False or Misleading Statements by the Tribunal #2

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

Judge Kevin Miller’s December 18, 2024 order states:

“The employment relationship between Mr. Morrison and Judge Hansen ended in September 2016.” (Doc. 549, at 6).

This statement is false.

As shown in Plaintiff Craig Stevenson’s September 24, 2024 declaration (Doc. 539), public records from MCRO reveal that:

• On January 20, 2017, more than four months after Judge Hansen’s retirement in September 2016, law clerk James Morrison authored a letter on official court letterhead identifying himself as “Law Clerk to the Honorable Mark F. Hansen.”
• On January 27, 2017, Morrison continued corresponding with counsel regarding that letter.
• That same day, Judge Hansen signed an order based on Morrison’s communications.

These documented events prove that Morrison continued working for Judge Hansen after September 2016, contradicting Judge Miller’s assertion that their “employment relationship ended” at that time.

Significance of this False Statement

1. Factual Inaccuracy in Judicial Ruling
   Judge Miller relied on a demonstrably incorrect timeline to minimize the appearance of impropriety stemming from law clerk Morrison’s ties to Judge Hansen (father of defense attorney Kirsten Hansen). This undercuts the integrity of his ruling denying recusal and vacatur.
2. Undermines Disclosure and Impartiality Analysis
   The false timeline was central to Judge Miller’s conclusion that “a reasonable examiner would not question the Court’s impartiality.” In reality, Morrison’s continued role assisting Hansen after retirement — including drafting judicial correspondence and influencing orders — prolonged the conflict of interest and heightened the duty of disclosure.
3. Directly Refutes Defense Characterizations
   Defendants and Judge Miller repeatedly referred to Morrison’s employment as “long-terminated.” The evidence shows otherwise — the working relationship extended into 2017, well within the window of potential influence and recent enough to require disclosure when Morrison resumed working on this case.
4. Impacts Public Confidence and Judicial Credibility
   By basing his analysis on a material falsehood, Judge Miller risks undermining public trust in the fairness and transparency of the judiciary — a critical factor under Powell v. Anderson, 660 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2003), and Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).

Here is a clear side-by-side comparison of the timeline presented by Judge Miller vs. the actual documented timeline regarding law clerk James Morrison’s employment with Judge Mark Hansen:

Summary

Judge Miller’s assertion that Morrison’s employment with Judge Hansen ended in September 2016 is demonstrably false. Public court records from MCRO establish that:

• Morrison was actively performing judicial clerk duties for Judge Hansen into January 2017, including authoring letters and facilitating orders;
• These actions occurred after Judge Hansen’s retirement, suggesting that the professional relationship continued beyond “employment” in a formal HR sense, and certainly beyond a clean break in professional ties.

This misstatement was used to downplay the appearance of bias and directly undermines the credibility of Judge Miller’s denial of Plaintiffs’ recusal and vacatur motion.