● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com
When Diesel Spreads, Whistleblowers Burn
Five hundred gallons of diesel fuel spread across Biloxi Small Craft Harbor in May 2024. Pelicans died. An osprey chick perished in its nest. Wildlife corpses floated through a harbor overseen by the City of Biloxi, managed by the Mayor's office, and approved by City Attorney Peter Abide.
The Harbormaster saw it coming. William Anthony Linville, a nearly deaf man who served the City for three years, warned his supervisor Raymond Buxton that a sinking shrimp boat would become an environmental disaster. Buxton's response? The Mayor and City Attorney had already "signed off" on it.
The vessel sank. The fuel spread. The wildlife died.
Linville mentioned to coworkers he might post about the incident on social media. That remark was overheard. That remark was reported. Days later, Buxton approached Linville and asked if he "still liked his job."
Linville reported the spill to the United States Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Seven months later, he was unemployed.
Nothing says "we have nothing to hide" like firing the guy who reported your environmental disaster to federal agencies. Very normal behavior from a totally innocent municipal government.
Dear reader, let us paint the picture: A shrimp boat is sinking. The Harbormaster warns his supervisor. The supervisor says the Mayor and City Attorney already "signed off" on it. The boat sinks. Five hundred gallons of diesel spread across the harbor. Pelicans die. An osprey chick dies. Wildlife corpses float through waters managed by the City of Biloxi.
And the guy who warned them? The guy who reported it to the Coast Guard and EPA?
Fired.
Not promoted for diligence. Not thanked for environmental stewardship. Not commended for following federal reporting requirements.
Fired.
If you're looking for consciousness of guilt, dear reader, you won't find a more pristine specimen than "we terminated the whistleblower seven months after he reported our environmental disaster to federal agencies."
He Ran Against The Mayor
Before the diesel spill, before the dead pelicans, before the federal whistleblowing, William Linville committed an unforgivable act in Andrew "FoFo" Gilich's Biloxi.
He ran for office.
Linville engaged in the most protected form of American expression: political candidacy against an incumbent. He challenged Mayor Gilich in a municipal election. He exercised his First Amendment rights as millions of Americans do every election cycle.
During that campaign, Linville's political signs disappeared from public areas. Meanwhile, Mayor Gilich's campaign used the official City of Biloxi logo on his own signs. City resources. City branding. Personal political advantage.
After the election, Linville remained employed as Harbormaster. But now he was a marked man. Increased scrutiny. Unexplained hostility. An atmosphere designed to make a part-time employee feel unwelcome in a job he had performed for three years.
The diesel spill was not the beginning. It was the excuse.
The Evil Eye
As the Supreme Court established in 1886 in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, when facially neutral laws are "applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances," the Constitution has been violated.
Let's apply that framework:
- City logo on Gilich's campaign signs? No consequences.
- Linville runs against Gilich? Terminated.
The evil eye sees who challenges power. The unequal hand delivers the punishment. This is not our interpretation. This is the exact scenario the Supreme Court described 139 years ago. Biloxi just hadn't read the case. Or they read it and thought, "sounds good, let's do that."
The Deaf Man Who Asked For Help
William Linville is nearly deaf. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, he is entitled to reasonable accommodations that allow him to perform his job functions.
Linville requested accommodations. He asked for a CapTel phone. He asked for speech-to-text capability. Basic requests. Standard accommodations. The kind of modifications federal law has required for over thirty years.
The City of Biloxi denied him.
No CapTel phone. No speech-to-text. No reasonable accommodation for a qualified employee with a documented disability.
When Linville pressed for the accommodations the law guaranteed him, the City did not respond by complying. The City responded by firing him.
The ADA Is Not Optional
The Americans with Disabilities Act has been law since 1990. George H.W. Bush signed it. That's how long ago. Every government official in America knows these requirements. Every HR department has a poster about it. Every municipal attorney has handled an ADA claim.
