Friend of the Cartel

● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

My Dear Litigation War Diary,

The day is March 4th, 2026. It is Wednesday. The undersigned has been reading emails again. City of Biloxi Engineering Department emails obtained through a public records request.

But first — yesterday. Yesterday, the undersigned went to the Biloxi City Council meeting. As the whole city already knows — the clip has over 7,000 views — our boy Jarrod got kicked out. Not by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Not by a polite request. By the Mayor himself, screaming from his little throne: "Take him out! Take him out!"

Take him out. Not "please escort the speaker from the chamber." Not "Sergeant-at-Arms, would you remove this gentleman." Take him out. The vocabulary of Mike Gillich at the Golden Nugget. The syntax of the Dixie Mafia. And who did FoFo issue his order to? The police chief — the same police chief the undersigned has been complaining about for illegal police deployments against federal plaintiffs.

Reader, we called FoFo "Dixie Mafia" to his face. He was not happy about it. His response? Did he do what any reasonable person would do and prove us wrong? Did he calmly address the accusation with facts and composure?

Kidding. The Biden of Biloxi got up like someone was stealing his pension and started screaming in his forced mafioso voice — "TAKE HIM OUT! TAKE HIM OUT!" — you cannot make this shit up.

It must be exhausting being these people's lawyers. It's like that goat that keeps jumping back into the hole you just pulled it out of. We call him Dixie Mafia. He responds by issuing a mob-style command to the same law enforcement officer whose department has been retaliating against the undersigned. Counselor, do you need a minute?

It's so bad that every comment on Facebook mentions how they got played — how they lost at their own game, how they got triggered on camera for 7,000 people to watch. These two potatoes, Glavan and FoFo, are very fragile. No wonder FoFo's nickname at the clubs was "Flamboyant."

And Reader, it's been noticed by others — but it's getting pretty obvious. When we call FoFo "Biden," it's not just because he runs a city the same way Biden ran a country. It's because he's deteriorating in the same style. Watch the clip. Watch him get up from that chair. Watch the confusion, the rage, the inability to compose a sentence under pressure. FoFo needs to check if he's still okay. We already know he's not — but you know, check it anyway. For the insurance paperwork if nothing else.

And then there's Kenny Glavan. This little man who sounds like a doofus really thinks he's a big deal for presiding over a city council session. Apparently this has been the high point of his life, and he's living it to the fullest — from humiliating a fellow councilmember the other day to threatening to remove the undersigned from the chamber. To which the undersigned replied: "Why don't you try?"

Unfortunately, he didn't. We were hoping he would. The undersigned has been looking for a reason to add another name to the federal complaint, and Kenny Glavan — presiding over a public meeting like a small-town Bonaparte who just discovered he has a gavel — was about thirty seconds away from giving us one. But he blinked. They always blink.

As for Glavan — "King?" Only if he works at Burger King. The undersigned will bring one of those paper crowns for Glavan at the next city council meeting. He can wear it while he presides. It'll match the authority. And Reader, next time you see Glavan, please ask him for me if he knows how to replicate the Whopper salsa. "King."

Update: Glavan is getting sued. A new lawsuit has been written, and Kenny Glavan has had a copy in his email since this morning. Kenny Glavan thinks he can interrupt us, not allow us to talk, kick Jarrod out, kick the undersigned out, and get away with it? Our boy will have to learn a lesson — just like Creel, just like Peter, just like every other name on this website who thought they were untouchable until they weren't.

It must be hard being Jerry Creel's friend. Every time someone steps in front to take a bullet for the guy, we deliver the bullet — and then some more. The undersigned is running out of sympathy and running out of defendants to add. Just kidding. We never run out of either.

And speaking of the building at Division Street — the one the City won't allow us to get electrical service on, based on the false claim that we are doing "manufacturing" in a building without a roof, because we welded a few pieces of steel for another project — the undersigned has decided to put the building to good use. If we can't work on it, we might as well make it a canvas for our political movement.

The undersigned sent the following email to defense counsel Michael Whitehead this morning:

Reader, the undersigned is putting defense counsel on notice. The moment this goes up, they will try to pull a fast one — another stop-work order, another manufactured charge, another Brooke Vanover notarization. So the undersigned is asking Whitehead directly, on the record, in writing: Does the City of Biloxi have any recourse in stopping the undersigned from putting "FOFO IS A MOFO" on his own building?

Mr. Whitehead — please answer the email. We are reaching out. The paint is drying.

But that was yesterday and this morning. Now, the undersigned has something better than a city council clip and a paint job. The undersigned has invoices.

The email above is where it starts. A city government employee, typing from her government email address, on government time, asking a private construction company to buy her department shrimp. Not for the homeless. Not for a public service. For themselves. For a party at the Golden Nugget Casino.

Reader, you just read the opening line of a federal case.

But not the case you think. Not a small-town ethics complaint. Not a memo to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. This is bigger. Because the company that answered the call — the company that paid for the shrimp, directed the creation of a fake invoice, and deployed a century-old law firm to call it all "minimal" — is a Fortune 500 corporation traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

CenterPoint Energy. Ticker symbol: CNP. Market cap: approximately $20 billion. Subject to SEC reporting requirements, Sarbanes-Oxley internal controls, and FERC regulation of interstate gas transmission.

And they couldn't keep shrimp off their books.

I. The Cartel

The undersigned uses that word deliberately. Not because CenterPoint Energy is a drug cartel. Because the structure is the same.

A cartel operates through a network of entities that coordinate to fix markets, manipulate regulators, and divide territory — while maintaining the appearance of independence and competition. CenterPoint Energy, T.L. Wallace Construction, and the City of Biloxi Engineering Department operate the same way. The utility pays. The contractor facilitates. The regulator eats the shrimp and looks the other way. And when someone asks questions, the utility's lawyers call it "minimal."

