It started in 1987 when I was a victim of an assault at the Gandy boat ramp by a drunk and out of control man. Since the perpetrator fled the scene I called Tampa Police Department (TPD) to make a complaint so as to have this person prosecuted so he would not assault anyone else. The TPD operator took my information and told me a detective would be calling me back in a week or so to get all of the information to start the prosecution process.
Several weeks went by, with no calls from the Tamap Police Department (TPD) detective. So I called TPD to find out what happened to the detective's call I was supposed to get. The detective's supervisor checked the records and then told me that according to the detective's report I had already come down to TPD offices and told the detective the pertinent information and that I had personally signed and sworn to the complaint form. I TOLD THE DETECTIVE'S SUPERVIOR THE TRUTH THAT I HAD NEVER BEEN TO THE POLICE STATION, AND NEVER EVER SPOKE TO DETECTIVE RICHARD "RICKY" BURTON WHO FALSELY FILLED OUT A POLICE REPORT AND FRAUDULANTLY SIGNED MY NAME WHICH WAS A FELONY. TPD knew the detective was lying and the TPD detective signed complaint was fraudulant. TPD could have stopped their detective's false police report corruption rot right there but TPD did not do that TPD then started a cover up financed by taxpayer money to try to cover up of the detective's false police report which was in itself another felony.
To get the detective false police report mess on the record I then filed a sworn complaint with TPD Internal Affairs Bureau. IAB knew I was telling the truth and the detective was lying in a police report. The TPD Internal Affairs Bureau concocted a scheme with a private company, Namia Polygraph Examiners. TPD IAB asked me to take a polygraph test to prove I was telling the truth which was a ruse I will explain shortly. I agreed to take the polygraph test UNDER THE CONDITION THAT RIGHT AFTER I TOOK THE TEST THE DETECTIVE WOULD TAKE THE POLYGRAPH TEST. Before hand TPD agreed that the detective would take the polygraph test after I did, but then after I took the test TPD IAD renigged on that promise and said since I failed the test the detective would not be require to take the test. I took the polygraph test and told the truth and then lying IAB said that since Namia Polygraph Examiners determined that the polygraph test indicated I was lying they would not require said detective to take the polygraph test, case over. DO YOU SMELL SOMETHING ROTTEN? TPD IAD thought that was the end of it. Unfortunately for TPD IAD it did not end there but 5 years later at the Appellate Court.
To sum to this point: A TPD detective lied and filed a false and fraudulant police report wihout ever even speaking with me where he illegally signed my name, which is a felony. TPD knew it but then compounded the detective's crime with another crime an obstruction of justice cover up, which is another felony.
After my polygraph test at the private company Namia Polygraph Examiners I asked Namia for a copy of all of the questions and the complete polygraph roll record. NAMIA REFUSED AND IN FRONT OF ME LOCKED WHAT WERE ACTUALLY PUBLIC RECORDS INTO A FILE CABINENT AND SAID I CAN'T HAVE ANY OF THE QUESTIONS AND NONE OF THE ACTUAL POLYGRAPH GRAPH.NAMIA SAYS THE POLYGRAPH TEST SAID I LIED. As it turns out Namia who owned the polygraph company was a former TPD officer and the actual polygraph examiner was a former TPD officer. TPD IAD did not have me take a polygraph test to determine if I was lying, as that was their deceptive ruse. TPD IAD had me take the polygraph test with their TPD connected cronys to specifically use the test to say the polygraph test said I was lying when I was telling the truth. After Namia Polygraph Examiners locked the questions and polygraph chart away Namia said that since Namia was a private company that I had no right to have a copy of the questions and polygraph chart and that was the end of it, not exactly. The Public Records Act states otherwise. TPD IAD obstruction of justice scheme was to use tax dollars to send me to their "cherry picked" private polygraph examiner who was a former TPD officer and the set up was no matter what the polygraph chart said Namia would say the polygraph chart determined that I lied when I did not lie. Namia laughingly quipped at that time that the only way I was going to get the questions and polygraph chart was to get a Court Order.
So after Namia a private company locked these public records up and said I was not entitled to have copies I asked the City of Tampa to get these public records from Namia. The city refused to get and to turn over the public records to me at that time. The City of Tampa, TPD IAD figured they could end it there and get away with sweeping it under the rug and with your tax dollars no less!
