Seeking Justice in Otter Tail County

Is Justice a Right — or a Weapon of the Powerful?


We are Craig and Marie Stevenson from Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Justice-Denied.org is a Minnesota public-interest investigative media outlet, built on our firsthand experience with a judicial system that betrayed not only us but also the constitutional principles it exists to uphold. In Otter Tail County, we did not find truth, fairness, or impartiality. Instead, we encountered a process shaped by undisclosed relationships, distorted by selective fact-finding, and marred by a persistent disregard for ethical and constitutional limits.

Justice-Denied.org documents what happened—and why it matters—so Minnesotans can evaluate the integrity of their justice system for themselves. We publish investigative reporting, records-based analysis, and AI-assisted evaluations of judicial decisions to illuminate how the system functions behind the scenes, especially where transparency is lacking.

Our work is grounded in public records: court filings, official transcripts, judicial orders, appellate opinions, and disciplinary materials. As a public-interest media outlet, we report on these issues to ensure that judicial conduct in Minnesota is visible, understandable, and accountable.


What the Data Shows

The table on this page summarizes an Artificial Intelligence (AI) analysis of every key district court order in our case. For each ruling, AI measured the level of judicial bias based on the order’s reasoning and the corresponding hearing transcript. The results reveal, in data form, what the courts themselves refused to confront—a sustained pattern of partiality. A full-size version of this table is available [here], with detailed AI summaries linked in blue.

These irregularities are not limited to our county. They reveal a statewide problem: in nearly every Minnesota case, independent judicial investigations or reliance on extra-record evidence results in automatic structural error and reversal, no objection required. But our appeal was the exception. As the pie chart on this page shows, the Minnesota Court of Appeals treated the independent-investigation issue as forfeited—even though the same court routinely recognizes such errors as non-waivable and constitutionally fatal. If the guardrails protect everyone else, they should have protected us too. Visit our Independent Investigations page for more information.


A Systemic Breakdown of Judicial Neutrality

Our experience revealed more than procedural error—it exposed a systemic breakdown of judicial neutrality. In 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Duol confirmed what our case had already shown: when a judge conducts an independent investigation or relies on extra-record facts, that judge “no longer acts as a fair and impartial judge,” violating the guarantee of due process under both the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. More information is available [here].

Earlier in 2025, the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards issued Formal Advisory Opinion 2025-1, reaffirming that judges must never independently investigate facts or rely on information outside the record—even before a motion for disqualification is filed. The fact that this occurred in our case, was never corrected, and was instead condoned, calls into question every order and opinion in our case.


Why We Publish

This site exists to ensure that Minnesota’s judiciary is held to the same rules it applies to everyone else. When appellate courts dismiss clear constitutional violations on technicalities, and when oversight bodies fail to act on documented misconduct, public trust is eroded at its foundation. The standards that safeguard impartial justice must not depend on who the litigants—or the judges—are.

As a public-interest media outlet, Justice-Denied.org exercises the freedoms of speech, press, and petition to document judicial conduct, expose irregularities, and inform the public. These rights, guaranteed by the First Amendment, protect every citizen’s ability to investigate, report, criticize, and demand fairness from public institutions.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote:
“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
It is time to let that sunlight reach every corner of Minnesota’s judiciary—and to insist that fairness is not optional.

Justice-Denied.org is a Minnesota public‑interest investigative media outlet reporting on judicial conduct in Otter Tail County, the Court of Appeals, and the Minnesota Supreme Court.



We The People

Seeking Justice

Seeking Justice

Minnesota State Flag

Throughout this site, content with a green border is generated entirely or almost entirely by Artificial Intelligence (AI).



Featured Blog Post (Marie)

Five Years Later – A Look Back

Today, June 4, 2025, marks five years since the start of the events that triggered our civil lawsuit in Otter Tail County. I was at work, handling tasks for our family business, when my phone rang. It was my mother. Her voice was tense: “Are you sitting down? You’re not going to like what I have to tell you.” My first thought: Who died? Mom and I had a deep bond, having gone through fiery trials together in my teenage years. I moved out of the home at age 16 to escape my father’s abuse and she followed over a year later, moving into my apartment with me. I had been estranged from my...

Jun 4, 2025

Featured Blog Post (Craig)

When the Rule Matters—and When It Doesn’t

Minnesota’s courts have long recognized one of the clearest principles in due-process jurisprudence: a judge may not independently investigate facts outside the record. When they do, it is structural error—automatically reversible, with no need to prove prejudice. That bright-line rule was established in State v. Dorsey (2005) and reaffirmed repeatedly, culminating in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in State v. Duol. But a comparison of State v. Boettcher (Dec. 1, 2025) and Stevenson v. Stevenson (July 28, 2025) reveals something striking: the Minnesota Court of Appeals has...

