7/30/2019 Letter to Joe Miller's attorney
1/2
D. JOHN McKAY
Attorney at Law
117 E. Cook Ave.Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone Fax
(907) 274-3154 (907) 272-5646
April 6, 2012
By fax (907-479-7966)and e-mail: "John J. Tiemessen"
[email protected]
John J. Tiemessen, Esq.
Clapp, Peterson & Tiemessen411 Fourth Avenue
Suite 300Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4711
Re: Alaska Dispatch, et al. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Joe
Miller
Superior Ct. Case No. 4:09-cv-00035 RRB
Dear John,
This is a follow-up to our recent discussion about Jason
McEachen, the individual identifiedby Judge Joannides in her
Disclosure Notice as having briefly rented lodging from her last
year.
You requested that I determine the facts, and forward the
information to you so that you Mr. Millercould make an informed
decision about whether there is any cause to question whether the
judge
should be recused.
I have now had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr.
McEachen, who is a formeremployee of the Alaska Dispatch, living in
another state.
Consistent with the judges disclosure, Mr. McEachen told me that
he was aware from their
meeting that she was a judge, and she was aware from his
application or discussion leading to therental that he was employed
by Alaska Dispatch and his wife was an on-line teacher. He says
that
they never had any discussion about the Miller case, in
particular, or, for that matter, about anythingrelated to the
judges work or to his work.
Mr. McEachen advises that because the apartment rented was in
the basement of the judgesresidence, there was discussion of use of
shared internet connection, because of the couples
unusually heavy internet usage mainly due to Mr. McEachens wifes
duties as an on-line teacher.However, there was no discussion about
the content of any internet communications sent or received
at the rented premises.
7/30/2019 Letter to Joe Miller's attorney
2/2
John Tiemessen
April 6, 2012
Page 2 of 2
With respect to your question about whether McEachen reviewed
communications at the
Dispatch that revealed sources of information, if any, with
respect to Dispatch news stories, the shortanswer is no.
Mr. McEachens job responsibilities involved maintenance and
updating of the companys
website, maintaining email connections within the office,
videostreaming, and maintainingequipment as needed. He said he had
nothing to do with producing content, and did not make any
decisions about putting up or taking down content. He created
the tools for posting things; it was upto others to use those tools
to post, edit or remove content. He did not see Dispatch content
until it
was publicly posted, and did not see the e-mails or notes of
other Dispatch employees.
As you know, no request has been made for any Dispatch documents
and we wouldpresumably object to any such request from Mr. Miller.
That is not the issue here, and we are
addressing these issues in the abstract, without waiving any
right to decline or oppose production,simply to facilitate
consideration of the recusal issue raised by the judge. With this
in mind, I would
simply add that it is unlikely Mr. McEachen would be involved if
there were a request fordocuments, but if he were, it would be in
the limited context of being contacted by a present
employee or contractor who might need to call him for brief
assistance with some aspect of thelogistics of retrieving such
information. Most likely this would not be necessary.
Based on what I learned, my client sees nothing warranting
recusal of the judge newlyassigned to this case, and will not being
seeking this. Mr. Miller, of course, will have to make his
own decision about this, and I trust the foregoing provides what
he needs to do this. Please let meknow his response. Assuming your
client is in agreement once he considers this information, my
suggestion is that I report back to the court that the parties
have satisfied themselves, and are inagreement with her assessment,
that there is no basis for recusal related to Mr. McEachen.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
D. John McKay
cc: Counsel of record, via e-mail
