Third Amended RICO Complaint Filed Under Duress

On July 1, 2025, Billy D. Frazier IV submitted his Third Amended Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa—marking the latest escalation in what he calls a “multi-agency campaign of judicial and prosecutorial retaliation.”

This 8-page filing consolidates years of allegations of systemic misconduct across Iowa’s courts, law enforcement, and DHS, while formally incorporating all prior exhibits, transcripts, and related case filings. The complaint reasserts claims under:

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Violations)
• 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (RICO Act)
• Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II
• Federal Tort Claims Act
• Multiple constitutional amendments, including due process, equal protection, and the right to petition

Frazier alleges that from 2007 to 2025, a network of judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, and other officials coordinated repeated acts of intimidation, evidence tampering, and selective prosecution. Among the most serious charges: coerced plea agreements under threat of losing parental rights, manipulated filings, and ongoing denial of ADA accommodations.

“This complaint is submitted under extreme duress, cognitive pressure, and disability,” the filing states, emphasizing that the pro se litigant is both a federal whistleblower and an indigent single father with PTSD.

Key Allegations Expanded

The newly amended complaint expands the timeline to 18+ years of documented incidents, naming dozens of individuals across six categories:

• Law Enforcement Officers accused of fabricated charges and surveillance
• Judges and Court Officials accused of procedural obstruction and refusal to recuse despite conflicts
• Prosecutors alleged to have suppressed exculpatory evidence and threatened to remove children
• Public Defenders alleged to have colluded in plea coercion or abandoned critical motions
• DHS and School Officials accused of unconstitutional removals and false reports
• Other Government and Private Actors who allegedly aided in intimidation, property interference, and mail tampering

The complaint further reserves the right to add additional defendants and claims, stating:

“I reserve the right to amend this complaint as additional defendants, facts, and claims emerge through continuing investigation, FOIA responses, and formal discovery.”

This marks the third iteration of the lawsuit—following multiple emergency injunctions, appeals, and a prior motion to vacate convictions based on what Frazier characterizes as a “void plea” tainted by fraud and duress.

Appeals Still Pending

In addition to this new filing, Frazier’s appellate challenges remain active in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case Nos. 25-1933, 25-1934, 25-1936). Those appeals question:

• Whether judges including C.J. Williams and Mark A. Roberts improperly denied relief while overseeing proceedings tainted by conflict of interest.
• Whether the systemic pattern of retaliation and obstruction violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Whether repeated ADA violations and coerced waivers void prior plea agreements.

Filing Under Pressure

According to statements shared by Frazier, this amended complaint was filed at the last possible deadline, describing the environment as one of “retaliation, intimidation, and cognitive exhaustion.”

“This was the setup. No kids were there. This is what they do to retaliate.”

Frazier maintains that despite incomplete exhibits and the need to further expand the complaint, the submission preserves his claims while he continues to gather evidence.

What Happens Next

The federal court will review whether the complaint satisfies pleading standards and whether any portion will be allowed to proceed to discovery. Defendants are expected to file motions to dismiss. A determination on the scope of claims and whether any will survive is likely in the coming months.

Supporters frame the filing as a critical test of whether systemic abuse can be addressed through federal civil litigation, while critics say the scale and complexity of the allegations could make the case difficult to sustain procedurally.

As the litigation develops, Frazier says he remains committed to bringing the underlying facts before the public and the courts—no matter how many filings it takes.

In a pivotal legal ruling issued on May 14, 2025, the Iowa District Court in Linn County struck down nearly all of the speech-restricting injunctions in the high-profile case of Chad Pelley v. Dustin Mazgaj et al. The decision significantly weakens Pelley’s attempt to silence critics through civil court orders—and raises fresh questions about where the case goes from here.

