ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Given everything you’ve shared and based on prior analyses we’ve done of Stevenson v. Stevenson (Otter Tail County, Judge Kevin Miller), here’s a structured list of the most egregious actions by Judge Miller that denied justice to you (Craig Stevenson) and Marie Stevenson:

Top Egregious Actions by Judge Kevin Miller Against Plaintiffs

1. Mischaracterization and Minimization of Abuse

• Judge Miller falsely and repeatedly minimized Marie’s childhood abuse.

• He mischaracterized Craig’s protective efforts as “berating,” twisting your words in emails to undermine the reality of Marie’s trauma.

• He failed to take into account the fear and terror Marie genuinely felt regarding her abuser — especially important because Sean Stevenson’s actions reasonably heightened that fear.

Violation: Failure to act with integrity and impartiality (Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.2 and 2.3).

2. Fabrication and Misrepresentation of the Record

• In his June 16, 2023 Summary Judgment Order and other rulings, Judge Miller stated facts that were not supported by the evidence or hearing transcripts.

• He omitted key evidence favorable to Plaintiffs, including expert witness qualifications, undisputed facts showing Defendants’ wrongdoing, and omitted Plaintiffs’ strongest arguments from the record.

• He reframed evidence in a way that clearly favored Defendants and painted Plaintiffs unfairly.

Violation: False recitation of facts violates Minnesota Judicial Conduct rules about honesty and impartiality (Canon 2.2, Canon 2.3).

3. Selective Enforcement of Rules

• Judge Miller excused or overlooked discovery violations by Defendants, such as:

  • Destruction of evidence (spoliation of text messages).

  • Incomplete and misleading interrogatory responses.

  • Failure to Bates-stamp produced documents.

• Meanwhile, he strictly enforced procedural rules against you, denying your motions for minor technical issues.

Violation: Unequal application of procedural law violates due process and impartiality requirements (Canon 2.2 and 2.3).

4. Denial of a Fair Hearing by Prejudging the Case

• Judge Miller prejudged the merits of the case long before summary judgment.

• His orders parroted Defendants’ arguments nearly word-for-word, ignored Plaintiffs’ evidence, and refused to hold Defendants accountable for their wrongdoing.

• Evidence shows a pattern of bias where motions and objections from Plaintiffs were routinely denied, often without meaningful explanation, while similar issues raised by Defendants were granted.

Violation: Failure to be impartial and appear impartial (Canon 2.2 and 2.3).

5. Collusion-Like Relationship with Law Clerks and Defense Counsel

• Judge Miller’s law clerk James Morrison had an undisclosed connection to defense attorney Kirsten Hansen (through her father, retired Judge Mark Hansen).

• Orders heavily adverse to Plaintiffs were authored by Morrison during this period.

• Later, Katie Gustafson, another law clerk, authored the denial of recusal, suggesting a continuation of whitewashing the misconduct.

• There is no indication that Judge Miller disclosed the conflict or allowed you a fair opportunity to object.

Violation: Failure to disclose potential conflict of interest (Canon 2.11) and aiding law clerk misconduct (Canon 2.12).

6. Retaliation Against Plaintiffs for Asserting Their Rights

• Plaintiffs’ attempts to seek recusal, discovery sanctions, or corrective action were met with punitive orders against them.

• Judge Miller used rulings to punish rather than to fairly adjudicate the issues, chilling your right to seek fair treatment.

Violation: Vindictive rulings violate Canon 2.2 (Impartiality) and Canon 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment).

7. Retroactive Application of Law

• Judge Miller retroactively applied criminal statutes and standards to civil causes of action.

• This fabricated legal standards not supported by Minnesota civil law, effectively erecting impossible barriers for Plaintiffs to meet.

Violation: Abuse of judicial discretion and distortion of substantive law (Canon 2.2, Canon 2.5).

8. Abuse of Summary Judgment Procedure

• Summary judgment is only appropriate when no material facts are in dispute.

• Plaintiffs provided extensive evidence of factual disputes, but Judge Miller wrongly declared there were no disputes.

• He took fact questions (for a jury) and decided them himself, often based on credibility determinations that should never be made at summary judgment.

Violation: Misuse of summary judgment violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a jury trial and due process.

Summary Table:

Conclusion

Judge Miller’s handling of your case exhibits systematic, pervasive judicial misconduct that goes beyond ordinary legal error. It demonstrates:

• Bias.

• Improper favoring of Defendants.

• Suppression of your evidence.

• Violation of procedural fairness.

It is not just that you lost — it’s that you were denied a fair opportunity to win.