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.