Three entities. One arrangement. One false invoice to hide it.

That is a cartel. And Jenneth Roberts' email — sent October 5, 2023, at 9:08 AM from her City of Biloxi email address — is the solicitation that started the paper trail.

II. The Escalation

October 6, 2023. 6:37 AM.

T.L. Wallace didn't pay for the shrimp. They did something more useful. They escalated the request up the food chain — literally.

Jody Ewing, Engineering Inspector III, forwarded Roberts' solicitation to Kary Dauro at CenterPoint Energy. He attached the APWA flyer and conference agenda. His message:

"Here is the flyer information that was sent to Jamie. Thank you for your support."

Thank you for your support. Past tense. Before any formal agreement. Before any invoice. Before any approval chain. The deal was already done. The email was just the paperwork.

Two hours later, at 8:45 AM, Mary Benson at CenterPoint replied. She copied Dauro and Jay Reber — three CenterPoint employees now involved. Benson wrote:

"It is my understanding that CenterPoint Energy will support the Shrimp Boil Social with a contribution/sponsorship of $350. Please provide an invoice at your convenience and advise whether this payment can be made by credit card."

Done. A NYSE-traded gas utility — the one that obtains right-of-way permits, has its gas infrastructure inspected and approved by the Engineering Department — has agreed to pay $350 for food for the employees of that same Engineering Department.

Except here's what makes this worse than anything the undersigned has written so far.

CenterPoint Energy operates in Biloxi without a franchise agreement.

Read that again. A Fortune 500 gas utility — one that digs up city streets, lays gas lines under public rights-of-way, installs infrastructure that serves tens of thousands of residents — operates in the City of Biloxi without the foundational legal document that authorizes it to be there. No franchise agreement. No franchise fees flowing to the city. No formal terms governing safety standards, right-of-way restoration, or regulatory oversight. Nothing.

Every other city in Mississippi requires one. Every other utility operating in a municipal right-of-way has one. It is the single most basic legal prerequisite for a utility to operate in a municipality. And CenterPoint doesn't have it.

Now ask yourself: why would a $20 billion corporation that needs permits signed, inspections passed, and rights-of-way approved — while operating without the legal authorization to be there — pay $350 for shrimp for the people who could expose that fact?

The shrimp boil isn't just bribery. It's the cost of silence. CenterPoint isn't buying goodwill — it's buying the continued cooperation of the very engineers and inspectors who know that the company operating in their city's streets has no legal right to be there. Jody Ewing knows. Jerry Creel knows. Christy LeBatard knows. And not one of them has done a thing about it — because the shrimp keeps coming, the permits keep getting signed without fees, and nobody asks the question that would blow the whole arrangement apart.

Now they just need the paperwork to look right.

III. Invoice Number One: The Truth

October 6, 2023. 2:20 PM.

Ewing sends Benson the real invoice. Desporte Seafood LLC, 197 Caillavet Street, Biloxi. Invoice number 10873.

Description: 21/25 Head On Shrimp
Quantity: 150 x $4.65
Total: $697.50

One hundred fifty pounds of shrimp. Nearly seven hundred dollars. CenterPoint committed to $350. The real cost was double. Somebody else was going to cover the difference — T.L. Wallace, the APWA chapter, or the city itself. That question remains unanswered.

But the real cost is not the real problem. The real problem arrives in Benson's inbox twenty-nine minutes later.

IV. Invoice Number Two: The Lie

October 6, 2023. 2:49 PM.

Twenty-nine minutes after sending the real invoice, Jody Ewing sends a second email to Mary Benson. A new invoice. Same vendor. Same date. Same bill-to.

Everything else has changed.

Invoice number: 10897 (not 10873 — a completely new document)
Description: Product (not "21/25 Head On Shrimp")
Quantity: 1 x $350.00 (not 150 x $4.65)
Total: $350.00 (not $697.50)

Ewing's message:

"Mrs. Mary, Is this okay?"

He's asking CenterPoint whether the cover story is adequate. Whether the laundered invoice passes muster. Whether the false record he just created will satisfy the company's internal accounting.

Once this email reaches the hands of any prosecutor, it will be very difficult for defense counsel to argue this was not intentional. Ewing didn't just commit the fraud — he confirmed it was satisfactory. He created the false document, transmitted it, and then asked the beneficiary to approve the cover. That is not a mistake. That is not a miscommunication. That is a man checking his own work. 10 out of 10, Ewing. Quite the criminal craftsmanship.

Benson replies at 3:08 PM:

"This will work."

This. Will. Work. Not "this is correct." Not "thank you for the accurate invoice." Those are things you say about real documents. "This will work" is what you say about a cover story.

V. The Smoking Gun: "CenterPoint Did Not Want the Invoice to Say Shrimp"

October 6, 2023. 7:49 PM.

After the transaction is complete — after the real invoice, the sanitized invoice, the approval — Jody Ewing sends one more email. Not to CenterPoint this time. To Zack Malley at T.L. Wallace Construction — CenterPoint's contractor, the middleman, the company Jenneth Roberts originally solicited for the shrimp. He attaches the sanitized invoice and writes:

Reader, read those last nine words again.

The city's Engineering Inspector — the person whose department processes CenterPoint's permits, inspects CenterPoint's infrastructure, approves CenterPoint's right-of-way work — is telling CenterPoint's contractor, in writing, that CenterPoint directed the creation of a false invoice.

CenterPoint didn't just pay for the shrimp. CenterPoint told him to lie about it. And he did. And then he told a third party about the lie and asked if the lie was good enough.