There is no qualified immunity defense for denying reasonable accommodations to a nearly deaf employee who requests a CapTel phone. This is not a novel constitutional question requiring judicial guidance—it is settled law that Biloxi chose to ignore.
Why did they deny the accommodation? Because Linville was already marked for termination. The disability accommodation denial was not about administrative burden. It was about building the paper trail. "See, he kept asking for special treatment. Very difficult employee."
A CapTel phone costs a few hundred dollars. Defending an ADA lawsuit in federal court costs tens of thousands. But math was never Peter Abide's strong suit—unless the math involves billing hours.
The Warning Before The Termination
On March 28, 2025, Linville received a written warning. The stated reason: a "political video."
The video was not political. The characterization was false. But the message was clear: we are building a paper trail. We are constructing pretextual justifications. We are documenting performance issues that do not exist so that when termination comes, we will have something to point to.
Every government employee who has ever been targeted for retaliation recognizes this playbook. Document the documentation. Create the cause. Manufacture the misconduct.
This is the "counseling memo" phase of retaliation. HR 101. Write up the employee for something—anything—so when you fire them, you can wave paper around and say "pattern of performance issues." The fact that the video wasn't even political doesn't matter. The memo exists. The memo is in the file. The memo will be cited in the termination letter.
Except Mississippi's unemployment tribunal saw through it. More on that later.
July 10, 2025: No Hearing, No Cause, No Process
On July 10, 2025, William Anthony Linville was terminated from his position as Harbormaster.
There was no hearing. There was no cause stated. There was no process consistent with civil service protections.
The City simply ended his employment. The political opponent who ran against the Mayor. The whistleblower who reported environmental violations to federal agencies. The disabled employee who demanded accommodations under federal law.
Gone.
The Exercise in Futility
As Justice Brennan recognized in Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55 (1979), a hearing provided after irreversible harm has occurred is "an exercise in futility" that cannot satisfy due process.
What hearing can restore Linville's reputation after termination for whistleblowing? What procedure can return the clients who found other harbor services? What process can undo the message sent to every other City employee: challenge the Mayor and lose your job?
The City's failure to provide process before termination was not a procedural oversight—it was the entire point. Destroy first. Litigate later. Make vindication theoretical while the damage becomes permanent.
Due process means you get a hearing BEFORE they take your stuff. Not after. Not "we'll consider your appeal in six months." BEFORE. This is not complicated. The Founders literally fought a war over this. But apparently in Biloxi, the Constitution is more of a suggestion.
The July 10 Coincidence
This is where it gets interesting. And by interesting, we mean "statistically improbable in ways that suggest coordination." And by "suggest coordination," we mean "holy shit, what are the odds?"
On the exact same day William Linville was terminated from his Harbormaster position—July 10, 2025—Building Official Jerry Creel filed four perjured affidavits against another Biloxi citizen, the undersigned, in a separate retaliatory prosecution. See Case No. 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss.).
Two different citizens. Two different departments. Same date. Same playbook. Same silence about the constitutional rights they were violating.
July 10, 2025 was apparently "Retaliation Day" at Biloxi City Hall.
Dear reader, let us do some probability analysis.
There are 365 days in a year. Linville could have been fired on any of them. Creel could have filed his perjured affidavits on any of them.
The odds of both events occurring on the exact same day, purely by coincidence?
Approximately 1 in 365. Or 0.27%.
Now, the undersigned is not a statistician. But the undersigned can read a calendar. And when two completely unrelated citizens—one fighting the Building Department, one fighting the Mayor's office—both experience major retaliatory actions on the exact same calendar day...
Either July 10 is cursed. Or there was a memo. Or, dear reader, Biloxi City Hall has a corporate culture problem that manifests in synchronized constitutional violations.
We're not saying there was a memo. We're not saying Peter Abide sent an email that morning saying "today's the day, boys, let's violate some rights." We're not saying Jerry Creel and the HR department coordinated their retaliation calendars over coffee.
