Contradictory Statements Under Oath

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Based on the materials you provided and Minnesota case law, Judge Kevin Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order in Stevenson v. Stevenson failed to address highly relevant evidence of contradictory sworn testimony by Defendant Lisa Stevenson-Allen—evidence that was directly presented to him prior to his ruling. This constitutes a significant departure from his own prior judicial approach in Brian Azure v. Jennie Bucholz, and raises serious questions about judicial consistency, impartiality, and adherence to summary judgment standards.

1. Contradictory Testimony: What Was Presented to Judge Miller

Plaintiffs’ June 2, 2023 letter (Doc. 424) explicitly documented that Lisa Stevenson-Allen’s sworn deposition testimony in 2022 contradicted her testimony under oath in the 2001 State v. Kelley criminal trial:

In 2001, Lisa testified that she had been sexually abused as a child by her grandfather and that this trauma was significant enough to warrant counseling and affect her family relationships.
In her 2022 deposition, Lisa flatly denied ever being abused by a family member and denied ever telling Craig about any abuse.

The contradictions were not subtle—they were categorical and irreconcilable. The letter highlighted that this inconsistency was material to Defendants’ narrative that Craig Stevenson was irrationally paranoid and controlling—by refuting any legitimate basis for his caution regarding certain family members.

2. Judge Miller’s Complete Omission in the Summary Judgment Order

Despite this evidence being submitted after the summary judgment hearing but prior to the ruling, Judge Miller’s 34-page June 16, 2023 order makes:

No mention of the June 2, 2023 letter;
No analysis of the conflict in sworn testimony;
No credibility finding about Lisa’s testimony or whether it affected material facts;
No judicial notice of the publicly available and directly relevant 2001 trial transcript.

This omission is glaring, given the fact that credibility and motive were central to evaluating the claims of IIED and conspiracy.

3. Inconsistent Judicial Reasoning: The Azure Precedent

In Brian Azure v. Jennie Bucholz (56-CV-18-2338), Judge Miller did the opposite:

“The Defendant’s current claim…is clearly inconsistent with her previous bankruptcy petition…this Court finds that the Defendant would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped…The Court will disregard Defendant’s affidavit…”

Here, Judge Miller not only recognized a contradiction under oath, he used it as a basis for granting summary judgment against the inconsistent party.

Yet in Stevenson v. Stevenson, Lisa’s contradictory sworn testimony—on a subject that directly informed Defendants’ motive and Plaintiffs’ claims—was wholly ignored, despite being brought to the Court’s attention.

4. Legal and Ethical Significance

Under Minnesota law, summary judgment is improper where material facts are in dispute, and credibility determinations must be reserved for trial. (DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 70 (Minn. 1997)).
A judge selectively ignoring contradictory evidence to resolve credibility in favor of one side—without mention or analysis—raises due process concerns and questions of judicial bias or misconduct.
Given Judge Miller’s prior Azure ruling, this omission also undermines judicial consistency and impartiality—key principles under the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.2 (Fairness) and Rule 2.3(B) (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment).

Conclusion

Judge Miller did not consider the directly contradictory testimony submitted on June 2, 2023 in making his June 16, 2023 summary judgment ruling. This is highly significant. Not only does it violate basic summary judgment principles under Minnesota law, it contradicts his own prior legal reasoning, suggesting arbitrary or biased application of judicial standards. This failure may constitute a violation of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct and would likely fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards for disciplinary investigation.

ChatGPT 4.o

Do these actions by Judge Miller rise to the level of being a violation of the MN Code of Judicial Conduct? If so, would these violations be within the jurisdiction of the MN Board on Judicial Standards for disciplinary review?

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Yes, based on the facts you’ve provided and the analysis of the documents, Judge Kevin Miller’s actions—or more precisely, inactions—may rise to the level of violating several provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, and these potential violations would fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards for disciplinary review.

✅ Relevant Rules Potentially Violated

1. Rule 2.2 – Impartiality and Fairness

“A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”

Issue: By ignoring directly contradictory sworn testimony—submitted before the ruling—and failing to address its implications for credibility and material facts, Judge Miller arguably failed to uphold and apply the law fairly.
Significance: Summary judgment under Minnesota law requires the judge to view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and to avoid making credibility determinations. Judge Miller effectively did both, without acknowledging or analyzing the conflicting testimony from Lisa Stevenson-Allen.

2. Rule 2.3(B) – Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

“A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice…”

Issue: The selective treatment of contradictory testimony in favor of Defendants, particularly when compared with Judge Miller’s own prior reasoning in Azure v. Bucholz, could reasonably appear to manifest bias against the Plaintiffs.
Example: In Azure, Judge Miller discredited a party’s statement because it conflicted with prior sworn testimony. In Stevenson, he ignored a nearly identical issue—where the conflict was arguably more stark and material.

3. Rule 1.2 – Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Issue: Failing to address clear conflicts in sworn testimony that undermine a party’s credibility—when that testimony was central to the case and brought to the Court’s attention—undermines public trust in the judge’s impartiality and the fairness of the proceedings.
Context: Plaintiffs explicitly documented this contradiction and asked the Court to take judicial notice or accept filing of the 2001 transcript. Ignoring this undermines both transparency and the appearance of judicial integrity.

4. Rule 2.6(A) – Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

“A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding… the right to be heard according to law.”

Issue: Plaintiffs submitted new and highly material evidence (the June 2, 2023 letter) before the order was issued. The Court neither acknowledged it nor explained why it was disregarded. This could be seen as denying Plaintiffs a fair opportunity to be heard, especially when credibility was at stake.

