The Star Chamber of Biloxi

● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

Part 01 of the Series: "Star Chamber" — The Private Court of Peter Abide

My Dear Litigation War Diary

My dear litigation war diary,

The day is December 4th, 2025. It is Thursday. It is cold outside—cold just like Peter Abide's soul.

And here we stand, another day, another battle. Another morning where we rise to challenge the dinosaurs of Biloxi. The coffee is hot. The resolve is hotter. We burn our tongue. We dial back a little. Recomposure assumes. Fingers stretched. Time to roll. The documentation folder grows thicker by the hour. We burn the beans we were cooking. We blame Abide for this—otherwise we would be paying attention to the cooker. So we will be writing about him and the Board because of that.

Today we expose something special. Something the City of Biloxi desperately hoped would never see daylight. Something they buried in secret proceedings, hidden agendas, and private emails between attorneys who bill taxpayers to hide the truth from those same taxpayers.

But first, for our newer readers, a history lesson.

📌 Update: A new section has been added — see THE "SUB-COMMITTEE" LIE below.

What Was the Star Chamber?

Quick history lesson for those who didn't pay attention in class (no judgment—neither did the undersigned):

The Court of Star Chamber operated in England from the late 15th century until Parliament finally abolished it in 1641. Named for the starred ceiling of the room where it met at Westminster Palace, it started with good intentions—prosecuting powerful nobles who ordinary courts couldn't touch because, you know, they owned the judges.

Long story short, some fellow thought it was a good idea to create a court with no jury, no rules of evidence, and judges who answered only to the King. What could possibly go wrong?

I guess Abide was a big fan. He thought this was a good business model. "This dude is a genius," Abide thought. "No jury, no evidence, judges on my payroll? Sign me up."

By the 1600s, the Star Chamber had transformed into an instrument of royal oppression. Secret proceedings. No right to confront your accusers. Torture to extract confessions. Punishments including mutilation, branding, and life imprisonment. The Chamber answered to no one. Its judges served at the pleasure of the Crown. Its outcomes were predetermined by political convenience rather than law.

It became so infamous that Parliament eventually said "enough" and abolished it entirely in 1641. The Star Chamber became synonymous with arbitrary power exercised without accountability—the textbook example of what happens when you let one group control the entire process with no oversight.

So why do we invoke this name in Biloxi, Mississippi, in 2025?

Funny you should ask.

The Tallest 5-Foot-Tall Man in Biloxi

Meet Peter C. Abide—City Attorney, Chief Legal Officer, and the man the undersigned affectionately calls the tallest 5-foot-tall man in Biloxi.

And oh boy, do these people love titles. Some men collect baseball cards. Abide and Creel collect job titles. They get high on that stuff more than a cat on catnip.

Peter has built himself quite the little kingdom:

And Peter refused to produce the actual records, offering instead a letter summarizing what he felt like disclosing.

But billing is just the beginning.

Through Resolution 5L, Peter supervises the Senior Municipal Prosecutor. The prosecutor who decides whether to bring charges against citizens reports directly to the City Attorney who represents the City in federal litigation against those same citizens.

Peter controls what the City Council sees. Peter controls what public records get released. Peter coordinates the defense attorneys. Peter approves the judge's paycheck. Peter supervises the prosecutor.

And if you think the undersigned is exaggerating Peter's control over building enforcement, let the undersigned introduce Exhibit A: Jerry Creel's own testimony.

At the November 7, 2025 hearing, Creel testified under oath about who ordered the stop work order against the undersigned's property. Page 51, Lines 3-6 of the official transcript:

There it is. In Creel's own words. On the record. Under oath.

What was speculated is now a matter of fact. What was known but unproven is now admitted testimony:

First, that Jerry Creel is a puppet. Lifeless. A coward. A man who needs daddy's lap before making a building enforcement decision. The Building Official with four job titles can't issue a stop work order without running to the City Attorney for permission. All those titles, all that supposed authority, and Creel still needs Peter Abide to hold his hand and tell him what to do.

Creel broke. Creel is weak. He's a bully while you don't come after him—like a street dog that chases you, but runs the moment you turn around. The undersigned turned around. And Creel ran straight to the witness stand to confess that daddy told him to do it.

Second, that the tallest 5-foot-tall man in Biloxi was behind all of it. Every stop work order. Every denied permit. Every constitutional violation. The puppet master pulling Creel's strings from his office at Currie Johnson & Myers, billing $150 per hour to direct the very enforcement he then bills again to defend.

