Justice-Denied · Editorial cartoons
Featured cartoon
Judicial Wheel of Fortune: The Available Choices — Not in My Courtroom
Satire. Dialogue is imagined; the underlying rulings and records are linked below.
Read cartoon text
Panel 1: THE STEVENSON CASE
A dignified gray-haired male plaintiff in a plain suit stands at a contestant podium labeled PLAINTIFF. A tuxedo wooden-gavel host welcomes him beside a real segmented game-show wheel. A stage sign reads MILLER’S COURT.
Plaintiff: So many choices.
Panel 2: SPIN THE WHEEL
Large close-up of the six-wedge wheel, with all six specified method labels clearly readable. A human hand spins the rim; the fixed pointer lands on DISCOVERY LIMITED.
Panel 3: THE FINAL PUZZLE
The plaintiff gestures toward the blank letter-tile board. The smiling wooden-gavel host gestures toward it as well.
Plaintiff: Is a jury one of the prizes?
Panel 4: JUNE 2023
The large letter-tile puzzle now reads CLAIMS on one row, DISMISSED on the next. The host addresses the unimpressed plaintiff.
Gavel host: No, not in my courtroom.
Artwork caption: Imagined game-show dialogue. Sources on the cartoon page.
Behind the cartoon
An elaborate wheel offers different procedural routes through the Stevenson case. Its variety produces the same final puzzle: claims dismissed. The contestant receives the ceremony of choice, followed by a very consistent answer.
Underlying records
- December 15, 2021 order, Doc. 152 — amendment ruling excerpt (PDF)Original pp. 8–10, paragraph 5; excerpt PDF pp. 1–3. Four proposed allegations excluded; the remaining amendment was allowed.
- December 21, 2021 order, Doc. 154 (PDF)Original/PDF p. 12, paragraph 4(a); p. 13, paragraph 7(b); pp. 17–18, paragraph 7. Phone logs acknowledged; common-interest protection applied; three motions to compel denied; warning about further inappropriate requests for privileged or fictional information.
- December 6, 2022 order, Doc. 366 (PDF)Original/PDF pp. 27–32 and 49–54. Joint representation alone does not privilege all conversations; reconsideration denied on privilege, relevance and proportionality grounds. Reopening discovery reserved pending summary judgment, with a Rule 56.04 route identified.
- June 16, 2023 order, Doc. 429 — disposition and scope excerpts (PDF)Selected original p. 1 order and p. 15 pleaded-scope/footnote 2 passages are on excerpt PDF p. 1. Original pp. 25, 32 and 33 dispositions are on excerpt PDF p. 2: defamation, emotional-distress and derivative conspiracy dismissal.
This cartoon compresses separate rulings from December 2021 through June 2023. Doc. 152 struck all four challenged defamation allegations while allowing the remaining amendments, including the civil-conspiracy claim and Ashley Anderson’s unopposed addition as a defendant. Doc. 154 denied plaintiffs’ three motions to compel and warned them that further inappropriate requests for information the court called “privileged or fictional” could result in sanctions, attorney’s fees, or costs. Doc. 366 said that sharing lawyers did not automatically make every conversation privileged, yet left the discovery denials in place. It refused to postpone summary judgment while leaving plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery undecided. Doc. 429 dismissed the complaint on summary judgment, ending the case without trial, and dismissed all other pending motions and requests as moot. The wheel and host’s dialogue are invented satire about the cumulative result.
More record detail
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 56-CV-20-2928. Judge Kevin M. Miller’s December 15, 2021 order, Doc. 152: pp. 8–10, paragraph 5. Four proposed allegations excluded; the remaining amendment was allowed Judge Kevin M. Miller’s December 21, 2021 order, Doc. 154: p. 12, paragraph 4(a); p. 13, paragraph 7(b); pp. 17–18, paragraph 7. Phone logs acknowledged; common-interest protection applied; all three motions to compel denied; warning about further inappropriate requests for privileged or fictional information Judge Kevin M. Miller’s December 6, 2022 order, Doc. 366: pp. 27–32 and pp. 49–54. Joint representation alone does not privilege all conversations; reconsideration denied on privilege, relevance and proportionality grounds. Reopening discovery reserved pending summary judgment, with a Rule 56.04 route identified Judge Kevin M. Miller’s June 16, 2023 order, Doc. 429: p. 1; p. 15 and footnote 2; pp. 25 and 32–33. Pleaded defamation-per-se scope, dismissal of defamation and emotional-distress claims, derivative conspiracy dismissal, and entire complaint dismissed. Remaining requests dismissed as moot