Dec 4, 2025

Newest Blog Posts

When the Message Doesn’t Match the Reality

In Brief Minnesota’s Board on Judicial Standards (BJS) publicly promises accountability, impartiality, and enforcement of the Code of Judicial Conduct. But its responses to documented misconduct complaints tell a different story: repeated dismissals, no...

Dec 8, 2025

When the Rule Matters—and When It Doesn’t

Minnesota’s courts have long recognized one of the clearest principles in due-process jurisprudence: a judge may not independently investigate facts outside the record. When they do, it is structural error—automatically reversible, with no need to prove prejudice....

Dec 4, 2025

When Structural Error Applies for Some

Minnesota’s Supreme Court has long held that when a judge independently investigates or considers facts outside the record, the resulting violation is structural error requiring automatic reversal. That rule, established in State v. Dorsey and reaffirmed repeatedly...

Dec 2, 2025

Five Years Later – My Perspective

Today I published a deeply personal article titled “Five Years Later - My Perspective” where I share what the last five plus years have done to Marie — the fear, the betrayal, the disease, and the absence of justice. Many of you have asked: “Why would anybody do...

Oct 31, 2025

A Constitutional Right to an Impartial Judge

Every Minnesotan has the right to an impartial judge — one who decides cases only on the evidence presented, not on facts gathered privately or through outside inquiry. That principle may sound self-evident, but recent cases show how easily it can be forgotten or...

Oct 29, 2025

When the Judges Investigate Themselves

On October 18, 2025, I filed a formal complaint with the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards (BJS) calling for discipline of Judge Kevin M. Miller (Otter Tail County District Court) and Judges Jennifer L. Frisch, Randall J. Slieter, and Tracy M. Smith (Minnesota...

Oct 18, 2025

Two Opinions, One Problem

Even under the law before the Minnesota Supreme Court’s September 3, 2025 decision in State v. Duol (A24-1754), the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Stevenson v. Stevenson (A25-0186) misframed and minimized a due-process problem. It treated a judge’s independent...

Sep 8, 2025

When Judges Go Off-Record

Minnesota law is clear: judges decide cases on the record the parties create, not on facts they find themselves or “selected facts” they prefer. For years, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has treated a judge’s independent investigation or reliance on extra-record...

Aug 31, 2025

When Judges Investigate on Their Own

One of the most basic rules of judicial conduct is this: judges cannot act as their own investigators. They cannot perform Google searches, consult outside sources, or dig up facts that were never introduced into evidence. When they do, they stop being neutral...

Aug 20, 2025

Independent Investigations – By The Numbers

Following the loss of our recent appeal, I wanted to know just how often the Minnesota Court of Appeals confronts situations where a trial judge conducts their own (independent) investigation into disputed facts—a practice that runs directly against the core...

Aug 10, 2025

When Connections Don’t Count

In a decision handed down today, July 28, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that reeks of institutional protectionism and selective blindness. The court refused to disqualify Judge Kevin Miller—despite undisputed evidence that his law clerk,...

Jul 28, 2025

Our Current Confidence Levels

in the Otter Tail County (OTC) and Minnesota (MN) Judicial Systems

Otter Tail County 0 Percent
Minnesota 10 Percent

Justice requires that the judicial process be fair and that it appear to be fair; it necessarily follows that a presiding judge must be impartial and must appear to be impartial.

State v. Pratt, 813 N.W.2d 868, 878 (Minn. 2012)

[Judges] should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.

Preamble to the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct


The truth is in the gaps.

Craig S. Stevenson

I have used this phrase over the years to teach my family that the truth is often hidden in what is left out or missing.

The system is designed to protect the system.

Craig S. Stevenson

Based on my experience, the judicial system appears designed to protect itself, and the people who work within it, from accountability.

The quest for truth should alarm no one.

Craig S. Stevenson

I used this quote in a sworn deposition after the opposing side appeared to be alarmed that I was performing my own legal research. (Doc. 520, at 23-24.)

The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct appears to exist only to convince the naive public that the judicial system is fair.

Craig S. Stevenson

In my experience, the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct is largely ignored, seldom enforced, and virtually meaningless.

I have never spoken about [my childhood] abuse in a colloquial sense.

Marie Stevenson

My response to Judge Miller, who stated in his Summary Judgment Order that I had only spoken "colloquially" about my childhood abuse. (Doc. 429, at 18.)

There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.

Montesquieu

Montesquieu was famous for his theory of the separation of powers. His ideas profoundly influenced the United States Constitution and other modern democratic governments.

There are two ways for a court to decide a case. It can hear the facts, research the law and arrive at a conclusion based on that process. Using this method, the court has no idea how the case will turn out until the process plays itself out. In my naïve world, I like to think this is how it is supposed to work.

The other method is for the court to determine in advance what it wants the result to be and then find a way to get there. I call this “outcome based” jurisprudence. And I hate it. It is a type of “ends justifies the means” cynical approach to the law.

John C. Greiner, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP

Scroll to Top