Judge Miller's Orders (AI Summary)
This website originated as an effort to organize documentation, thoughts, and insights related to our lawsuit and Judge Miller’s judicial orders. However, as we applied Artificial Intelligence (AI) analysis to these orders, it became increasingly evident that the treatment we received was even more unjust than initially perceived. Further clarity emerged when examining Judge Miller’s responsibilities under the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, his oath of office, and precedent established by the Minnesota Supreme Court, such as:
A judge is disqualified for a lack of impartiality under Rule 2.11(A) if a reasonable examiner, from the perspective of an objective layperson with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality. Troxel v. State, 875 N.W.2d 302, 314 (Minn. 2016) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted). State v. Wendt, No. A19-0200, 2020 WL 7018925, at *7 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020)
While the original intent of this website remains somewhat intact, this specific page is dedicated exclusively to AI-driven analysis of Judge Miller’s orders.
The table below provides AI-generated summaries of each webpage that details irregularities or inconsistencies in Judge Miller’s orders. These summaries represent condensed analyses performed by AI, capturing key findings from more comprehensive evaluations. Additionally, the “Violation” column lists specific provisions from the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct identified through AI analysis as potentially violated by Judge Miller. Detailed explanations of these rule violations will be incorporated into each respective page shortly.
#
Title
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Summary
Summary
Potential
Violation
Violation
1
Ambush During Deposition
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller allowed the use of previously undisclosed documents during depositions, effectively ambushing witnesses and opposing parties, which violates principles of transparency and fairness in the deposition process.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11
2
Judge Kevin Miller’s summary judgment order in Stevenson v. Stevenson raises serious concerns about impartiality and adherence to legal standards. Rather than viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party—as required by Minnesota law—Judge Miller selectively cited facts that favored the defense while ignoring or dismissing critical evidence supporting the Plaintiffs' claims. This cherry-picking of facts, often accompanied by misleading characterizations or omissions of key documents and sworn testimony, calls into question whether the Plaintiffs received a fair and neutral evaluation of their case. Such judicial conduct undermines the integrity of the summary judgment process and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
* Rules__
1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.6(A)
1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.6(A)
3
Conference Call Evidence Ignored
[More Info]
[More Info]
In reviewing the handling of this case by Judge Kevin Miller, one is struck by the complete disregard for critical evidence that could have illuminated the defendants' coordination and intent. Despite the existence of call detail records showing repeated multi-party conference calls between key defendants—communications that coincided with pivotal events in the case—Judge Miller failed to meaningfully address or even acknowledge this evidence in his summary judgment order. This omission raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process and whether material facts were selectively ignored to justify a predetermined outcome.
* Rules__
2.2, 2.3(B), 2.4(B), 2.6(A)
2.2, 2.3(B), 2.4(B), 2.6(A)
4
Contradictory Statements Under Oath
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller failed to address conflicting testimony under oath by one of the defendants, despite being presented with evidence of the contradiction before granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. This inconsistency raises concerns about judicial impartiality and the proper application of summary judgment standards, as contradictory sworn statements typically indicate a genuine dispute of material fact.
