Chad Pelley, a well-known developer in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has been & is still tied to significant community projects. Despite his public prominence, local media outlets have not reported on his lawsuit filed on July 11, 2024, which alleges defamation, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress. Given Pelley’s role in publicly funded developments and the serious claims raised, this article seeks to provide context and foster transparency around the legal proceedings and the broader issues at play.
Chad Pelley, a prominent Cedar Rapids, Iowa developer, has filed a lawsuit alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress against several individuals and an online entity. The defendants, who include local community members, citizen journalists, and a social media news outlet, have accused Pelley of misconduct ranging from criminal behavior to improper dealings in his professional life. As the lawsuit unfolds, questions arise about whether this legal battle is a pursuit of justice or a bid to control public perception.
In his lawsuit, Pelley claims the defendants—Dustin Mazgaj, Skylar Price under the alias Hunter Light, Bailey Symonds, Melissa Duffield, and the online entity Butt Crack News Network (BCNN)—have engaged in a campaign of defamatory statements and harassment. According to court documents, these accusations include serious allegations of pedophilia, drug addiction, and unethical business practices. Pelley also argues that the defendants shared sensitive personal information, such as his social security number, and spread harmful narratives through social media platforms.
While these claims are significant, they intersect with a broader narrative. The defendants argue that their statements are based on public records and verifiable facts, including Pelley’s criminal history, which dates back to a 1993 felony sexual abuse charge that was reduced to a misdemeanor. This is not the only blemish on Pelley’s record, as subsequent convictions include:
November 8, 1995: Convicted of Criminal Mischief in the 4th Degree (Case 06571 SRCR009504).
April 14, 1996: Convicted of Assault Causing Bodily Harm (Case 06571 SRCR011880).
January 6, 1998: Convicted of Assault Causing Bodily Injury; a Criminal Mischief 3rd Degree charge in the same case was dismissed (Case 06571 SRCR022716).
June 11, 1998: Convicted of Criminal Mischief in the 5th Degree (Case 06571 SMSM019982).
December 2, 1998: Convicted of Assault (Case 06571 SMSM021662).
Defendants point to public records documenting convictions in the 1990s, combined with Pelley’s ties to publicly funded development projects, as the basis for their skepticism about his reputation.
Adding further complexity to the case, an email from Cedar Rapids Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell, responding to questions about the controversy surrounding Pelley. In her email, the mayor described the allegations against Pelley as “ridiculous,” while criticizing Butt Crack News Network (BCNN) for spreading misinformation and profiting from their viral content. She further claimed that members of BCNN had been arrested for trespassing in Marion and expressed concerns about their growing presence in Cedar Rapids.
This email highlights the involvement of local officials in Pelley’s defense while underscoring the contentious nature of the allegations. Supporters of Pelley view the mayor’s response as validation of his claims, whereas critics argue it raises further questions about transparency, accountability, and the perceived attempt to stifle public discourse.
Further complicating the narrative, articles from the Cedar Rapids Gazette—dated February 11, 1993, July 17, 1993, and March 20, 1994—detail the original felony sexual abuse charge against Pelley, which was later reduced to a misdemeanor. These articles provide critical context for understanding the allegations at the center of this lawsuit. According to defendant Melissa Duffield, who addressed the matter during a viral TikTok video and at a Cedar Rapids City Council meeting, these articles were allegedly scrubbed from easily accessible public archives, making them difficult to locate.
Duffield’s claims, along with the resurfaced articles, highlight a growing public interest in reconciling Pelley’s legal history with his current public and professional role. The inclusion of these records in the lawsuit underscores the tension between correcting misinformation and restricting public dialogue about a figure with documented criminal and professional controversies.
By seeking monetary damages for reputational harm and emotional distress, alongside injunctive relief to stop the defendants from speaking about him, Chad Pelley’s lawsuit raises important First Amendment concerns. Courts are generally reluctant to grant injunctions that restrict speech, as such orders can be viewed as prior restraint, a violation of free speech protections.
