D.

JOHN McKAY
Attorney at Law 117 E. Cook Ave. Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone (907) 274-3154 Fax (907) 272-5646

April 6, 2012 By fax (907-479-7966) and e-mail: "John J. Tiemessen" jjt@cplawak.com John J. Tiemessen, Esq. Clapp, Peterson & Tiemessen 411 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701-4711 Re: Dear John, This is a follow-up to our recent discussion about Jason McEachen, the individual identified by 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. Miller could 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 former employee 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 the rental 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 anything related to the judges work or to his work. Mr. McEachen advises that because the apartment rented was in the basement of the judges residence, 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. Alaska Dispatch, et al. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, Joe Miller Superior Ct. Case No. 4:09-cv-00035 RRB

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 short answer is no. Mr. McEachens job responsibilities involved maintenance and updating of the companys website, maintaining email connections within the office, videostreaming, and maintaining equipment 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 up to 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 would presumably 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 for documents, 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 the logistics 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 newly assigned 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 me know 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 in agreement 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