Star Chambers and Engineers

● Tips are now live — tips@peoplevsbiloxi.com

Part 02 of the Series: "Star Chamber" — The Private Court of Peter Abide

The Man Behind the Curtain

In the original Star Chamber article, the undersigned exposed how the little man—the Napoleon of Biloxi, the most audacious pseudo-lawyer in the history of this city, a coward who won't look you in the eyes as you accuse his wife of fraud in City Council, what you would expect from a little man who sends others to do his dirty work—Peter Abide controls the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. How Jerry Creel judges his own cases. How the secret tribunal operates in darkness.

But there's another player in this network. A man who appears less frequently in the spotlight but whose fingerprints are on everything. A man who, according to the defendants' own admissions, controlled an "independent" engineering firm and directed what they could and couldn't communicate.

Meet J. Henry "Hank" Ros.

This fraudster and lawyer has committed some pretty serious stuff: extortion, falsification, conspiracy to deny constitutional rights, control of municipal court. The list is long. And one of the tops just fell—the expert witness fraud uncovered.

Attorney at Currie Johnson & Myers. The same law firm that bills Biloxi taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. The same law firm where Peter Abide works. The same law firm that coordinates the defense of every municipal corruption defendant in this saga.

And on August 13, 2025, Hank Ros sent a letter that reveals everything.

The August 13 Letter

On August 13, 2025, Ros sent the undersigned a letter on Currie Johnson & Myers letterhead. The letter made several claims about the deck at 1606 Beach Boulevard—claims about piles, footings, structural concerns.

But that's not why the letter matters.

The letter matters because of what it reveals about timing and coordination.

Read that again.

On July 9, 2025—the same day the City issued a criminal summons—the City began looking for an engineering firm. Not before. Not to identify problems. After the prosecution was initiated.

If this were about building safety, wouldn't you hire an engineer first to determine whether violations exist? Wouldn't you get the expert opinion before initiating criminal charges?

Not in Biloxi. In Biloxi, you charge first and find engineering cover second.

The Day Pettry Confessed

The day after Ros sent his letter, the undersigned visited Simpkins & Costelli's office.

What happened in that two-hour meeting—witnessed by three employees: Taylor Jakins, Lainey Aschenbach, and Sheila McLaughlin—unraveled the entire scheme.

Pettry made approximately thirty admissions, including:

Read that again.

The engineer whose name appeared on Ros's August 13 letter:

• Didn't write the letter
• Made no final findings
• Was taking orders from a lawyer
• Apologized for the criminal prosecution

Three witnesses. Two hours. Thirty admissions.

This isn't speculation. This isn't inference. This is documented testimony from a licensed professional engineer, made in her own office, witnessed by her own employees.

The Shapeshifting Expert

Watch how Pettry's title changed as litigation needs evolved:

Consultant. Expert. Witness. Not witness. Whatever the litigation needed that week.

The Prosecution Evaporated

On September 19, 2025, Biloxi Municipal Court dismissed the criminal charges against the undersigned.

Why?

Defendants failed to produce any evidence for over twenty-one days. The "engineering findings" that Ros fabricated—the same findings Pettry admits she never made—could not withstand the basic requirement of... existing.

The Free Exit They Refused

In October 2025, the undersigned offered Pettry complete resolution:

• Dismissal with prejudice
• No money demanded
• One deposition under oath
• That's it

Adam Harris of Phelps Dunbar—Pettry's attorney—responded: "You want money, right?" "How much do you want?"

The undersigned wanted truth. Not money. Just a deposition.

Harris rejected the offer. Pettry chose continued litigation over a free exit requiring only honesty.

The Proof They Ran From

On November 11-12, 2025, the undersigned excavated the foundation at 1606 Beach Boulevard. Professional documentation. Video evidence. Laser measurements.

What did the excavation reveal?

• All-steel foundation system
• Welded steel-to-steel connections
• No concrete pile caps

Remember Ros's August 13 letter? The one claiming "pile cap thickness less than 24 inches"?

The undersigned invited Pettry to inspect the exposed foundation. Her response?

The engineer whose name appears on findings about the foundation refused to look at the foundation.

Because looking would require explaining how her name ended up on a letter describing concrete that doesn't exist.

The Lawyer Who Practiced Engineering

Let's be clear about what Ros did:

• Wrote a letter containing nine "engineering findings"
• Attributed those findings to a licensed PE
• Used those findings to support criminal prosecution
• The PE admits she didn't write them
• The findings describe structures that don't exist

In Mississippi, practicing engineering without a license is a criminal offense.