I told the City of Tampa that if they did not turn over the requested public records that I would have no choice but to sue pursuant to the Public Records Act (PBA).
The City attorney did not want to turn over the requested Public Records because it would show and document absolutely that the detective lied, TPD IAD lied, Namia lied, and most importantly the polygraph test questions and answers with the polygraph graph would absolutely show that I was telling the truth contrary to what Namia (former cop) claimed in his assessment. So to try to keep these documents from public view and scrutiny is why the City attorney's fought using your tax dollars for 5 years to keep these public records from seeing the light of day when they knew all along that they were aiding a abetting the TPD IAD coverup.
So I sued the City in Circuit Court in 1987. The first Judge Walter Bernside at the first hearing arrogantly mocked me for being a Pro Se litigant. After that he went off the case and Judge Peter "J.T. Taylor was the new Judge on the case. Judge Taylor was known to be a biased jurist, and that was born out by the fact the Judge Taylor at the time was the most overturned Judge. So Judge Taylor dismissed the case with prejudice but would not award me costs per the Public Records Act statute which I was entitled. So I filed a comprehensive Apellate brief with the Court of Appeals which as now after all of these years been cited by later public records cases. After 5 years of needless litigation with the City of Tampa using tens of thousand of your tax dollars to fight for their deception which the Appeals Court overturned is disgusting.
So the City of Tampa was Ordered to pay me back every dime of pertinent costs which came out of the taxpayer's pocket when 5 years before the City could have given me the records I requested and been done with it but NOOOOOOOOO the City had to unethically waste your tax dollars to try to cover their @ss which in the end got fully exposed.
I never lied or deceived on Namia's polygraph exam. Namia purposely falsely interpreted the polygraph graph and indicated I was deceptive/lying. Since it was suspiciously evident why Namia wanted to lock the polygrpah graph up out of sight becasue it was part of the TPD's scheme to get rid of me because the polygraph graph did not indicate any lies nor deception. What Namia did not anticipate is that I got a look at the graph before Namia locked it up and I had to sue to get it. I have a degree from USF circa 1975 and know how to interpret a polygraph test and before I sued I knew it backed me up that I was telling the truth becasue I was telling the truth.
Judge Taylor underestimated me and I filed a pro se comprehensive appeal brief with the Second District Court of Appeal. The Second District Court of Appeal sided with me the Plaintiff 3-0 and sent the case back to Judge Peter Taylor for a judgment consistent with the law. The lower court Judge Taylor then had to ORDER that the City of Tampa turn over the embarrassing to them public records that showed the City/Police lied during an Internal Affairs Investigtion to cover up for the cop who made the false police record. The attempted cover up was as much of a crime as the cop filing a false police record.
My winning Pro Se case from 1987-1992 has been cited by at least 10 other later public records cases. So I have been there already and done that with a prejudiced bias favoritism judge looking to put his thumb on the scale of justice to help the city. It is Deja vu all over again. When my 1987 public records case was glaringly wrong and dishonestly adjudicated by corrupted Judge Peter J.T. Taylor was overturned by the appeals court in 1992 Judge Jennifer P. Johnson was still in elementary school.
If said Judge thought that what was in her court room was going to stay in her court room or be buried in a public record somewhere unfortunately for her with the age of the internet, domain names, websites, html coding and social media will be used to honestly warn others of bias and favortism in her court room. Since she did it once the probability that she had already done this before and will do it again is very possible so we don't want this Judge to get into any bad habits like infamous Judge Tayor.
The Judge in question was appointed in August 2024. She had not been elected when she heard my case in April 2025. She had less than a year on the bench experience when aledgely she purposely prematurely dismissed my case with prejudice without hearing all of the evidence as will be explained in this website. If she did it to me then how many others did she do the same premature dismissal to help one side?
Back in the day Judge Peter Taylor the judge who was overturned by the appeals court was known to play favoritism over the law and due process and because of that he was the most overturned Hillsborough County Judge at the time.
I know that Judge Jennifer P. Johnson wrongly prematurely cut off my case before all evidence was heard which in effect helped the defendants avoid paying valid rental late fees.