* Rules__
1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.6(A)
1.2, 2.2, 2.3(B), 2.6(A)
5
Coordinated Deletion of Evidence
[More Info]
[More Info]
Evidence suggests that defendants systematically deleted electronic communications during legal proceedings. Judge Miller's failure to address this coordinated deletion raises concerns about the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.15
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.15
6
Deletion of Evidence and Truthfulness
[More Info]
[More Info]
Despite forensic evidence indicating over 100 deleted text messages, Judge Miller accepted the defendant's admission of deleting only 10-15 messages. This reliance on the defendant's testimony over forensic analysis raises questions about the evaluation of evidence and the commitment to uncovering the truth.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
7
Judge Miller dismissed Marie Stevenson's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim at the summary judgment stage. The dismissal involved overlooking critical evidence, misapplying pertinent legal precedents, and selectively utilizing legal sources. This approach undermines the integrity of the judicial system and deprives plaintiffs of their opportunity to have grievances evaluated in a full trial setting.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.6
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.6
8
Judge Miller's summary judgment order selectively quoted case law and omitted relevant information using ellipses, leading to potential mischaracterizations that favored the defendants. Such selective citation raises concerns about judicial fairness and accuracy.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.11
2.2, 2.3, 2.11
9
False Allegation of Theft
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller dismissed Craig Stevenson's defamation claim regarding Sean's accusation of theft. The dismissal was based on the interpretation that Sean's use of the term "stole" was not literal. This interpretation raises concerns about the mischaracterization of testimony and the dismissal of genuine disputes over material facts, which are typically reserved for jury deliberation.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2
1.1, 1.2, 2.2
10
In his handling of the Stevenson case, Judge Kevin Miller ignored critical contradictions between forensic evidence and the defendants’ sworn statements, ultimately excluding relevant forensic timelines that undercut the defendants’ credibility. Despite the availability of expert-generated metadata reports and clear evidence that certain emails and messages had been manipulated, backdated, or withheld, Judge Miller failed to incorporate this information into his factual analysis. Instead, he appeared to selectively adopt timelines and narratives that aligned with the defendants' version of events while disregarding key digital forensic findings submitted by the plaintiffs. This pattern raises serious concerns about impartiality, evidentiary fairness, and the integrity of the judicial process.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.9
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.9
11
Ignoring Contrary Evidence #1
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller dismissed Craig's defamation claim against Renee, attributing the publication of an email solely to Craig's self-publication. However, evidence indicated that Renee also sent the email to Sean, who then forwarded it to Ashley, demonstrating additional publication avenues that were overlooked.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.5
1.2, 2.2, 2.5
12
Ignoring Contrary Evidence #2
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller's ruling overlooked critical evidence, including communications from family members and expert evaluations, leading to questions about the thoroughness and fairness of the judicial process.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.5
1.2, 2.2, 2.5
13
Ignoring Contrary Evidence #3
[More Info]
[More Info]
The dismissal of Marie's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim by Judge Miller did not account for several key pieces of evidence present in the record. This raises concerns about the comprehensive evaluation of evidence in judicial decisions.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.5
2.2, 2.3, 2.5
14
Ignoring Previously Used Case Law
[More Info]
[More Info]
In a recent legal proceeding, Judge Kevin M. Miller issued a summary judgment order that overlooked critical case law previously cited by both the plaintiffs and himself. Specifically, the plaintiffs referenced the Minnesota Supreme Court case Cafferty v. Garcia's of Scottsdale, Inc., 375 N.W.2d 850 (Minn. 1985), four times in their memorandum to support their claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). Despite this, Judge Miller's order stated that the plaintiffs did not cite any case supporting their theory and that the court found none. This omission is particularly notable because Judge Miller had cited Cafferty in a prior order dated December 6, 2022, outlining the requirements for proving an IIED claim. The failure to acknowledge this precedent raises concerns about the thoroughness and consistency of judicial analysis in this case.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.5
2.2, 2.3, 2.5
15
Ignoring the Evidence and the Rules
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller failed to mention or analyze the prejudicial effect of deleted text messages in his summary judgment order, neglecting Rule 56.04. This oversight questions the adherence to procedural rules and the consideration of all relevant evidence.
Rules
1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6
1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6
16
Judge Miller conducted independent factual investigations beyond the presented evidence, compromising the integrity of the legal system and undermining the adversarial process. Such actions erode public confidence in judicial impartiality and highlight the need for strict adherence to ethical standards within the judiciary.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.9, 2.11
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.9, 2.11
17
Independent Medical Examination (IME)
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller displayed inconsistency in handling IME procedures. In one case, he mandated an in-person IME despite the plaintiff's health and travel challenges and prohibited recording. In a different case, he allowed recording and considered travel difficulties.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.11
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.11
18
Judge Miller applied spousal and attorney-client privileges inconsistently between parties, broadly interpreting waiver against one side while narrowly protecting similar communications for the other, raising concerns about fairness and uniform application of legal standards.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2
1.1, 1.2, 2.2
19
Information Double Standard
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Kevin Miller harshly criticized Plaintiff Craig Stevenson for including public information about the judge in a sworn declaration—information that was already publicly available and disclosed by Judge Miller himself. In contrast, Miller took no action in response to serious allegations that, before the lawsuit began, Defendants printed and mailed private emails to a known abuser, despite being fully informed of the trauma and fear this would cause Plaintiff Marie Stevenson. By punishing the exposure of public facts while disregarding or discounting documented acts of emotional harm, Judge Miller created a troubling double standard—one that suggests selective enforcement of courtroom standards and raises broader concerns about judicial fairness and impartiality.