Ros is not an engineer. Ros wrote engineering findings. Ros attributed them to someone else. Those findings were used in criminal proceedings.

That's not zealous advocacy. That's fraud. That's potentially criminal.

The Engineer Who Answers to Ros

Let's talk about Madeline Costelli Pettry, P.E., and her firm Simpkins & Costelli, Inc.

With credentials like these—Summa Cum Laude, President of Engineers Without Borders, projects at Air Force bases and major ports—you would expect independent professional judgment. You would expect her to evaluate the facts, reach her own conclusions, and provide an honest assessment.

That's not what happened here.

Pettry's own legal filings admit something extraordinary:

Read that again. The "independent" engineer insisted that all communications must go through the City's litigation attorney.

Not through the Building Official. Not directly to the property owner. Not through normal engineering channels. Through Ros—the attorney coordinating the City's defense in federal civil rights litigation.

Why would an engineer need a lawyer to handle her communications? Why would professional engineering judgment require legal intermediation?

Unless the "engineering" was never independent. Unless the whole purpose was litigation cover, not building safety.

The Report That Never Came

Here's the thing about engineers: they produce reports.

That's what engineers do. They investigate, they analyze, they document findings, and they issue stamped professional reports. It's the entire point of hiring them.

So where's Pettry's report?

On September 25, 2025—43 days after formal retention—Pettry's brief admitted they had "not produced any final report or any signed expert report."

On December 31, 2025—173 days after formal retention—still no report.

What kind of engineering investigation takes nearly six months and produces nothing? What kind of "expert" bills for their time while delivering zero work product?

A legitimate engineering investigation produces findings. This "investigation" produced only billing and litigation cover.

The Judicial Estoppel Bomb

But wait. It gets better.

In September 2025, Pettry claimed immunity as an expert witness. She invoked Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), which protects expert witnesses who testify in judicial proceedings.

Makes sense, right? She's an expert. She'll testify. She gets witness immunity.

Except...

Three months apart. Same defendant. Completely contradictory positions.

In September, they claimed immunity because they were expert witnesses. In December, they disclaimed expert status entirely.

This is textbook judicial estoppel.

Under New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001), judicial estoppel bars a party from asserting a position "clearly inconsistent" with one it successfully maintained in prior proceedings. You cannot claim immunity for testimony you now disclaim.

"Post-Hoc Justification for Retaliation"

Here's where Pettry's own lawyers made the undersigned's case for him.

In their brief, they quoted the undersigned's allegation that Pettry provided a "post-hoc justification for retaliation." They then tried to argue this actually helps them because they didn't cause the original retaliation.

Think about what they just admitted.

They admit the "deprivation of federal rights already happened before any actions allegedly taken by Simpkins & Costelli or Mrs. Pettry."

They admit they were brought in after the constitutional violation occurred.

They admit their role was to provide justification for retaliation that had already happened.

This is not a defense. This is a confession.

They joined an ongoing conspiracy. Their purpose was cover-up, not investigation. They were retained to manufacture engineering rationale for prosecution that had already been initiated.

This admission has legal consequences. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, persons who join an ongoing conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights are liable as co-conspirators.

See Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980): Private parties who conspire with state actors can be sued under Section 1983.

See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970): Conspiracy requires only agreement to participate in a common plan to deprive rights.

Pettry didn't need to cause the original violation. She just needed to join the cover-up.

The Trap They Couldn't Escape

The undersigned's motions forced Defendants into an impossible choice:

Both doors lead to the same destination: loss.

They chose Door 2. In writing. On New Year's Eve.

The Ros Control Pattern

Now connect the dots.

The Star Chamber: Peter Abide and Hank Ros—both of Currie Johnson & Myers—control the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. No public notice. Secret scheduling. Creel judges his own appeals.

The Engineering Cover: Ros controls Pettry. All communications go through him. No independent professional judgment. 173 days, no report.

The August 13 Connection: On the same day Simpkins & Costelli was formally retained, Ros sends a letter citing their engineering concerns. The "independent" engineer and the litigation attorney coordinated from day one.

This is not coincidence. This is a control network.

Currie Johnson & Myers bills the City to direct enforcement (through Abide). Currie Johnson & Myers bills the City to control the "independent" engineer (through Ros). Currie Johnson & Myers bills the City to defend the enforcement they directed (through everyone).

They create the problem. They manufacture the cover. They defend the cover. And taxpayers pay for all of it.

State Action Through Ros

Pettry's lawyers tried to argue she can't be a state actor because she's a private engineer.

Nice try.

