The Billables Strike Back

● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

My dear litigation warfare diary, today is December 02, 2025. The weather is cloudy. The dinosaurs were here last night. They filed a motion—a "protective order" at Case 178, Dockets 97 and 98. And what a motion it is.

Yesterday morning at 7:24 AM, I committed the unforgivable sin: I asked my City Council to look at how much money they're paying their lawyers. A simple public records request. Billing invoices from Currie Johnson Griffin & Myers, P.A. since January 2025. Nothing exotic. Just: where is the taxpayer money going?

Nine hours later—at 4:49 PM—those same lawyers filed a federal motion asking a judge to stop me from emailing City Council.

The Numbers

Let me give you the precise data, dear diary:

What They Want Prohibited: My emails to elected officials. My website (yes, this one). My videos. My public records requests.

What They Used: Rule 26(c)—a discovery rule—to silence political speech before any discovery has occurred.

What They Avoided: Rule 65, which would require them to prove irreparable harm and face constitutional scrutiny from Judge Guirola.

The Video That Broke the Dinosaurs

The undersigned sent a few AI-generated satirical videos to defendants. These videos are protected speech under the First Amendment—Hustler Magazine v. Falwell established decades ago that political satire of public officials is constitutionally protected, even when "calculated to injure the feelings of the subject."

I guess they were not big fans.

In their federal court filing—Dockets 97 and 98—they described one video in remarkable detail. The video depicts a satirical representation of what Jerry Creel admitted under oath at the November 7, 2025 Board of Adjustments and Appeals hearing: that he was "directed" by Peter Abide.

Directed. His word, not mine. On the record. Under oath.

The satirical video simply visualizes this relationship. Two public officials. One directing the other. The undersigned used AI to create a satirical depiction of this admitted dynamic. They're kissing. It's satire. It's protected speech. It's exactly what Hustler says the government cannot prohibit.

The Corruption Laid Bare

Here's what the lawyers don't want you to understand: Rule 26(c) governs protection from discovery abuse. It applies to information obtained through discovery—depositions, interrogatories, document requests. The Supreme Court said so explicitly in Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984).

But there's no Rule 26(f) conference. No discovery requests served. No discovery materials to protect. The case is still in the pleading stage. Defendants haven't even responded to the amended complaints.

What they want is a gag order. On my website. On my emails to my elected representatives. On my satirical AI videos. On my public records requests.

That's Rule 65 territory, which would require them to face Judge Guirola and prove irreparable harm under full constitutional scrutiny.

So they forum-shopped to the Magistrate Judge under the guise of discovery management.

Clever. Corrupt. Predictable.

The Inspection They Cannot Admit

On November 18, 2025, Inspector Robert came to 1606 Beach Boulevard. He inspected the deck, the foundation, the structure. He found nothing wrong. Zero violations.

Mr. Cruthirds promised the report by November 24. Missed.

Promised again by phone on November 26. Missed.

Today is December 2. Still nothing.

Why?

Because a report saying "zero violations" destroys five months of litigation. It proves the criminal prosecution was baseless. It proves the armed police deployment was unjustified. It proves every dollar of the $220,000+ in legal fees was wasted defending the indefensible.

So instead of releasing the report, they filed a motion to silence me.

Meanwhile, in Case 254

Today, David Machado—Professional Engineer, partner at Machado Patano Engineering, member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals who voted to uphold Jerry Creel's enforcement actions—received his copy of the proposed amended complaint in Case 254.

Here's the due process problem they don't want you to understand:

The Board of Adjustments and Appeals exists to provide independent review of the Building Official's decisions. It's supposed to be a check on Jerry Creel. But Jerry Creel is the Secretary of that same Board. And all Board members—including Machado—are appointed by the Mayor.

The same Mayor who, according to Creel's own sworn testimony on November 7, 2025, "directed" the enforcement actions against the undersigned. Along with Peter Abide.

Due process? It's certainly due. We just haven't received any yet.

The Retaliation Is Real

Let me give you the current status:

• 7 days since Zachary Cruthirds last responded to any communication.
• 14 days since Inspector Robert found zero violations at 1606 Beach Boulevard.
• 0 reports delivered despite multiple promises.

The silence is deafening. And it's intentional.

Meanwhile, our friends at Biloxi Politics Uncensored just published something interesting: residents are currently occupying homes in the Hawk Creek Subdivision by Meritage Homes near Eagle Point—despite these homes not meeting minimum occupancy standards. The documentation filed with Harrison County states "sidewalks will be installed for every lot prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit." It also states "No certificate of occupancy will be issued for any lot for which a sidewalk has not been installed."

Yet the City of Biloxi issued Certificates of Occupancy for these homes anyway. No sidewalks. No problem.

The undersigned texted Jerry Creel directly: why do these people get Certificates of Occupancy without fulfilling requirements, while I've been denied mine for six months with three Professional Engineers certifying compliance?

No answer from our beloved Building Official.