Chad Pelley Injunction Dissolved Bailey Symonds by Populist Wire

Symonds Cleared, Mazgaj Partially Restricted

At the heart of the ruling is a clear rejection of Pelley’s broad effort to restrict speech. The court fully dissolved the injunction against Bailey Symonds, stating that Pelley failed to prove she caused harm or was likely to in the future. As of now, Symonds is under no legal restrictions, restoring her full right to speak about the case, attend public meetings, and post freely online.

In the case of Dustin Mazgaj, who operates under the name Butt Crack News Network, the court issued a narrowed injunction: Mazgaj is now only prohibited from publicly referring to Chad Pelley as a:

• “Pedophile”
• “Drug user”
• “Drug dealer”

All other parts of the injunction—including no-contact orders and broad bans on speech or proximity—were dissolved.

Melissa Duffield Confirmed Unrestricted

The court also clarified that Melissa Duffield, another named defendant, was never placed under an injunction at any point. Attempts by Pelley’s legal team to restrict her speech in a separate post-trial filing were also rejected, with the judge referencing potential First Amendment concerns.

BCNN Not a Company, Just a Username

In a notable clarification, the court determined that Butt Crack News Network is not a separate business or legal entity—it’s simply the name of Mazgaj’s YouTube account. As such, any restrictions on BCNN are effectively just extensions of those on Mazgaj personally.

Skylar Price Still in Limbo

One original defendant, Skylar Price, has not responded to the lawsuit and was found in default. The court did not revisit the injunction as it applies to Price, meaning the original restrictions may still technically be in effect—but without any new legal activity or defense.

Beau Bish and Flex Your Freedoms Not Bound

Though Pelley filed a second motion earlier this year to add Beau Bish and the media group Flex Your Freedoms to the injunction, the court noted that they have not yet been formally served. As a result, they remain unrestricted by the court at this time.

Where Does Pelley’s Case Go From Here?

The judge’s ruling sends a clear signal: courts will not issue broad gag orders unless the speech in question is proven to be false and harmful—and even then, only in narrowly tailored ways.

Pelley may still pursue defamation claims, but without the broad powers of a speech-restricting injunction, he faces a steeper road. The ruling emphasizes the high bar courts place on prior restraint, especially when it involves criticism of someone involved in public matters like real estate development, civic boards, and local politics.

As for the remaining claims—libel, false light, and emotional distress—they will now move toward a full trial. But the public gag orders Pelley once used to silence his critics have been largely rolled back, and the spotlight on his case is only getting brighter.

In a decisive move, an Iowa District Court has denied a motion by Chad Pelley to delay a critical hearing related to two controversial speech-restricting injunctions. The hearing, originally scheduled for Friday, April 25th at 10:30 AM in the Linn County Courthouse, will proceed as planned.

The ruling marks a significant development in what many are calling a key First Amendment test in the state.

For nearly three months, multiple individuals have been under strict court orders prohibiting them from discussing Pelley publicly or attending certain public events in the city of Marion. These restrictions stem from injunctions granted in January—issued without prior notice—which plaintiffs claim were necessary to protect against alleged harassment. Critics, however, say the orders amount to an unconstitutional gag on public speech and civic participation.

The Stakes Going Into Friday

The upcoming hearing offers the first real opportunity for those under the injunctions to challenge their legality. At issue is whether Iowa courts can continue to enforce broad, preemptive speech restrictions on individuals based solely on allegations—without a full trial or opportunity for defense prior to enforcement.

The plaintiffs are also seeking to expand the reach of the court orders to include new parties, including the political media outlet Flex Your Freedoms (FYF) and its founder, Beau Bish, citing a video confrontation involving a local bank and accusations of financial misconduct. If granted, this would extend court-ordered silence to additional critics and content creators.

Public Access, Private Silence

Despite the public interest, there will be no recording or filming of the hearing allowed—limiting access to those who attend in person. This lack of transparency, combined with the ongoing silence from elected officials and local media outlets, has intensified public scrutiny of the case.

With major news outlets avoiding coverage and city leaders declining to comment, Friday’s hearing has become not just a legal proceeding—but a litmus test for civic accountability and the boundaries of protected speech in Iowa.