We're saying that if we were federal investigators looking at RICO patterns, we would find this coincidence very interesting. Very interesting indeed.
This is not speculation. This is documented in federal court filings. Linville's termination date appears in his complaint. Creel's affidavit dates appear in Petrini's case exhibits. We can read calendars. So can juries. So can the FBI.
Asking for a friend.
Mississippi Ruled: The City Had Nothing
The Mississippi Department of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal reviewed Linville's termination. This is a state administrative body that determines whether an employer had valid grounds for discharge.
Their finding: "The City of Biloxi did not establish a valid reason for Plaintiff's termination."
Linville won his unemployment claim. The state tribunal found the City's stated reasons were insufficient. In legal terms, the reasons were pretextual. In plain terms, the City lied.
When your own state employment agency rules against you, the fig leaf of "performance issues" becomes transparent. This is not a federal judge with an agenda. This is not a liberal activist court. This is not some coastal elite tribunal unfamiliar with the ways of Mississippi employment law.
This is Mississippi's unemployment tribunal—not exactly known for being hostile to employers—saying "you had nothing."
Dear reader, do you understand how hard it is to lose an unemployment case in Mississippi as an employer? This is a state that generally favors business interests. This is a state where "at-will employment" is practically a religion. This is a state where employers usually win these disputes.
And the City of Biloxi still couldn't articulate a valid reason for firing William Linville.
Remember that March 28 written warning about the "political video"? The tribunal saw through it. Remember all that documentation they were supposedly building? The tribunal found it insufficient. Remember the pretextual justifications they manufactured? The paper trail they created? The "performance issues" they invented?
The state of Mississippi called bullshit.
Let that sink in, dear reader. Mississippi. Called bullshit. On an employer's stated reasons for termination.
This is like getting a speeding ticket in Montana. This is like being told you're too drunk for a bar in New Orleans. This is like being rejected from a Florida HOA for being too aggressive. You really, really have to work at it.
The City of Biloxi worked at it. They earned this. They built a case so transparently pretextual that even Mississippi's employer-friendly unemployment system said "nope."
Slow clap for the legal strategy, Peter.
The Usual Suspects
Mayor Andrew "FoFo" Gilich. The man who used city logos on personal campaign materials. The man whose administration "signed off" on a sinking vessel that killed wildlife. The man who oversaw the termination of the part-time employee who dared to run against him.
City Attorney Peter Abide. The insurance lawyer turned municipal kingmaker. The man whose firm bills the City hundreds of thousands annually. The man whose fingerprints appear on every suspicious personnel action, every code enforcement vendetta, every retaliation campaign that originates from Biloxi City Hall.
They are sued in their official capacities. They are sued in their individual capacities. The complaint alleges they acted jointly. The complaint alleges conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
These two names keep appearing. Different cases. Different plaintiffs. Different departments. Same Mayor. Same City Attorney. At what point does "coincidence" become "pattern"? At what point does "pattern" become "policy"? At what point does "policy" become "RICO enterprise"?
Asking for a friend. The friend is the FBI.
The Billables Connection
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
Peter Abide's firm extracts approximately $600,000 annually from Biloxi taxpayers. Every lawsuit the City defends runs his meter. Every terminated employee who files in federal court generates billable hours.
The economic incentives point one direction: create litigation through retaliation, then bill the taxpayers to defend against the consequences. The citizens pay twice—once for the constitutional violation, again for the legal fees to cover it up.
In Case No. 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM, defendants have already accumulated over $220,000 in legal fees defending against a pro se plaintiff who has spent approximately nothing. The Linville case will add to that total. Every motion. Every hearing. Every deposition. The meter runs.
Let's do some math. Peter Abide's firm charges approximately $150/hour. Linville's case will require:
- Answer to Complaint: 10-20 hours
- Discovery responses: 20-40 hours
- Depositions: 40-80 hours
- Motion practice: 20-50 hours
- Trial prep (if it gets there): 100+ hours
Conservative estimate: $30,000-$50,000 in legal fees. For firing a part-time Harbormaster.
