Judge Miller's Orders (AI Summary)

The judicial process is fundamentally rooted in principles of fairness and impartiality. However, instances where legal standards are applied inconsistently undermine these principles, leading to concerns about the equitable treatment of parties involved. Such disparities not only compromise the integrity of the legal system but also erode public trust in judicial outcomes. Addressing these issues is essential to uphold the foundational values of justice and ensure that all individuals receive fair and unbiased consideration under the law.

This website began as a way to organize the documentation, ideas, and thoughts surrounding our lawsuit and Judge Miller’s orders in our case. However, after applying AI analysis to more and more of his orders, it became clear that we had been treated even more unfairly than we had originally thought. Although the original premise of this website remains somewhat intact, this page is devoted entirely to Judge Miller’s orders and how they are viewed through the lens of AI analysis.

 

The following table shows an Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated summary of each page on this website that documents irregularities or inconsistencies in Judge Miller’s orders. The AI summaries were obtained by having AI analyze the web page and determine an appropriate summary based on the content of the page. In essence, each cell in the “AI Summary” column contains an AI summary of a more detailed AI analysis:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Title
Ambush During Deposition
[More Info]
Cherry-Picking Facts at Summary Judgment
[More Info]
Conference Call Evidence Ignored
[More Info]
Contradictory Statements Under Oath
[More Info]
Coordinated Deletion of Evidence
[More Info]
Deletion of Evidence and Truthfulness
[More Info]
Dismissing an IIED Claim at Summary Judgment
[More Info]
Distorting Justice: Ellipses and Omitted Facts
[More Info]
False Allegation of Theft
[More Info]
Forensic Report Statements and Timelines
[More Info]
Ignoring Contrary Evidence #1
[More Info]
Ignoring Contrary Evidence #2
[More Info]
Ignoring Contrary Evidence #3
[More Info]
Ignoring Previously Used Case Law
[More Info]
Ignoring the Evidence and the Rules
[More Info]
Independent Investigation and Selected Facts
[More Info]
Independent Medical Examination (IME)
[More Info]
Inconsistent Privilege Rulings Compared
[More Info]
Judicial Officer Relationships
[More Info]
Mischaracterizing Evidence
[More Info]
Mischaracterized Testimony and Ignored Deletion
[More Info]
Motion to Amend Complaint
[More Info]
Motion to Compel Discovery
[More Info]
Motion to Extend Discovery
[More Info]
Nunc Pro Tunc Order Issued After Writ Filed
[More Info]
Omitting Text From Caselaw Citations
[More Info]
Omitting Text From Quotations
[More Info]
Protective Order Violations
[More Info]
Revenge
[More Info]
Selective Use of Legal Sources
[More Info]
Spousal Privilege
[More Info]
Summary Judgment - Disparaging Comments
[More Info]
Summary Judgment - Material Facts
[More Info]
Summary Judgment - Setting Aside Material Facts
[More Info]
Summary Judgment – The Standard
[More Info]
Unequal Treatment During Discovery
[More Info]
AI Summary
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.
The practice of selectively presenting evidence during summary judgment proceedings undermines the integrity of the judicial process. By focusing solely on information that supports a particular outcome while disregarding contradictory evidence, the process deviates from its foundational principles of fairness and impartiality. Such an approach not only distorts the factual landscape but also jeopardizes the rights of parties seeking justice, highlighting the critical need for comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of all pertinent facts in legal determinations.
The selective omission of key communications in legal proceedings poses a serious threat to justice. This page highlights how detailed evidence—including records of coordinated conference calls tied to reputational attacks and emotional harm—was completely disregarded in a critical ruling. When such significant data, supported by call detail records, is ignored, it raises serious concerns about whether due process was truly served or whether inconvenient truths were set aside to fit a predetermined narrative.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Delays and inconsistencies in the production of forensic examination reports, with initial claims of ongoing examinations later contradicted by statements that examinations were never completed, undermining the integrity of the discovery process.
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.
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.
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.
The consistent application of established legal precedents is fundamental to ensuring fairness and maintaining public trust in the judicial system. When courts disregard pertinent case law, especially those previously acknowledged within the same proceedings, it raises serious concerns about the integrity and impartiality of judicial decisions. Such omissions not only compromise the equitable treatment of parties involved but also erode confidence in the legal process as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When courts dismiss or overlook critical evidence that is central to a party's claims, it raises serious concerns about the integrity of the legal process. Such omissions, particularly when they involve materials that directly indicate motive, coordination, and intent, suggest a troubling disregard for due process and the obligation to consider all presented evidence. This failure not only undermines the legitimacy of judicial proceedings but also erodes public trust in the justice system.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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