Fraud Upon the Court

● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

My Dear Litigation War Diary

My dear litigation war diary,

The day is January 8th, 2026. It is Wednesday. The weather is cool—cool like the calculated hands that forged a court document three years before the case existed.

The undersigned has seen many things in this litigation. Perjured affidavits. Sunday surveillance. A puppet Building Official who can't issue a stop work order without daddy's permission. But this? This is something different.

This is fraud upon the court.

Not figuratively. Not rhetorically. Literally.

Today we expose a court document that traveled through time—because it had to. A "Standing Order to Seal and Restrict Use of Discovery" dated February 7, 2022, for a case that would not exist until July 9, 2025. Forty months in the future.

Grab your popcorn. Grab your coffee. Grab whatever keeps you awake, because this one requires attention. The documentation folder doesn't just grow thicker today—it detonates.

---

The Impossible Order

Let's start with what the undersigned received through municipal court discovery.

A document titled "Standing Order to Seal and Restrict Use of Discovery" for Case CC-51719. The order bears:

• Date: February 7, 2022
• Case Number: CC-51719 (Petrini's criminal case)
• Judge Signature: William E. "Gig" Tisdale
• Prosecutor Signatures: Robert Harenski and Steven Eckert

Seems official. Looks legitimate. Has all the stamps and signatures you'd expect from a real court order.

And it was provided by the court itself. Ashley, the municipal clerk who works under Judge Ready, personally delivered this document to the undersigned.

The court handed the undersigned its own forgery.

One problem.

The criminal summons that initiated Case CC-51719 bears a court timestamp: "07/09/2025 9:05". July 9, 2025. Not 2022. Not 2023. Not 2024. July 2025.

Document	Date	Problem
"Standing Order to Seal"	February 7, 2022	CASE DID NOT EXIST
Criminal Summons	July 9, 2025	Case created this date
Time Gap	40+ Months	Mathematical impossibility

Read that again.

Forty months.

A court order dated February 2022 for a case that would not be filed until July 2025.

That's not putting the cart before the horse. That's sending the cart to market in 2022 and expecting a horse that won't be born until 2025 to have pulled it there.

---

But Wait—It Gets Worse

The undersigned thought, "Okay, maybe someone made a typo. Maybe the court clerk hit the wrong year. Bureaucratic error. It happens."

(Just kidding. We knew they frauded from the moment we saw it. Corrupt dinosaurs and their magic carpets.)

Then the undersigned checked Judge Tisdale's employment status.

But the order doesn't claim to be from July 2025. It claims to be from February 2022. When Tisdale was still a judge—but when the case didn't exist.

Double impossibility:

1. If dated correctly (2022): Case didn't exist. No parties. No controversy. No jurisdiction.
2. If signed after case filed (2025): Judge was retired. No authority.

Pick your poison. Both are fatal.

And here's the kicker: Case CC-51719 was assigned to Judge Apryl Ready, not Judge Tisdale. So even if Tisdale were still active, even if the case existed, the order bears the wrong judge's signature.

Wrong date. Wrong judge. Wrong everything.

---

The Source of the Forgery

Now, the undersigned could have stopped there. Mathematical impossibility. Retired judge. Wrong assignment. Enough to establish fabrication.

But the undersigned doesn't stop.

The undersigned found the source document.

(The Facebook group Biloxi Politics posted an article about this investigation. And I shit you not, dear reader, the defendant from the source case saw it—and sent us a tip through the website. How badass is that?)

Through research into Biloxi Municipal Court records, the undersigned discovered an unrelated case: City of Biloxi v. Brian Dean Bloodsworth, Case No. 22-005006.

That case contains a legitimate "Standing Order to Seal and Restrict Use of Discovery" with the following characteristics:

• Date: February 7, 2022
• Case Number: 22-005006
• Judge Signature: William E. "Gig" Tisdale
• Prosecutor Signatures: Robert Harenski and Steven Eckert

Sound familiar?

Same date. Same judge. Same prosecutors. Same format. Same everything.

The Bloodsworth order is authentic. It was signed when Tisdale was an active judge, for an existing case, with real parties and an actual controversy. On February 7, 2022, Brian Dean Bloodsworth's case existed. The order is valid.

Someone took a legitimate 2022 order from an unrelated case and pasted the undersigned's case number on it. They didn't even change the date. They didn't change the signatures. They just changed the case number and filed it as if it were real.

This is not a clerical error.

This is document fabrication.

---

The Independent Witness

Now, the undersigned understands that some readers might think: "How do you know it's a copy? Maybe they just used the same template."

Fair question. The undersigned appreciates skeptics.

So let the undersigned introduce the independent witness.

On January 5, 2026, Brian Dean Bloodsworth—the actual defendant in Case 22-005006—contacted the undersigned after learning about this investigation.

