● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com
My Dear Litigation War Diary
My dear litigation war diary,
The day is December 26, 2025. It is Thursday. It is cold outside—cold just like the due process provided by Judge Apryl Ready.
And here we stand. Another day, another discovery. Another municipal official who thought she could dress up a constitutional violation in a judge's robe and nobody would notice.
April First is the day of lies. The day when fools say things that aren't true and expect you to laugh.
But Apryl Ready—the Municipal Court Judge of Biloxi—lies on other days too. Like July 25, 2025. And nobody is laughing.
Let's talk about what happened. And why Judge Ready has no immunity for what she did.
The July 25 Order: An Arraignment Dressed as a Hearing
On July 25, 2025, the undersigned appeared before Municipal Court Judge Apryl Ready for what was supposed to be a routine criminal arraignment on building code charges.
An arraignment is simple. You appear. The charges are read. You enter a plea. You get a trial date. That's it.
No evidence is presented at an arraignment. No witnesses are called. No arguments are made. It's purely procedural—the opening formality of a criminal case.
But Judge Ready had other plans.
At this arraignment—this purely procedural appearance where no evidence is considered—Judge Ready issued a Cease and Desist Order against the undersigned's property.
Not a criminal disposition. Not a sentence. A civil administrative order affecting property rights.
Issued at a criminal arraignment.
With zero notice.
With zero evidence.
With zero hearing.
"Until then, you are still under the Cease and Desist Order issued by Judge Ready."
There it is. In Creel's own words. The order exists. The order was enforced. And it was issued at an arraignment.
The First Lie: Calling It a "Hearing"
Here's where it gets interesting.
In the written order, Judge Ready called the arraignment a "hearing."
This is a lie. A deliberate misrepresentation of the proceeding's nature. A false record designed to create the appearance that due process occurred when it didn't.
An arraignment is not a hearing. Any first-year law student knows this. Any judge knows this. Judge Apryl Ready knows this.
The Distinction Matters:
- Arraignment: Procedural. Charges read. Plea entered. No evidence.
- Hearing: Evidentiary. Witnesses called. Arguments made. Evidence considered.
You cannot deprive someone of property rights at an arraignment because no evidence is considered. There is nothing to base a decision on except the bare accusations.
By calling it a "hearing," Judge Ready created a false paper trail. If anyone ever questioned the order, she could point to her own documentation and say: "See? There was a hearing."
Except there wasn't. She knows there wasn't. The transcript shows there wasn't.
That's consciousness of guilt. That's a judge who knows she violated due process and is preemptively creating cover.
The Second Lie: "Due Process at Trial"
Judge Ready promised the undersigned would receive "due process at trial."
This is the second lie. Here's why.
The Supreme Court has been crystal clear: due process requires a hearing BEFORE deprivation, not after.
"It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner."
Promising "due process at trial" while issuing immediate deprivation ORDER NOW is like promising to pay for dinner after you've already eaten and run.
Only vacating the order would "wipe the slate clean." A future trial doesn't cure the violation that already occurred.
Judge Ready didn't vacate the order. She enforced it immediately. The deprivation happened July 25, 2025. Any "due process at trial" would come months or years later—if ever.
That's not meaningful. That's a formality designed to fail.
Ultra Vires: No Jurisdiction Over Building Matters
But here's the nuclear problem for Judge Ready:
Municipal Court has no jurisdiction over building enforcement matters.
Period. Full stop. End of analysis.
Mississippi Municipal Courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction. They handle:
- Traffic offenses
- Misdemeanor crimes
- City ordinance violations (criminal prosecutions)
They do NOT handle:
- Building permits
- Stop work orders
- Administrative enforcement
- Civil property matters
A cease and desist order is an administrative enforcement mechanism, governed by Biloxi Code § 23-2-4, issued by Building Officials—not judges.
When Judge Ready issued a cease and desist order, she acted completely outside her jurisdiction. This is what lawyers call ultra vires—Latin for "beyond the powers."
Ultra Vires Comparison:
A municipal court judge issuing building enforcement orders is like:
- A probate judge conducting a criminal trial
- A traffic court judge ruling on a divorce
- A bankruptcy judge issuing a search warrant
Complete absence of subject matter jurisdiction.
