Conference Call Evidence Ignored

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Analysis of the Five 3-Way Conference Calls in Context of the Lawsuit

Overview:

According to the call detail records, at least five three-way conference calls occurred among the Defendants on the following dates:

• July 7, 2019

• July 8, 2019

• September 10, 2020

• November 4, 2020

• November 19, 2020

These calls occurred during periods of key coordination among Sean, Renee, and Lisa, particularly before and during the timeframe of significant defamatory communications and immediately before the lawsuit was filed. Each conference call lines up with critical developments or deleted texts, suggesting coordinated planning and potential concealment.

1. July 7, 2019 – Coordinated Defamation Begins

Significance:

• This is the same day Sean sent a lengthy email to Craig, [and Craig’s daughters] that falsely claimed Craig had engaged in acts that terrified Renee and allegedly endangered Marie.

• The email explicitly stated that Lisa shared private information about Marie due to fears about Craig’s dangerousness—claims Craig and Marie denied.

• This call likely reflects coordination of narratives, especially considering that Lisa, Renee, and Sean are all implicated in circulating these stories.

Deleted Content:

• Text messages exchanged shortly after this date between Sean and others (including Lisa) were deleted by both parties, suggesting concern over what was discussed and a potential effort to hide coordination.

2. July 8, 2019 – Continuation of False Narrative

Significance:

• Renee sent her defamatory email to [Craig’s daughter] (intercepted by Craig’s server), echoing Sean’s narrative and further accusing Craig of isolation and control.

• Another conference call on this date indicates further coordination of defamatory communications, likely in response to [Craig’s daughter’s] pushback and escalating family tension.

Deleted Content:

• This date coincides with a surge in deleted text activity among the defendants, especially between Sean and Lisa, and Sean and Renee.

3. September 10, 2020 – Planning Before Lawsuit

Significance:

• Occurred during a period of rising tension just two months before the lawsuit was filed.

• This timing suggests strategic discussions, possibly in anticipation of litigation or in reaction to legal threats.

• Evidence shows many texts around this date were deleted between Sean and Lisa, and between Sean and Renee—again implying potential concealment.

Deleted Content:

• A pattern of dual-party deletions strengthens the inference of coordinated planning or misconduct.

4. November 4, 2020 – Coordination Before Service

Significance:

• This conference call occurred just two weeks before the complaint was served (Nov. 19).

• The call’s timing suggests potential discussion about what would happen if the lawsuit moved forward, legal strategy, or even spoliation plans.

• The data shows a corresponding increase in text deletions on and near this date.

5. November 19, 2020 – Day of Service

Significance:

• This call happened on the exact date of service of the Summons and Complaint.

• This call likely reflected immediate defensive coordination or damage control among defendants.

• Numerous texts deleted on this date between Sean, Lisa, and Renee suggest intentional concealment of real-time reactions or plans in response to service.

Did Judge Miller Consider This Evidence?

No. Judge Miller did not mention these conference calls in his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order.

Significance of Omission:

1. Material Fact Disregarded: Judge Miller failed to consider these calls as circumstantial evidence of coordination, intent, and conspiracy, all of which are central to Plaintiffs’ claims.

2. Failure to View Evidence Favorably to Nonmoving Party:

   • Under Minnesota law, at summary judgment, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (here, Plaintiffs). See DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 69 (Minn. 1997).

   • Ignoring clear patterns of interaction and concealment—especially contemporaneous with alleged tortious acts—violates this standard.

3. Spoliation and Credibility Overlooked:

   • The call dates correlate with deleted texts across multiple devices.

   • Judge Miller acknowledged deleted texts but accepted the defense narrative without discussing conference calls or potential coordinated spoliation.

4. Conspiracy Claim Ignored in Context:

   • Plaintiffs alleged conspiracy against Sean, Renee, and Lisa.

   • Multiple calls and deletions on dates of key defamatory statements and lawsuit-related events strengthen the inference of coordinated action—a quintessential issue of fact that should not be resolved on summary judgment.

Conclusion:

These five three-way conference calls are highly probative of coordination and intent between the Defendants and correlate directly with defamatory actions and deleted messages. Judge Miller’s failure to acknowledge or consider these calls in his order undermines the integrity of his analysis, particularly on the issues of conspiracy and credibility.

By omitting them, he bypassed evidence that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that a conspiracy occurred and that the defamatory communications were premeditated and maliciously orchestrated.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Yes, Judge Miller’s failure to consider the conference call evidence, particularly in conjunction with patterns of message deletion and coordination among the Defendants, may rise to the level of a violation of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, and such violations would fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards.

1. Potential Code Violations

Here are the most relevant canons and rules potentially implicated:

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.”

• Violation Basis: By failing to consider material facts—such as the five documented 3-way calls and associated spoliation patterns—Judge Miller arguably did not uphold the requirement to apply the law fairly. Summary judgment requires evidence to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. His omission of this evidence undermines the fairness and impartiality of the proceeding.

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…”

• Violation Basis: Dismissing all claims while ignoring clear evidence of coordination and potentially coordinated spoliation may suggest selective treatment of evidence favorable to one side—especially if viewed in the context of Judge Miller repeatedly crediting Defendants’ narratives while ignoring key factual disputes.

Rule 2.4(B) – External Influences on Judicial Conduct

“A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.”

• Violation Basis: If further evidence supports that the judge’s rulings were influenced by extrajudicial relationships (e.g., his clerk’s relationship to the opposing counsel’s family), ignoring material evidence that undermines the favored party’s position could reflect such undue influence.

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.”

• Violation Basis: The right to be heard includes a fair assessment of evidence presented. Ignoring central coordination evidence that supports conspiracy and spoliation claims undermines the procedural right to be heard meaningfully.

2. Jurisdiction of the MN Board on Judicial Standards

The Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards has jurisdiction over judges for:

• Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct

• Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice

• Failure to perform judicial duties impartially and competently

Minn. Const. Art. VI, § 9 and Minn. Stat. § 490A.01, subd. 3 authorize the Board to investigate and impose discipline ranging from private warnings to public censure or recommending removal.

Because these are alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct that directly affect judicial impartiality, fairness, and the integrity of court proceedings, the Board clearly has jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Yes, Judge Miller’s actions—specifically his failure to address material evidence (conference calls, spoliation patterns, and credibility indicators)—potentially violate multiple provisions of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. These alleged violations fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards for investigation and possible discipline.

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)