Critics argue that Pelley’s legal action appears focused on silencing detractors rather than confronting the substance of their claims. While exaggerated or false statements may warrant legal scrutiny, the lawsuit notably avoids addressing Pelley’s documented criminal history and other verifiable facts that form the foundation of much of the defendants’ commentary.
This omission risks framing the case not as an effort to correct misinformation but as a broader attempt to suppress critical speech. If Pelley truly sought justice, critics contend, he would focus on disproving false claims while acknowledging facts rooted in public records, rather than pursuing legal remedies that could chill free discourse.
The Role of Public Interest
As a developer involved in significant community projects and a recipient of public funds, Pelley’s actions are inherently subject to public scrutiny. Over the years, Pelley has been connected to several notable development projects in Cedar Rapids and Marion, many of which have benefited from substantial tax incentives:
Fulton Lofts Project: This $10 million, four-story development in Cedar Rapids’ NewBo district includes residential units and commercial spaces. The project applied for Workforce Housing Tax Incentive credits from the Iowa Department of Economic Development, which would require matching funds from the city. “The project also qualifies for incentives under the city’s targeted district reinvestment program based on its location in the NewBo district, Cedar Rapids economic development director Caleb Mason told the council. The city also plans to utilize an “above standard incentive program” for the project, under which the standard city incentive of a 10-year, 100% tax abatement is deemed inadequate to make the project financially feasible..” Corridor Business
Green Park Apartment Living: A multi-family residential project in Marion, awarded Workforce Housing Tax Credits from the Iowa Department of Economic Development in October. The development includes a 69-unit building along 10th Avenue and a 78-unit building along 31st Street. Corridor Business
The Kingston Landing Development in Cedar Rapids is a significant project that has garnered substantial public support through tax incentives. In September 2021, the Cedar Rapids City Council unanimously approved a term sheet for the $71 million mixed-use development, which includes: –Tax Increment Financing (TIF): The project is set to receive an 85% reimbursement of TIF rebates over a 20-year period for each building constructed Corridor Business –Plaza Completion Grant: A one-time grant of $1.5 million will be provided upon the completion of the central plaza area within the development. Khak
These incentives are designed to stimulate economic growth and urban revitalization in the Kingston Village area, underscoring the city’s commitment to supporting large-scale developments that enhance community infrastructure and amenities.
These projects highlight Pelley’s significant influence on the community’s development landscape and his engagement with public funding mechanisms designed to stimulate economic growth. The allocation of tax incentives to such developments underscores the importance of transparency and accountability, as public resources are utilized to support private ventures.
The defendants have pointed to his criminal record and ties to these lucrative city deals as evidence of a pattern that warrants investigation. Public figures, especially those who influence community development, are expected to maintain a standard of transparency, making their character and conduct legitimate matters of public concern.
While some of the defendants’ statements—such as those suggesting ongoing criminal behavior or making inflammatory accusations—may cross the line into exaggeration, others appear rooted in verifiable public records. This distinction underscores the importance of separating legitimate criticism from defamatory or malicious intent.
Balancing Privacy and Accountability
Pelley’s claims of invasion of privacy hold more weight, particularly regarding the dissemination of sensitive personal information, such as his social security number. Sharing such data would be a clear violation of privacy, regardless of the public interest involved. However, many of the defendants’ statements relate to public records, which are legally accessible and commonly used to hold public figures accountable.
The court will need to balance Pelley’s right to privacy with the defendants’ First Amendment protections. The outcome will likely hinge on whether the defendants acted with malicious intent or simply exercised their right to critique a public figure.
Conclusion
Chad Pelley’s lawsuit presents a complex clash between reputation management and public accountability. While he raises valid concerns about potential privacy violations and / or defamatory exaggerations, the broader focus of his case on defamation—without addressing documented facts—leaves room for skepticism about his intentions. The defendants, for their part, argue that their statements are rooted in public records and reflect legitimate concerns about Pelley’s role in the community.