The CapTel phone Linville requested? Maybe $300.
Very smart financial management, Biloxi. Your taxpayers thank you.
The Kennedy Pattern
History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. In Biloxi, it rhymes a lot. Like, suspiciously a lot. Like, "did anyone check if they're using the same playbook?" a lot.
In 2015, federal court found the City of Biloxi engaged in systematic constitutional violations—jailing citizens without hearings for inability to pay fines. See Kennedy v. City of Biloxi, No. 1:15-cv-348-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. 2015). The March 2016 settlement required reforms under continuing federal supervision.
But the City did not reform. It substituted one machinery of constitutional deprivation for another. The same officials—Mayor Gilich, City Attorney Abide—remain in place. The only thing that changed was the target: from jailing poor citizens to firing political opponents and whistleblowers.
The Kennedy Pattern proves that only active federal supervision compels constitutional compliance in Biloxi. When oversight concludes, systematic violations resume through alternative mechanisms.
Translation for non-lawyers: Biloxi only follows the Constitution when a federal judge is actively watching. The moment the judge looks away, they find new ways to violate rights. Like a toddler who only behaves when mommy is in the room.
Except the toddler is a municipal government with a $50,000/month City Attorney. And the misbehavior is constitutional violations. And the victims are citizens who made the mistake of trusting their government.
Dear reader, here is the question that should concern every Biloxi resident: If they needed federal court supervision to stop jailing poor people illegally in 2015, and they're still violating constitutional rights in 2025 under the same leadership...
What exactly changed?
The answer: the method. Not the mentality.
- In 2015: jail people without hearings.
- In 2025: fire people without hearings.
Same due process violation. Different department. Same Mayor. Same City Attorney. Same "we do what we want until a federal judge stops us" philosophy.
The Pattern Is The Point
Readers of this publication will recognize the machinery.
A citizen exercises constitutional rights. The City responds with hostility. Documentation is manufactured. Pretextual justifications are constructed. Termination follows. When challenged, the City claims qualified immunity while the City Attorney's meter runs.
the undersigned ran afoul of this machine when he pulled permits. William Linville ran afoul of it when he ran for office.
The names change. The tactics remain identical.
Political opponents. Whistleblowers. Disabled employees. Anyone who questions. Anyone who challenges. Anyone who fails to bow.
The message is consistent: comply or be destroyed.
This is not incompetence. Incompetence is random. Incompetence makes mistakes in different directions. Incompetence sometimes accidentally helps people.
This is precision. This is consistency. This is the same playbook executed across departments, across years, against different citizens who have nothing in common except one thing: they didn't comply.
Dear reader, consider the pattern:
- the undersigned: Pulled permits. Asked questions. Filed complaints. Got prosecuted on perjured affidavits.
- William Linville: Ran for office. Reported violations. Requested accommodations. Got fired.
- Kennedy plaintiffs: Couldn't pay fines. Asked for hearings. Got jailed without due process.
Different people. Different departments. Different years. Same result: exercise your rights, face the consequences.
When the pattern is this consistent, it's not a bug. It's a feature. When the feature is this unconstitutional, it's policy. When the policy is coordinated through an enterprise for financial benefit, it starts to rhyme with a four-letter word that begins with R and ends with "acketeering."
We're just citizens reading public documents, dear reader. But we can see patterns. So can juries. So can grand juries.
Not legal advice. Just pattern recognition.
The Counts
- Count 1: First Amendment Retaliation. Linville spoke. Linville ran for office. Linville reported environmental violations. Linville lost his job.
- Count 2: Procedural Due Process. Linville had civil service protections. Linville received no hearing. Linville had no opportunity to contest.
