Distorting Justice: Ellipses and Omitted Facts

The integrity of judicial decisions is paramount to ensuring justice. However, concerns arise when court rulings appear to misrepresent case law and evidence through the use of ellipses and omissions. Such practices can distort the evidentiary record and potentially lead to unjust outcomes, undermining public confidence in the legal system. This article examines instances where selective quotation and omission may have compromised judicial fairness and accuracy.

Plaintiffs’ used Artificial Intelligence (ChatGPT 4o) to analyze Judge Miller’s actions. The specific AI query was:

I have uploaded Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order. Analyze this order in light of the following information from Plaintiff Craig Stevenson’s July 26, 2026 sworn declaration. What is the significance of this evidence and how could it have affected Judge Miller’s granting of summary judgment?

  

    1.  In Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order, I found a significant number of instances where Judge Miller used ellipses to omit portions of the original text.
    2. In many instances, the use of ellipses was improper because the omitted text was relevant and material, which resulted in a miscitation and mischaracterization of the original text.
    3. I performed a distribution analysis of Judge Miller’s summary judgment orders to determine the frequency of the use of ellipses in his orders.
    4. I considered “…”, “. . .”, and “* * *” as ellipses for this analysis.
    5. Ellipses were found in 7 out of 35 of Judge Miller’s summary judgment orders.
    6. Ellipses were used 5 times more often in Plaintiffs’ summary judgment order than in any other summary judgment order, and almost twice as often as all other summary judgment orders combined.
    7. I then excluded all instances in all summary judgment orders where ellipses were used properly for legitimate purposes, such as when the original quotation contained ellipses or when text had been omitted which was immaterial or did not change the meaning of the quoted text, and analyzed the remaining instances.
    8. I found nine instances in Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order where text had been replaced by an ellipsis and the relevance and materiality of the omitted text is clear and significant.
    9. These instances include case law citations, evidence in the record, and secondary legal sources.
    10. In addition to omissions using ellipses, I also found three instances in the Legal Analysis section where relevant and material portions of quotations were missing without Judge Miller denoting the omission.
    11. I also found seven additional instances where relevant and material information had been omitted, without any indication of the omission, and where the omitted content contradicted Judge Miller’s statements or conclusions.
    12. These instances include case law citations, deposition testimony, secondary legal sources, and memorandums.
    13. In total, I found nineteen instances in Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Order where relevant and material information was concealed by ellipses or omitted without denoting the omission.
    14. Using the same criteria, I found zero instances of concealed relevant and material information in Judge Miller’s other 34 summary judgment orders.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

 

Based on your description of Craig Stevenson’s July 26, 2026 sworn declaration and Judge Miller’s June 16, 2023 summary judgment order, there appears to be a serious and potentially outcome-altering concern about judicial misrepresentation through selective omission — particularly through the use and abuse of ellipses and other quotation manipulation.

Here’s an analysis of the significance of this evidence and how it could have impacted the outcome:

🔍 Key Issues Raised by Craig Stevenson’s Declaration:

  1. Improper Use of Ellipses in Judge Miller’s Order:

    • Stevenson identified 19 total omissions (using ellipses or unmarked omissions) that concealed relevant and material information from case law, depositions, and evidence.

    • He notes that Judge Miller used ellipses 5 times more often in his order than in any of his other 34 summary judgment rulings.

    • In the other 34 orders, Stevenson found zero instances of misleading omissions.

  2. Nature of the Omitted Information:

    • The omissions were not trivial; they allegedly changed the meaning of the quoted material or excluded contradictory evidence.

    • Included omitted items were:

      • Legal standards or qualifications from case law.

      • Facts from the evidentiary record (e.g., depositions, emails, affidavits).

      • Testimony or legal authority that could support Plaintiffs’ claims or raise triable fact disputes.

  3. Statistical Distribution Analysis:

    • Stevenson’s comparative analysis strongly suggests that Plaintiffs’ case was treated anomalously in terms of judicial citation practice.

    • This could indicate bias, disparate treatment, or at minimum a departure from judicial norms.

🧠 Legal Significance:

  1. Mischaracterization of Evidence Can Justify Reversal:

    • Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine disputes of material fact.

    • If a judge misquotes or omits material facts or legal standards, it skews the factual and legal landscape, potentially leading to an improper dismissal.

  2. Due Process and Appearance of Partiality:

    • Judicial decisions must not only be fair — they must appear fair.

    • Selective omission of material information from a judicial order, especially if it consistently favors one party, could violate due process or reflect impermissible judicial bias.

  3. Grounds for Reconsideration, Appeal, or Judicial Complaint:

    • If these 19 omissions materially altered the legal analysis or factual framing of the case, they may support:

      • A motion to vacate judgment (under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02).

      • An appeal, arguing legal error and abuse of discretion.

      • A judicial conduct complaint, raising concerns about ethical obligations to fairness and accuracy.

  4. Evidence of Systematic Manipulation:

    • Stevenson’s evidence supports the claim that the omissions weren’t random but targeted, given their absence from the judge’s other rulings and their consistent directionality.

    • This can raise serious integrity-of-the-court issues.

💥 Potential Effect on Summary Judgment:

If even a handful of those 19 omissions involved:

  • Evidence contradicting Defendants’ version of events,

  • Language from case law undercutting Judge Miller’s legal rationale, or

  • Testimony supporting Plaintiffs’ emotional distress or reputational harm,

…then summary judgment may have been granted in error, because a genuine dispute of material fact would exist.

This evidence goes directly to whether the judge evaluated the record fairly and completely, which is a prerequisite to summary judgment under both Minnesota law and constitutional due process standards.

ChatGPT 4o

q

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)

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Scroll to Top