As this case progresses, it will serve as a test of how public figures navigate criticism and legal action in the digital age. For Pelley, it is an opportunity to expose any exaggerated claims and legitimate concerns. For the defendants, it underscores the importance of balancing free speech with responsible commentary. Ultimately, the court’s decision will set an important precedent for how public discourse and accountability are managed in an era of instant and widespread communication.
This article is part of ongoing series of stories covering this local story and legal developments. If you have insights or additional information, please contact us to improve accuracy.
A Timeline of Eviction, Federal Escalation, and Municipal Activity
Pre-Eviction Litigation Context (December 2025)
By late 2025, plaintiff Billy Dwayne Frazier IV was already engaged in active litigation against landlords and the City of Cedar Rapids, alleging housing retaliation, discrimination, and habitability violations. Court filings from December 2025 reflect an adversarial posture, including a rebuttal challenging the City’s characterization of its actions as routine and disputing federal regulatory classifications related to water infrastructure.
“Once litigation is pending, best practices — and basic fairness — require written communication, coordination through counsel, and avoidance of unannounced physical presence at a litigant’s home.” — Court filing, December 2025
The December filing establishes that the City was already on notice that the plaintiffs were active litigants asserting retaliation and discrimination claims, and that the City itself was a named defendant. This context predates all events that followed.
Eviction and Immediate Federal Escalation (January 2, 2026)
Less than three weeks later, on January 2, 2026, the plaintiffs were evicted from the Oakland Road NE properties at issue. The eviction occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. That same day, a Notice of Subsequent Material Events was filed with the court, documenting the displacement and advising that federal agencies had already become involved.
“I was evicted at 11:00 a.m. I was gone before they came. Forty-five minutes later, HUD called me.” — Will Frazier
According to the filing, within roughly 45 minutes of the eviction, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contacted the plaintiff, acknowledged prior non-response to complaints, and confirmed that the matter had been escalated through the HUD Office of Inspector General before being referred for fair-housing review. The notice was submitted for record-preservation purposes and did not seek immediate relief.
“They apologized for not returning my calls — months of calls — and told me my file had already gone through HUD OIG in Washington.” — Will Frazier
Post-Eviction Municipal Excavation
In the weeks that followed, municipal excavation and construction activity occurred at and around the same Oakland Road properties. Photographic exhibits filed with the court depict trenching, ground disturbance, and utility-related work directly adjacent to the residences.
“They started excavating the street in front of the properties named in the lawsuit.” — Will Frazier
A supporting affidavit explains that the documentation was submitted after observing the activity without prior notice, out of concern that physical evidence relevant to the litigation — such as service lines or soil conditions — could be altered or rendered unavailable.
“I had not received prior notice that excavation or replacement work would be conducted, nor that potentially relevant physical evidence would be altered.” — Sworn affidavit, January 2026
City of Cedar Rapids Public Advisory and Response
Shortly thereafter, the City of Cedar Rapids issued a public Precautionary Boil Advisory affecting the same block of Oakland Road NE, citing a ruptured water main and loss of pressure that created potential for contamination. Screenshots of the City’s official statements and public responses were preserved and filed in the court record.
“A rupture in a water main caused a loss of pressure, creating potential for bacterial contamination.” — City of Cedar Rapids public advisory
A sworn affidavit authenticated the advisory as a true and accurate copy of the City’s public notice, expressly stating that it was submitted for documentation purposes only and without asserting causation or liability.
“This exhibit is submitted for the limited purpose of documenting the City’s public advisory, including timing and scope, without asserting fault or intent.” — Sworn affidavit, January 2026
Historical Water Incidents and Habitability Context
Court filings also include earlier documentation of water-related incidents in the area.
Supplemental materials filed prior to the eviction document pre-existing water infrastructure concerns and recurring conditions affecting the neighborhood.