Stump v. Sparkman: Why Ready Has No Immunity
Normally, judges enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits for their judicial acts. This is important—judges need to make difficult decisions without fear of personal liability.
But judicial immunity has limits.
In Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), the Supreme Court identified two exceptions:
- Non-judicial acts
- Clear absence of all jurisdiction
"A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the CLEAR ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTION over the subject-matter."
Judge Ready didn't merely exceed her jurisdiction. She acted in the complete absence of any jurisdiction over building enforcement matters.
Municipal court judges don't issue building orders. They never have. They never can. There is no statute, ordinance, or legal authority that gives them this power.
Therefore, under Stump v. Sparkman, Judge Ready has ZERO judicial immunity for the July 25 cease and desist order.
She can be sued personally. She can be held liable. The robe doesn't protect her.
The Structural Capture: Abide Controls Ready's Pay
Now let's talk about why Judge Ready might have been willing to issue an illegal order benefiting the City's interests.
Follow the money.
Biloxi City Resolution 635-19:
Judge Ready's compensation: $140/hour
Payment: "payable upon presentation of Invoice subject to approval by the Director of the Legal Department"
The Director of the Legal Department is PETE ABIDE.
Peter Abide—the City Attorney, the man who has been sued by the undersigned, the defendant in three federal civil rights cases—controls whether Judge Apryl Ready gets paid.
THE CHAIN OF CONTROL:
PETE ABIDE (Director of Legal)
↓ approves invoices
JUDGE APRYL READY (receives $140/hour)
↓ presides over
CASES WHERE ABIDE IS DEFENDANT/INTERESTED PARTY
This is textbook structural bias. The judge's paycheck depends on keeping the defendant happy.
Caliste v. Cantrell: The 5th Circuit Standard
In Caliste v. Cantrell, 937 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2019), the Fifth Circuit held that a bail magistrate who received 20-25% of his income from bail fees had an unconstitutional financial interest in setting high bail.
The court applied the Supreme Court's Tumey v. Ohio standard: would an "average man as judge" be tempted by the financial arrangement?
Judge Ready's situation is four to five times worse than the arrangement the Fifth Circuit found unconstitutional in Caliste.
In Caliste, 20-25% dependence was enough. Here, Ready receives 100% of her judicial compensation from the City, with payment approval controlled by Abide—a defendant.
The vice inheres in the system. It is fatal.
Due Process Scorecard: 0 for 11
Let's run through what the Constitution requires versus what Judge Ready provided.
Loudermill Requirements (0/4)
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985):
| Requirement | Ready Provided? |
|---|---|
| Notice of charges | ❌ NONE before order |
| Explanation of evidence | ❌ NONE |
| Opportunity to respond | ❌ "No evidence at arraignment" |
| Hearing BEFORE deprivation | ❌ Order issued AT arraignment |
LOUDERMILL SCORE: 0/4
Goldberg Requirements (0/7)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970):
| Element | Ready Provided? |
|---|---|
| Timely adequate notice | ❌ |
| Confront witnesses | ❌ |
| Present evidence | ❌ |
| Retain counsel | ❌ |
| Impartial decisionmaker | ❌ (Abide controls pay) |
| Decision on record | ❌ |
| Statement of reasons | ❌ |
GOLDBERG SCORE: 0/7
TOTAL DUE PROCESS SCORE: 0/11
A perfect score—of failure.
The Order Is Void Ab Initio
Under Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886):
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
The July 25 cease and desist order is void ab initio—void from the beginning. It has no legal effect. It never had any legal effect.
Judge Ready had no authority to issue it. Municipal court has no jurisdiction over building enforcement. The order was ultra vires the moment she signed it.
Yet Jerry Creel enforced it anyway. "You are still under the Cease and Desist Order issued by Judge Ready."
Enforcing a void order. Against a federal litigant. During active civil rights litigation.
Consciousness of guilt, thy name is Biloxi.
The Dual Role Problem
Here's something else worth noting: Judge Apryl Ready isn't just a municipal judge. She also runs a private law practice.