And Peter? The undersigned has never met him in person. Saw him twice at City Hall. The first time, when Abide saw the undersigned, he turned around and went back up the stairs. The second time, he tried to hide his face in the parking lot.

The man who directs stop work orders, controls judges' paychecks, supervises prosecutors, and coordinates the defense of an entire municipal corruption scheme—that man can't look the undersigned in the eye. He'll send armed cops to your house to deliver Jerry's Fun Coupons (that's what the undersigned calls stop work orders now), but he won't stand in the same room with you.

The City Attorney—the man who is supposed to provide legal advice, not building enforcement decisions—directed the Building Official to issue a stop work order. Not "advised." Not "recommended." Directed.

Peter Abide isn't just billing taxpayers to defend the City's building enforcement. Peter Abide is ordering the building enforcement. And then billing taxpayers to defend the enforcement he ordered. And then controlling the appeals process for the enforcement he ordered and is being paid to defend.

When every spoke of the wheel answers to the same hub, you don't have a justice system. You have a Star Chamber.

And our little 5-foot monarch runs it all from his office, billing taxpayers for the privilege of being oppressed by his machinery.

The historical Star Chamber had a starred ceiling. Ours has a short man with a tall ego and an unlimited billing arrangement.

The November 7 Tribunal

Now, on November 7, 2025, the undersigned attended what was supposed to be a quasi-judicial hearing before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. What the undersigned witnessed instead was a coordinated theatrical production—a predetermined outcome dressed in the costume of due process.

But here's the thing about Star Chambers: they work best when nobody knows they exist.

So let's talk about how Biloxi runs its secret tribunal.

The Invisible Board

Visit the City of Biloxi's official website. Navigate to the "Public Meetings" page. You'll find agendas and schedules for six boards: City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural and Historical Review Commission, Development Review Committee, Tree Committee, and Civil Service Commission.

What you won't find—anywhere—is the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals.

No agenda links. No meeting schedule. No public notice procedures. Nothing.

The board that decides whether citizens can occupy their own homes simply doesn't appear on the city's transparency page.

How convenient.

It's almost like they don't want anyone watching. Almost like transparency is... inconvenient. Almost like they read the Mississippi Supreme Court's warning about openness being "inconvenient" and thought, "You know what? Let's just skip that part entirely."

"The Panel Meets Only As Needed"

Let's walk through the email chain. Every timestamp. Every quote. All from the undersigned's inbox.

September 30, 2025, 3:37 PM — The undersigned submits the appeal to Whitehead. Whitehead responds: "I have forwarded your Appeal Notice to the City for processing."

Forwarded to whom? To Jerry Creel. The man whose decision was being appealed. The undersigned's appeal went directly to the defendant.

October 3, 2025, 1:52 PM — The undersigned asks why the appeal doesn't appear on the October 16 Planning Commission agenda. Whitehead's response:

Translation: There is no regular schedule. No posted meeting times. No public notice framework. The board materializes when summoned, conducts its business, and vanishes. Like a ghost. A very expensive, taxpayer-funded ghost that only haunts people Creel doesn't like.

October 7, 2025, 7:03 PM — Whitehead announces: "Yuri, the date for your appeal is Friday, October 24, at 3:00 pm."

October 7, 2025, 8:18 PM — One hour later, Whitehead adds the location: "The place for your hearing is the Auditorium of the Community Development Building, 676 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Biloxi, MS."

October 13, 2025, 9:56 PM — After the undersigned requests rescheduling due to professional obligations, Whitehead reveals the truth:

There it is. In writing. From opposing counsel. The Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals—the quasi-judicial body that decides whether citizens can occupy their homes—meets "only on an 'as needed' basis." No regular schedule. No public calendar. Whitehead personally calls board members to coordinate their availability.

Think about that. The opposing litigation counsel coordinates scheduling with private citizens who serve on the board. Your appeal from Jerry Creel's decision is scheduled through Jerry Creel's defense attorney.

October 16, 2025, 1:13 PM — Whitehead confirms rescheduling: "No, we cannot re-schedule for October 31. We will attempt to re-schedule this for November on any day other than a Monday or a Wednesday."