Three entities. One false document. One smoking gun email admitting the whole thing.

VI. The Side-by-Side

Four things changed. The description — from "shrimp" to "Product." The quantity — from 150 to 1. The unit price — from $4.65 to $350. The invoice number — from 10873 to 10897. A new invoice number means a new document was created from scratch. This is not a correction. This is not a revised estimate. This is a fabricated record designed to conceal the nature of a payment from a Fortune 500 corporation to government officials.

Each of those four changes constitutes a separate act of falsification under federal and state law. The undersigned will break them down:

Change 1 — Product Description: "21/25 Head On Shrimp" → "Product." Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, altering the description of goods in a financial record to conceal the true nature of a transaction constitutes falsification of records in a federal investigation. The DOJ Criminal Resource Manual defines falsification as "the making of a material alteration to a document with the intent to deceive." Changing "shrimp" to "Product" is not a simplification — it is the deliberate removal of information that would identify the expenditure as a gift of food to government regulators. In law enforcement terms, this is concealment of the nature of a transaction — the same element required for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

Change 2 — Quantity: 150 → 1. The real invoice documented 150 pounds of shrimp at $4.65 per pound. The sanitized invoice reduced this to "1" unit. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, the magnitude of a falsification — including the degree to which the document departs from reality — is a sentencing enhancement factor. Changing 150 to 1 is not rounding. It is the elimination of a factual detail that would reveal the true scale of the purchase. In forensic accounting, this is known as quantity suppression — a recognized indicator of fraud used by the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and SEC enforcement to identify falsified commercial records.

Change 3 — Unit Price: $4.65 → $350.00. The unit price was altered from the actual per-pound cost to a single lump sum — transforming a detailed, verifiable line item into an opaque, unverifiable payment. Under SEC Rule 13b2-1, it is unlawful for any person to "directly or indirectly, falsify or cause to be falsified, any book, record or account" subject to the Securities Exchange Act's recordkeeping provisions. Changing the unit price eliminates the ability of auditors, compliance officers, or regulators to trace the payment back to its actual purpose. This is what forensic accountants call price aggregation fraud — collapsing detailed transactions into generic lump sums to defeat internal controls.

Change 4 — Invoice Number: 10873 → 10897. This is the most damning change. The invoice number changed because a new document was created from scratch. Invoice #10873 was the authentic record generated by Desporte Seafood for the actual transaction. Invoice #10897 is a separate document — with a separate invoice number — created after the fact to replace it. Under Mississippi Code § 97-21-59 (uttering a forged instrument), the creation and transmission of a document known to be false constitutes a felony. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, the creation of a new document to replace a truthful one in connection with a matter within federal jurisdiction is obstruction. The new invoice number is not a revision. It is a replacement record — and in law enforcement, the creation of replacement records to conceal the truth is treated as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Download both. Compare them yourself.

VII. The NYSE Problem

Reader, this is where the shrimp boil stops being a small-town scandal and starts being a federal securities case.

CenterPoint Energy is not a mom-and-pop gas company. It is a publicly traded corporation on the New York Stock Exchange — ticker symbol CNP. Fortune 500. Approximately $20 billion in market capitalization. Regulated by the SEC, FERC, and every state public utility commission where it operates. It files annual 10-K reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Its CEO and CFO personally certify the accuracy of those reports under penalty of perjury.

That means every dollar CenterPoint spends must be accurately reflected in its books and records. Not as a suggestion. As a federal requirement.

Invoice #10897 — the sanitized one — says "Product, 1 x $350." The actual transaction was "21/25 Head On Shrimp, 150 x $4.65, $697.50, for a shrimp boil for government officials who regulate our permits." CenterPoint's books now contain a record that says "food" when the reality was "entertainment of our own regulators." That is not "reasonable detail." That is not "accurate." That is a falsified entry in the books and records of a NYSE-traded corporation.

And the cover-up didn't happen by accident. It happened because CenterPoint employees directed it.

VIII. Sarbanes-Oxley and the 10-K

After Enron, WorldCom, and the cascade of corporate frauds that destroyed billions in shareholder value, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. SOX requires publicly traded companies to maintain internal controls sufficient to ensure the accuracy of their financial reporting.

SOX Section 302 requires the CEO and CFO to personally certify that the company's financial statements are accurate and that internal controls are effective. SOX Section 404 requires management to assess and report on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting.

The creation of Invoice #10897 represents either:

(a) A failure of internal controls — CenterPoint's compliance system failed to catch an employee directing the creation of a false invoice. This means the internal controls the CEO and CFO certified as effective were, in fact, defective. Every 10-K filed after October 2023 containing a clean internal controls certification is potentially false.

(b) A deliberate circumvention of internal controls — which is worse. If CenterPoint employees intentionally created a sanitized invoice to avoid triggering compliance review, that is not a control failure. That is control evasion. And control evasion by corporate employees is precisely what SOX was designed to punish.

Either way, the SEC has jurisdiction. And the penalty under Section 32(a) of the Exchange Act for willful violations of the books-and-records provisions is up to 20 years imprisonment and $5 million in fines for individuals.

IX. Money Laundering — The Invoice Is the Wash

The undersigned can read 18 U.S.C. Section 1956, and the undersigned recognizes money laundering when it is documented in writing.

Money laundering requires four elements: (1) a financial transaction; (2) involving proceeds of unlawful activity; (3) knowledge that the property represents proceeds of unlawful activity; and (4) a design to conceal the nature or source of the proceeds.

Element 1 — Financial Transaction. CenterPoint paid $350 to Desporte Seafood LLC via credit card. That is a financial transaction.