Video exhibits filed in November 2025 show street-level water intrusion near residential properties, providing visual confirmation of those conditions.
“This didn’t start in January. The water issues were already there.” — Will Frazier
These materials predate the eviction and are included as contextual evidence rather than causal proof.
Why the Timeline Matters
Taken together, the filings establish a clear chronology: active litigation and regulatory disputes preceded the eviction; the eviction was followed almost immediately by federal agency escalation; and municipal infrastructure activity and public advisories occurred soon after, prompting multiple evidence-preservation submissions.
“I’m not using the courts as a microphone. I’m using them to preserve the record.” — Will Frazier
Each filing was entered with limited-purpose language, emphasizing documentation, notice, and preservation rather than conclusions. This record now forms the factual basis for ongoing housing, water, and civil-rights proceedings under review in both state and federal forums.
The latest filing in Frazier v. Jones does not arise from speculation or hindsight. It arises from a federally mandated change that took effect at the end of 2024.
Under updated EPA Lead and Copper Rule requirements, municipalities were required to complete and publicly maintain more accurate service line inventories, including how “unknown” lines are classified for replacement planning. Once those standards were applied, Cedar Rapids’ long-standing public representations about its water system began to shift — quickly and materially.
“This isn’t speculation. Almost all of the evidence I’m using comes straight from their own documents — the City, housing authorities, state agencies, and federal law. I’m not creating it. I’m producing it.” — Will Frazier
How the RICO Claim Reached the Water Issue
Civil RICO is not meant to capture isolated errors. It addresses patterns of conduct, particularly where institutions respond defensively once compliance obligations tighten.
In recent federal filings, Frazier notified the court that newly discovered evidence related to water infrastructure and public safety — evidence required to exist under updated federal rules — had been transmitted prior to judgment but not considered. He further alleges that retaliatory actions escalated after he began requesting records tied to that required data.
RICO does not require proof of intent at the outset. It requires showing repeated conduct, notice, contradiction, and harm tied to coordinated behavior. That is why water infrastructure data became relevant to the case — not as a separate environmental lawsuit, but as context for how systems respond when compliance becomes unavoidable.
“This isn’t about one mistake. It’s about how institutions respond once compliance becomes unavoidable.” — Will Frazier
Why the “17 Percent” Figure Changed
Cedar Rapids Water Service Line Map (Current)
For years, Cedar Rapids publicly referenced an estimate of roughly 17 percent lead-related service lines. That figure existed in a regulatory environment where “unknown” classifications were common and not always treated as presumptive lead for planning purposes.
That changed.
Under EPA Lead and Copper Rule revisions finalized and enforced by late 2024, municipalities are now required to treat unknown service lines far more conservatively — effectively as presumptive lead until proven otherwise. This affects planning, disclosure, and replacement prioritization.
Once those standards are applied:
Large “unknown” areas no longer remain neutral
Many lines shift into galvanized requiring replacement or presumptive lead
Exposure appears more concentrated in older housing stock
“Seventeen percent was never the ceiling. Once the EPA required cities to apply the law correctly, the numbers changed.” — Will Frazier
This is not a retroactive accusation. It is the consequence of updated federal compliance requirements.
Cedar Rapids Map (Applying EPA Guidelines for Unknown Pipes)
What Happened After the Records Request
After formally requesting records explaining how Cedar Rapids was classifying service lines under the updated federal standards, Frazier did not receive documents.
Instead, the City placed a yellow door tag — not on his door, but on his neighbor’s.
The notice stated that the Water Department needed to repair or inspect the water meter. According to Frazier, the City later acknowledged the visit was connected to his records request.
“I asked for paperwork. I didn’t ask them to show up at someone’s house. And I didn’t ask them to inspect a water meter — because a water meter isn’t a service line.” — Will Frazier
A water meter is municipal equipment used for billing and readings. It is not a lead pipe and not a galvanized service line. Frazier argues that labeling the visit as a meter repair contradicts the stated purpose of verifying line classifications.
