---
title: Quotes
url: https://justice-denied.org/quotes/
date: 2026-02-17T00:53:56+00:00
modified: 2026-08-16T12:59:18+00:00
lang: en_US
---

# Quotes

> The truth is in the gaps.

*— Craig S. Stevenson*

I have used this phrase over the years to teach my family that the truth is often hidden in what is left out or missing.

> The system is designed to protect the system.

*— Craig S. Stevenson*

Based on my experience, the judicial system appears designed to protect itself, and the people who work within it, from accountability.

> The quest for truth should alarm no one.

*— Craig S. Stevenson*

I used this quote in a sworn deposition after the opposing side appeared to be alarmed that I was performing my own legal research. (Doc. 520, at 23-24.)

> The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct appears to exist only to convince the naive public that the judicial system is fair.

*— Craig S. Stevenson*

In my experience, the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct is largely ignored, seldom enforced, and virtually meaningless.

> I have never spoken about ‘my childhood’ abuse in a colloquial sense.

*— Marie Stevenson*

My response to Judge Miller, who stated in his Summary Judgment Order that I had only spoken "colloquially" about my childhood abuse. (Doc. 429, at 18.)

> There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.

*— Montesquieu*

Montesquieu was famous for his theory of the separation of powers. His ideas profoundly influenced the United States Constitution and other modern democratic governments.

> In Minnesota: The facts don't matter. The law doesn't matter. The judge matters!

*— Craig S. Stevenson*

Based on my experience and research, the most significant factor in who wins or loses a lawsuit isn't the facts or the law. It's the judge, and his or her commitment to fairness and impartiality.

> If it can happen to us, it can happen to you.

*— Craig S. Stevenson*

I have significant concerns that our experience, although perhaps an outlier in degree, is not unique.

> There are two ways for a court to decide a case. It can hear the facts, research the law and arrive at a conclusion based on that process. Using this method, the court has no idea how the case will turn out until the process plays itself out. In my naïve world, I like to think this is how it is supposed to work.
>
> The other method is for the court to determine in advance what it wants the result to be and then find a way to get there. I call this “outcome based” jurisprudence. And I hate it. It is a type of “ends justifies the means” cynical approach to the law.

*— John C. Greiner, Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP*

I found this quote while performing a search for judicial fairness and impartiality. I have yet to find anyone else who has described our experience more accurately.