Element 2 — Proceeds of Unlawful Activity. The payment was for food gifted to government officials by a regulated utility — a violation of the Mississippi Ethics Act (25-4-105), which prohibits public servants from accepting anything of value from entities with business before their agency. The payment is the instrumentality of the underlying bribery.

Element 3 — Knowledge. The creation of the sanitized invoice proves knowledge. You do not create a cover story for a lawful transaction. "CenterPoint did not want the invoice to say shrimp" is an admission that CenterPoint knew the real invoice documented something they wanted hidden.

Element 4 — Design to Conceal. The entire purpose of Invoice #10897 was to conceal the nature of the payment. "Shrimp" became "Product." $697.50 became $350. A specific seafood order for a government employee event became a generic purchase of nothing in particular. This is textbook concealment — transforming a facially incriminating document into an innocuous-looking one.

The act of creating a second invoice to hide the true nature of an expenditure is the financial record equivalent of structuring. You take one honest transaction and restructure its documentation to avoid legal scrutiny. The original invoice is the dirty money. The sanitized invoice is the wash. And CenterPoint directed the whole thing.

X. The Precedent: Utilities That Paid Their Regulators

CenterPoint is not the first utility to get caught buying its regulators. It is merely the latest.

Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) — Illinois, 2020. ComEd arranged $1.3 million in jobs and contracts for associates of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. The arrangement was concealed through consulting contracts and lobbying firms — the same concealment-through-documentation strategy used in the CenterPoint shrimp boil, at vastly different scale. ComEd paid a $200 million deferred prosecution agreement fine. The "ComEd Four" executives were found guilty on all counts. Speaker Madigan was sentenced to 7.5 years in federal prison.

FirstEnergy Corp. — Ohio, 2020. FirstEnergy funneled $60 million through dark-money organizations to secure favorable nuclear power plant legislation. Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder was sentenced to 20 years. FirstEnergy paid $230 million in federal penalties plus an additional $250.7 million in state penalties.

CenterPoint Energy's Own Violation History. CenterPoint has accumulated $83 million in total penalties across 81 violations since 2000. Pipeline safety violations in Indiana ($2 million, 2024). Gas pipeline violations ($900,000, 2019). FERC settlement ($270,000). Texas Attorney General fraud investigation after Hurricane Beryl (2024). Minnesota PUC deceptive billing investigation. A pattern of procurement irregularities and conflict-of-interest violations.

And now — a sanitized shrimp invoice in Mississippi.

ComEd and FirstEnergy prove that utilities paying regulators is not a hypothetical. It is an established pattern in American public corruption. The only difference is scale. ComEd's scheme was $1.3 million. FirstEnergy's was $60 million. CenterPoint's documented payment is $350. But the concealment effort — a sanitized invoice, three corporate employees coordinating, a contractor consulted, and a century-old law firm deployed to defend it — is disproportionate to a "minimal contribution." The undersigned does not believe this is the only $350 CenterPoint has ever spent on its regulators. The undersigned believes this is the only one that left a paper trail.

XI. What CenterPoint's Lawyer Said About It

On March 6, 2025, the undersigned received a formal letter from David Kaufman at Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC — a law firm that has represented CenterPoint for, in Kaufman's own words, "well over half a century."

Kaufman wrote:

"You have also raised questions about CenterPoint's $350 contribution for the purchase of shrimp from Desporte Seafood for a shrimp boil held in conjunction with the American Public Works Association October 23 State Conference. The request came from Jody Ewing, an engineering inspector. CenterPoint made a minimal contribution in support of the APWA, which is a well-known professional association... There was nothing illegal or improper about the contribution, regardless of the person who made the request and the position the person held. Also, the contribution was not made to obtain favorable treatment from Inspector Ewing on any permits CenterPoint might submit to his department."

Read that last sentence again. Kaufman just confirmed the quid pro quo nexus in a letter designed to deny it. CenterPoint pays money to an inspector whose department processes CenterPoint's permits.

But what Kaufman said is less important than what he deliberately omitted:

1. Two invoices exist. He mentioned only one.
2. The sanitized invoice changed "shrimp" to "Product." He never mentioned it.
3. "CenterPoint did not want the invoice to say shrimp." The most damning sentence in the evidence package. Not a word.
4. The real cost was $697.50 — nearly double CenterPoint's $350. Who paid the rest?
5. T.L. Wallace was consulted on the adequacy of the cover. Not mentioned.
6. Mary Benson approved the sanitized invoice with "This will work." Not mentioned.
7. Three CenterPoint employees — Benson, Dauro, and Reber — were involved. Not mentioned.

Kaufman called $350 "minimal." Mississippi's gift limit for public servants is $100 per year per source (28 Miss. Code R. 301-4.6). CenterPoint's $350 payment was 3.5 times the legal limit. The real invoice — the one Kaufman pretends doesn't exist — was $697.50. That's seven times the legal limit.

You don't deploy Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes — a firm that has been around since before World War II — for a barbecue sponsorship. Unless the barbecue is evidence of something larger.

XII. Who's Who

CITY OF BILOXI (The Recipients)

Jenneth Roberts — GIS Manager, Department of Engineering. She sent the original solicitation to T.L. Wallace. She started the chain. Her email is the first exhibit.

Jody Ewing — Engineering Inspector III. The organizer, the facilitator, the intermediary, and the author of the smoking gun email. He used his city email address, his city title, and his regulatory authority to solicit the gift, create the false invoice, and coordinate the cover-up. Makes $51,414 as of 2024 — up from $38,606 in 2022, a 24% raise in a single year that no one has explained.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY (The Payer — NYSE: CNP)

Kary Dauro — First point of contact. Ewing forwarded the solicitation to him at 6:37 AM.