Judge Jennifer P. Johnson's prejudicial bias ruling will be held accountable on this website because Hillsborough County residents need to be informed about Judge Jennifer P. Johnson.
Wisner v. City of Tampa. That case has been cited by many other later public records cases and my pro se case was cited by Pam Bondi in a public records case she filed when she was Florida Attorney General. So I have been there already and done that with a prejudiced bias favoritism judge that put his thumb on the scale of justice to help the city. The appeals court wanted not part of Judge Taylor's prejudice and ill ruling. Now, it is Deja vu all over again.
We also want to inform the people of these serious allegations about Judge Jennifer P. Johnson Hillsborough County Florida in case because she ruled on activism instead of the law she is not worthy of being a Judge. Any Judge that rules on emotion instead of the law and justice just one time is one time too many.
I know that Judge Jennifer P. Johnson wrongly prematurely cut off my case before all evidence was heard which in effect the Judge actually helped the defendants avoid paying valid rental late fees that they legally owed. She knew by dismissing the case with prejudice that it would allow the defendants to avoid having to pay late fees.
The case trial began. At the time I the Plaintiff had filed bank statements in good faith with the law suit proving late fees.
In the Order the Judge states: "At the conclusion of the trial, the Court awarded the Plaintiff $2800.00 in back rent from August 2024 and court costs. The Court awarded the Defendant $2800.00 for their security deposit and their attorney's fees. Both parties orally stipulated on the record to dismissal with prejudice of their respective claims. Accordingly, it is:
"ORDERED AND ADJUDGED" that the above and the foregoing cause is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to bear their own costs and attorney's fees."
Let's start out with the BIG LIE in the Judge's Order. The Judge states: "Both parties orally stipulated on the record to dismissal with prejudice of their respective claims."
That is not true at all. That is false. There is no such thing on the record as the Judge claims that "both parties stipulated on the record". I did not ever orally or otherwise agree to stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice as that is false and the Judge knows it is false, but she is covering her butt with a untruthful Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.
There is plenty of evidence backing my assertion that I never agreed to dismissal with prejudice as she untruthfully states.
Here is what occurred at the trial. I had no attorney, defendants had attorney. Since the defendants owed me the $2800.00 for the last month’s rent not paid and I owed them their $2800.00 security deposit I withheld the Judge gave me these choices:
I could pay the defendants the $2800.00 security deposit back and pay their attorney’s fees while the defendants would have to pay me the $2800.00 for rent owed. So I asked the defendants’ attorney how much his fee was to determine my best choice. The defendants’ attorney refused to answer his fee cost question 3 times and the Judge did not direct the attorney to respond so since I had no clue of his fee I took the choice where I traded out even there.
That is not where it ended. At the time I had in good faith filed bank records with the lawsuit proving/showing late fees totaling several thousands of dollars. When the discussion began about that the Judge stated that she could not accept bank records printed off my computer that she needed official bank records. OK that is fair enough. But then I requested right then and there on the spot an extension continuance to go to the bank and get the official bank records and come back for a short hearing with the official bank records so I could recover the thousands of dollars in late rent fees from the defendants. At that time the Judge denied my timely oral in court request for a little time to get the official bank records which thwarts my due process rights.
"Bring all witnesses, all documents and all other evidence you plan to use at trial. There is only one trial!" I filed my bank records in good faith before the trial showing defendants' late fees with dates with the court. Fair enough that the court can not accept those records, but it is not fair at all for the Judge to deny me due process so I could go to the bank and get official bank records. When my official bank records were easily obtainable the Judge would not allow me to get that official evidence and limited it to one trial and done. This ill ruling thwarting fairness and justice in effect gave the defendants a gift. Judge had the discretion to allow me a continuance/extension or whatever you want to call it time to go to the bank get the official bank records and come back at another time for a 15 minute hearing. The Judge wanted no part of fairly giving me a little time to get official bank records proving late fees. What was the Judge's problem with allowing me to upgrade my originally filed unofficial bank records I printed off my computer to the same records printed at the bank and come back for a short hearing. That was a fair and reasonable but was denied by the Judge. The Judge cut the case off prematurely and that in effect helped the defendants avoid thousands of dollars in lease term late fees. The Judge would and did not provide any reasonable logical reason to not grant my fair request. Obviously, there must be other reasons for this non-standard cutting the case off prematurly short that helped the defendants.