October 27, 2025, 1:30 PM — The undersigned checks the Planning Commission's published agenda—nothing about the appeal. Because the Building Board doesn't publish agendas. Later that day, the only "notice" arrives:

"Appeal hearing set for November 7, 2025 at 3:00 pm Auditorium in the Planning Department Building."

No City-issued notice. No public posting. No published agenda. Just an email from the attorney representing the decision-maker whose decision was under appeal.

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), established that due process requires notice "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action." Notice through opposing litigation counsel fails this standard on its face.

Mississippi Open Meetings Act? Never heard of her.

What the Mississippi Supreme Court Says

The Mississippi Supreme Court has been crystal clear:

In 2019, the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Columbus Mayor and Council violated the Open Meetings Act through prearranged sub-quorum meetings designed to circumvent transparency requirements. Board members cannot meet informally before hearings to predetermine outcomes.

Under Mississippi Code § 25-41-13, public bodies must provide notice of meetings. Biloxi's own ordinance requires notice "in accordance with the Mississippi Open Meetings Act" and specifies that records "shall be a public record and filed in the Community Development Department."

The Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals:

• Maintains no published meeting schedule
• Meets "as needed" with no regular calendar
• Published no agenda for November 7
• Provided no public notice to any citizen
• Scheduled the hearing through private email between litigation counsel and the appellant
• Is completely absent from the City's public meetings transparency page

Six other boards get public agendas. This one operates in darkness.

Why?

The Man Who Judges Himself

Here's where it gets good.

Jerry Creel holds multiple simultaneous positions: Building Official, Director of Community Development, Historical Director, and—here's the kicker—Secretary to the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals.

Four titles. One guy. When someone asks Jerry Creel what his job title is, he answers: "Oh boy, do you got time?"

Remember what the undersigned said about these people and job titles? Creel makes Abide look like an amateur collector.

As Building Official, Creel issued the decision under appeal.

As Board Secretary, Creel controls what materials reach the Board. He sets agendas. He administratively manages the very body reviewing his own decisions.

When the undersigned submitted appeal materials on September 30, 2025, guess where they went? To Jerry Creel. To be presented—or not presented—to the Board at Jerry Creel's discretion.

The appeal materials never reached the Board members. Creel filtered what they saw.

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), requires that decision-makers actually consider the evidence presented by affected parties. When the Secretary withholds an appellant's materials from the Board, the constitutional violation is complete before the hearing even begins.

The United States Supreme Court addressed this exact structural problem in Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). Due process requires an impartial tribunal. When the decision-maker has interests tied to the outcome, the constitutional violation is structural—it doesn't matter if the specific decision was correct.

Jerry Creel's interests are tied to every appeal outcome. Every reversal is a repudiation of his professional judgment. Every affirmance validates his enforcement actions. And he controls what evidence the Board sees.

The Fifth Circuit addressed almost identical facts in Jabary v. City of Allen, No. 15-40772 (5th Cir. 2017), where a building inspector revoked a certificate of occupancy without adequate hearing. The Court held this violated procedural due process. Sound familiar? It should. It's exactly what's happening here—except Creel added the special touch of judging his own appeals.

Unequal Time: The Clock That Only Runs One Way

At the November 7 hearing, the undersigned received approximately 10-20 minutes to present. A time clock was enforced. Tick tock. Wrap it up. You're boring us.

Jerry Creel? Unlimited time. No clock. Take your time, Jerry. We've got nowhere to be. Tell us more about how this citizen is violating codes you can't actually identify.

The transcript tells the story. Pages 3-4, 18, and 40-41 document the disparity. The citizen appellant gets a timer. The Building Official whose decision is under review speaks as long as he wishes.

Constitutional due process in quasi-judicial proceedings requires equal treatment. When one party faces time restrictions and the opposing party faces none, the inequality is facial. No analysis required. Just arithmetic.

As the Supreme Court held in Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965), due process requires an "opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time." Twenty minutes with a buzzer while your accuser speaks unlimited? That's not meaningful. That's a formality designed to fail.

The Rebuttal That Never Happened

After Creel's unlimited presentation, the undersigned asked Whitehead whether there would be another opportunity to speak—to respond to Creel's assertions, to correct misstatements, to exercise the fundamental right to confront adverse evidence.

Whitehead's response: "Yes, later, not sure."

Later never came. "Not sure" was accurate—Whitehead wasn't sure because he knew there wouldn't be one.