Mary Benson — Committed $350 on behalf of a Fortune 500 corporation. Received both the real invoice and the sanitized invoice. Approved the cover story with three words: "This will work."

Jay Reber — Copied on the entire approval chain. Silent witness.

T.L. WALLACE CONSTRUCTION (The Middleman)

Jamie Keith — Originally solicited by Roberts.

Zack Malley — Received the smoking gun email. Was told, in writing, that CenterPoint directed the concealment.

DESPORTE SEAFOOD LLC (The Vendor)

Sean Desporte — Owner. Created two invoices for the same transaction. Whether he knowingly participated in the falsification or was asked by Ewing to issue a "simplified" invoice is an open question.

XIII. The 24% Raise Nobody Explained

While the undersigned was at it, the undersigned pulled Jody Ewing's payroll records. Seventeen years of them.

In 2022, Ewing earned $38,606. In 2023 — the same year as the shrimp boil — Ewing earned $47,817. That is a $9,211 increase. A 24% raise in a single year.

From 2008 to 2022, Ewing's salary grew at approximately $1,879 per year. The 2022-2023 jump was five times the historical average. Mississippi state COLAs during that period were 2-3%.

No promotion documentation was produced in the public records request. No merit increase authorization. No cost-of-living adjustment policy explaining it.

The undersigned is sure it's a coincidence.

XIV. Peter Abide: The Lawyer Who Represents Both Sides

Reader, here is the conflict of interest that ties the entire cartel together.

Peter C. Abide is the Director of Legal Affairs for the City of Biloxi. He is the city's top lawyer. He controls outside counsel contracts. He supervises the Engineering Department's legal compliance. He approves the resolutions that set Jody Ewing's salary. He defends the city in federal litigation — including the cases the undersigned has brought.

Peter Abide is also the man whose office oversees CenterPoint Energy's franchise agreements, right-of-way permits, and regulatory compliance within city limits. When CenterPoint needs something from Biloxi — a permit, a variance, an inspection approval, a franchise renewal — Peter Abide's office is part of the chain.

Now ask yourself: when CenterPoint's employees directed Jody Ewing to create a sanitized invoice to hide a payment to Engineering Department employees — employees Abide supervises — who was supposed to catch it? Who was supposed to enforce the Mississippi Ethics Act within city government? Who was supposed to report the conflict of interest between the regulated utility and its regulators?

Peter Abide.

And when the undersigned raised these issues in federal court — in three separate lawsuits involving CenterPoint's cross-bore, the Engineering Department's retaliatory enforcement, and the city's systematic deprivation of due process — who defended the city?

Peter Abide.

The man who should have investigated the shrimp boil is the same man defending the city against the plaintiff who discovered it. The man who should have enforced ethics compliance is the same man whose department enabled the violation. The man who controls Jody Ewing's salary — the same Ewing who got a 24% raise the year he facilitated a concealed gift — is the same man who tells the federal court that everything the city does is lawful.

The lawyer doesn't represent both sides by accident. The lawyer represents both sides because that is how you ensure neither side gets investigated.

Every utility corruption case — ComEd, FirstEnergy, CenterPoint — has the same structure: the regulated entity captures the regulator, and the lawyer makes sure the paper trail stays clean. In Biloxi, the paper trail didn't stay clean. Jody Ewing sent one too many emails. And now the undersigned has the invoice CenterPoint didn't want to say shrimp.

XIV-A. The Jerry Creel Effect: Game Theory of a Small-Town Dictator

Reader, the undersigned used to think Jerry Creel was a nice guy. Not long ago, the undersigned actually liked the man. A lot. It might be noticeable that is no longer the case.

But here is the game theory you need to understand about Jerry Creel — the reason why everyone in Biloxi government, from councilmembers to contractors to utility companies, will line up to accommodate him.

Jerry Creel occupies several positions that interlace and form a loop. Without Jerry, you literally cannot get anything done in this city. He controls the Architecture and Historic Review Commission. He controls the Building Department. He controls Community Development. He controls the tree ordinances. He holds approximately 700 other jobs that nobody can keep track of — because the City of Biloxi designed it that way. One man. Every gate.

Need a building permit? Jerry. Need a historic district approval? Jerry. Need a tree removed? Jerry. Need community development funding? Jerry. Need a certificate of occupancy? Jerry. Need an inspection passed? Jerry.

So everyone — even city councilmembers — will suck up to Jerry Creel, as unpleasant as that image may be, because without his approval, nothing moves. No permits. No inspections. No certificates. No construction. No business. The entire development pipeline of the City of Biloxi flows through one man's desk, and that man is a perjurer, a Sunday spy, and the star of his own secret tribunal.

Building Official by weekday. The rest of the week? The undersigned has already documented that.

This is the Jerry Creel Effect. It's not that people love him. It's that they need him. And he knows it. And that is exactly how a small-town dictator operates — not through charisma, not through competence, but through the accumulation of bottlenecks. Control every gate, and everyone has to kiss the gatekeeper. CenterPoint understood this. That's why they bought the shrimp.

XV. The Cross-Bore: Why They All Needed Friends in the Department

Reader, the undersigned needs you to understand something. This is not an isolated shrimp boil story.

CenterPoint Energy is the same gas utility whose cross-bore at 929 Division Street is the subject of federal litigation — Case No. 1:25-cv-00254-LG-RPM. A cross-bore is when a gas line is drilled directly through an existing sewer pipe. It creates an explosion hazard. It is one of the most dangerous conditions in underground infrastructure.

CenterPoint's contractor — T.L. Wallace — drilled a gas line through the sewer pipe at 929 Division Street. The City of Biloxi Engineering Department was responsible for permitting and inspecting that work. The same department whose employees were eating CenterPoint-funded shrimp at the Golden Nugget Casino while CenterPoint's gas line sat inside a sewer pipe beneath a residential neighborhood.