- Count 3: ADA Disability Discrimination. Linville is nearly deaf. Linville requested accommodations. Linville was denied. Linville was terminated.
- Count 4: ADA Retaliation. Linville requested accommodations. Linville was punished for requesting them.
- Count 5: Rehabilitation Act Discrimination. The City receives federal funds. The City discriminated against a disabled employee.
- Count 6: Abuse of Official Position. City logos on campaign signs. City authority weaponized against political opponents.
- Count 7: Civil Conspiracy. Gilich and Abide acted together. Their coordination was intentional. Their purpose was deprivation of constitutional rights.
Seven counts. Seven different ways the City allegedly violated William Linville's rights. And this is just one citizen. One termination. One complaint.
Imagine what discovery will reveal.
Monell and Final Policymakers
For the law nerds in the audience.
Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), municipalities are liable when constitutional violations result from "official municipal policy of some nature."
Here, Mayor Gilich and City Attorney Abide are final policymakers whose decisions constitute City policy by definition. No higher official reviews their determinations. When Gilich approves termination, that IS the City acting. When Abide coordinates the legal strategy, that IS official policy.
The City cannot hide behind claims of "rogue employees" when its highest officials orchestrate the retaliation.
"Oh, that was just Jerry Creel acting on his own." No. Creel reports to Gilich.
"Oh, that was just Raymond Buxton's decision." No. Buxton reports to Gilich.
"Oh, the Mayor didn't know." He knew about the sinking boat. He "signed off" on it. His administration terminated Linville.
When the Mayor does it, it's municipal policy. That's what Monell means. The City is liable for what its final policymakers do. And in Biloxi, the final policymakers are the ones named in the complaint.
Qualified Immunity Will Not Save Them
The defendants will claim qualified immunity. They always do. It is the shield behind which government actors hide while violating rights they know they are violating.
But the law is clear. It has been clear for decades.
You cannot fire an employee for running against the Mayor. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), established that public employees do not surrender First Amendment rights at the workplace door.
The Supreme Court in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), established that "the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out." Here, Linville spoke by running for office. Linville reported to federal agencies. Linville was fired. The only remaining question is whether the City can articulate any legitimate reason for the termination—and the Mississippi Department of Employment Security already answered that question: they could not.
You cannot fire an employee for reporting environmental violations to federal agencies. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act protects whistleblowers. Federal policy protects those who report harm to the public.
You cannot deny reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and then terminate them for requesting those accommodations. The ADA has been law since 1990. Every government official knows these requirements.
A reasonable official would have known. These defendants knew.
Qualified immunity protects officials who make reasonable mistakes about unclear law. It does not protect officials who violate clearly established rights because they think they can get away with it.
"I didn't know I couldn't fire someone for running against me" is not a defense. Pickering is from 1968.
"I didn't know I had to accommodate a deaf employee" is not a defense. The ADA is from 1990.
"I didn't know I couldn't retaliate against a whistleblower" is not a defense. This has been federal law for decades.
Qualified immunity is supposed to protect the reasonable official who makes a good-faith mistake in a gray area. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for officials who know exactly what they're doing and do it anyway.
He Is Not Alone
William Anthony Linville filed his complaint pro se. He represents himself, as the undersigned represents himself, as citizens across this country have done when they cannot afford attorneys but refuse to accept injustice.
Pro se status is not weakness. Pro se status is asymmetric warfare.
Linville's case costs him filing fees. The City's defense costs taxpayers. Every motion the City files, every hearing the City attends, every deposition the City takes—Peter Abide's meter is running. Currie Johnson & Myers is billing. The taxpayers of Biloxi are paying.
Linville can litigate indefinitely. The City bleeds with every filing.
Pro se plaintiffs are the City's worst nightmare. Not because they're better lawyers than the lawyers. Not because they went to fancier law schools. Not because they have superior legal training.
Because they have nothing to lose and unlimited time.
Dear reader, let us explain the economics of asymmetric legal warfare.
