I have had Hillsborough County Circuit Court and Appeals Court pro se experience with a proven prejudiced Judge back in 1987 when I had to pro se sue the City of Tampa for what was an embarrassing to them public record that showed that the city lied in a Police Internal Investigation to protect a lieing cop false police report.
In 1987 Judge Peter J.T. Taylor was known for this kind of prejudiced favoritism ruling dismissed my case against the City of Tampa with prejudice helping the city avoid embarrassment and said the record I sought was not a public record and I did not know the law. The Judge Tayor in 1987 dismissed the case with prejudice. The Judge and the City Attorney knew I was right and they were wrong but that bias prjudiced judge went ahead with his bias for the City and dismissed the case even though the Judge and the Tampa City Attorney knew all along what they were doing was corrupting the law for politics.
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 record 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.
That case in 1987 has been cited by at least 10 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 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 impending problems 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.
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.
This website was necessary to inform the voter’s of Hillsborough County of these serious allegations about Judge Jennifer P. Johnson Hillsborough County Florida in case she runs for election. I know that Judge Jennifer P. Johnson prematurely cut off my case before all evidence was heard which in effect helped the defendants avoid paying valid rental late fees.
Her ill actions will be held accountable on the website because Hillsborough County voters need to be informed about Judge Jennifer P. Johnson before they vote if she runs for first time election after her governor’s appointment runs out.
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’s Déjà vu all over again.
The Judge Jennifer P. Johnson probably thought that what was in her court room was going to stay in her court room or be buried in a public record somewhere but unfortunately for her with the internet, domain names, websites, html coding and social media will be used to honestly warn others of impending problems in her court room.
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 Small Claims bench experience when she wrongfully and prematurely dismissed my case with prejudice without hearing all of the evidence as will be explained in this complaint. If she did it to me then how many others did she do the same premature dismissal to help one side over the other before my case and after my case?
We also want to inform the voter’s of these serious allegations about Judge Jennifer P. Johnson Hillsborough County Florida in case she runs for her first election. Because she ruled on activism instead of the law she is not worthy of being an elected Judge.
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 thousand 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!” In good faith I filed my bank records showing defendants’ late fees and dates with the court lawsuit. Fair enough that the court can’t 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. The Judge had the discretion to fairly 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. This is not fair and unbiased due process this is cutting the case off prematurely that helped the defendants avoid thousands of dollars in lease term late fees.
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. 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!
In order to bolster my case against the Judge’s false statement Order I offer these attached emails:
On 4/24/2025 11:50AM, Jeffery Zwirm (defendant’s attorney) wrote:
“Pursuant to Judge Johnson’s instructions at the non-jury trial on Monday. April 21, 2025, I have drafted an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of the claims of this case. Pursant to Administrative Order S-2024-071, please confirm that you accept the content and form of this Order so that I may submit it to Chambers. If you have any questions of objections to the Order, please respond to this email with your concerns.”
On 4/25/2025 5:43 AM From James Wisner To Jeffery Zwirm
“I object to the “with prejudice” I did not hear anything about with prejudice.” “I will agree to “without prejudice”. If you clients have no further liability then there would be no problems with “without prejudice” I only agreed to without prejudice after the trial in this email knowing that without prejudice would let me file a new lawsuit when “with prejudice” would not. Jeffery Zwirm knew when he wrote his Order that I did not agree at the trial to “dismissal with prejudice” as he falsely claims. I did not agree at the trial to even dismissal “without” prejudice because nothing was said or discussed about dismissal without prejudice because the Court knew if it dismissed the case without prejudice then I would certainly file a new lawsuit for the late fees so she cut that due process avenue off which again helped the defendants avoid lease agreed upon late fees.
Attorney Jeffery Zwirm unethically lied in his proposed Order to the court to state that: “Both parties orally stipulated on the record to dismissal with prejudice of their respective claims” contradicting my email back to him OBJECTING TO “WITH PREJUDICE” that I never agree to in any manner. Again who would agree to dismissal with prejudice when they had thousands of leased agreed upon non paid late fees after they requested at trial for extension/continuance to get official records. Because of this lie I will also be filing a complaint against Mr. Zwirm with the Florida Bar.
A truthful Order would have stated that the Plaintiff did not agree to dismissal with prejudice but the attorney’s untruthful Order stated I did agree to dismissal with prejudice which the Judge went right along with knowing I never agreed to dismissal with prejudice.
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 prematurely cut the case off motivation.
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 actions thwarted the justice she is tasked with dispensing