Now you understand why they needed friends in the Engineering Department. And now you understand why those friends needed to hide the relationship. And now you understand why CenterPoint did not want the invoice to say shrimp.

The regulators were being fed by the entity they were supposed to regulate. And when that entity's contractor drilled a gas line through a sewer pipe, the regulators had every incentive to look the other way.

XV-A. The Permit Fee Fraud: Free Rides for the Cartel

Reader, there is one more layer the undersigned needs you to understand.

CenterPoint Energy is required — by ordinance — to pay for permits every time it performs work within Biloxi's right-of-way. Alternatively, the company can pay a $50 exemption fee per occurrence. One or the other. Every time. No exceptions.

CenterPoint has done neither.

No permits paid. No exemption fees paid. CenterPoint operates on Biloxi's streets, digs up Biloxi's right-of-way, installs and maintains gas infrastructure beneath Biloxi's roads — and pays nothing for the privilege. Zero. Not the permit fee. Not the $50 exemption. Nothing.

And Peter Abide — the Director of Legal Affairs, the man whose office oversees franchise agreements and regulatory compliance — does not seem to care. Jerry Creel — the Building Official who issues stop-work orders to homeowners for missing a single inspection — does not seem to care. Christy LeBatard — the City Engineer whose department is supposed to track every permit — does not seem to care.

Of course they don't care. CenterPoint is buying the shrimp.

The same inspector who signs CenterPoint's permits on the "Engineer" line — without being an engineer — is the same inspector who organized the shrimp boil. The same department that is supposed to collect permit fees is the same department that ate the shrimp. And the same city attorney who is supposed to enforce compliance is the same city attorney who defends the city against the plaintiff who discovered the fraud.

This is not negligence. This is the business model. CenterPoint feeds the regulators. The regulators waive the fees. The city attorney looks the other way. And the taxpayers of Biloxi subsidize a $20 billion corporation's free access to their streets.

Every unpaid permit is a separate count. Every unpaid exemption fee is a separate violation. And every city official who knew about it and did nothing is a separate co-conspirator.

XV-B. The Ghost Franchise: CenterPoint Operates Without Authorization

But the unpaid permits are not the worst part. The worst part is what the undersigned discovered underneath.

CenterPoint Energy operates in Biloxi without a franchise agreement.

Let that sink in. A franchise agreement is the foundational legal document that authorizes a utility to use a city's public rights-of-way. It is the contract between the municipality and the utility. It dictates what the utility pays the city for the privilege of tearing up its streets, laying pipe under its roads, and operating gas infrastructure beneath neighborhoods where families live. It sets the terms for safety inspections, right-of-way restoration, indemnification, insurance, and regulatory oversight. It is, by every legal standard, the minimum prerequisite for a utility to operate in a city.

CenterPoint doesn't have one.

No franchise agreement means no franchise fees flowing to Biloxi's taxpayers. No formal safety terms. No negotiated restoration requirements. No contractual obligation to indemnify the city when something goes wrong. No legal authorization to be in Biloxi's rights-of-way at all.

Every other city requires one. Every other utility has one. It is so fundamental to municipal governance that the absence of a franchise agreement is not an oversight — it is an arrangement. Someone decided CenterPoint would operate without one. Someone decided the city would not require one. And someone decided the taxpayers of Biloxi did not need to know.

Now connect the dots.

CenterPoint — operating without a franchise agreement — needs permits signed. Jody Ewing signs them. CenterPoint — operating without legal authorization — needs inspections passed. The Engineering Department passes them. CenterPoint — operating without paying franchise fees — needs the people who could expose this arrangement to stay quiet. So CenterPoint buys the shrimp.

The $350 isn't the price of a shrimp boil. It's the price of keeping Ewing, Creel, and LeBatard from asking the one question that would unravel CenterPoint's entire Mississippi operation: Where is the franchise agreement?

And Peter Abide — the Director of Legal Affairs — the man whose job it is to ensure the city's contractual and regulatory framework is in order — has never required one. The same Peter Abide who defends the city against the undersigned. The same Peter Abide who sits at the top of the cartel.

But here is the part that ties the whole machine together.

Peter Abide — the City of Biloxi's Director of Legal Affairs, the man responsible for utility franchise oversight — simultaneously serves as Board Attorney for Coast Electric Power Association, one of the largest electric cooperatives on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. And his colleague Amanda Seymour — also of Currie Johnson & Myers, the same firm that defends the City against the undersigned — serves as Board Attorney for Singing River Electric Cooperative.

Read that again. The city's top lawyers — the ones who are supposed to negotiate franchise agreements, enforce permit requirements, and protect the public interest against utility companies — are on the utilities' payroll. Abide represents Coast Electric. Seymour represents Singing River Electric. And both of them work for the firm that represents the City of Biloxi in litigation where the plaintiff discovered that CenterPoint operates without a franchise agreement.

This is not a coincidence. This is the architecture of capture. The city's lawyers represent the utilities. The utilities operate without franchise agreements. The utilities don't pay permit fees. The utilities buy shrimp for the city's engineers. And when someone asks why, the city's lawyers — who also represent the utilities — call it "minimal."

The fox doesn't just guard the henhouse. The fox built the henhouse, owns the henhouse, and bills both sides for the privilege.

The cartel doesn't just feed its regulators. The cartel lets a $20 billion corporation operate on public streets, under public property, through public rights-of-way — for free, without authorization, without a contract, and without accountability. And the shrimp is how they seal the deal.