More significantly, the notice was left only on the door of a non-litigant neighbor, not the litigant who made the request. In active litigation — particularly where retaliation has already been alleged — selective contact with a vulnerable third party raises serious concerns.
“You don’t contact the weaker party next door and pretend it’s routine. That’s intimidation — and the paper trail proves it.” — Will Frazier
At this stage, Frazier is not required to prove motive. He is required to show notice, contradiction, and pattern — which he argues the documentation now reflects.
Why the Water Issue Fits the RICO Pattern
The door-tag incident does not stand alone. Frazier points to a consistent pattern that emerges once federal compliance tightened:
Risk classifications change only after scrutiny
Requests for records trigger physical actions instead of disclosures
Administrative framing is used to minimize urgency
Corrections occur under pressure, not proactively
In civil RICO analysis, pattern matters more than any single act. The same institutional behavior alleged in housing enforcement and court proceedings appears again in the City’s response to newly required water data.
What Is at Stake Now
Because the updated inventory requirements only took effect recently, the stakes are forward-looking.
Until service lines are accurately classified and replaced under current federal standards, entire categories of projects remain exposed:
• Downtown and riverfront redevelopment • Public-private construction initiatives • Casino-adjacent and infrastructure-heavy developments • Federal and state funding tied to environmental compliance
EPA funding, environmental justice reviews, and financing disclosures all rely on accurate, current inventories — not outdated classifications.
What Comes Next
Frazier has now formally notified federal courts and agencies that his RICO case has expanded to include newly required water infrastructure data, supported by municipal records and updated federal law.
The question is no longer whether Cedar Rapids has lead or galvanized service lines — that is a known issue nationwide. The question is how institutions responded once federal rules required greater accuracy, and whether actions taken after that point crossed into retaliation or obstruction.
On My Disassociation from the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and the Launch of Stone Soup for Justice
After an extensive period of prayer, reflection, and careful consideration, I must make a difficult and deeply serious announcement.
With a heavy heart, I am formally and fully ending my association—of any capacity—with the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and its founder, Francesca Amato.
I do not make this decision lightly. I have worked too hard, for too long, to elevate the voices of my family, Iowa families, and families across this country; to build constructive relationships with lawmakers; and to earn trust through careful, honest advocacy. I cannot allow my name, reputation, or work to be tied to conduct and representations that I believe are dishonest, exploitative, and fundamentally misaligned with the kind of reform our children deserve.
Ethical and Policy Concerns
My decision is rooted in both policy and ethics.
I have personally witnessed parents paying thousands of dollars for “services” that delivered little meaningful support or tangible outcomes. I have also observed what I consider to be cult-like dynamics within the organization—expectations of unquestioning loyalty to leadership, pressure to accept narratives that conflicted with facts, and hostility toward legitimate professional accountability.
In my view, this environment harms vulnerable families who are seeking help, not control.
Misrepresentation to Lawmakers
I am especially troubled by a pattern of mistruths and overstatements directed at legislators and the public.
I was informed that Senator Chuck Grassley’s office and other U.S. Senate offices “100% stand behind” the FJAA bill. I know firsthand that this is not accurate. I have worked directly with Senator Grassley’s staff and other congressional offices and have earned their respect by being precise, honest, and careful in what I represent.
While Senator Grassley stands firmly for accountability and transparency—and remains fully supportive of his constituents—his office does not support the FJAA bill. He has expressed concern that it blurs state and federal authority and creates confusion rather than clarity.
I cannot and will not attach my name to claims of congressional support that I know are untrue, nor to a 94-page bill that, in my judgment, overreaches, confuses jurisdictional boundaries, and risks undermining broader reform efforts.
Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct
I have observed a troubling pattern of unprofessional and retaliatory behavior from Francesca Amato that I find incompatible with serious policy work.