The Federal Crimes

For those keeping score at home:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (Honest Services Fraud): Public officials who deprive citizens of their right to honest services through a scheme involving bribery, kickbacks, or self-dealing.
• 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Two or more persons conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise of any constitutional right. Punishable by up to ten years imprisonment.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Use of interstate wires to execute a scheme to defraud.

When lawyers file motions designed to silence citizens who ask where their tax dollars are going, when they use discovery rules to seek injunctive relief, when they coordinate with municipal officials to obstruct public records—those aren't just ethical violations. Those are federal crimes.

A Quick Education: What Are RICO Predicate Acts?

You've heard of RICO. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The law they use to take down the mob.

Here's how it works in plain English:

RICO doesn't require you to prove one big crime. It requires you to prove a pattern of criminal activity—at least two "predicate acts" within ten years. Think of predicate acts as building blocks. Each one is a crime by itself. Stack enough of them together in a pattern, and you've got a RICO enterprise.

What counts as a predicate act? The law lists dozens, but here are the ones relevant to Biloxi:

• Mail Fraud / Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343): Using mail or electronic communications to execute a scheme to defraud. Every email Currie Johnson sends billing the City for defending manufactured violations? Potentially a predicate act.
• Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346): Public officials depriving citizens of their right to honest services. When Jerry Creel uses his five hats to create violations, then the City pays lawyers to defend him, that's not public service. That's self-service at public expense.
• Extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951): Obtaining property through threats or fear. "Pay for permits you don't need or we'll condemn your house." Sound familiar?
• Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503): Interfering with judicial proceedings. Filing motions to silence witnesses. Hiding inspection reports.
• Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512): Intimidating witnesses or obstructing official proceedings. When defense counsel surveils a plaintiff's home before hearings, that's not legal strategy. That's intimidation.

Now here's the key: you don't need to prove all of these. You need to prove two within ten years, committed by persons associated with an "enterprise" (the City, the law firms, the Building Department), affecting interstate commerce.

Two predicate acts. Ten years. A pattern.

How many predicate acts do you count in this article alone?

The Judge They're Playing Games With

Here's what the defendants' lawyers either forgot—or know all too well and are desperately trying to avoid: Judge Louis Guirola Jr. isn't just a district court judge.

Chief Justice John Roberts personally appointed him to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2019. Only eleven federal judges in the entire country serve on FISA at any time. These are the judges who approve surveillance warrants for national security investigations against suspected foreign agents and terrorists. They have the highest security clearances in the federal judiciary. You don't get appointed to FISA unless you're procedurally impeccable.

He also sits on the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.

Judge Guirola served as Chief Judge of the Southern District from 2010 to 2017. The American Bar Association rated him Unanimously Well Qualified. He was one of the first district judges in America to apply the Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling that overturned forty years of Chevron deference, issuing a nationwide injunction blocking HHS just two days before their rule took effect.

And now Currie Johnson files a Rule 26(c) motion seeking injunctive relief before discovery exists, forum-shopping to the Magistrate to avoid the District Judge's constitutional scrutiny?

That's exactly the kind of procedural gamesmanship that a FISA Court judge—trained to spot manipulation in the most sensitive proceedings in America—will recognize instantly.

This is a judge who issued a nationwide injunction blocking the President of the United States. He overruled the executive branch of the federal government when the law demanded it.

Good luck convincing him that Biloxi's lawyers deserve to censor a citizen's political speech.

What Happens Next

The opposition is filed. Seattle Times shuts this down cold. Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart establishes that prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." Hustler Magazine v. Falwell protects political satire of public figures even when "calculated to injure the feelings of the subject."

They have failed to obtain through criminal prosecution what they now seek through civil process. They have failed to demonstrate any basis for relief under Rule 65, so they invoke Rule 26. They have surveilled me while complaining of my emails. They ask the Court to strip a taxpaying citizen of his constitutional rights while they continue to deny him the certificate of occupancy at the heart of this dispute.

Let them try.

Transparency & Right to Rebuttal

Before publication, emails were sent to the following parties inviting them to rebut any fact contained in this article:

• Jerry Creel — Building Official / Director of Community Development / Code Enforcement Director / Permit Official / Zoning Administrator
• Peter Abide — City Attorney, Currie Johnson & Myers, P.A.
• Michael Whitehead — Page Mannino Peresich & McDermott, PLLC
• J. Henry Ross — Currie Johnson & Myers, P.A.
• Zachary Cruthirds — Currie Johnson & Myers, P.A.
• Mayor Andrew Gilich
• City Council, City of Biloxi

Unlike Mr. Creel—who files criminal charges without warning, conducts inspections without consent, and issues stop work orders without stating reasons—we believe in due process. We believe people should have the opportunity to respond before accusations become public record.

As of publication, we have received no response.

The offer remains open. Silence is also a response. The record will reflect it.

Entry filed: December 02, 2025

Cases: 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM, et al.

Status: Opposition filed. Website updated. Venom dosage ongoing.