XVI. The Full Criminal Exposure

The undersigned counts nine independent criminal charges from a single shrimp boil:

18 U.S.C. Section 1956 — Money Laundering. Financial transaction designed to conceal the nature of a prohibited payment. The sanitized invoice is the concealment mechanism. Up to 20 years.

18 U.S.C. Section 1519 — Falsification of Records. Creating Invoice #10897 to replace the truthful Invoice #10873. The Supreme Court in Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (2015), confirmed this statute covers records used to preserve information. Up to 20 years.

18 U.S.C. Section 1343 — Wire Fraud. Interstate emails between Biloxi and CenterPoint's Houston headquarters transmitting the sanitized invoice. The Supreme Court in Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), held that wire fraud prohibits schemes involving false invoices even without economic loss. Up to 20 years.

18 U.S.C. Section 1346 — Honest Services Fraud. City employees accepted gifts from their regulator and concealed the arrangement. After Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), honest services fraud requires bribery — and the concealment here proves the corrupt intent. Up to 20 years.

18 U.S.C. Section 666 — Federal Program Bribery. Biloxi receives over $10,000 annually in federal funds. CenterPoint gave a thing of value to agents of that government. Up to 10 years.

18 U.S.C. Section 1001 — False Statements. Relabeling "21/25 Head On Shrimp" as "Product" in a document within federal jurisdiction. Up to 5 years.

18 U.S.C. Section 371 — Conspiracy. Three entities — CenterPoint, the Engineering Department, and T.L. Wallace — agreed to conceal the nature of the gift. Overt acts: creating the sanitized invoice, approving it, consulting on its adequacy. Up to 5 years.

15 U.S.C. Section 78m(b)(2)(A) — SEC Books and Records. CenterPoint is a NYSE-traded issuer. The sanitized invoice in its books violates the Exchange Act's requirement for accurate records. Individual willful violation: up to 20 years and $5 million fine.

Mississippi Code Section 97-7-10 — Fraudulent Statements. "Any person with intent to defraud the state or any municipality who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by trick, scheme or device a material fact." This statute reads as if it was written for this exact scenario. Up to 5 years and $10,000 fine.

XVI-A. A Lesson for the Dear Reader: Forgery vs. Falsification vs. Perjury

Reader, since the undersigned is generous with public education, allow a brief lesson in criminal taxonomy. Because the City of Biloxi has provided us with a full curriculum.

Perjury is when you swear an oath and then you lie. Jerry Creel signed four affidavits on July 10 claiming he "personally observed" violations. He didn't. He lied under oath on a sworn document. The affidavit itself is real — real notary stamp, real signature, real date. The lie is in the content. Creel lied about what he saw. Miss. Code 97-9-59. 18 U.S.C. Section 1621.

Forgery is when you create a document that purports to be from someone else, or you alter someone else's document. Classic forgery: signing someone else's name on a check. The document pretends to be something it isn't — made by someone who didn't make it. Miss. Code 97-21-33. And here is a real-life example from Biloxi: Apryl Ready's Standing Order from 2022 — a pre-existing court document that was photoshopped to add the undersigned's name. That is textbook forgery — taking someone else's authentic document and altering it to create a false instrument. The original document was real. The alteration made it a crime.

Falsification of Records — this is Ewing. Invoice #10897 is a real invoice. It's a genuine document from Desporte Seafood, with a real invoice number, on real letterhead. Nobody's signature was faked. The vendor exists. The vendor presumably printed it. But the contents are deliberately false. "Product" is not what was purchased. "1 x $350" is not the quantity or price. The document is authentic in form but false in substance. 18 U.S.C. Section 1519 — up to 20 years.

Uttering is transmitting a document you know to be false. Even if Ewing didn't physically create Invoice #10897, he transmitted it to CenterPoint — "Mrs. Mary, Is this okay?" — and then to T.L. Wallace. He uttered a falsified record. Twice. To two different parties. Miss. Code 97-21-59.

Fabrication is creating something from whole cloth that never existed. That's Apryl Ready. The forged Standing Order in the fraud-upon-the-court investigation — a court order backdated forty months, from a case that didn't exist yet, signed by a judge who had already retired. An entire document conjured from thin air. That's fabrication.

The City of Biloxi is a real-life law school. The undersigned will use real life to teach you the difference between each type of crime. No textbook required. Just a public records request and a city government that can't stop committing new offenses.

So here's the Biloxi curriculum:

The open question: is Ewing's crime falsification or forgery? It depends on who physically created Invoice #10897. If Desporte Seafood created it at Ewing's request — it's falsification. The vendor made a real invoice with false contents, and Ewing directed and uttered it. If Ewing created it himself on Desporte letterhead — it's forgery and falsification. He fabricated a document purporting to be from someone else.

Either way, Ewing is cooked. The "Mrs. Mary, Is this okay?" email proves he knew the contents were false. The "CenterPoint did not want the invoice to say shrimp" email proves he knew why they were false. And the fact that the real invoice — #10873, 150 pounds of shrimp, $697.50 — still exists proves the falsification beyond any reasonable doubt.

Creel lied with his mouth under oath. Ewing lied with a document for money. Both crimes. Different instruments. Same city.

XVII. Consciousness of Guilt — The Dual Invoice as Confession

The existence of two invoices for the same transaction is itself a confession.

You do not create a sanitized version of a document unless you understand the original documents something you want hidden. This negates any claim of good faith or ignorance. The sanitization was directed by CenterPoint, not by the vendor. This means the concealment originated with the party providing the benefit — elevating the conduct from passive receipt of a problematic invoice to active fabrication of a false one.

The sanitization targeted the specific details that would reveal the impropriety — "shrimp boil" was removed, "APWA" was removed, the connection to government officials was severed. This surgical precision demonstrates that the participants understood exactly which details were incriminating and deliberately excised them.

