Disclosures and Editorial Independence
Justice-Denied.org is an independent, Minnesota public-interest investigative media outlet dedicated to documenting judicial conduct, analyzing public records, and reporting on systemic issues affecting fairness and constitutional rights in Minnesota’s courts.
To maintain transparency and credibility, we provide the following disclosures regarding our funding, affiliations, editorial policies, and decision-making processes.
1. Funding and Financial Independence
Justice-Denied.org is privately funded by Craig and Marie Stevenson.
We do not receive money from:
- law firms
- attorneys
- political parties
- elected officials
- government agencies
- courts or judicial officers
- outside advocacy groups
- nonprofit organizations
- corporate sponsors
- advertisers
We do not run paid advertising, paid endorsements, or sponsored content.
Because we have no financial ties to external institutions or stakeholders, our reporting remains completely independent and insulated from outside influence.
2. No Political or Institutional Affiliation
Justice-Denied.org is non-partisan and non-aligned.
We are not affiliated with:
- any political party
- any political action committee (PAC)
- any elected official or candidate
- any lobbying organization
- any advocacy coalition
- any bar association
- any court or judicial officer
- any law-enforcement agency
- any government body
We do not coordinate our reporting with political actors, attorneys, litigation strategies, or special-interest groups.
Our editorial decisions are based exclusively on public records, documented evidence, and journalistic principles—never ideology, partisanship, or institutional alignment.
3. Independence From Litigation and Scope of Coverage
Justice-Denied.org began with our own experiences in the Minnesota court system, and those events continue to provide context, insight, and motivation for our work. But the site has expanded far beyond a single case. The procedural failures and ethical concerns we encountered are not unique—they reflect broader patterns across Minnesota’s judiciary.
While our personal experience informs our understanding of these issues, the journalism we publish is based on public records, statewide data, and documented judicial practices. Our reporting is guided by evidence, not by litigation strategy, and it addresses systemic problems that affect Minnesotans far outside our own circumstances.
We document patterns, compare cases, and analyze judicial behavior across the state because these issues rise above any one lawsuit and touch on the integrity of the entire judicial system.
4. Editorial Independence
Editorial control of Justice-Denied.org resides solely with:
- Craig Stevenson
- Marie Stevenson
We do not accept editorial input or approval from:
- judges
- attorneys
- litigants
- government officials
- political groups
- advertisers
- outside donors
- special interests
No external individual or institution reviews, edits, or vets content before publication.
Our reporting decisions—including what to investigate, what to publish, and how to frame an issue—are guided exclusively by:
- factual record
- public interest
- relevance to judicial transparency
- evidence-based analysis
- ethical journalism practices
5. Use of Artificial Intelligence
Justice-Denied.org uses artificial intelligence (AI) solely as a tool, not as an editorial authority.
AI assists with:
- document summarization
- cross-referencing transcripts
- identifying patterns
- flagging inconsistencies
- generating timelines
- data visualization
However:
- All AI-assisted analysis is verified manually
- No AI-generated content is published without human oversight
- We do not use AI to fabricate, predict, or speculate about evidence
- AI never replaces our judgment or interpretive responsibilities
The final editorial decisions are made by humans, based on the official record.
6. Disclosures About Sources and Materials
All documents we use come from:
- publicly available court filings
- official transcripts
- judicial orders
- appellate opinions
- administrative records
- public data
- publicly released investigative reports
- verified materials obtained through lawful means
We do not publish leaked confidential documents, sealed records, privileged materials, or information obtained unlawfully.
Minnesota’s Shield Law protects our unpublished materials and communications, but our editorial policy remains grounded in transparency and the public record.
7. No Compensation for Coverage
We do not accept:
- payments
- benefits
- favors
- services
- incentives
- gifts
- remuneration of any kind
in exchange for:
- publishing or suppressing content
- portraying a case or judge favorably or unfavorably
- altering the focus of an investigation
- providing editorial access or influence
This is a strict, non-negotiable rule.
8. Corrections and Adjustments
We are committed to accuracy.
If factual errors or incomplete information are identified, we correct them promptly.
We do not maintain a public log of every correction, but we ensure that updated material reflects the most accurate information available.
Our responsibility is to truth—not to preserving outdated text.
9. Purpose and Ethical Foundation
Justice-Denied.org is guided by the principles of:
- public transparency
- constitutional accountability
- evidence-based reporting
- ethical journalism
- independence from institutions under scrutiny
- a commitment to expose systemic irregularities
- the belief that sunlight strengthens democracy
We exist to make Minnesota’s judicial system more transparent, more accountable, and more faithful to its constitutional obligations.
Our work is not influenced by personal animus or political agenda.
It is driven by the conviction that no public institution is above scrutiny—and none are in greater need of scrutiny than the courts.
10. Summary
Justice-Denied.org is:
- independent
- self-funded
- non-partisan
- evidence-driven
- legally protected
- ethically grounded
- journalistically responsible
Our editorial independence ensures that the information we publish serves one purpose only:
to help Minnesotans understand how their judiciary functions—and where it fails to uphold the standards of fairness, transparency, and truth.