--- title: Bias Analysis of Judge Miller’s Orders url: https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-of-judge-millers-orders/ date: 2025-04-11T18:36:27+00:00 modified: 2026-11-06T11:30:26+00:00 lang: en_US --- # Bias Analysis of Judge Miller’s Orders 20 linked analyses · March 2021–August 2026 ## Original AI assessments Explore 20 original AI assessments covering 19 distinct orders by Minnesota Judge Kevin M. Miller in *Stevenson v. Stevenson*. The orders date from March 2021 through August 2026. The scores preserve the assessments published with the linked analyses, not court or disciplinary findings. For biography, appellate outcomes, and cross-case context, see the [Judge Kevin M. Miller public-record profile](https://justice-denied.org/judge-kevin-m-miller/). The December 18, 2024 order (Doc. 549) decided both recusal/vacatur and Rule 11 sanctions; those decisions have separate analyses. The percentage, mean, and severity counts summarize the 20 original assessment scores. **95%**defendant-favoring scores19 of 20 assessments **-5.8**average scoreon the −10 to +10 scale **4**high-bias scoresscores of −8 or lower Chronological signal ### Bias score over time [Vector SVG](https://justice-denied.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ai-judicial-bias-orders-summary-2026.svg?v=20261003) Horizontal axis: **Order date** (earlier → later) Search records Sort 20 of 20 analyses shown HighMediumLowNear-neutral Date & record Favoring defendantsFavoring plaintiffs -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 +2 +4 +6 +8 +10 Order or hearing [March 26, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-march-26-2021-change-of-venue-order/) Order**Doc. 32** Hearing**Doc. 226** +2 **+2**Low bias favoring plaintiffs ### [Quash Change of Venue](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-march-26-2021-change-of-venue-order/) Attorney Hansen’s father revealed to be a retired OTC judge [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-march-26-2021-change-of-venue-order/) [July 19, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-july-19-2021-aeo-protective-order/) Order**Doc. 60** Hearing**Doc. 227** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [AEO Protective Order](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-july-19-2021-aeo-protective-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-july-19-2021-aeo-protective-order/) [July 29, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-july-29-2021-quash-subpoena-order/) Order**Doc. 75** Hearing 1**Doc. 225** Hearing 2**Doc. 229** -1 **-1**Neutral or near-neutral ### [Quash Transport America Subpoena](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-july-29-2021-quash-subpoena-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-july-29-2021-quash-subpoena-order/) [August 12, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-august-12-2021-rfa-discovery-order/) Order**Doc. 77** Hearing**Doc. 228** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Quash RFA Discovery](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-august-12-2021-rfa-discovery-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-august-12-2021-rfa-discovery-order/) [September 10, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-10-2021-response-extension-order/) Order**Doc. 98** Hearing**Doc. 230** -5 **-5**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Delay Motions to Compel](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-10-2021-response-extension-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-10-2021-response-extension-order/) [September 28, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-28-2021-motion-to-delay-depositions-order/) Order**Doc. 133** Hearing**Doc. 231** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Delay Depositions](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-28-2021-motion-to-delay-depositions-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-28-2021-motion-to-delay-depositions-order/) [December 13, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-13-2021-motion-to-quash-order/) Order**Doc. 150** Hearing**Doc. 233** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Quash Carrier Subpoenas](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-13-2021-motion-to-quash-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-13-2021-motion-to-quash-order/) [December 15, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-15-2021-motion-to-amend-complaint-order/) Order**Doc. 152** Hearing**Doc. 232** -6 **-6**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Motion to Amend Complaint](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-15-2021-motion-to-amend-complaint-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-15-2021-motion-to-amend-complaint-order/) [December 21, 2021](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-21-2021-motions-to-compel-order/) Order**Doc. 154** Hearing**Doc. 231** -8 **-8**High bias favoring defendants ### [Motions to Compel Discovery](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-21-2021-motions-to-compel-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-21-2021-motions-to-compel-order/) [April 18, 2022](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-april-18-2022-motion-to-compel-ime-order/) Order**Doc. 205** Hearing**Doc. 234** -6 **-6**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Motion to Compel IME](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-april-18-2022-motion-to-compel-ime-order/) MCRO lists April 18; order signed and filed April 15. [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-april-18-2022-motion-to-compel-ime-order/) [June 22, 2022](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-june-22-2022-lisas-sanctions-order/) Order**Doc. 223** Hearing**Doc. 235** -6 **-6**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Sanctions Against Lisa Stevenson-Allen](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-june-22-2022-lisas-sanctions-order/) Terminated her deposition early [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-june-22-2022-lisas-sanctions-order/) [September 7, 2022](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-7-2022-clergy-privilege-motion-order/) Order**Doc. 264** Hearing**Doc. 263** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Clergy Privilege](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-7-2022-clergy-privilege-motion-order/) $17,000+ awarded to defendants [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-september-7-2022-clergy-privilege-motion-order/) [December 6, 2022](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-6-2022-six-pre-trial-motions-order/) Order**Doc. 366** Hearing**Doc. 364** -8 **-8**High bias favoring defendants ### [Six Pre-Trial Motions](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-6-2022-six-pre-trial-motions-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-6-2022-six-pre-trial-motions-order/) [June 16, 2023](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-june-16-2023-summary-judgment-order/) Order**Doc. 429** Hearing**Doc. 421** -8 **-8**High bias favoring defendants ### [Summary