Judicial Officer Relationships

Our case has had more than its share of unusual events, almost from the very beginning. The first hearing occurred on January 20, 2021, before Otter Tail County District Court Judge Kevin M. Miller. During the hearing, Attorney Kirsten Hansen, Counsel for Defendants Sean and Renee Stevenson, made a specific point of announcing her relationship to retired Otter Tail County District Court Judge Mark F. Hansen, bringing to the Court’s attention the fact that Judge Hansen was her father:

MS. HANSEN: Your Honor, I think I’d liked to go first because I think we’ve all joined in the same request and this a motion under 542.10, so I think that I will go first and if there’s additional things maybe Mr. Tentinger could chime in. Judge, I did want to indicate one thing to the Court, I was told to tell the Court this. My father is retired Judge Mark Hansen. He told me I needed to let you know in case you thought there was a conflict. I don’t think there is, but when I’m told by somebody to tell you. I’m sorry. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record.

THE COURT: Understood. And I appeared before your father. Never worked — he had retired prior to me coming to Otter Tail County, and I’ve seen him around a little bit as a retired judge when he was still doing that. But he was never a colleague in the sense of sharing chambers or anything like that, so I would not myself deem that any type of conflict. Otherwise, I’d have that with other judges and such. So, thank you for –

MS. HANSEN: That’s what I thought but I wanted to be –

THE COURT: Understood.

MS. HANSEN: — totally (indiscernible).

THE COURT: Understood. All right. You may proceed counsel.

(Doc. 226, Tr. 3:20-4:21.) (emphasis added)

According to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge cannot be removed by the parties, without showing that he is disqualified under the Code of Judicial Conduct, once the first hearing in the case has commenced. By the time we learned of the defense attorney’s connection to her father, it was too late to remove Judge Miller without cause.

It was never disclosed that Judge Hansen worked extensively as a senior judge following his retirement and held hundreds of judicial hearings at the Otter Tail County Courthouse until December 6, 2019.

It was also never disclosed that Judge Hansen’s Law Clerk, James Morrison, worked extensively for Judge Miller on Plaintiffs’ case. Plaintiffs independently found this information on April 2, 2024, after our case had been dismissed at summary judgment, after our appeal had been argued, and six days before the ruling by the MN Court of Appeals.

Law clerks and judges have a unique relationship, which has been described as follows:

• • “Clerks are like co-authors in the drafting process. Their contributions, while important, are part of a collaborative effort, not a unilateral decision from the judge.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
  • “A law clerk is a partner, not an assistant. The relationship is one of mutual respect, where the judge relies on the clerk’s intelligence, creativity, and work ethic.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
  • “My law clerks teach me new things every day. They’re not just assistants. They’re my partners in the legal process.” – U.S Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
  • “The most intimate relationship that a Supreme Court Justice has in the process of decision is with his law clerks. It is a relationship of complete mutual trust. They are not just assistants; they are intellectual partners in the judicial process.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
  • “Every clerk leaves fingerprints on opinions. Some fingerprints are more visible than others, but they’re always there.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr.

According to file metadata, Clerk Morrison authored at least 13 of Judge Miller’s orders in our case, including the summary judgment order that dismissed our case.

The relationships between the judicial officers and defendants are shown below:

These disclosed and undisclosed relationships, especially when considered along with the rulings in the case and many other irregularities, were so concerning that Plaintiffs brought this issue to the attention of Judge Miller in a letter dated June 17, 2024, along with several sworn declarations. (Docs. 487, 488, 489.) Plaintiffs requested that Judge Miller voluntarily recuse himself. Two days later, Attorney Kirsten Hansen filed a response with the Court that stated in part, “This Court has been nothing if not fair and even-handed, as has been upheld by the Court of Appeals.” (Doc. 490.)

Judge Miller would not address our concerns without a motion. (Doc. 491.)

Plaintiffs then filed a motion requesting Judge Miller’s recusal, based on an appearance of impropriety, due to the undisclosed law clerk relationships. (Doc. 503.) This motion included a reply memorandum and several more sworn declarations. (Docs. 504, 505, 506, 524, 525, 526, 527, 539.) Judge Miller ultimately denied our motion (Doc. 549) and stated in his December 18, 2024 order:

Plaintiffs are seeking to disqualify this Court and vacate orders in which Jim Morrison,^[1] a law clerk employed with the Minnesota Judicial Branch in Otter Tail County, was the “author.”

…

Based on an objective examination of the facts in this matter, a reasonable examiner would not question Judge Miller’s impartiality.

…

A reasonable examiner would not question the Court’s impartiality based on Mr. Morrison’s work with the Court in this matter; therefore, disqualification is not required, and the motion to disqualify will be denied.

(Doc.  549, at 3, 6.)^[2]

Plaintiffs are currently appealing Judge Miller’s December 18, 2024 order.

1. Plaintiffs do not know and have never met Mr. Morrison. As a result, we have never used the informal name “Jim” in any of our filings, instead always using the formal name “James” to refer to Clerk Morrison. ↑
2. Judge Miller’s two orders in Plaintiffs’ case following our June 17, 2024 letter were authored by Katie Gustafson, not by James Morrison. (See Doc. 546, 549.) Katie Gustafson is not listed as the author of any other orders in our case. ↑

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence to analyze Judge Miller’s December 18, 2024 Order Denying Recusal and Vacatur: