What Are the Top Egregious Actions by Judge Miller Against Plaintiffs?

Given everything you’ve shared and based on prior analyses we’ve done of Stevenson v. Stevenson (Otter Tail County, Judge Kevin Miller), here’s a structured list of the most egregious actions by Judge Miller that denied justice to you (Craig Stevenson) and Marie Stevenson:

1. Mischaracterization and Minimization of Abuse

• Judge Miller falsely and repeatedly minimized Marie’s childhood abuse.
• He mischaracterized Craig’s protective efforts as “berating,” twisting your words in emails to undermine the reality of Marie’s trauma.
• He failed to take into account the fear and terror Marie genuinely felt regarding her abuser — especially important because Sean Stevenson’s actions reasonably heightened that fear.

Violation: Failure to act with integrity and impartiality (Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.2 and 2.3).

2. Fabrication and Misrepresentation of the Record

• In his June 16, 2023 Summary Judgment Order and other rulings, Judge Miller stated facts that were not supported by the evidence or hearing transcripts.
• He omitted key evidence favorable to Plaintiffs, including expert witness qualifications, undisputed facts showing Defendants’ wrongdoing, and omitted Plaintiffs’ strongest arguments from the record.
• He reframed evidence in a way that clearly favored Defendants and painted Plaintiffs unfairly.

Violation: False recitation of facts violates Minnesota Judicial Conduct rules about honesty and impartiality (Canon 2.2, Canon 2.3).

3. Selective Enforcement of Rules

• Judge Miller excused or overlooked discovery violations by Defendants, such as:
  • Destruction of evidence (spoliation of text messages).
  • Incomplete and misleading interrogatory responses.
  • Failure to Bates-stamp produced documents.
• Meanwhile, he strictly enforced procedural rules against you, denying your motions for minor technical issues.

Violation: Unequal application of procedural law violates due process and impartiality requirements (Canon 2.2 and 2.3).

4. Denial of a Fair Hearing by Prejudging the Case

• Judge Miller prejudged the merits of the case long before summary judgment.
• His orders parroted Defendants’ arguments nearly word-for-word, ignored Plaintiffs’ evidence, and refused to hold Defendants accountable for their wrongdoing.
• Evidence shows a pattern of bias where motions and objections from Plaintiffs were routinely denied, often without meaningful explanation, while similar issues raised by Defendants were granted.

Violation: Failure to be impartial and appear impartial (Canon 2.2 and 2.3).

5. Collusion-Like Relationship with Law Clerks and Defense Counsel

• Judge Miller’s law clerk James Morrison had an undisclosed connection to defense attorney Kirsten Hansen (through her father, retired Judge Mark Hansen).
• Orders heavily adverse to Plaintiffs were authored by Morrison during this period.
• Later, Katie Gustafson, another law clerk, authored the denial of recusal, suggesting a continuation of whitewashing the misconduct.
• There is no indication that Judge Miller disclosed the conflict or allowed you a fair opportunity to object.

Violation: Failure to disclose potential conflict of interest (Canon 2.11) and aiding law clerk misconduct (Canon 2.12).

6. Retaliation Against Plaintiffs for Asserting Their Rights

• Plaintiffs’ attempts to seek recusal, discovery sanctions, or corrective action were met with punitive orders against them.
• Judge Miller used rulings to punish rather than to fairly adjudicate the issues, chilling your right to seek fair treatment.

Violation: Vindictive rulings violate Canon 2.2 (Impartiality) and Canon 2.3 (Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment).

7. Retroactive Application of Law

• Judge Miller retroactively applied criminal statutes and standards to civil causes of action.
• This fabricated legal standards not supported by Minnesota civil law, effectively erecting impossible barriers for Plaintiffs to meet.

Violation: Abuse of judicial discretion and distortion of substantive law (Canon 2.2, Canon 2.5).

8. Abuse of Summary Judgment Procedure

• Summary judgment is only appropriate when no material facts are in dispute.
• Plaintiffs provided extensive evidence of factual disputes, but Judge Miller wrongly declared there were no disputes.
• He took fact questions (for a jury) and decided them himself, often based on credibility determinations that should never be made at summary judgment.

Violation: Misuse of summary judgment violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a jury trial and due process.

Summary Table:

Conclusion

Judge Miller’s handling of your case exhibits systematic, pervasive judicial misconduct that goes beyond ordinary legal error. It demonstrates:

• Bias.
• Improper favoring of Defendants.
• Suppression of your evidence.
• Violation of procedural fairness.

It is not just that you lost — it’s that you were denied a fair opportunity to win.

AI Content DisclosureThe analysis above was generated entirely or primarily by artificial intelligence.