Peter Abide bills $150/hour. His associates bill somewhat less. Paralegals bill $60/hour. Every email they read: billable. Every motion they draft: billable. Every phone call they take: billable. Every hour they spend thinking about the case while driving to work: probably billable, knowing Peter.
William Linville bills nothing. the undersigned bills nothing. Their time is free. Their overhead is zero. Their motivation is infinite.
The City's defense budget is finite. Taxpayer tolerance for legal fees is finite. Council members' patience for "we need another $50,000 for the Harbormaster case" is finite.
Pro se plaintiffs' willingness to file motions? Infinite.
Here's the math that should terrify Biloxi's City Council:
- Cost for Linville to file a motion: $0
- Cost for City to respond: $2,000-$10,000
- Cost for Linville to request documents: $0
- Cost for City to review and produce: $5,000-$20,000
- Cost for Linville to notice a deposition: $0
- Cost for City to prepare and attend: $3,000-$15,000
This is why settlement makes sense. This is why rational actors resolve disputes early. This is why competent municipal attorneys tell their clients "pay the $10,000 now or pay $100,000 later."
But Peter Abide doesn't get paid for settlements. Peter Abide gets paid for litigation. The longer it goes, the more he bills. The more he bills, the more he makes.
Funny how that works.
Constitutional Symmetry
Two strangers. Same machine. Same evidence.
William Linville and the undersigned have never met. They discovered each other's cases through federal court filings. But they are documenting the same constitutional machinery from different angles—Linville from employment retaliation, Petrini from property rights abuse.
Their cases cross-reference the same officials, invoke the same constitutional amendments, cite the same Supreme Court precedents. What they prove together is more powerful than what either proves alone: this is not isolated misconduct. This is how Biloxi operates.
Case Numbers for the Record:
- Linville v. City of Biloxi (to be assigned)
- Petrini v. City of Biloxi, No. 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM
- Petrini v. City of Biloxi, No. 1:25-cv-00233-LG-RPM
- Petrini v. City of Biloxi, No. 1:25-cv-00254-LG-RPM
Four federal cases. Same defendants. Same pattern. Same machinery.
Discovery in one case can be used in another. Admissions in one case become evidence in another. Deposition testimony in one case impeaches defendants in another.
Every new plaintiff doesn't just add a case. Every new plaintiff adds a data point. Every data point strengthens the pattern evidence. Every pattern makes the "isolated incident" defense less credible.
Gilich and Abide are not facing one lawsuit. They're facing an emerging class of plaintiffs who are all documenting the same behavior from different angles.
The more they retaliate, the more plaintiffs they create. The more plaintiffs they create, the stronger the pattern evidence becomes. The stronger the pattern evidence becomes, the more plausible the RICO claims appear.
They cannot win by intimidation anymore. Intimidation just generates more federal complaints.
The Settlement That Should Have Happened
Let's talk economics. And ethics. And common sense.
It would have been cheaper to settle with William Linville. It would have been ethical to settle with William Linville. A nearly deaf man, a part-time employee, asking for a CapTel phone and fair treatment. The City could have provided the accommodation. The City could have not fired him for running for office. The City could have, at minimum, offered a modest settlement when the unemployment tribunal ruled they had nothing.
Instead, they forced a disabled citizen into federal court.
The cost of settling with Linville before litigation? Probably five figures. Maybe less. A severance package. An accommodation. An apology.
The cost of defending against Linville in federal court? Six figures. Guaranteed. Discovery alone will cost more than any reasonable settlement would have.
Actually, let us correct ourselves. This IS about money. Just not the City's money.
Welcome to The Billables of Biloxi.
Peter Abide's firm extracts approximately $600,000 per year from Biloxi taxpayers. That's $50,000 per month. Yes, dear reader—per MONTH. His firm, Currie Johnson & Myers, extracts more money from Biloxi taxpayers than any contractor in city history. And he's never paved a road, built a school, or installed a water main.
