court of Appeal denied a petition
for a writ of mandate to block production. At issue was whether statements by employees interviewed
by Sheppard Mullin partner and reflected in her opinion letter were confidential and protected by the
attorney-client privilege.
request that an immediate Investigation, with regards to the be conducted by her office be forward to
Kamala Harris, of the Attorney General’s office in conjunct with Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Debra
K. Weintraub request, to the United States Attorney
But, the issue of this complaint is exemplified by David R. Garcia from the Beverly Hills office of
Sheppard Mullin. What David Garcia argued was “their (Judge Weinberg) applicability of the crime-
fraud exception ought to turn on the “state of mind of the client with respect to the underlying crime,”
and whether or not the client engaged the lawyer for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the
crime.
What David Garcia fails to mention is what Sheppard Mullins independent actions/legal practices are as
being nefarious to the judicial system itself which as indicated below. is the independent action of the
law firm of Sheppard Mullin’s independent action(s) independent of the client? It is this premise the
petitioner’s base one of his following complaint(s) and support of Judge request that an immediate
“investigation” be conducted against the law firm of Sheppard Mullins.
2

3. subsequent the
that the of the attorney-client privilege applied and recommendation that an immediate “investigation”
be commenced.
ever, prior to the petitioner address those issues the petitioner will address the response Sheppard
Mullin will try and rebut the petitioners below facts. It must be noted that one of the defenses
Sheppard Mullins will try and use is the fact the petitioners Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) complaint was DISMISSED. What Sheppard Mullin’s will not tell you is twenty-five of the forty-
eight specific allegations, by the petitioner, in his complaint to the EEOC were, on April 4, 2011, were
falsely rebutted Sheppard Mullin’s “Direct Writer” Matthew X. McConnell,. And, at the hearing the
petitioner is requesting the petitioners will provide the presiding Judge with factual evidence to support
the petitioner’s position.
Second, Sheppard Mullins will also tray and claim that the petitioners complaint to Chief Legal Counsel
XXXX of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s complaint was DISIMISSED. What Sheppard Mullins
will not tell you are there was/is a “conflict of interest” when there is a legal association within the Bar
Association that conflicts with the interest of any complaining party.
Third, that the petitioners civil matter (SC 114162) was DSIMISSED. What Sheppard Mullins will not tell
you is Mark G. Rackers, of Sheppard Mullins had prior communication with Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Joseph S. Biderman who contacted Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart-Cole. who after
repeated request by the court at the petitioners XXXXX hearing, whereupon the petitioner was ready
and willing to submit his FRIST AMENDED COMPLAINT, guaranteed to, was mysteriously, DISMISSED.
Forth, what Sheppard Mullin will not tell you is Mark G. Rackers conspired with the petitioner’s
attorney, Ronald M. Canter, and the defense counsel Jay S. Cohen, from the law firm of Mullins & Fillips
LLP. To have the petitioner followed once the petitioner left his previous, September 21, 2010,
Deposition,
tin the petitioners “Worker’s Compensation” case, to have the peti
plaint based on the following facts. However, before the petitioner addresses those facts the petitioner
will first address the issue of his doctors (Doctor Seth Hirsh) recent assessment of the petitioner. At the
end do the petitioners last visit with doctor Hirsch the petitioner was asides as being the captain of the
Basically, Doctor Hirsh has assessed the petitioner mental unstable with reference to the 1954 movie
“The Caine Mutiny”, as the captain of a World War ship, is relieved of his command because of his
“Mental Instability”. The following facts will clearly demonstrate to “any reasonable person” that
Doctor Hirsch’s assessment should have been along the lines of the famous movie “Mutiny On The
Bounty” staring Clark Gable.
But, before the petitioner address the issues described above the following must be noted. In 2009
In an article by Los Angeles Bar Association dated March of 2010 Vol. 33, No. 1, “MCLE Article 2009
“Roundup”, where Costco Wholesale Corporation was the subject of the Attorney-Client Privilege.
Whereupon, the Supreme Court finally decided that Costco had wrongfully invaded the Attorney-Client
3

4. Privilege. Moreover, the court held that a party seeking extraordinary relief from a discovery order that
wrongfully invaded the attorney-client relationship need not to establish harm from disclosure.”
In a second article, from the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, dated February 11, 2011 Judge Debra K.
Weintraub order, on Friday February 18 ,2011, the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.
And, was the subject of the is states,
4