Why? Prior to that I had to call out in open court that the defendant blatantly lied under oath when answering one of my questions to avoid monetary liability. The Defendant's had a businees bankruptsy and cast off tens of thousands of dollars in money owned and I was nice enough after they file bankruptsy to rent them a house in an upscale neighborhood. What I got from that is that the Defendant lied when he stated in court under oath that I gave him permission to take away my washer and dryer and replace it with his. The lease said he needed written permission to do that but he had no written premission but Judge Johnson ignored that least term. Since that was a big lie I called that out in open court.
In my Motions I repeatedly asked the Judge to explain just how she reconciles her Order statement that she states I orally stipulated to the case dismissal with prejudice when at the same hearing I am requesting an extension/ continuance to get the official banks records to prove thousands of dollars in late fees.The Judge's false information Order contradicts my blatant court request for a little time to get official bank records to prove thousands of dollars of late fees.
So when the Judge's Order falsely states that both parties stipulated to Dismissal with Prejudice that is unethical and dishonest and one of the reasons for this complaint and website. I will not put up with this Judge putting words in my mouth I never said and she knows it.
Of course the defendants and their attorney are happy to get away with not paying thousands of dollars in owed late fees and of course they would agree to a quick Dismissal with Prejudice to get away without paying lease contracted late fees for thousands of dollars.
The Plaintiff FAIRLY requested Judge Johnson for a little time to go the the bank and get official bank records and come back for a 15 minute hearing. That would have satisfied due process, but NO THE JUDGE WAS NOT FAIR MINDED AND SHE DENIED MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. Her pre-trial instructions stated there would only be one trial, but that is not fair nor due process to cut off a case because you want to clear your docket and don't want to be bothered with due process rights. The only harm that would have come from Judge Johnson allowing me to get the official bank records and come back for a 15 minute hearing on the matter would be that the defendants would have been Ordered to pay the late fees. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DOES NOT NEED JUDGES LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Judge is contradicting herself to falsely state both parties orally stipulated on the record and then ignore the fact that in her court room at trial I was vehemently trying to get a right and due process continuance to recover late fees. That does not make sense because I never orally or otherwise in any manner stipulated to dismissal with prejudice.
When the Judge put in her Order that both parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice when as I have already aggressively stated I never orally or otherwise stipulated to dismissal with prejudice that is unethical dishonestly in her Order!
It is bad enough not to get a court trial fair continuance from the Judge for justice and due process sake so I could recover late fees owed, but when the Judge lied on her Order and said "both parties orally stipulated on the record to dismissal with prejudice" that was the topper whopper!
When I requested answers to pointed probing questions about the Judge's contradictions the Judge would not explain because she could not reconcile her untruthful Order that I agreed to dismissal with prejudice when I did not." In one of her Orders after the trial the Judge stated that I could have asked for a continuance before the trial started but I did not ask for a continuance before the trial started.
The Judge conveniently leaves out the part that at the trial she told me I could not use my printed from my computer bank statements and that I would needed official bank statements so right then and there during the trial I requested a continuance to get my official bank records and was wrongfully denied.
After that denial at trial or an extension/contiunance a Motion for Rehearing was sent in so I could present the evidence that the Judge was not letting me present. My Motion for Rehearing was denied. Of course if the Judge would have allowed me an extension/continuance or rehearing she would have had to find on the official bank records that the defendants owed me thousands of dollars in lease agreed up late fees. Again the Judge was miffed at me for calling out one of the defendants for a lying under Oath in court and that was her motivation to prematurely cut the case off.
The Judge stated in an Order that I could have asked for a continuance before the trial started knowing that I did not know I needed official bank records until after the trial started when she informed me of that fact. How was I to know to file for a continuance before the trial started when I had bank records in good faith that I thought were acceptable? She used that to wrongfully deny me a continuance to get the official records thereby her suspicious rulings thwarted the justice she is tasked with dispensing. What the Judge was saying is that I could have gotten a continuance if I would have put in a Motion for Continuance way before I knew I needed a Motion for Continuance, which is absurd and would have been impossible to know.