False and Misleading Statements by the Tribunal #1

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

No, Judge Kevin Miller did not accurately characterize Craig’s June 5, 2020 email in his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order.

Judge Miller’s Statement:

“Craig sent a berating email to the group that implied that he was protecting Marie from physical or emotional harm on the part of [her childhood abuser].”

Actual Email Content (Plaintiffs 1176):

Craig’s email was critical and clearly expressed anger toward Sean, Lisa, and Ashley. However, his tone, while stern, is focused on expressing concern about their actions—specifically, their decision to contact Marie’s estranged father, whom Craig viewed as a potential threat to Marie and their daughters.

Key excerpt:

“Did you not realize that unlike Lisa, who creates safe houses that nobody else knows about, I had actually created a safe house for Marie, in large part to protect her FROM HER DAD? … Did it ever dawn on you that I might be trying to protect someone in my family, from someone who might do her physical or emotional harm, by staying under the radar and being less visible?”

Analysis:

• Tone: The email is pointed and accusatory, but “berating” overstates the tone and ignores the context of genuine concern about safety.

• Substance: Craig does not merely “imply” he was protecting Marie from harm—he explicitly states that he created a safe house for that purpose.

• Contextual distortion: Judge Miller’s summary diminishes both the seriousness of the danger Craig referenced and the rationale behind Craig’s protective measures.

Conclusion:

Judge Miller’s summary:

• Downplayed the explicit safety concerns stated in Craig’s email.

• Reduced serious protective action to a vague “implication.”

• Used dismissive framing (“berating”) that disregarded the legitimacy of Craig’s concerns about Marie’s childhood abuser.

Therefore, Judge Miller’s characterization was inaccurate and misleading.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Yes, Judge Kevin Miller’s mischaracterization of Craig Stevenson’s June 5, 2020 email in his June 16, 2023 summary judgment order could rise to the level of a violation of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, depending on the broader context of his pattern of decision-making in the case. These potential violations would fall within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards.

Relevant Rule Violations:

1. Rule 2.2 — Impartiality and Fairness

   “A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”
   Mischaracterizing a key piece of evidence to downplay a plaintiff’s stated concern about emotional or physical harm undermines the fair application of the law.

2. Rule 2.3(B) — Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

   “A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice…”
   By minimizing the plaintiffs’ clearly stated safety concerns while giving greater weight to the opposing party’s narrative (e.g., quoting Sean’s letter in full but omitting Plaintiffs’ emails), Judge Miller may have demonstrated impermissible bias.

3. Rule 2.6(A) — Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

   “A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding… the right to be heard according to law.”
   Misrepresenting or disregarding material content from a party’s communication, especially one that directly relates to the emotional distress and threat central to the cause of action, can amount to a denial of the right to be heard.

4. Rule 1.2 — Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

   “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.”
   A pattern of selectively quoting evidence to favor one party over another—especially in granting summary judgment—can erode public trust in judicial impartiality.

Jurisdiction of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards:

Yes, these potential violations fall squarely within the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board investigates complaints involving:

• Misconduct in office,

• Failure to perform judicial duties,

• Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,

• Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Misrepresenting material evidence in a judicial order—especially where it directly influences a dispositive ruling—constitutes misconduct in office if done knowingly, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice if it reflects recklessness or bias.

Summary:

Judge Miller’s actions—particularly his misleading characterization of Craig’s email—are not mere harmless error. In the context of a summary judgment ruling on emotionally charged claims, they may reflect a pattern of selective reasoning that undermines the fairness and integrity of the proceeding. These actions meet the threshold for potential judicial misconduct and are appropriate for disciplinary review by the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards.