Iowa
RICO in Iowa: Eviction Retaliation
I. Federal RICO Appeal (Frazier v. Jones, 8th Circuit)
“This was the setup. No kids were there. This is what they do to retaliate.”
After nearly a year of navigating Iowa’s judicial system, Billy Frazier’s federal case, Frazier v. Jones (1:25-cv-00033-CJW-MAR), has entered its next stage: appeal before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Frazier filed this civil RICO action alleging coordinated retaliation and corruption among judges, prosecutors, DHS, local police, and housing officials in Cedar Rapids. The case, originally accepted in the Northern District of Iowa, was dismissed without prejudice by Judge C.J. Williams on August 13, 2025, after a series of warnings and procedural hurdles.
The official dismissal was rooted in “deficiencies” in the complaint and cited multiple immunity doctrines — judicial, prosecutorial, public defender, and social worker — effectively shielding every government actor named.
What followed, however, raised alarms. Even after Frazier filed a third amended complaint and supporting motions, the court moved swiftly to deny all further filings post-dismissal, with Judge Williams preemptively barring reconsideration, stating:
“All further filings shall be treated as correspondence and will not be ruled on.”
Critics argue this behavior constituted judicial predetermination, and Will himself stated:
“They had already decided how this would end, no matter what evidence I gave them. That’s not due process — that’s a script.”
The appeal now sits before the Eighth Circuit, where Will is confident that his ADA protections as a self-represented litigant with documented mental health conditions will factor into the court’s review.
“This time I cited ADA. I didn’t know before that I was protected. But I am. That changes everything.”
II. Housing Retaliation Lawsuit (Frazier & Goodfellow v. Algers & Cedar Rapids Housing)
Running parallel to the RICO action is Frazier’s housing retaliation case filed in Linn County District Court alongside his disabled neighbor, Ms. Goodfellow. Both live in homes owned by the same landlord — and both claim they’ve faced escalating retaliation for speaking up about rent violations, HUD errors, and landlord misconduct.
Will’s story is personal:
“I’m Billy Frazier, a single Black father of four — including a 14‑month‑old baby — and the legal guardian who has protected and provided for my children for over a decade.”
After submitting FOIA requests and rent audits, Will discovered that mandatory 60‑day rent increase notices were never sent and that utility reimbursement checks were being mismanaged. Rather than fix the violations, housing officials and landlords allegedly retaliated:
- Ms. Goodfellow was named as a co-defendant in legal documents and subjected to eviction notices.
- Will’s home was targeted with sudden rent spikes, delayed repairs, and threats of removal from housing programs.
- Their case was assigned two overlapping docket numbers — CVCV108531 and CVCV108532 — which Will successfully fought to consolidate after alleging they were intended to create procedural confusion.
“This was done to overload my cognitive abilities and make me screw up procedurally.”
Now, the case proceeds under Judge Christopher Bruns, and Will has filed motions to:
- Dismiss improper law firm representation from landlords.
- Submit evidence of ongoing retaliation (including misrouted mail, delay tactics, and administrative interference).
- Affirm that his co-plaintiff is fully aligned and impacted by the proceedings.
III. Jail & Retaliation (OWI Sentence and Federal Rights)
Frazier was sentenced to four days in jail for a first-offense OWI — double the normal sentence — which he claims was retaliatory for naming Judge Casey Jones after he started to expose the misconduct in the OWCR154106 case and his ties to being his lawyer in the 2007 gun case.
“He gave me four days when everyone else gets two. That’s his version of punishment without making it obvious.”
He gave Will alternatives to do community service but due to being a single father with a baby and full time job it wasn’t possible. He must now serve his remaining two days on November 8–9, 2025.
The OWI itself — which he calls fabricated — became a gateway for further abuse:
- DHS was contacted despite no children being present.
- A flash drive with overwhelming evidence of misconduct tampering with evidence and perjury was allegedly deleted during proceedings involving Judge Fisher — now recused from his housing case.
“It’s not just a mistake — it’s systemic. They use the same playbook. Arrest, threaten, overload, erase the record.”
He has submitted his Iowa Supreme Court appeal brief on the OWI conviction, now under review.
IV. New Threat: Retaliation by Eviction Notice
The most recent development ties directly into the housing retaliation narrative — and the timing is hard to ignore.
On October 29, 2025, attorneys representing landlords Rick and Beth Alger filed a resistance to Frazier’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) request, arguing there was no eviction in progress and that no 3‑day notice or FED action (Forcible Entry and Detainer) had been filed.
Just five days later, on November 3, 2025, those same landlords — Rick and Beth Alger — posted a 3‑Day Notice to Quit on the front door of Frazier’s home at 3316 Oakland Road NE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
“They told the judge there was no eviction. Then tried to evict me hours later.”
— Will Frazier
The notice demands that Will and his family vacate within three business days under Iowa Code §648.3, citing lease termination from October 31, 2025 and referencing a prior 30‑day notice issued August 28, 2025.
This new filing directly undercuts the defense’s claim that “no eviction” was underway and may serve as critical proof of retaliation-in-progress in both state and federal filings.
“They resisted the TRO saying no FED or 3‑day notice had been filed — then five days later, here it is on my door. It’s coordinated retaliation.”
— Will FrazierHousing Retaliation Timeline
“They said no eviction was coming… then four days later they slapped a 3-Day Notice on my door. It was a setup.” – Will Frazier
- June 2, 2025: Will files a formal complaint with Cedar Rapids Housing Services regarding suspicious rent increases and missing utility reimbursement checks. He alleges the $175 rent increase matched his usual monthly utility reimbursement — making it appear that the funds were essentially being stripped.
- Mid-June 2025: A FOIA request response from Cedar Rapids Housing confirms that no federally required 60-day notice was on file for the rent increase. This violates HUD guidelines, confirming the retaliatory nature of the hike.
- Summer 2025: In an attempt to resolve the issue pre-litigation, Will enters settlement talks with the Algers. The landlord initially agrees to install mini-split AC units in his home — then backs out without explanation.
- September 28, 2025: Will files a formal complaint with HUD (Des Moines office), escalating the housing retaliation to the federal level.
- October 31, 2025: The Algers post a Notice to Vacate on both Will’s and his neighbor’s doors — one month after the HUD complaint. This triggers eviction fears for both families, who are Section 8 recipients.
- Late October 2025: Will files a civil suit in Linn County against the Algers and Cedar Rapids Housing, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to block any housing retaliation.
- October 29, 2025: The landlords’ attorney resists the TRO, stating they had not yet filed a 3-Day Notice or a Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) lawsuit, thus arguing the TRO was “unnecessary.”
November 3, 2025: The Algers serve Will with a 3-Day Notice to Quit — just days after their TRO resistance. This move contradicts their previous legal claim and appears to directly follow the denied court intervention.
A Linn County juvenile case is raising alarms over how Iowa’s child welfare system treats sibling rights and judicial impartiality. At the center is Kristin Mitchell, who regained custody of two of her younger children in 2025 and is now fighting to keep them connected with their brother, WG, who remains in state custody.
Mitchell says WG was adopted through Iowa DHS into an abusive home, and that both she and her son disclosed the abuse in 2022. Their warnings were ignored, and her visits were cut off. WG was later removed from that adoptive home and placed back in DHS custody. Her daughter, however, remains under the custodial care of an adult living in the same household where WG was removed, raising further questions about oversight and child safety.
The dispute deepened when DHS first issued Mitchell a Family Notice in June 2025 — a legal recognition that she is a qualifying relative — then told the court she was not one. On August 11, a Linn County judge denied her motion to intervene in WG’s case, mischaracterizing her custody history and failing to address federal sibling-preservation law. Mitchell filed a motion to reconsider, highlighting the contradictions, statutory misreadings, and due process concerns, including evidence that the presiding judge and DHS staff viewed her private Facebook stories during deliberations.
Her filings also point to potential conflicts of interest: an attorney who once represented the father of her younger children now represents an adoptive mother opposing her position. And in a striking generational echo, the same DHS worker who handled Mitchell’s case as a child — which separated her from her siblings — is now assigned to WG’s case.
Mitchell argues that this case is not only about her family, but about whether Iowa DHS and Linn County courts will enforce the state and federal laws requiring sibling bonds to be preserved. “Hope is not a legal safeguard,” she wrote. Without intervention, she says, there is no enforceable mechanism to keep WG connected to his siblings.
Section I: RICO Case — New Escalations, New Evidence, Same Broken System
Since the last article, Billy D. Frazier IV’s RICO case has taken a sharp and highly publicized turn. What began as a local battle over due process and disability rights has evolved into a multi-pronged federal challenge — aimed squarely at corrupt state actors, retaliatory government agencies, and procedural manipulation by the Iowa judiciary.
In late August 2025, Frazier filed a new emergency motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, seeking an immediate restraining order and injunctive relief to block DHS and child support enforcement from launching new retaliatory actions mid-litigation. The motion documents:
• A fraudulent child support claim naming a non-father as the biological parent of Frazier’s child;
• A new child abuse assessment against the child’s mother, Brittany Taylor Dockery — just months after a similar case was closed;
• A broader pattern of proxy retaliation, false reporting, and administrative abuse tied to Will’s federal civil rights complaint;
• 17 years of documented state retaliation, escalating now as discovery looms.