Seconds later, the Board moved to vote. No rebuttal. No opportunity to respond. The hearing ended before the undersigned could address Creel's presentation. They voted faster than you can order a coffee at Starbucks. Grande constitutional violation with an extra shot of due process denial, please.

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), established that due process requires the opportunity to confront and respond to adverse evidence. The undersigned was denied this constitutional right.

Think about that for a moment. In Goldberg, the Supreme Court held that welfare recipients—people fighting for a few hundred dollars of monthly benefits—have the right to an evidentiary hearing with the ability to present and challenge evidence before benefits are cut. Here, the stakes were the undersigned's home, and yet the undersigned received less process than someone fighting for welfare support.

But why would they allow rebuttal? The outcome was predetermined. Creel's materials reached the Board. The undersigned's did not. Creel spoke without limits. The undersigned watched a clock. Creel concluded. The Board voted.

Efficiency. When you've already decided the result, extended proceedings waste everyone's time.

The Captured Board

Let's meet the eight members of the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All mayoral appointees. All professionals whose livelihoods depend on staying in the City's good graces. All present to "independently" review Jerry Creel's decision. Spoiler alert: they found Jerry Creel did nothing wrong. Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

Every member's professional livelihood depends on maintaining positive relationships with the Community Development Department for permit approvals and with the City for contracts. David Machado's engineering firm requires Creel's cooperation for every project. Michael LeBatard discussed removal scenarios with Creel during the undersigned's own hearing.

This is not independent oversight. This is captured oversight. The regulated industry reviewing the regulator's decisions—where everyone has financial incentives to keep the regulator happy.

The Fifth Circuit applies the Tumey v. Ohio "average man as judge" standard. Would an average person in these board members' positions feel pressure to rule for the Building Official who controls their permit approvals? Would they hesitate to contradict the Director of Community Development who influences their professional relationships?

The vice inheres in the system. It is fatal.

The Disposition That Doesn't Exist

After the predetermined proceeding concluded, the Board voted to "deny" the appeal.

One problem: "denial" is not an authorized disposition.

Under the International Residential Code Section R112.1, the Board may only: reverse the decision, affirm the decision, or modify the decision.

"Deny" appears nowhere. The Board issued a disposition the statute doesn't authorize. They literally made up their own option. Like a multiple choice test where the answer is A, B, or C, and they circled "D - Whatever Jerry wants."

But they went further. When Board member Kevin Shaughnessy asked, "Now, Jerry, can he appeal this to the city council?" Creel flatly responded: "No." Shaughnessy pressed: "He can't?" Creel repeated: "No. This is not a political decision. This doesn't go to the council."

This exchange—preserved in the official transcript at pages 80-81—shows Creel misrepresenting the undersigned's legal rights during a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Building Official whose decision was under appeal told the appellant there was no further recourse. The Board members accepted this without question.

Ultra vires action combined with misrepresentation of appeal rights. The Star Chamber operates outside legal boundaries while telling citizens those boundaries don't exist.

The Surveillance Pattern

Here's where the intimidation becomes undeniable. And also a little pathetic, if we're being honest.

November 3, 2025 — Creel Targets the Wife

Four days before the hearing, while the undersigned was traveling out of state, Jerry Creel conducted surveillance of the undersigned's wife, Sumire, at 929 Division Street.

Not 1606 Beach Boulevard—the property under dispute. Her workplace.

Creel drove by slowly, watching. Sumire was alone. The surveillance caused severe emotional distress, requiring the undersigned to return home immediately.

This occurred during active FBI and State Department investigations. This occurred during the pendency of the Board appeal. This occurred four days before Creel would present evidence against the undersigned at the November 7 hearing.

The undersigned has called Creel's conduct what it is: staring "like a pervert" at another man's wife. Because that's what it was. A government official, during active federal litigation, driving slowly past a woman's workplace to watch her while her husband is out of state.

Normal behavior for a Building Official? You tell me.

November 7, 2025, 11:59 AM — Whitehead Films the Property

Three hours before the 3:00 PM hearing, defense counsel Michael Whitehead was photographed conducting surveillance of 1606 Beach Boulevard, filming the property. City vehicles accompanied him.

The same attorney who scheduled the hearing through private email. The same attorney who would appear at the hearing as counsel. The same attorney billing taxpayers to argue the undersigned harasses public officials.

The Pattern

Two surveillance incidents. Four days apart. Building Official targeting the wife at her workplace. Defense counsel filming the property hours before the hearing.