* Rules *
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6
20
Judicial Officer Relationships
[More Info]
[More Info]
Undisclosed relationships among judicial officers and legal practitioners, including defense attorney Kirsten Hansen being the daughter of retired Judge Mark F. Hansen, and James E. Morrison, former law clerk to Judge Hansen, authoring multiple orders for Judge Miller without disclosure.
Rules
1.2, 2.4, 2.11
1.2, 2.4, 2.11
21
Mischaracterizing Evidence
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller mischaracterized evidence by omitting, distorting, or selectively presenting information, undermining the fairness and integrity of legal proceedings. This includes difficulties in obtaining inter-Defendant communications and overlooking the deletion of key evidence.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.4(B), 2.5(A), 2.5(B), 2.6(A), 2.6(B), 2.7, 2.9(A), 2.11(A), 3.1, 3.2, 3.6(A), 3.6(B), 3.6(C), 3.10, 3.12, 4.1(A), 4.1(B), 4.2(A), 4.2(B), 4.3, 4.4(A), 4.4(B), 4.5(A), 4.5(B)
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.4(B), 2.5(A), 2.5(B), 2.6(A), 2.6(B), 2.7, 2.9(A), 2.11(A), 3.1, 3.2, 3.6(A), 3.6(B), 3.6(C), 3.10, 3.12, 4.1(A), 4.1(B), 4.2(A), 4.2(B), 4.3, 4.4(A), 4.4(B), 4.5(A), 4.5(B)
22
The court mischaracterized deposition testimony and failed to address the deletion of critical evidence. Despite admissions under oath and forensic findings indicating spoliation, Judge Miller did not acknowledge or consider this evidence in his rulings.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7
23
Motion to Amend Complaint
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add claims and parties, despite Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure stating that leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires. This suggests a restrictive and inconsistent application of procedural rules.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.4
2.2, 2.3, 2.4
24
Motion to Compel Discovery
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller demonstrated inconsistent application of discovery standards by denying Plaintiffs' motions to compel discovery while previously granting similar motions in other cases. This includes different treatments of excessive interrogatories and contradictory application of discovery principles, raising concerns about selective enforcement and potential bias.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.9
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.9
25
Motion to Extend Discovery
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller denied a motion to extend discovery despite new evidence emerging that contradicted prior testimony. This decision limited the plaintiffs' ability to investigate and present pertinent information, raising concerns about the fairness of the legal process.
Rules
2.2, 2.5, 2.7
2.2, 2.5, 2.7
26
Judge Kevin Miller’s conduct during the November 18, 2021 hearing in Stevenson v. Stevenson exemplifies a troubling misuse of judicial authority. Rather than fairly managing a discovery dispute, Judge Miller threatened to sanction Plaintiffs’ attorney for allegedly violating a prior court order—an order that was vague, non-prohibitive, and offered no clear procedural instruction. His accusatory tone, dismissive attitude toward Plaintiffs’ explanation, and one-sided handling of the subpoena process reveal a pattern of bias that undermines confidence in the court’s impartiality. This was not the act of a neutral arbiter, but of a judge using the bench to intimidate one side of a civil case.
