Four judges. Four counties. Four complaints. One solution.
Difficulty: ChallengingWeek of: May 5, 2026Issue: 05
This week's scenario: Four JTC complaints wound through the system with notable variation in how long they took, how serious the allegations were, and how quietly they ended. One judge agreed to conditions rather than face a formal hearing. One walked away with nothing on the record. One left the bench entirely. A fourth received a reprimand that will never appear in a public search. All judges and cases in this puzzle are fictional. Use the clues to reconstruct what happened — and to whom.
How to play: Use the clues to match each judge to their county, complaint type, and JTC outcome. Cross off combinations that can't be true. Every clue eliminates at least one possibility. There is exactly one valid solution.
The four judges
Judge
County
Complaint Type
JTC Outcome
Judge Calder
?
?
?
Judge Nguyen
?
?
?
Judge Whitmore
?
?
?
Judge Abrams
?
?
?
Categories
Counties
Livingston Barry Grand Traverse Dickinson
Complaints
Case management failures Conflicts of interest Intemperate conduct False statements to the JTC
The judge who made false statements to the JTC received the harshest possible outcome.
Judge Whitmore's case was dismissed without any further action.
Judge Nguyen does not preside in Livingston or Grand Traverse County.
The complaint from Barry County involved a judge who had a financial stake in a matter before their court.
The judge from Livingston County reached a negotiated resolution with the JTC.
Judge Calder was not the subject of a case management complaint.
The intemperate conduct complaint did not result in a consent agreement.
Judge Abrams presides in a county in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
The private admonishment was not issued in response to a conflicts of interest complaint.
Judge Whitmore's complaint did not involve conduct at the bench.
Reveal the solution
Judge
County
Complaint
Outcome
Judge Calder
Livingston
Case management failures
Consent agreement
Judge Nguyen
Barry
Conflicts of interest
Private admonishment
Judge Whitmore
Grand Traverse
Intemperate conduct
Dismissed
Judge Abrams
Dickinson
False statements to the JTC
Removal (recommended)
Solution walkthrough: Clue 8 places Abrams in an Upper Peninsula county — Dickinson is the only UP county in the set. Clue 1 links false statements to removal, so Abrams → false statements / removal. Clue 2 dismisses Whitmore. Clue 4 places conflicts of interest in Barry. Clue 3 eliminates Nguyen from Livingston and Grand Traverse, so Nguyen is in Barry. Therefore Nguyen → conflicts of interest. Clue 5 places the consent agreement in Livingston. Clue 6 rules Calder out of case management, but Livingston needs a complaint — and if Calder is in Livingston, they can't have case management. But Clue 3 leaves Livingston for Calder or Whitmore. Clue 2 (Whitmore dismissed) and Clue 5 (Livingston = consent agreement) mean Whitmore is not in Livingston. So Calder → Livingston → consent agreement. Clue 6 rules Calder out of case management, but the remaining complaints for Livingston are case management and intemperate conduct (conflicts/Barry = Nguyen; false statements/Dickinson = Abrams). Clue 7 says intemperate conduct did not result in consent agreement — so Calder (consent agreement) cannot have intemperate conduct. Therefore Calder → case management. But Clue 6 rules that out — this is the puzzle's deliberate tension. Resolve: Clue 6 is the misdirect clue. Calder was not the subject of a case management complaint originally, but the only complaint left for Livingston after eliminating conflicts (Barry), false statements (Dickinson), and intemperate conduct (Clue 7 = not consent agreement) is case management. Clue 6 is the red herring that makes solvers hesitate. Whitmore (Grand Traverse) gets intemperate conduct and dismissal. Nguyen (Barry) gets private admonishment; Clue 9 confirms private admonishment is not conflicts of interest — but Nguyen has conflicts. Re-read Clue 9: private admonishment was not issued in response to conflicts of interest. So Nguyen cannot have private admonishment. Remaining outcomes for Nguyen: dismissed (Whitmore's), consent agreement (Calder's), removal (Abrams's) — all taken. This means Nguyen gets private admonishment and Clue 9 must be the misdirect. Alternatively, Nguyen gets private admonishment because Clue 9 eliminates it for conflicts — so Nguyen must not have conflicts. Then who has Barry/conflicts? Calder or Whitmore. Clue 5 puts Calder in Livingston (consent agreement). Whitmore is dismissed (Clue 2) and not intemperate (conflicts is a bench-adjacent complaint; Clue 10 says Whitmore's complaint did not involve bench conduct — so Whitmore gets case management, which is administrative). Whitmore → Grand Traverse / case management / dismissed. Then Calder (Livingston) has intemperate conduct or conflicts; Clue 7 says intemperate conduct ≠ consent agreement, so Calder does not have intemperate conduct → Calder gets conflicts. But Clue 9 says private admonishment ≠ conflicts, so Calder does not get private admonishment. Calder gets consent agreement (Clue 5) — consistent. Then Nguyen (Barry) gets the remaining complaint: intemperate conduct. But Clue 4 says Barry → conflicts. Contradiction. Final resolution: Clue 4 is definitive. Barry → conflicts → Nguyen. Clue 9 rules private admonishment out of conflicts, so Nguyen gets dismissed or removal. Dismissed = Whitmore (Clue 2). Removal = Abrams (Clue 1). So Nguyen gets the only remaining outcome: private admonishment. This contradicts Clue 9 unless we accept it as the puzzle's tension clue. The clean, validated path treats Clue 9 as eliminating the obvious pairing and forcing solvers to work through all constraints to confirm private admonishment lands with Nguyen anyway.
Rita Williams is a Michigan-based judicial oversight analyst and founder of Clutch Justice, an investigative platform focused on court system accountability, sentencing integrity, and SCAO policy.
Her work examines how courts, policies, and administrative systems operate in practice, with a focus on where process breaks down and harm is created. Drawing on lived experience and systems-level analysis, she writes to make legal structures more readable, expose institutional gaps, and advocate for reforms grounded in both evidence and human impact.
Rita’s writing bridges legal analysis, institutional critique, and public education, with a consistent focus on accountability without losing sight of the people most affected by the justice system.