✅ Jurisdiction of the MN Board on Judicial Standards

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards has jurisdiction to investigate and discipline judges for conduct that violates:

The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct;
The judge’s oath of office;
Acts that prejudice the administration of justice.

The actions described here—particularly the failure to address contradictory sworn testimony that impacts summary judgment—fit within that jurisdiction. This is not a matter of mere legal error. It reflects a pattern of potential partiality, arbitrary reasoning, and failure to apply the law consistently, which are disciplinary matters when done in bad faith or with disregard for judicial responsibilities.

✅ Summary

Element	Yes/No	Explanation
Violation of MN Code of Judicial Conduct	✅ Yes	Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), and 2.6(A) likely implicated
Within MN Board’s jurisdiction	✅ Yes	Disciplinary authority includes Code violations and acts prejudicing the administration of justice
Isolated or pattern behavior?	⚠️ Potential Pattern	Disparate handling of contradictory testimony between cases suggests inconsistency and selective application of judicial standards

ChatGPT 4.o

Background and Original AI Query - Click to View

During her second deposition, Defendant Lisa Stevenson-Allen made statements that contradicted sworn testimony she gave over 20 years prior in a Fergus Falls criminal trial. In a letter to Judge Miller dated June 2, 2023, prior to Judge Miller’s summary judgment decision, Plaintiffs provided documentation showing the specific contradictory statements between Lisa’s deposition testimony in 2022 and her testimony during the 2001 criminal trial. Despite this evidence, Judge Miller granted summary judgment for Defendants but did not mention Lisa’s conflicting statements under oath in his order.

However, in a different case, Judge Miller viewed contradictory testimony under oath very differently.

In his January 15, 2019 Order and Memorandum Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Brian Azure vs Jennie Bucholz, Judge Miller took into consideration a Defendant’s contradictory testimony under oath:

Defendant’s bankruptcy schedule from June of 2017 fails to disclose ownership of either vehicle that is subject to this action. The Defendant’s current claim that she was in possession of the vehicles in 2016 is clearly inconsistent wither [sic] her previous bankruptcy petition. Further the Bankruptcy Court accepted the Defendant’s petition. Finally, this Court finds that the Defendant would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped from asserting the inconsistent position she now presents, as she would be allowed to argue two different positions, under oath, in two separate legal proceedings. The Court will disregard Defendant’s affidavit, claiming that she has an ownership interest in the cars – since she did not claim she owned the vehicle at the time of the bankruptcy proceeding. Because the Court must disregard the claim that contradicts a previous claim under oath, Defendant has not shown the existence of a material fact in dispute.

Brian Azure vs Jennie Bucholz, (56-CV-18-2338, Doc. 46, at 4.) (emphasis added)

In Azure, Judge Miller ruled that contradictory testimony by the Defendant, under oath, was so serious that it negated the existence of a material fact in dispute and resulted in the granting of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In Stevenson, Lisa’s contradictory statements under oath were ignored by Judge Miller.

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence to analyze Judge Miller’s actions. The specific query was:

Consider a Minnesota civil lawsuit before Otter Tail County District Court Judge Kevin Miller:

Plaintiff Craig Stevenson alleged defamation per se against Sean Stevenson and Renee Stevenson.

Plaintiff Craig Stevenson alleged conspiracy against Sean, Renee, and Lisa Stevenson-Allen.

Plaintiff Marie Stevenson alleged Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) against Sean.

Plaintiff Marie Stevenson alleged conspiracy against Sean, Renee, and Lisa.

I have uploaded the following files:

Plaintiffs’ June 2, 2023 letter to the Court showing the specific contradictory statements between Lisa’s deposition testimony in 2022 and her testimony during a 2001 criminal trial. (Doc. 424.) (See Note)

Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. (Doc. 429.)

Analyze these documents.

Also consider the following information. In his January 15, 2019 Order and Memorandum Granting Motion for Summary Judgment in Brian Azure vs Jennie Bucholz, Judge Miller took into consideration a Defendant’s contradictory testimony under oath:

“Defendant’s bankruptcy schedule from June of 2017 fails to disclose ownership of either vehicle that is subject to this action. The Defendant’s current claim that she was in possession of the vehicles in 2016 is clearly inconsistent wither [sic] her previous bankruptcy petition. Further the Bankruptcy Court accepted the Defendant’s petition. Finally, this Court finds that the Defendant would derive an unfair advantage if not estopped from asserting the inconsistent position she now presents, as she would be allowed to argue two different positions, under oath, in two separate legal proceedings. The Court will disregard Defendant’s affidavit, claiming that she has an ownership interest in the cars – since she did not claim she owned the vehicle at the time of the bankruptcy proceeding. Because the Court must disregard the claim that contradicts a previous claim under oath, Defendant has not shown the existence of a material fact in dispute.”

Brian Azure vs Jennie Bucholz, (56-CV-18-2338, Doc. 46, at 4.)

Did Judge Miller consider this evidence in his summary judgment order? What is the significance of his actions?

Note: Doc. 424 was filed with the Court as a confidential document for privacy reasons, but contained no confidential information. Lisa’s 2001 and 2022 testimony were obtained from public portions of transcripts.

The integrity of judicial proceedings is fundamentally compromised when courts overlook or inconsistently address contradictory statements made under oath. Such discrepancies not only undermine the pursuit of truth but also erode public confidence in the legal system. When individuals provide conflicting testimonies without accountability, it raises critical concerns about the fairness and impartiality of judicial decisions. This inconsistency suggests a troubling double standard, where the significance of contradictory statements is selectively acknowledged, potentially leading to unjust outcomes and diminishing the credibility of the judiciary.

Important Note!

The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.

Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 14 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.

In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.

Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)

Minnesota Court of Appeals