* Rules__
1.1, 1.2, 2.6(A), 2.8(B)
1.1, 1.2, 2.6(A), 2.8(B)
27
Judge Miller issued a nunc pro tunc order after a writ had been filed, raising questions about the appropriateness and timing of such an order. The issuance of a nunc pro tunc order in this context may reflect judicial irregularities, particularly concerning the timing and motivation behind the order.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6
28
In his June 16, 2023, summary judgment order, Judge Miller dismissed Craig Stevenson's defamation claim against Sean. Plaintiffs noted that Judge Miller omitted key portions of a case law citation. The deliberate omission of key text from case law citations compromises the integrity of judicial decision-making, misrepresents the original meaning and intent of the law, and undermines the fairness of the process.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.5
1.2, 2.2, 2.5
29
Omitting Text From Quotations
[More Info]
[More Info]
In his summary judgment order, Judge Miller omitted critical portions of quotations from an email, altering the context and potentially impacting the case's outcome. Such selective omission undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
30
Protective Order Violations
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller's handling of protective orders raised concerns, as violations were seemingly overlooked without appropriate consequences. This inaction undermines the enforcement mechanisms designed to uphold confidentiality and justice within the legal system.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12
31
Revenge
[More Info]
[More Info]
In his June 16, 2023, summary judgment order, Judge Kevin M. Miller dismissed several claims brought by the plaintiffs, including defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Notably, the order failed to address critical evidence concerning a book titled "Revenge," which was central to the plaintiffs' arguments. This book was recommended by Sean to Lisa in a text message dated August 17, 2019, stating, "I think you might like this book," accompanied by a link to the book on Amazon. This text message, recovered during a forensic examination, was highlighted 17 times in the plaintiffs' opposition memorandum and discussed during oral arguments. The omission of this evidence from Judge Miller's order raises concerns about the thoroughness and impartiality of the judicial process.
Rules
1.1, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.4(C), 2.11(A), 2.16(A), 2.16(B)
1.1, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.4(C), 2.11(A), 2.16(A), 2.16(B)
32
Revisionist History Diring Discovery
[More Info]
[More Info]
This page alleges that Judge Kevin Miller misrepresented the plaintiffs’ earlier discovery motions in his December 6, 2022 order, portraying them as vague despite their detailed content. It argues that he retroactively justified denying key evidence by rewriting the procedural history, overstating the role of privilege, and adopting the defendants’ narrative.
Rules
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.11
1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.11
33
Selective Use of Legal Sources
[More Info]
[More Info]
Judge Miller's reliance on the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which has not been formally adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims, suggesting a shift toward a stricter standard and potential misapplication of Minnesota law.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5
34
Spousal Privilege
[More Info]
[More Info]
The Minnesota Court of Appeals identified several factual and legal errors in Judge Miller's ruling, including failure to analyze the content of a video, improper determination of privilege waiver, and misapplication of prevailing law regarding spousal observations.
Rules
1.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11, 2.15
1.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11, 2.15
35
In his summary judgment order, Judge Miller characterized the plaintiff's communications as "berating" and "angry," which may indicate bias and undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Such language in judicial rulings can raise questions about impartiality and the equitable treatment of parties involved.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.8(B)
1.2, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), 2.8(B)
36
Judge Miller's summary judgment order omitted any meaningful analysis of whether genuine disputes of material fact existed. This omission is concerning, as the concept of "material fact" is central to summary judgment decisions, and disregarding this standard can undermine the fairness and transparency of the legal process.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7
2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7
37
The summary judgment order by Judge Miller appears to selectively set aside key undisputed facts, which distorts the summary judgment process and undermines public trust in the legal system. Ignoring or dismissing relevant facts to reach a predetermined outcome raises serious concerns about judicial accountability.
Rules
1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
1.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
38
Misapplication of the summary judgment standard by Judge Miller, including improper weighing of evidence, assessing credibility, and resolving factual disputes without a full trial, thereby undermining the fundamental right to a fair hearing.
Rules
2.2, 2.3, 2.4
2.2, 2.3, 2.4
39
During the discovery phase, Judge Miller demonstrated inconsistencies and partiality, undermining the fairness of the process. Disparities in handling evidence, such as leniency towards deliberate deletion of critical communications and unequal treatment of discovery requests, compromise the integrity of legal proceedings and erode public confidence in the judicial system.
Rules
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
Otter Tail County District Court Judge Kevin Miller’s orders have been subjected to AI analysis, revealing a consistent pattern of judicial irregularities that raise serious concerns about fairness and impartiality. The AI-generated summaries highlight Judge Miller’s selective treatment of evidence, omission of material facts, use of disparaging language toward plaintiffs, and reliance on incomplete or distorted legal reasoning.
These findings—drawn from dozens of case-specific examples—suggest a troubling departure from the judicial standards outlined in the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Rather than applying the law evenly, the summaries indicate Judge Miller often framed facts in ways that favored one side, undermining the foundational principles of justice and due process.