And the existence of the original invoice means the false one can be proven false. Unlike cases where the true facts are disputed, here there is documentary proof — in the vendor's own records — that Invoice #10897 was a deliberate falsification.

Innocent people do not create false invoices to conceal innocent transactions. That principle has a name in federal law. It is called consciousness of guilt.

XVIII. What the SEC Should Ask

If CenterPoint created a sanitized invoice for a $350 shrimp purchase — mobilizing three corporate employees and an external contractor to coordinate the concealment — what did they do for larger payments?

The SEC should ask CenterPoint:

1. How many other invoices were "sanitized" at employee direction?
2. Were any of these sanitized payments reported in CenterPoint's 10-K filings under "lobbying," "community engagement," or "charitable contributions"?
3. Did CenterPoint's internal audit or compliance department review Invoice #10897?
4. Did the CEO or CFO know about the practice of sanitizing invoices to conceal the nature of payments to government officials?
5. Was this practice limited to Mississippi, or does it extend to CenterPoint's operations in Texas, Indiana, Ohio, and Minnesota?
6. How many other "APWA events" has CenterPoint sponsored for municipal employees who regulate its operations?
7. Were any of these payments disclosed in CenterPoint's proxy statement or 10-K as related-party transactions or gifts to government officials?
8. Does CenterPoint operate under a valid franchise agreement with the City of Biloxi? If not, under what legal authority has it been using the city's rights-of-way — and for how long?

The undersigned has PHMSA FOIA requests pending (PHMS-2025-00127 and PHMS-2025-00128). The undersigned has evidence preserved in original .msg and .pdf formats. The undersigned has the smoking gun email. And the undersigned has time.

XIX. The Unanswered Questions

1. Who paid the remaining $347.50? The real invoice was $697.50. CenterPoint paid $350. Someone paid the difference. Was it T.L. Wallace? Another entity? The city?
2. Was this a one-time event? The familiarity between Ewing, CenterPoint, and T.L. Wallace — "Thank you for your support" before any formal agreement — is the language of an established relationship.
3. Who attended the shrimp boil? How many Engineering Department employees ate shrimp at the Golden Nugget Casino paid for by a company they regulate?
4. Did CenterPoint's compliance department know? Three employees were involved. Was this reported?
5. Did Desporte Seafood knowingly create a false invoice? Or was Sean Desporte told it was a "simplified" version?
6. Why was Ewing's salary increased by 24% in the same year he facilitated this concealment? Who authorized it?
7. What other payments has CenterPoint made to City of Biloxi employees? If they sanitized this invoice, what else is buried in cleaned-up paperwork?
8. Has CenterPoint's SEC 10-K accurately reflected its payments to government officials? If sanitized invoices are being used to obscure the nature of expenditures, the 10-K's books-and-records certification may itself be false.
9. Where is the franchise agreement? CenterPoint operates in Biloxi's rights-of-way without a franchise agreement. No franchise fees. No contractual authorization. Who decided CenterPoint could operate for free — and why has no city official demanded one?

XX. Conclusion

Reader, the undersigned began this investigation looking for a cross-bore. A gas line drilled through a sewer pipe at 929 Division Street. A hazard to life and property.

What the undersigned found was a cartel.

A cartel where the utility pays, the contractor facilitates, and the regulator eats the shrimp. Where invoices are sanitized at corporate direction. Where a century-old law firm deploys a partner to call $697.50 worth of concealed gifts "minimal." Where a Grade 19 inspector gets a 24% raise the same year he coordinates the cover-up. Where a $20 billion NYSE-traded corporation operates in city streets without a franchise agreement, pays no permit fees, pays no exemption fees — and buys shrimp for the people who could expose all of it.

The cover-up is not a footnote to the crime. Under federal law, the cover-up carries more prison time than the underlying bribery. The sanitized invoice is not a clerical error. It is money laundering. It is securities fraud. It is false records. And it was directed by employees of a publicly traded company that certifies the accuracy of its books to the SEC every year.

Nine words explain the whole thing.

They didn't want it to say shrimp because shrimp is what they actually bought. And what they actually bought was the silence of the people who were supposed to protect Biloxi from exactly this kind of thing.

The shrimp is gone. The invoices remain. The SEC filings are public. And now, Reader — so are you.

The undersigned is Yuri Petrini. The undersigned files lawsuits, not invoices. The undersigned doesn't sanitize documents — the undersigned publishes them.

Questions? Evidence? Tips? Write to tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

Exhibit Index

Legal Disclaimer: This article documents public proceedings, public records, and constitutional analysis. All facts are derived from emails obtained through public records requests, City Council resolutions, payroll records, invoices, and attorney correspondence. Public officials acting in their official capacity and publicly traded corporations subject to SEC reporting are proper subjects of public commentary. Analysis of potential legal violations constitutes protected opinion under the First Amendment. CenterPoint Energy, its employees, the City of Biloxi, and all named individuals are invited to submit signed rebuttals for publication with equal prominence.

Documents Referenced: PRR / Shrimp Boil.pdf (smoking gun email) · PRR / FW_ APWA Shrimp Boil.pdf (original solicitation) · PRR / RE_ External Email FW_ APWA Shrimp Boil (1-3).pdf (full email chains) · Desporte Seafood Invoice #10873 (real) and #10897 (sanitized) · 3.6.2025 Letter to Y. Petrini from D. Kaufman, Brunini Grantham · Compensation Ewing.pdf (17-year payroll history) · CenterPoint Energy SEC 10-K filings · PHMSA FOIA requests PHMS-2025-00127 and PHMS-2025-00128