“These actions lack any legal basis,” Frazier writes, “and constitute proxy retaliation against Plaintiff through his child and the child’s mother.”
Among the legal grounds cited are the First and Fourteenth Amendments, ADA protections, and the constitutional right to family integrity. But perhaps most importantly, Frazier is pushing to extend these protections to all co-parents and children connected to the case — a bold move that could pave the way for class-action-level impact.
He has also filed a Notice of Case Manipulation, preserving his appellate record and alleging coordinated interference by local agencies seeking to delay or sabotage pending motions. A screenshot from his official court filings, submitted via Iowa eFile, shows multiple new pleadings — all with detailed documentation of what Frazier calls “procedural ambush tactics.”
But new filings reveal something even deeper: evidence that Chief Judge C.J. Williams may have predetermined the outcome of the case — issuing rulings before documents were even filed.
⸻
Key Evidence: Ruling Issued Before Motion Was Filed
Will Frazier now presents clear procedural proof that Chief Judge C.J. Williams ruled against him before his filings even existed.
• The judge denied Motion to Amend (Doc. 96) at 8:23 AM on August 18, 2025.
• Frazier’s Fifth Motion to Amend (Doc. 101) wasn’t filed until 11:11 AM on August 20, 2025.
• A second filing, Pro Se Notice (Doc. 102), was submitted three minutes later at 11:14 AM.
Screenshots of PACER & NEF records confirm:
A motion was denied two days before it was even entered into the court system.
⸻
What This Means for the Case
The record shows more than just aggressive dismissal — it shows judicial predetermination and potential obstruction of a pro se litigant’s constitutional rights.
❌ Dismissed Before Fully Heard
The dismissal order included boilerplate language on judicial immunity, effectively shielding nearly all defendants from civil liability.
❌ Locked Out from Amendment
On August 18, Judge Williams denied any future amendments — even though none had been filed yet. This procedural lockout suggests that any future legal effort was already doomed.
❌ Live Filings Ignored
Despite filing a new amended complaint and notice on August 20, both documents appear to have been automatically disregarded.
⸻
Legal Argument Moving Forward
Will’s legal team — or Will himself, pro se — may argue that:
• The court pre-judged the outcome, violating due process.
• By denying motions before they were filed, the court refused to consider live filings on their merits.
• This establishes judicial bias and supports his broader RICO claim of systemic retaliation.
The case is now under appeal at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where these procedural irregularities may weigh heavily in determining whether the dismissal stands.
Section II: The Eviction Fight — A New Battlefront, A Call for Backup
While Will Frazier battles state retaliation in court through his RICO case, he now faces a devastating new front: housing displacement. Frazier and his family have been served with an October 31st lease termination — a move he says is direct retaliation for his activism, legal filings, and growing public visibility. His disabled neighbor, also a co-plaintiff in a separate lawsuit, has reportedly been targeted as well.
In a public post that quickly began circulating across Facebook, Will wrote:
CITIZENS ASSEMBLE — I NEED YOUR HELP
“To control the people, you control the housing. For too long, families have been silenced with the threat of retaliation. Too many have lost their homes just for speaking out. Too many have been crushed under retaliatory rent hikes while landlords ignored repairs and pocketed the profits.
This fight started with an OWI, but what they tried to bury has only grown. It’s now RICO. It’s in district court — back in the lion’s den, where corruption was exposed — and the battle has expanded into HOUSING. Retaliation, harassment, fraud, and abuse: it’s all coming out in discovery.”
Frazier also announced that he has filed a joint lawsuit with his family and his disabled neighbor, naming the landlords and housing authorities responsible for years of unsafe conditions and retaliatory behavior. The goal, he says, is not just justice for himself — but for every tenant who’s ever been silenced.
“If you’ve faced issues with HUD, Cedar Rapids Housing, or landlords like Rick & Beth Alger — reach out. Your voice matters. Now’s the time.”
Now facing the loss of housing, a custody threat tied to potential displacement, and barriers to relocating due to ADA status and housing voucher restrictions, Will has launched a GoFundMe campaign to rally public support:
He closes with a powerful call to collective action:
“This is bigger than me. It’s about breaking the system of retaliation and giving the people back their power.
Please keep this going. Share it. Talk about it. Don’t let them keep hiding behind the same tricks.”
RICO in Iowa: Eviction Retaliation
Fascism – The Projection of the Far Left!
RICO in America: Trump’s Relentless Pursuit of George Soros and the Dawn of Political Racketeering Prosecutions
The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Unraveling the Official Narrative, Israeli Theories, and the Fracturing of the Alt-Right
