Attorneys for Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) have acknowledged that their client fabricated testimony about a key witness in court documents and at a hearing, a sworn claim that helped him obtain a protection order against his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). The admission, first reported by the New York Post, has triggered a motion for sanctions and attorney fees filed by Moreno's legal team.
The 37-year-old congressman, who was elected to the House in 2022 and served in multiple roles during the first Trump administration, brought a domestic violence case against Moreno in a bid to block her from seeing their 2-year-old daughter while separate custody litigation played out. A judge granted Miller a protection order against Moreno, but also concluded there was no evidence "to issue an order to protect the minor child at this time."
Now the case has taken a sharply different turn. Miller's own lawyers have walked back the central claim that propped up his petition, and Moreno's attorney is demanding consequences.
The disputed testimony centers on a Feb. 1 custody exchange at Miller's home. Moreno alleged that Miller grabbed her by the arm and shoved her against a wall during that exchange. Miller denied the allegation and went further: in a notarized statement dated Feb. 27, he claimed his girlfriend, identified only as "J.A.," was present inside his home during the entire encounter.
Miller's statement was detailed and emphatic. He told the court:
"Unbeknownst to [Moreno], my girlfriend, J.A., was present inside my home during the entire custody exchange."
He added that J.A. "makes it a practice to remain out of sight at my home during custody exchanges" because of what he called Moreno's "unpredictable, irrational, unhinged, and confrontational behavior." Miller further stated that J.A. had "provided statements to DCFS [Department of Children and Family Services] and a private investigator confirming that she was present at my home on February 1 during the custody exchange" and that "she did not hear any commotion."
That same day, at a court hearing, Miller was asked whether footage showed his girlfriend was present immediately before the custody exchange. He answered, "Yes."
Nearly two weeks later, Miller's attorneys emailed Moreno's lawyers with a very different story. The email stated plainly:
"We learned that [the girlfriend] was in fact not likely present at Max's home during the time of the child exchange."
The attorneys added that they "still, however, feel the video-recorded exchange demonstrates no altercation between Max and Emily." That hedged concession does not erase the fact that Miller made sworn claims about a witness who, by his own legal team's admission, was likely not there.
Moreno's attorney, Andrew Zashin, moved fast once the admission arrived. On Monday, Zashin demanded that Miller's legal team drop or amend the protection-order request. When that apparently produced no resolution, Zashin filed a motion on Wednesday seeking sanctions against Miller's lawyers and an award of attorney fees to Moreno.
Zashin did not mince words about what he sees as the congressman's strategy. He told the Post:
"Max Miller is trying to weaponize the law to avoid having his parenting rights reduced or terminated. He believes the best defense is a good offense. Max Miller will fail."
Zashin also characterized the entire domestic violence filing as a tactical maneuver, calling Miller's "civil domestic violence claims meritless and only designed to use as leverage against his ex-wife in their contested custody case." Whether that characterization holds up in court remains to be seen, but the fabricated witness claim gives Zashin a powerful piece of evidence for his argument.
Conservatives rightly hold their own to the same standards they demand of others. Court findings involving Republican figures and allegations of abuse are not matters the right can afford to sweep aside if it wants to maintain credibility on law and order.
Miller's attorney, Adam Brown, has tried to redirect attention to the surveillance footage itself. Brown told the Post that the videos were "from immediately after the congressman allegedly abused Ms. Moreno" and called Moreno "a liar."
Brown offered a detailed reading of what the footage purportedly shows:
"You can see from this video that Ms. Moreno was under no distress whatsoever; she was in an uplifted mood, telling their child to 'say bye' and that the congressman is nothing but a loving father saying 'I love you' to both his daughter and his ex-wife on their way out of the door."
The Post reported it reviewed some of the footage cited by Miller and his lawyers. Miller himself described Moreno in his notarized statement as being "in a good mood and showing no signs of having been the victim of any domestic violence."
But even if the video supports Miller's version of events regarding the exchange itself, that does not resolve the separate problem: his sworn testimony placed a witness inside the home who, his own attorneys now concede, was likely not there. A notarized statement is not a casual remark. It carries legal weight. And affirming that statement under questioning at a court hearing compounds the issue.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle face scrutiny when their conduct in legal proceedings falls short of the standards they set in public life. Political scandals involving sitting members of Congress have a long and bipartisan history, and voters tend to remember when elected officials play fast and loose with the truth under oath.
Miller and Emily Moreno married in 2022 at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey. They split in 2024. Miller agreed to pay $2,500 in monthly child support. The couple's daughter is now 2 years old.
The family connection to Sen. Bernie Moreno adds a layer of political complexity. Both Miller and the elder Moreno are Ohio Republicans, and the domestic dispute between Miller and the senator's daughter has the potential to create friction within the state's GOP delegation. No direct statements from Sen. Moreno appear in the reporting.
Miller, for his part, responded to the Post's inquiries with visible frustration. He said, "This is truly exhausting," and added: "I just want what's best for my daughter. Please stop giving my previously diagnosed bipolar ex-wife so much attention. You all need to move on."
That statement raises its own questions. Publicly disclosing an ex-spouse's mental health diagnosis in the middle of contested litigation is a choice, one that may play well on social media but could complicate his position before a judge who is weighing credibility and conduct.
Several questions hang over this case. What court is handling the protection-order matter? What exactly did J.A. tell DCFS and the private investigator, and do those statements match or contradict Miller's notarized account? Did Miller know his girlfriend was not present when he signed the Feb. 27 statement and affirmed it at the hearing, or did he learn the truth later? His attorneys' email says "we learned" the girlfriend was not likely present, but it does not say when Miller himself knew.
The distinction matters. If Miller knowingly submitted false sworn testimony, the legal consequences could extend well beyond a sanctions motion. If his attorneys submitted the statement in good faith based on what Miller told them, the accountability falls squarely on the congressman.
House Republicans have pressed hard for accountability from federal agencies and officials in recent months. That standard cannot apply only to political opponents. When a Republican congressman submits a notarized statement to a court, affirms it under questioning, and then has his own lawyers walk it back, the credibility damage is self-inflicted.
The broader Republican conference in the House has enough on its plate without members generating courtroom controversies rooted in fabricated testimony. GOP leaders have been fighting to hold others accountable for obstruction and dishonesty in legal and congressional proceedings. That mission loses force when one of their own is caught doing the same thing in a family court.
None of this resolves the underlying question of what happened during the Feb. 1 custody exchange. Moreno's allegations against Miller remain allegations. Miller's denials remain denials. The video footage may or may not clarify the truth. A court will eventually sort through the competing claims.
But the fabricated witness testimony is not a he-said, she-said dispute. Miller's own attorneys confirmed it. A notarized statement was submitted. A question was answered under oath. And the claim turned out to be false. That is not a gray area.
Conservatives who believe in the rule of law and the integrity of sworn testimony do not get to look the other way when the person making false statements has an R next to his name. The standard is the standard, or it means nothing at all.