Both occurred during the Board appeal process. Both occurred during active FBI and State Department investigations. Both demonstrate consciousness of guilt and witness intimidation.

Why does a Building Official need to surveil a litigant's wife at her workplace? Why does defense counsel need to film a property three hours before a quasi-judicial proceeding?

What the Star Chamber Reveals

Pattern recognition is an engineering discipline. Here's what the pattern shows:

• Secret Scheduling: No public notice, hearing arranged through private email from opposing counsel
• Suppressed Evidence: Appeal materials filtered by the decision-maker under review, never reaching Board members
• Unequal Treatment: Time-limited citizen presentation versus unlimited Building Official presentation
• Denied Rebuttal: Immediate vote after Creel's presentation, no opportunity to respond
• Captured Decision-Makers: Every member with professional dependencies on the defendant and his department
• Ultra Vires Disposition: "Denial" not authorized under governing statute
• Misrepresentation: False statements about available appeal rights

This is not a hearing that went wrong. This is a system designed to produce predetermined outcomes while wearing the costume of due process.

The Mississippi Ethics Commission can impose $500 for a first Open Meetings Act violation, $1,000 for subsequent offenses. Now, the undersigned believes in transparency—unlike certain municipal officials—so here's the honest limitation: under Shipman v. North Panola Consolidated School District, 641 So. 2d 1106 (Miss. 1994), Open Meetings Act violations don't automatically void the Board's actions.

But that's not the point.

The point is that these violations become evidence of the broader pattern. Evidence that feeds into federal § 1983 claims. Evidence that the Fifth Circuit will consider when evaluating structural bias, captured oversight, and systematic due process deprivation.

The real accountability comes from federal court, where constitutional remedies cannot be procedurally sidestepped.

The Dinosaurs of the Building Board

The undersigned believes in transparency. Unlike the City of Biloxi, the undersigned tells you what's coming.

Eight board members participated in the November 7 Star Chamber. Each enabled the constitutional violations documented above. Each will receive their own moment in the spotlight.

Already Named:

Michael LeBatard — First on this list. Not because he held any special position on the Board. Because he will be the first to be fully scrutinized. The gentleman caught on transcript discussing with Jerry Creel various scenarios for forcibly removing the undersigned from the residence. During the undersigned's own hearing. While supposedly serving as an impartial adjudicator. His exposure is already documented in the hearing transcript, pages the City desperately hopes nobody reads. He shall respond for his words, dinosaur.

David Machado — Professional Engineer. His firm operates on the same street as the undersigned's property at 1606 Beach Boulevard. Every project his firm touches requires Jerry Creel's permit approvals. Every contract with the City flows through relationships Creel influences. He voted to affirm Creel's decision. Shocked? Neither are we.

Coming Soon:

Chuck Collins — Chairman. The man who ran the clock on the appellant while letting Creel speak unlimited. The man who immediately entertained a motion to decide the case after Creel finished—before the undersigned could rebut. Within seconds, the vote was called and executed. Collins presided over the denial of constitutional rights. His time approaches.

To Be Determined:

• Kevin Shaughnessy — Asked Creel during the hearing: "Now, Jerry, can he appeal this to the city council?" Creel said "No." Shaughnessy accepted this misrepresentation without question. Status: EXPOSURE PENDING.
• Larry Rumsey — Exposure pending.
• David Sellers — Exposure pending.
• Brian Patterson — Exposure pending.
• Dean Perkins — Exposure pending.

Each dinosaur will receive individualized attention when the record is complete. Their professional relationships with Creel and the City. Their votes. Their silence when constitutional rights were trampled.

They should have recused. They didn't.

They should have demanded the appellant's materials. They didn't.

They should have stopped the vote until rebuttal occurred. They didn't.

Now they wait. Wondering which week their name trends on peoplevsbiloxi.com.

The undersigned is nothing if not patient.

The Scorecard

(Because the undersigned believes in transparency, and also because these numbers are hilarious)

Does any of this make sense? No. Is the City still fighting? Yes. Are they winning? Ask their insurance carrier.

The undersigned tells you what's coming because sunlight is the best disinfectant. Every dinosaur on this list knows their name appears here. Every dinosaur on this list knows more documentation exists than has been published. Every dinosaur on this list knows the federal court docket grows weekly.

They can settle. They can resign. They can cooperate.

Or they can wait for their individual spotlight on peoplevsbiloxi.com.