His product? Litigation.
Here's the scheme: Abide and his network of defense attorneys benefit financially when cases do NOT settle. Every motion filed generates billable hours. Every discovery dispute generates billable hours. Every hearing generates billable hours. Every case that drags on for years generates billable hours.
Settling with William Linville would have cost the City maybe $10,000. But settling with William Linville would have cost Peter Abide tens of thousands in legal fees he now gets to bill defending the case.
The incentives are inverted. What's good for Biloxi taxpayers—quick, cheap resolution—is bad for Abide's billing. What's bad for Biloxi taxpayers—prolonged, expensive litigation—is Abide's entire business model.
So they don't settle. They fight. They file motions. They take depositions. They drag it out. And every month, the invoices arrive at City Hall, and the taxpayers fund the feast.
The Local Counsel Problem
Why can't citizens find lawyers in Biloxi? Dear reader, let us count the ways.
William Linville filed pro se. the undersigned filed pro se. Multiple citizens with meritorious federal claims against the City of Biloxi, and none of them could find local counsel willing to take their cases.
Interestingly, Linville reports the same observation the undersigned has made: no local attorney is willing to face Peter Abide.
Why?
We know why. Everyone in Harrison County knows why. Your neighbor's dog knows why. The seagulls at the harbor know why.
Peter Abide has been City Attorney since 2016. His firm handles municipal work across the Coast. His tendrils extend into utility boards, regulatory agencies, and god knows what else. Attorneys who practice in this jurisdiction need to appear before city officials. They need permits for their own projects. They need relationships with the local bar. They need referrals. They need to not be blacklisted.
Going against Abide means going against the machine. And the machine has a long memory.
The five-foot-tall man has his head up in the clouds. He thinks he's untouchable. He thinks the local bar's silence is respect. He thinks attorneys avoid him because they fear his legal prowess.
Dear reader, it's not respect. It's fear. It's calculation. It's attorneys who have mortgages and children and law school debt deciding that representing citizens against the City isn't worth the professional consequences.
That's not a functioning legal market. That's not access to justice. That's not how the adversarial system is supposed to work.
That's a protection racket in a three-piece suit.
So citizens file pro se. Citizens learn federal procedure from YouTube and Westlaw. Citizens do their own research at 2 AM after their day jobs. Citizens fight alone because the local bar has been captured, intimidated, or bought.
But here's the thing about pro se plaintiffs, dear reader: we have nothing to lose. We can't be professionally sanctioned. We can't be frozen out of local practice. We can't have our referral networks disrupted. We can't be threatened with bar complaints for pissing off the wrong people.
The same fear that silences the local bar doesn't apply to us.
Abide's power depends on everyone being afraid. When citizens stop being afraid, his power evaporates. And citizens are stopping being afraid.
One by one. Case by case. Filing by filing.
The emperor has no clothes, dear reader. We're just the kids pointing it out.
A Message to William
From those who walked the path before.
William, good luck.
You will need it, for reasons that unfortunately exist and that we both understand. The system is not designed for citizens to win. The system is designed to exhaust you, to drain you, to make you regret ever standing up. The delays will frustrate you. The procedural traps will confuse you. The motions to dismiss will discourage you. The billing statements you'll see in discovery—hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to crush a part-time Harbormaster—will make you question whether justice is possible.
But know this: we stand behind you.
Our eyes are watching. Our hands are documenting. Our voices are amplifying. You are not alone in that courtroom, even when it feels like you are.
Read our articles. Study the patterns. Learn from what we've learned. The condition to win is simple but brutal: survive the park, reach the helicopter, and be proud.
Survive the discovery phase. Survive the motion practice. Survive the delays and the games and the attempts to wear you down. Reach the helicopter—summary judgment, trial, settlement, whatever form victory takes. And when you get there, be proud.
And if you lose?