This has included:
Speaking negatively about advocates behind their backs while presenting warmth to their faces
Creating unnecessary conflict between advocacy groups
Encouraging supporters to attack other advocates in her defense
Demanding public gratitude or deference
Responding to substantive policy concerns with personal attacks
When I raised legitimate concerns about state–federal boundaries and Title IV-E compliance, the response was not honest policy discussion but attacks on my character.
Most concerning, my private medical information and lawful medical treatment were weaponized in an attempt to discredit me. Given that Francesca Amato presents herself as an ADA advocate, I view this as a serious violation of medical privacy and disability rights.
I have also observed a broader lack of personal responsibility in routine matters, which further eroded my trust. These are not the hallmarks of accountable leadership.
Implausible Claims and False Hope
I was repeatedly presented with grandiose and implausible claims, including assertions of imminent executive orders, high-level meetings, promises to personally take me to meet President Trump because he was “about to sign” the FJAA, and statements that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was reviewing the bill.
When such claims are made without evidence—and used to build loyalty, financial commitment, or hope from traumatized families—that crosses a line.
Survivors of system harm deserve transparency, realism, and integrity. Not fantasies.
For all of these reasons, I am formally and completely disassociating myself from:
The Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA)
Its current bill
Any claim that I support or endorse Francesca Amato’s strategies, representations, or leadership
Moving Forward: Stone Soup for Justice
I remain deeply committed to child welfare reform, sibling preservation, and enforcement of federal law—particularly Title IV-E—in a way that is honest, targeted, and workable.
Going forward, I will be focusing my efforts on Stone Soup for Justice, a new collaborative team and legislative vehicle grounded in truth, accountability, and cooperation. Stone Soup for Justice reflects our belief that real reform is built collectively—through transparency, shared responsibility, and rigorous policy work—not through control or misinformation.
I am honored to move forward with the advisement and support of Kathleen Arthur, a long-respected and credible voice in Congress on child welfare and federal funding. Together with Stone Soup for Justice, we are developing legislation tightly focused on Title IV-E requirements and enforcement.
Our work will center on:
Misuse of Title IV-E funds
Federal compliance standards states must meet to receive and retain funding
Wrongful removals and wrongful terminations of parental rights
Removals and terminations that resulted in injury or death
Family-court-forced separations
Failures to prioritize kinship placement and sibling preservation
Violations of reasonable-efforts requirements
Systemic practices that bypass federally mandated protections for parents and children
At the end of the day, my goal is to deliver the results and meaningful change families deserve—especially those who placed their trust elsewhere—through honest advocacy, precise lawmaking, and steadfast accountability.
My loyalty is, and always will be, to the children and families of Iowa and to families across this country seeking real, sustainable change.
I will not compromise that mission to remain aligned with conduct I cannot defend.
— Kristin Mitchell
Supporting Statements
Kathleen Arthur (Left)
“Children must come first. I have been working on fixing the Families First Act since it was passed. It simply did not have enough protections or oversight. It did not solve the funding problems. Change is slow; however, we are on the edge of making major change in child welfare. This team has clicked with members of Congress better than any I have ever seen. Congress is ready. The ground is fertile. The time to plant the seeds is now.”
Tasha Ulshafer (Left)
“I’m excited to start this new journey with the amazing new group I’m with. Moving forward with people who stand for truth and real action feels empowering. I was misled before by Francesca Amato, but that chapter is closed.”
Melissa Owens (Left)
“I am withdrawing my support and any association with the Family Justice and Accountability Act 2025 and its organizer after discovering serious constitutional issues with the bill and witnessing harmful, cult-like organizational behavior. My commitment to families navigating the family court and CPS systems remains unchanged. I will now be working with a new group, including Kristin Mitchell, Kathleen Arthur, and others at Stone Soup for Justice, to develop federal legislation that truly protects children and keeps them in loving homes. While this change may come as a surprise to many people I deeply care about, this new path reflects my dedication to finding real, ethical, and effective solutions for those who are suffering and seeking true resolution.”