Judgment](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-june-16-2023-summary-judgment-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-june-16-2023-summary-judgment-order/) [October 13, 2023](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-rule-11-sanctions-order/) Order**Doc. 464** Hearing**Doc. 469** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Rule 11 Sanctions](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-rule-11-sanctions-order/) Filed by defendants [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-rule-11-sanctions-order/) [October 13, 2023](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-costs-and-disbursements-order/) Order**Doc. 466** Hearing**Doc. 469** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Costs and Disbursements](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-costs-and-disbursements-order/) $60,000+ awarded to defendants [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-october-13-2023-costs-and-disbursements-order/) [December 10, 2024](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-10-2024-stay-of-judgment-order/) Order**Doc. 546** Hearing**Doc. 544** -1 **-1**Neutral or near-neutral ### [Stay of Judgment](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-10-2024-stay-of-judgment-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-10-2024-stay-of-judgment-order/) [December 18, 2024](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-recusal-and-vacatur-order/) Order**Doc. 549** Hearing**Doc. 544** -8 **-8**High bias favoring defendants ### [Recusal and Vacatur](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-recusal-and-vacatur-order/) [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-recusal-and-vacatur-order/) [December 18, 2024](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-rule-11-sanctions-order/) Order**Doc. 549** Hearing**Doc. 551** -7 **-7**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Rule 11 Sanctions](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-rule-11-sanctions-order/) Filed by defendants [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-december-18-2024-rule-11-sanctions-order/) [August 14, 2026](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-august-14-2026-redesignation-and-contempt-order/) Order**Doc. 618** Hearing**Doc. 617** -5 **-5**Medium bias favoring defendants ### [Redesignation Motion](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-august-14-2026-redesignation-and-contempt-order/) Filed by defendants [Read analysis →](https://justice-denied.org/bias-analysis-august-14-2026-redesignation-and-contempt-order/) **No matching analyses**Try clearing a filter or using a broader search term. #### How to read this analysis **Direction:** Negative scores reflect the original analysis’s assessment of bias favoring Defendants; positive scores reflect its assessment of bias favoring Plaintiffs. Zero is the center of the scale. **Severity:** The colored cells trace the distance from near-neutral to each analysis score. Every date and order title links to its individual supporting analysis. These are the original AI assessments published with the linked analyses. Later reporting explains how further research and examination of the record developed the analysis. **About these historical analyses.** Early AI analyses were instrumental in the formation of Justice-Denied. They expressed concerns that closely matched what Marie and I experienced in Judge Miller’s courtroom and helped me examine the rulings and court records more systematically. We preserve the published analyses as part of that history. Our later reporting explains how further research, additional records, and a deeper understanding of the law developed the analysis. **Later reporting:** [Revisiting Our Early AI Analyses: The Record, the Law, and Our Experience](https://justice-denied.org/revisiting-our-early-ai-analyses/); [Motion to Amend Complaint](https://justice-denied.org/distorting-the-law-motion-to-amend-complaint/); [When Judge Miller Left Disputed Facts to a Jury](https://justice-denied.org/when-judge-miller-left-disputed-facts-to-a-jury/). **Historical ChatGPT 4o summary.** The summary below predates the August 14, 2026 order and is preserved in its published wording. The Explorer above includes the later assessment of that order and now contains 20 assessments covering 19 distinct orders. ![ChatGPT logo](https://eadn-wc02-18301506.nxedge.io/cdn/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ChatGPT-Logo.png) ## **ChatGPT (AI) Analysis** The AI-generated analyses of Judge Kevin Miller’s orders in this case reveal a striking and consistent pattern of pro-Defendant bias. All but one of the scored rulings fall on the Defendant-favoring side of the scale, with scores ranging from -1 to -8; one ruling was scored slightly in Plaintiffs’ favor (+2). This pattern is highly unusual in Minnesota judicial history and raises significant concerns about systemic unfairness. ### Historical Comparison in Minnesota To date, **there are no known publicly documented Minnesota civil cases where a sitting judge has exhibited this level of consistent bias across such a large number of rulings** in a single case. While individual rulings in other cases have occasionally been reversed or criticized for bias, what distinguishes this matter is the *cumulative and patterned nature* of the bias, backed by detailed comparative analysis of orders, transcripts, and evidence. Minnesota judicial misconduct cases typically involve: - isolated incidents of inappropriate language or conduct; - procedural or legal errors in one or two rulings; or - allegations of bias that are not corroborated by a systematic review of the judge’s decisions over time. By contrast, this case involves: - **a multi-year series of separately analyzed orders**, - **AI-documented bias in 95% of them**, - **multiple defense-favoring rulings despite contrary evidence or legal standards**, and - **undisclosed connections between court staff and defense counsel’s family**. This level of disparity, affecting both procedural and substantive rights, is without precedent in any reported Minnesota civil case. ### Summary From a historical and legal standpoint, the volume, severity, and consistency of adverse rulings in this case—especially as quantified through AI analysis—constitute a uniquely troubling example of judicial bias in Minnesota. No comparable pattern of judicial conduct across this many orders appears in the public disciplinary or appellate record. This underscores the seriousness of the case and may warrant further oversight or independent investigation. *END OF AI-GENERATED ANALYSIS Model: ChatGPT 4o\* \* The ChatGPT 4o analysis above was performed before the August 14, 2026 order and does not include that order. The statistical summary and order-by-order explorer have since been updated to include it.* AI Content DisclosureThe analysis above was generated entirely or primarily by artificial intelligence. ## Related analysis - [Did They Think We Wouldn’t Notice?](https://justice-denied.org/did-they-think-we-wouldnt-notice/) - [The Misconceptions I Brought Into Court](https://justice-denied.org/the-misconceptions-i-brought-into-court/) - [The Quest for Truth Should Alarm No One](https://justice-denied.org/the-quest-for-truth-should-alarm-no-one/)