August 2022 Records Request Multi-Agency Response to Stamford, VT Property

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Vermont Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

I respectfully request records held by the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs concerning the investigation and its resolution involving a property in Stamford, Vermont, as chronicled in the Rolling Stone article titled "The Ezra Miller Saga Now Involves Vermont’s Child Services Department" (published August 10, 2022, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20241215093133/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ezra-miller-vermont-child-services-department-1392572/).

The article details attempts by Vermont State Police to serve an emergency care order on August 6, 7, and 9, 2022, at Ezra Miller’s 96-acre farm in Stamford, intended to remove a 25-year-old mother and her three children amid supposed welfare concerns, with oversight by the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) and involvement of state’s attorney(s) in legal proceedings or service efforts.
Most notably, the article includes information or statements attributed to the State Attorney’s Office suggesting the property owner was attempting to "evade" the order or "shield" someone (quote: "the Vermont State Attorney’s office said seemed like an attempt to “evade service” of the order, according to the court document obtained by Rolling Stone.")

Specifically, I seek the following from August 1, 2022, through December 31, 2023:

- All documents related to the emergency care order & its investigation & service, including reports, logs, court documents, affidavits, field notes, incident reports, warrants, summonses, etc from the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs coordinating or documenting attempts from Vermont State Police to serve it on August 6, 7, and 9, 2022, or any later efforts, concerning the mother and her children’s welfare. This includes records of challenges (e.g., access issues or alleged evasion) and outcomes (e.g., successful service, withdrawal, alternative resolutions, etc), as well as any internal reviews or supervisory notes regarding the handling of the case.

- Correspondence (e.g., emails, memos, letters, texts, call logs, etc) between the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, Vermont State Police, Vermont DCF, or other judicial personnel regarding this emergency care order, its investigation, its execution, or its resolution, as well as legal filings, opinions, or court documents prepared by state’s attorneys—such as the order’s application, welfare concern justifications, or filings for the hearing(s) referenced in the article—including any records reflecting the "evasion" or "shielding" claim and/or an apparent pending hearing referenced in the Rolling Stone article scheduled on or after August 10, 2022 (quote: "A hearing is scheduled for the matter later this week."), along with any drafts, amendments, or annotations to these legal documents.

- Documentation of inter-agency coordination with Vermont State Police, Vermont DCF, or other entities (including out-of-state agencies) about the welfare of the mother and children or the order’s execution, including meeting notes, disposition records, situation reports, inter-agency referrals, or child welfare assessments (e.g., risk or safety evaluations)—and if any responsive records are held by other agencies (including out-of-state), I request disclosure to ensure all relevant documents are obtained, including any chain-of-custody records for evidence or information shared between agencies.

I request that any exempt personal information (e.g., names of minors or private individuals) be redacted rather than withholding any documents entirely, consistent with the Vermont Public Records Act’s presumption of disclosure (1 V.S.A. § 315 et seq.).
I am not affiliated with any news agencies & this request is not being made for commercial purposes. This inquiry serves the public interest by shedding light on the resolution of a widely publicized matter (yet for some reason never followed up on by news organizations) involving child welfare and inter-agency action, fostering transparency in governmental proceedings, and discouraging vigilante justice from members of the public who, due to rampant disinformation by omission, might be inclined to take matters into their own hands against a perceived child abductor.
If there are any issues with the scope or specificity of this request, please contact me to discuss it before denying or delaying the response.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 3 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

PJ

Timothy Lueders-Dumont
Executive Director
Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs
110 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05633-6401
Email: timothy.lueders-dumont@vermont.gov

Re: Appeal of Denied Public Records Request (Received March 24, 2025)

Dear Mr. Lueders-Dumont,

I am writing to appeal the denial of my Public Records Request (PRR), dated March 11, 2025, and received by your office on March 24, 2025, as communicated in the response from Kim McManus, Legislative and Policy Attorney for the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs.
My request sought records held by the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs concerning the investigation and resolution of a case involving a property in Stamford, Vermont, owned by Ezra Miller, a non-binary individual, as chronicled in the Rolling Stone article titled "The Ezra Miller Saga Now Involves Vermont’s Child Services Department" (published August 10, 2022, available to read at: https://web.archive.org/web/20241215093133/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/ezra-miller-vermont-child-services-department-1392572/). Specifically, I had requested records from August 1, 2022, through December 31, 2023, related to an emergency care order intended to remove a 25-year-old mother and her three children from Miller’s 96-acre farm in Stamford, amid welfare concerns, including:
- All documents related to the emergency care order, its investigation, and service attempts by Vermont State Police on August 6, 7, and 9, 2022, or later efforts, such as reports, logs, court documents, affidavits, field notes, incident reports, warrants, summonses, internal reviews, or supervisory notes documenting challenges (e.g., access issues or alleged evasion) and outcomes (e.g., successful service, withdrawal, or alternative resolutions).
- Correspondence (e.g., emails, memos, letters, texts, call logs) between the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, Vermont State Police, Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF), or other judicial personnel regarding the order, its investigation, execution, or resolution, as well as legal filings, opinions, or court documents prepared by state’s attorneys (e.g., the order’s application, welfare concern justifications, or filings for the hearing scheduled on or after August 10, 2022), including records reflecting the State Attorney’s Office’s claim of “evasion” or “shielding.”
- Documentation of inter-agency coordination with Vermont State Police, Vermont DCF, or other entities (including out-of-state agencies) about the welfare of the mother and children or the order’s execution, such as meeting notes, disposition records, situation reports, inter-agency referrals, child welfare assessments, or chain-of-custody records for shared evidence or information.