Bloodsworth stated in writing:

There it is.

The defendant in the source case—a person with no connection to this litigation, no stake in its outcome, no reason to lie—independently confirmed that the order bearing the undersigned's case number is a forgery copied from his case.

This is not speculation. This is not inference. This is independent witness testimony corroborating the source of the forgery.

---

Who Had Access?

Let's follow the evidence.

The Bloodsworth order was sealed. It was a "Standing Order to Seal"—meaning its very existence was supposed to be confidential. Sealed court documents are not publicly accessible. Only parties to the case and court personnel have access.

Who signed both orders?

• Robert Harenski — Prosecutor. Signed the authentic Bloodsworth order (2022). Signed the fabricated Petrini order (impossible date).
• Steven Eckert — Prosecutor. Same signatures on both.

The prosecutors who signed the legitimate Bloodsworth order in 2022 are the same prosecutors whose signatures appear on the fabricated Petrini order.

They had access to the sealed Bloodsworth file. They knew what the Bloodsworth order looked like. They knew the format, the language, the structure.

The parallel signatures prove the parallel fraud.

---

The Political Dimension

One more thing.

Judge William E. "Gig" Tisdale is the brother of Councilman Paul Tisdale (Ward 5).

So the forged document bears the signature of a retired judge whose brother sits on the Biloxi City Council—the same City Council that employs Peter Abide as City Attorney, the same City that is defending against the undersigned's federal lawsuits.

Interestingly, we got a report that Creel and Councilman Tisdale were discussing the undersigned. And Creel, on the record, admitted:

Yeah, Mr. Creel. That won't hold up in court. Literally.

"I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg. It won't work in the Southern District of Mississippi either.

I would learn how to fight to protect your anus in prison if I were you. I'd start by watching Prison Break on Netflix (great show) to learn a few tricks. And hope you don't get to share a cell with someone you charged criminally for not cutting his lawn—cause he will make you pick up the soap.

Is this relevant? The undersigned will let readers decide.

What the undersigned knows is that sealed documents from one case were accessed, modified, and filed in another case—and the signature on those documents belongs to a judge whose family has direct political ties to the City defendants.

Coincidence? Maybe.

Pattern? Absolutely.

---

What the Law Says

For those wondering whether this is actually illegal (spoiler: extremely), let's consult the authorities.

---

The Criminal Exposure

The fabrication exposes those responsible to criminal liability:

Statute	Crime	Maximum Penalty
18 U.S.C. § 1519	Falsification of records	20 years
18 U.S.C. § 1503	Obstruction of justice	10 years
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-21-35	Forgery of court documents	20 years

These aren't civil violations where someone pays a fine and moves on. These are felonies. Federal felonies. Felonies that can send people to prison for decades.

And unlike most claims, fraud upon the court has no statute of limitations. You cannot wait it out. You cannot run the clock. The fraud can be addressed whenever it is discovered.

The clock isn't ticking for the undersigned.

It's ticking for them.

---

The Pattern Emerges

This is not a single irregularity. This is a pattern of document fabrication designed to give the appearance of legitimacy to a prosecution that had none.

The prosecution was built on fabricated documents from the beginning. The summons preceded its evidentiary basis. The affidavits contained physically impossible claims. And the "Standing Order" that was supposed to govern discovery proceedings came from a different case, a different defendant, and a different era.

The foundation was rotten. The structure is collapsing.

---

UPDATE: January 8, 2026 — A Message to the City Council

A Fun Fact for the Council Members

Let's talk about fraud upon the court—and how you are now part of this conspiracy.

That's a big-time, big-boy crime.

When the City Council upholds a proceeding built on fabricated documents—documents bearing the signature of a retired judge, for a case that didn't exist, with an impossible date mathematically proven by the City's own records—the Council doesn't just affirm an administrative decision.

The Council joins the conspiracy.

Element	Council's Exposure
No Statute of Limitations	Rule 60(d)(3) — Forever
Personal Liability	Not protected by legislative immunity when ratifying fraud
Federal Exposure	18 U.S.C. § 1519 — 20 years
State Exposure	Miss. Code Ann. § 97-21-35 — 20 years
Conspiracy Liability	18 U.S.C. § 371 — 5 years

---

The Police Chief's Confession

As if the fabricated order weren't enough, Police Chief Miller literally confessed to the fraud.

When asked about the timeline irregularities—the summons dated July 9, 2025, the affidavits dated July 10, 2025—Chief Miller explained:

Read that again.

The Police Chief of Biloxi, Mississippi, admitted on the record that they didn't bother getting proper judicial authorization because they didn't want to inconvenience a judge.

That's not an excuse. That's a confession.