Even if you lose, William, you win. Like the undersigned, we cannot help but win—because we at least attempted. We gave our best. We stood in that courtroom and said "no" to power. We filed the complaint. We made the record. We forced them to answer for what they did.
Can Peter Abide ever say these words? Can Jerry Creel? Can Mayor Gilich? Can any of these dinosaurs ever stand before their children and say, "I fought for what was right"?
No. They can only say, "I billed hours." They can only say, "I followed orders." They can only say, "I kept my head down and collected my paycheck while citizens suffered."
That is not a legacy. That is cowardice with a pension.
Win or lose, William, you will be able to look in the mirror and know: you did not bow. You did not comply. You did not let them silence you without a fight.
That is victory. The courtroom verdict is paperwork. The moral verdict is already rendered.
Be proud because you stood for what you believe. Be proud because you didn't stay silent when they expected silence. Be proud because you reported the diesel spill when it would have been easier to look away. Be proud because you ran for office when incumbents expected coronation. Be proud because you demanded accommodations when they expected you to accept discrimination.
That's the mark of a man.
Welcome to the resistance, William. The helicopter is waiting. Survive the park.
The Dinosaurs Should Take Notice
This article is notice.
A PACER notification alert has been set for William Linville's case.
We are not his counsel. The undersigned has never met this person. We do not know his face, his voice, or his story beyond what appears in federal court filings. But we are there in spirit.
William is the people. Therefore, this website is just as much his as it is ours. And it shall be deployed to his aid.
To oversee. To expose. To document every motion, every filing, every attempt to delay, deny, and exhaust. Every time the City files a response, we will read it. Every time Abide's firm bills another invoice, we will note it. Every time a hearing is scheduled, we will be watching—even if only through the electronic docket.
The dinosaurs should understand what this means: William Linville is not alone in that courtroom. He has never been alone. From the moment he filed that complaint, he joined a community of citizens who are done being silent.
We will report on every development. We will analyze every motion. We will publish every revelation that emerges from discovery. We will make sure that whatever happens in Case No. [to be assigned] happens in public view, with public commentary, and permanent public record.
The days of quiet retaliation are over. The days of firing whistleblowers and assuming no one notices are over. The days of using City Hall as a weapon and expecting silence are over.
PACER alerts are set. The people are watching. Welcome to federal court, Biloxi.
William Linville is not isolated. William Linville has supporters. William Linville's case is being watched by the same community that watches Petrini's cases, that reads this publication, that shares these articles on social media, that attends Council meetings, that asks questions during public comment.
The days of quiet retaliation are ending. The days of terminating employees and assuming silence are ending. The days of using City Hall as a personal weapon and assuming no one will document it are ending.
The people are watching. The people are documenting. The people are filing.
Welcome to the resistance, Mr. Linville.
The dinosaurs are about to learn what extinction feels like.
To Mayor Gilich, City Attorney Abide, and everyone else at Biloxi City Hall who thought they could silence citizens through retaliation:
You fired the wrong Harbormaster. You prosecuted the wrong engineer. You picked fights with people who have nothing to lose and everything to prove.
Your legal fees are now approaching a quarter million dollars. Your cases are multiplying. Your pattern is documented. Your insurance carrier is watching. Your taxpayers are paying. Your Council members are getting uncomfortable.
And we're just getting started.
See you in court.
This article is protected commentary on public officials regarding matters of public concern. All factual assertions are drawn from federal court filings, state administrative findings, and public records. The identification of public officials by name in connection with their official conduct is constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment.
Sections marked "OUR ANALYSIS" and "OUR TAKE" represent the publication's editorial opinion based on review of publicly available documents. This is commentary, not legal advice. We are not lawyers. We are citizens exercising our constitutional right to criticize public officials. If that bothers you, may we suggest reading the First Amendment.
Have Information?
If you have information about municipal corruption in Biloxi or have experienced similar treatment, we want to hear from you.
Contact: tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com
All communications are confidential.