Legal filings allege Rep. Max Miller made “false statements” to an Ohio court

On February 27, Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) stood before the Cuyahoga County Court to request an emergency civil protection order (CPO) requiring that his ex-wife Emily Moreno stay away from him.

Miller’s rationale, he said, was that Moreno was harassing him with serious accusations that were untrue. Under penalty of perjury, he said he had evidence to prove it. 

“I filed today because my ex-wife is making allegations against me,” Miller told the magistrate judge, Jessica Bartolozzi. “She is making allegations against me…that never happened. And I have video and text message evidence showing the contrary of that.” 

Miller eventually dismissed the petition for a CPO voluntarily after the order had been in effect for five months; his lawyer testified in late July that Miller no longer had any “concern for his safety and well-being at this time.” In recent filings, however, Moreno’s counsel suggests Miller fabricated his initial reason for concern.

Miller had been granted the emergency CPO in February partly in response to his claims that he had evidence disproving Moreno’s accusation that he had injured her during a custody exchange of their daughter on February 1.

Moreno’s allegation that Miller shoved her against a wall that day had surfaced during an interview with detectives who were investigating possible child abuse related to their two-year-old daughter’s broken collarbone. As Mother Jones reported last month, Moreno told the detectives she couldn’t rule out Miller had caused the toddler’s injury because her ex-husband had also allegedly been abusive towards her. (The child abuse allegation was, in the end, “unsubstantiated,” which means there was not sufficient evidence to prove abuse or neglect.)

Miller has vehemently denied ever physically hurting the child or Moreno—including during the February custody exchange in question. “I have evidence supporting that fact,” Miller said when requesting the CPO, explaining that his girlfriend was an eye witness to the exchange and that video footage proved the girlfriend was present. 

But a few weeks after the temporary protection order was granted, Miller and his lawyers recanted some of the highly specific evidence Miller repeatedly attested to possessing. One of his lawyers, Pamela J. MacAdams, emailed Moreno’s lawyers about the situation in mid-March.

“After reviewing the ring doorbell tapes from February 1, 2026, we learned that [Miller’s girlfriend] was in fact not likely present at Max’s home during the time of the child exchange,” said the email, which was referenced in the domestic court filings. “We simply ethically feel the need to disclose to you this edit to our assertions about the evidence of that day.”

According to Rule 3.3 of the Ohio Professional Rules of Conduct, lawyers in the state are ethically and legally required to speak up if they come to understand that material evidence was not accurately described to a court.

“If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable measures to remedy the situation, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal,” states the rule, entitled “Candor to the Tribunal.”

In an August 6 motion, Moreno argues that Miller’s lawyers failed to take the required remedial steps. While they did email Moreno’s lawyer, Miller’s attorneys did not inform magistrate Bartolozzi that their client made “false statements.”

“Petitioner’s attorneys had an affirmative obligation to alert this Court. The obligation for ‘candor towards the tribunal’ is not satisfied by writing a letter to opposing counsel. Simply put, opposing counsel is not the same as the court,” the motion, filed by Moreno’s lawyers, contend. Neither Miller’s lawyers nor spokespeople responded to Mother Jones’ request for comment.

Filings suggest Miller or his lawyers had informed police and the Department of Family Services that they had “mistake[n]” what happened during the February 1 custody exchange. But by not informing the body that issued the emergency CPO, Moreno’s counsel argues that Miller’s CPO was based on a fictional account.

“Without [the girlfriend’s] corroboration, Petitioner would have no proof this incident did or did not occur. As such, her ability to verify Petitioner’s claims regarding the incident were necessary, and Magistrate Bartolozzi’s issuance of an ex parte CPO would have been founded on the basis of Petitioner’s allegations of her presence and video proof. That CPO lasted five months,” the motion says.

In a series of questions and answers between Miller and one of his attorneys, this is how Miller initially described his supposed eye-witness evidence from the February 1 custody exchange in which Moreno has said she was assaulted.

Andrew Brown (Miller’s lawyer): Did you thereafter collect evidence to establish that that is untrue? 

Miller: Yes. 

Brown: Is one piece of evidence that you collected a witness statement from an individual who was present there? 

Miller: That is correct.

Brown: Okay. And what is that statement, and who made that statement, and what is the general statement? 

Miller: My girlfriend, her name is [redacted], very nice lady. She works night shift. So her shift starts at 7 pm, and she leaves usually around 6:30. Every time that Emily comes for pick up time, [girlfriend] hides…

Brown: Did [girlfriend] say she was present during the custody exchange?

Miller: Yes, she was.

Brown: Did [girlfriend] say she didn’t hear any kind of distress, commotion, pushing, shoving, thumping, anything of that nature?

Miller: That is correct, and she was looking through the window to make sure, and she always does this, she always looks after me during pick up time because she knows that it’s a very tense time for us, and so she was always keeping an eye on things that are happening at pick up time because she knows that it’s a very tense time for us, and so she was always keeping an eye on things that are happening at pick up time.

Brown: Do you have video surveillance at your home?

Miller: I do.

Brown:: Do you have video Ring doorbell surveillance?

Miller: I do.

Brown: Do you have video surveillance overlooking your driveway? 

Miller: I do. 

Brown: Does the video surveillance from your home establish that your girlfriend was present immediately preceding the custody exchange?

Miller: Yes. 

Miller has faced calls from at least six Republican Senators—including ex-father-in-law Bernie Moreno, Jon Husted, Roger Marshall, and Katie Britt—to drop his bid for reelection. However, the window for Miller to withdraw and to be replaced on the ballot passed earlier this week.

While Miller dismissed his motion for a protection order in late July, his custody battle with Emily Moreno is ongoing. The next court appearance is currently slated for two days after Election Day.