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 Frazier
Housing 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 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.”