The denial relied on 33 VSA 5117(a), which prohibits public disclosure of juvenile judicial records, and 1 VSA 317(c)(1), which exempts records confidential by law. However, Vermont’s Public Records Act (1 VSA 315) establishes a presumption of public access, and exemptions must be narrowly construed, with agencies required to balance confidentiality against the public’s right to know (Herald v. City of Rutland, 2012 VT 56). The denial letter does not demonstrate that all requested records are fully exempt or that disclosure would harm juvenile privacy. I am seeking non-identifying information: dates of key actions (e.g., issuance and service attempts of the emergency care order on August 6, 7, and 9, 2022, and a supposed hearing scheduled on or after August 10, 2022), broad resolutions therein (e.g., was the order successful or withdrawn, was the case closed), whether charges were or were ever going to be filed against Ezra Miller, and procedural details like the State Attorney’s Office’s “evasion” claim. These details—dates, conclusions, indictments, procedural notes—can be provided without revealing names or identifying information of any juveniles, as required by 1 VSA 317(b), which mandates release of records with exempt portions redacted if feasible. The denial’s blanket application of 33 VSA 5117, without considering heavy redaction or partial release, is overly broad and does not meet the legal standard.

Disclosure of these records serves a critical public interest by addressing the dangerous anti-trans rhetoric that fuels violence against non-binary and transgender individuals like Ezra Miller, who is non-binary. In recent years, media narratives have painted such individuals as “groomers” or child abusers—claims that directly contribute to real-world violence. According to the Human Rights Campaign, 2024 saw over 550 anti-trans bills introduced across the U.S., often under the guise of “protecting children,” while the Transgender Day of Remembrance reported that at least 33 transgender and non-binary individuals were killed in the U.S. in 2024, many due to hate-motivated violence fueled by these stereotypes. The Rolling Stone article, which included the State Attorney’s Office’s claim of Miller “evading" justice, risks perpetuating these harmful narratives by heavily suggesting Miller endangered children, without providing clarity or resolution. Without transparency, such portrayals can amplify misinformation, further endangering non-binary and transgender individuals by reinforcing the false notion that they pose a threat to children—a narrative that directly incites violence, as seen in the increasing attacks on LGBT people.
In Vermont, a progressive state committed to protecting vulnerable communities, the public deserves access to factual information to counter these dangerous stereotypes. My request seeks non-identifying details to provide public clarity and finality to this case, helping to dispel myths that contribute to anti-trans violence. Transparency here is not just about public discourse; it’s about protecting lives by challenging narratives that could lead to harm. Releasing this information with redactions would enable the public to better understand the facts of the case without compromising juvenile privacy, aligning with the Public Records Act’s purpose of fostering accountability and trust.

I am also concerned about an apparent inconsistency in how confidentiality is applied, as highlighted by the Rolling Stone article’s reference to a court document that should be protected under 33 VSA 5117(a). The article states, “the Vermont State Attorney’s office said [it] seemed like an attempt to ‘evade service’ of the order,” attributing this to a court document obtained or seen by Rolling Stone. I understand the importance of protecting juvenile privacy, but I am unsure how an entertainment publication like Rolling Stone gained access to this document, which appears to fall under the confidentiality provisions of 33 VSA 5117(a). If this disclosure was authorized—perhaps through a court order under 33 VSA 5117(f) or another exception—I would appreciate understanding how such access was granted, as it may suggest a pathway for my request to be fulfilled with similar safeguards. Alternatively, if the disclosure was not authorized, I am concerned about the lack of clarity on how such a breach occurred, given that 33 VSA 5117(g) provides for penalties like contempt of court for violations. My goal is to better understand the application of confidentiality in this context, and I respectfully request clarification on how Rolling Stone obtained this document and whether a similar mechanism could be applied to my request for non-identifying information about the resolution of this case.

In summary, I respectfully request that you:
- Reconsider the denial and release the requested records, omitting as many pages or redacting as much as needed to comply with 33 VSA 5117 while also providing clarity to a widely-publicized matter;
- Provide an explanation of how Rolling Stone obtained the court document and whether that access method applies to my request;
- If the denial is upheld, provide a detailed justification of the specific harm disclosure would cause, as required by Vermont law.

Thank you for your attention to this matter & appeal.

Sincerely,
PJ