Under Cornish v. Correctional Services Corp., 402 F.3d 545, 550 (5th Cir. 2005), private actors become state actors when they are "willful participants in joint action with the State or its agents."

Pettry willfully subordinated her engineering judgment to Ros's control. All communications went through Ros. The City's litigation attorney directed what the "independent" engineer could and couldn't say.

That's not independent professional judgment. That's joint action with a state actor.

Under Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), private parties who conspire with state officials to deprive citizens of constitutional rights become state actors themselves. They can be sued under Section 1983.

Pettry didn't exercise professional engineering judgment. She took orders from the City's attorney. She refused to communicate directly with the property owner. She produced no report while billing for "expert" work.

Who's Really Making It Expensive?

In ECF 66-67, Phelps Dunbar cited the undersigned's journalism—this very website—as evidence of a scheme to "Make It Expensive."

Let's check the math:

The undersigned bills no hours. The undersigned has no overhead. The undersigned offered free dismissal.

Defendants rejected free resolution and have spent $220,000 defending positions they now abandon.

The Communication They Blocked, Then Complained About

ECF 67 claims the undersigned "has not conferred" with Pettry.

Here's what the record shows:

They blocked direct contact. They ignored communications through counsel. Then they complained about lack of conferral.

The Letter's Real Purpose

Go back to Ros's August 13 letter.

After listing various engineering concerns—concerns his controlled engineer would never formally document—the letter ends with a demand:

There it is.

The letter wasn't really about engineering. It was about silencing the undersigned. It was about using fabricated engineering concerns as leverage to demand the undersigned stop documenting municipal corruption.

"Stop threatening Creel"—meaning stop exposing his lies in federal court.

"Stop the inappropriate conduct"—meaning stop exercising First Amendment rights to petition the government and inform the public.

This is what the whole scheme was about. From the Star Chamber to the controlled engineer to the August 13 letter—it was all designed to pressure the undersigned into silence.

It didn't work.

The Control Network Exposed

Let the undersigned draw you a picture:

• Peter Abide (Currie Johnson) → Controls Jerry Creel's enforcement decisions
• Peter Abide → Controls the Building Board through captured members
• Hank Ros (Currie Johnson) → Controls engineer Pettry
• Hank Ros → Sends demand letter same day as formal engineering retention
• Currie Johnson → Bills taxpayers for all of it

One law firm. Multiple tentacles. Complete control of enforcement, appeals, engineering cover, and litigation. All funded by the same taxpayers being oppressed.

This isn't legal representation. This is an enterprise.

What This Means

The August 13 letter and the Pettry admissions prove what the undersigned alleged from the beginning:

1. The prosecution was retaliatory. Criminal charges came the same day they started looking for engineering cover.
2. The engineering was never independent. Pettry answered to Ros, not professional standards.
3. The purpose was cover, not safety. 173 days and no report proves they never intended to investigate.
4. The Star Chamber and the engineer are connected. Same law firm controls both.
5. Judicial estoppel destroys their immunity. They can't claim expert protection while disclaiming expert status.

Every piece of evidence they submitted made the undersigned's case stronger. Every admission in their briefs became a weapon against them. Every delay in producing their nonexistent report proved the fraud.

Rise and Shine, Hank

Hank Ros probably thought controlling an engineer would be easy. Get her to say what you need. Never produce a formal report. Keep everything filtered through the law firm. Bill taxpayers for the coordination.

But here's the thing about lawyers: they love paper trails. They document everything. They file admissions in federal court. They write letters that become exhibits.

The August 13 letter. The admission about Ros control. The judicial estoppel flip-flop. The "post-hoc justification" confession. The 173 days of no report.

It's all in the record now. All documented. All admissible.

The Star Chamber tried to operate in darkness. The controlled engineer tried to provide cover. The August 13 letter tried to intimidate.

All it did was create evidence.

Rise and shine, Hank. The undersigned sees you.

The Final Irony

Phelps Dunbar billed holiday rates to file ECF 66-67 on December 31, 2025.

That filing killed their own client's immunity defense.

That filing handed the undersigned judicial estoppel on a silver platter.

That filing admitted everything the undersigned alleged about Ros control.

This article documents public court filings, correspondence, and constitutional analysis. All facts are derived from ECF filings, letters produced in discovery, and published legal authority. Public officials and their agents acting in official capacity are proper subjects of public commentary.

The undersigned is represented by himself in federal civil rights litigation: Case 1:25-cv-00178-LG-RPM, Case 1:25-cv-00233-LG-RPM, and Case 1:25-cv-00254-LG-RPM, Southern District of Mississippi.