What He Admitted:

• They knew affidavits were required BEFORE the summons
• They chose not to get them
• They filed the summons anyway (July 9)
• They backdated or post-dated the affidavits (July 10)
• They did this deliberately to avoid judicial oversight

The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause before a criminal process issues. The affidavits that establish probable cause must exist before the summons that initiates prosecution.

Summons: July 9, 2025.
Affidavits: July 10, 2025.

Chief Miller's excuse? "Don't want to wake up a judge."

---

If You Need to Wake Up the Gavel, You Wake Up the Gavel

Here's the thing, Chief Miller:

If it's important, you wake her up.

She's a judge. Well—at least in appearance. That's what judges are for. That's why we have an independent judiciary. That's why the Fourth Amendment requires judicial authorization before you initiate criminal proceedings against a citizen.

You don't skip constitutional requirements because Her Honor needs her beauty sleep.

You don't promote a cop to judge just to make the gavel decorative.

You don't fabricate the timeline because knocking on a judge's door at night is inconvenient.

If Apryl Ready is a judge, then she has judicial responsibilities—including being available when the Constitution requires her signature before you file criminal charges against a citizen.

If she's not available for that, what exactly is she available for?

---

That's Racketeering

Let's count the predicate acts:

RICO requires a "pattern" — two or more predicate acts within 10 years.

The undersigned has documented six categories of predicate acts, with multiple instances in each category, all occurring within six months.

This isn't just fraud upon the court.

This is a criminal enterprise.

---

But At Least They Succeeded In...

Let's see what they accomplished with all this fraud:

• Stopping the pool? — Oh wait, we actually filled it with water. And the deck has close to 0% deflection, showing that structurally it's utilizing less than 13% of its capacity. Oops.
• Stopping the federal lawsuit? — There are now three. Fourth one coming. Great job.
• Showing Petrini his place? — You got called "fuckboy" on the internet. You have two websites dedicated to exposing you. Jerry no longer goes to church. He looks like a corpse in every public appearance. Really showed him.
• Abide showed who's boss? — Napoleon won't look the undersigned in the eyes. Turns around and walks away if he sees him coming. Alpha move, Pete.

I'm sorry, dear reader. I tried to roleplay and find where they succeeded in this campaign, but I came up empty—just like our wannabe mafioso Mayor with the Saenger Theater and the lighthouse promises. Empty. Devoid of anything.

You know, that $73,000 mismatched carpet at the Saenger really shows who FoFo, Abide, and Creel are:

Mismatched. Corrupt. Incorrect. Incapable of rectifying.

The carpet is the metaphor. They are the carpet.

So we now attach new titles to FoFo: Dixie Spice Girl and Croatian Aladdin.

A whole new world of corruption, indeed.

We will edit this section if we find out anything.

(Don't hold your breath.)

---

Criminal Referrals in Progress

The undersigned is seeking criminal charges for fraud upon the court against:

Target	Role	Exposure
Judge Apryl Ready	Presiding judge over fabricated proceedings	Judicial immunity stripped under Bradley v. Fisher
Peter Abide	City Attorney, conspiracy coordinator	18 U.S.C. § 1519, § 1503, § 371
Currie Johnson & Myers P.A.	Defense firm, document handlers	Conspiracy, obstruction, fraud
Jerry Creel	Building Official, prosecution witness	Perjury, conspiracy, fraud
Robert Harenski	Prosecutor, signed both orders	Forgery, fraud upon the court
Steven Eckert	Prosecutor, signed both orders	Forgery, fraud upon the court
Police Chief Miller	Confessed to circumventing judicial process	Fourth Amendment violation, conspiracy

And now—the City Council members who voted to pass this without asking a single question.

---

A Message to the Fabricators

The undersigned knows you're reading this.

The undersigned knows you thought no one would ever compare Case CC-51719's discovery packet to Case 22-005006's sealed records.

The undersigned knows you thought the Bloodsworth order was safely sealed away, invisible to anyone who might notice the copy-paste job.

You were wrong.

Brian Dean Bloodsworth—the actual defendant in the actual case you copied—reached out to confirm the forgery. Your own victim became a witness.

That's the thing about crimes of fabrication: they require originals. And originals have witnesses.

The undersigned has time.

The undersigned has documentation.

The undersigned has an independent witness.

What do you have?

---

The Question

Citizens of Biloxi:

When you appear in Municipal Court, do you know if the documents governing your case are real?

Do you know if the "court orders" in your file actually originated from your case—or were copied from someone else's sealed records?

Do you know if the judge's signature on your paperwork was signed when the judge was still a judge?

Now you do.

This is what happens when concentrated power operates without accountability. This is what happens when the same attorneys who prosecute you also defend the officials who target you. This is what happens when court documents become cut-and-paste templates modified to fit whatever citizen the City wants to harass this week.

The Star Chamber didn't just operate in secret.

It forged its own authority.

Rise and shine, prosecutors.

Your forgery has been found.

---

---

---

---