Conference Call Evidence Ignored
In the pursuit of justice, the integrity of legal proceedings is paramount. However, when critical evidence is overlooked or misrepresented, it undermines the very foundation of fairness and impartiality that the judiciary is expected to uphold. The article “Conference Call Evidence Ignored” delves into such concerns, highlighting instances where the judicial process may have fallen short, thereby raising questions about the commitment to equitable treatment under the law.
During our lawsuit, Defendants denied any sort of communication or cooperation to defame Craig or to inflict emotional distress on Marie. However, I (Craig) was examining call detail records for Sean’s cell phone and made a startling discovery. On July 7, 2019, a defamatory email was sent by Sean to my daughters DURING a 3-way conference call with Lisa and Renee! Later, we found that Renee sent a defamatory email to one of my daughters, the very next night, five minutes after another 3-way conference call with Sean and Lisa.
Judge Miller did not reference these, or any other, conference calls in his summary judgement order.
Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze the significance of these conference calls in relation to the communications and deleted evidence surrounding these and other events in this case. The specific AI query was:
Consider a Minnesota civil lawsuit:
- Plaintiff Craig Stevenson alleged defamation 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 three files:
- File containing a list of events surrounding the lawsuit.
- File containing call detail record data and deleted text information for 2019.
- File containing call detail record data and deleted text information for 2020.
According to call detail records, Defendants engaged in at least five 3-way conference calls, on:
- July 7, 2019
- July 8, 2019
- September 10, 2020
- November 4, 2020
- November 19, 2020
Analyze the significance of these conference calls in light of other communications and deleted texts. Provide a detailed analysis of each of these conference call events and their significance.
ChatGPT (AI) Analysis
Here’s the interpretation of the five 3-way conference calls, focusing on reputational attacks against Craig, and emotional distress caused to Marie:
________________________________________
📞 July 7, 2019
• Call Data:
o 1 three-way conference call
o 3 phone calls
o 9 disclosed texts
• Event Summary:
o Sean sent an email to Craig and his daughters, accusing Craig of abuse and warning that Craig’s behavior would be exposed.
• Relevance:
o This email targeted Craig’s reputation—a clear anchor for the defamation claim.
o The 3-way call on the same day likely involved planning or support from Renee and Lisa, supporting conspiracy.
o Marie’s IIED claim is supported indirectly by the aggressive environment and family disruption.
________________________________________
📞 July 8, 2019
• Call Data:
o 2 three-way conference calls
o 4 phone calls
o 0 disclosed texts
• Event Summary:
o Craig’s daughter asked Sean to stop.
o A second email from Sean further justified his attack on Craig.
o Events note the calls happened just before this follow-up communication.
• Relevance:
o Escalation of the defamation campaign against Craig.
o The absence of texts (unusual) suggests coordination moved to voice calls—possibly to avoid creating records.
o The synchronized actions among the defendants bolster the conspiracy allegations.
o Emotional toll on Marie and the family may still play into IIED even if reputational attacks targeted Craig.
________________________________________
📞 September 10, 2020
• Call Data:
o 1 three-way conference call
o 1 phone call
o 2 disclosed texts
• Event Summary:
o Sean received a second cease-and-desist letter from Craig’s lawyer.
o He texted Renee about the accusations, then held a 3-way call with Renee and Lisa.
• Relevance:
o The call suggests a coordinated response to legal claims about harassment—likely Craig’s legal position.
o Supports conspiracy because the group discussed strategy after being warned.
o Could indicate disregard for Craig’s legal rights or a plan to retaliate, worsening the defamation and emotional climate.
________________________________________
📞 November 4, 2020
• Call Data:
o 1 three-way conference call
o 0 phone calls
o 5 disclosed texts
• Event Summary:
o Sean posted hostile Google reviews attacking Sean’s former attorney.
• Relevance:
o These public online posts are clear reputational attacks against Craig.
o Timing with a 3-way call suggests shared knowledge or encouragement from Lisa and Renee.
o Reinforces both defamation and conspiracy, and shows the group was operating with intent.
________________________________________
📞 November 19, 2020
• Call Data:
o 1 three-way conference call
o 3 phone calls
o 1 deleted text
o 4 disclosed texts
• Event Summary:
o The day the lawsuit was filed, all three defendants engaged in a 3-way call.
• Relevance:
o Shows immediate collaboration in response to being sued.
o Deleted text is highly suspicious—may indicate attempted concealment of strategy or admissions.
o This is a pivotal moment supporting conspiracy, and the coordinated reaction adds to the broader pattern of reputational harm against Craig.
________________________________________
✅ Legal Relevance Summary:
• Defamation (Craig v. Sean/Renee):
All major reputational attacks in the record were directed at Craig, with direct evidence of Sean’s involvement and strong circumstantial evidence that Renee supported and encouraged these efforts.
• Conspiracy (Craig & Marie v. all defendants):
Every documented reputational attack and legal escalation coincides with group communication among Sean, Renee, and Lisa.
• IIED (Marie v. Sean):
While the public attacks were not aimed at Marie, the hostile environment, stress of family conflict, and Sean’s aggressive actions may support Marie’s claim of sustained emotional trauma.
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 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. 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)