The Ready Law Firm, PLLC
- 232 Debuys Rd, Biloxi, MS 39531
- (228) 435-2500
- Personal injury plaintiff practice
- Active since 2007
So we have a part-time contract judge ($140/hour, approved by Abide) who also operates a private law practice in the same city where she serves as judge.
Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 149 says part-time judges cannot practice in their own court. Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, requires avoiding "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."
Does issuing illegal civil orders at criminal arraignments—when your paycheck is controlled by a defendant—constitute an appearance of impropriety?
The undersigned thinks so.
Dennis v. Sparks: Conspiracy Liability
Even if Judge Ready had immunity—which she doesn't—her co-conspirators would not.
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980):
"Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting 'under color' of law for purposes of § 1983 actions."
"There is no good reason in law, logic, or policy for conferring immunity on private persons who persuaded the immune judge to exercise his jurisdiction corruptly."
The conspiracy chain:
ABIDE (Director of Legal) ← controls Ready's pay
↓
CREEL (Building Official) ← submits affidavits
↓
READY (Municipal Judge) ← issues illegal C&D
↓
HARENSKI (Prosecutor) ← reports to Abide
Under Dennis v. Sparks, even if Ready had immunity, Abide, Creel, and Harenski would remain liable for conspiring with her.
They don't get to hide behind her robe.
The Pattern
This wasn't an isolated mistake. It was part of a coordinated campaign:
- June 6, 2025: Federal lawsuit filed against City of Biloxi
- June 30, 2025: Stop work order issued (24 days after lawsuit)
- July 10, 2025: Criminal charges filed (summons before affidavit)
- July 25, 2025: Judge Ready issues illegal cease and desist at arraignment
- August 8, 2025: Conference at Creel's office—Building Department, not court
The pattern shows retaliation. The pattern shows coordination. The pattern shows a system designed to punish a federal litigant using every tool available—including a captured municipal judge willing to issue orders beyond her jurisdiction.
What This Means
Judge Apryl Ready:
- Issued an ILLEGAL cease and desist order at arraignment
- Has NO IMMUNITY—acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction
- Is structurally captured—paid by City, invoices approved by defendant Abide
- Violated due process—0/4 Loudermill, 0/7 Goldberg
- Is subject to conspiracy liability—Dennis v. Sparks applies
- Created a false record—calling arraignment a "hearing"
THE ORDER IS VOID AB INITIO.
READY CAN BE SUED PERSONALLY AND OFFICIALLY.
The Question
Citizens of Biloxi:
Did you know your Municipal Court Judge's paycheck is approved by the City Attorney?
Did you know she can issue orders affecting your property rights at an arraignment—with no evidence, no notice, no hearing?
Did you know she calls these arraignments "hearings" in the official record—creating false documentation that due process occurred?
Now you do.
April First is the day of lies. But Apryl Ready lies on other days too.
The undersigned is a patient teacher. And class is in session.
Rise and shine, Judge Ready.
Legal Disclaimer: This article documents public proceedings, public records, and constitutional analysis. All facts are derived from court documents, city resolutions, email records, and published legal authority. Public officials acting in their official capacity are proper subjects of public commentary.
The undersigned is represented by himself in federal civil rights litigation: Case 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM, Case 1:25-cv-00233-LG-RPM, and Case 1:25-cv-00254-LG-RPM, Southern District of Mississippi.
Related Investigations
Documents Referenced
- Biloxi City Resolution 635-19 — Judge Ready compensation ($140/hour, approved by Director of Legal Department)
- Biloxi City Resolution 07-01-25 — Abide reappointment as City Attorney
- Jerry Creel Email — "You are still under the Cease and Desist Order issued by Judge Ready"
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) — Judicial immunity and "clear absence of all jurisdiction"
- Caliste v. Cantrell, 937 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2019) — Financial bias and due process
- Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) — Pre-deprivation hearing requirements
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) — Due process elements
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) — "Meaningful time and manner"
- Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) — Ultra vires acts are void
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) — Conspiracy liability under § 1983
- Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) — Financial interest and judicial disqualification
Have Information?
If you have information about municipal corruption in Biloxi or have experienced similar treatment, we want to hear from you.
All communications are confidential.