An FBI probe into a 2010 property deal orchestrated by Jane Sanders, wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has escalated after a report by VTDIGGER reveals that a grand jury has been empaneled, and at least one witness has given sworn testimony in the case.
According to VTDigger, “Former Burlington College board member Robin Lloyd says she testified for about an hour on Oct. 26 before a grand jury at the federal courthouse in Burlington.”
Paul Van de Graaf, chief of the criminal division for the U.S. attorneys office in Vermont, questioned Lloyd about her role as the development chair of the colleges board of trustees during a period when Sanders was collecting donations and pledges for the purchase of a $10 million city lakefront property. -VTDigger
The Grand Jury will decide whether or not indictments should be handed down over a $10 million loan orchestrated by Jane Sanders purchase a 33 acre property for the now defunct Burlington College – allegedly obtained through a ‘fraudulent scheme.’ Mrs. Sanders is accused of having lied about funding for transaction, while the FBI has also been looking into claims that Bernie Sanders’ office pressured the bank to approve the loan.
In June 2017, Politico confirmed that Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane had retained high powered DC lawyers amidst the investigation.
The original request for an investigation into Federal bank fraud was sent in a January 2016 letter to the Vermont District Attorney as well as the FDIC by Brady Toensing – an attorney and chair of Donald Trump’s Vermont campaign. The letter detailed the mechanics of the alleged fraud, which is what reportedly launched official investigations. Toensing told Politico on in June; “The investigation was started more than a year ago under President Obama, his Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and his United States Attorney, all of whom are Democrats.”
A brief history of Jane Sanders and Burlington College
In 2004, Jane Sanders left her position as her husband’s congressional chief of staff to become president of the unaccredited and struggling Burlington College – founded in 1972 and operated out of a former grocery store. When Sanders took over as a “turnaround” president, she set out to rapidly grow the college – announcing a $6 million plan to expand the campus in 2006 which never came to fruition.
Meanwhile, Sanders was rapidly earning a reputation for her “toxic and disruptive” leadership style, and in late 2008, according to a 2016 essay on the college written by a former teacher Greg Guma, “Nearly half of the students and faculty members signed a petition demanding a meeting about the “Crisis in leadership,” while Jane Sanders’ salary rose to $150,000 in 2009 amidst a tuition hike from $5,000 to $22,407 in 2011. Meanwhile, enrollment dropped by almost 25%.
In 2008, literature professor Genese Grill wrote to the school’s academic affairs committee, describing Sanders’ “harassment and unethical treatment of other faculty and staff members, many of whom have since left the college disgruntled and angry.”
And in 2010, Jane Sanders announced a plan to move the tiny underfunded Burlington college onto a 33 acre parcel of valuable lakefront real estate in Northern Burlington. “It was the last piece of undeveloped, prime property on the lake shore,” according to Guma.
The property was owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese, which was strapped for cash after recently settling over two dozen sexual abuse lawsuits for $17.76 million. The 33 acre property hit the market for $12.5 million, and the church agreed to take Jane Sanders’ offer of $10 million.
Scheming for loans
When Jane Sanders made the offer to the Roman Catholic Diocese, Burlington College was nearly broke – with an annual budget just below $4 million. In order to finance the property, Sanders secured a $6.5 million loan from People’s United Bank in the form of a tax exempt bond purchase, and the Catholic Church agreed to carry a $3.65 million second mortgage on the property. Sanders told both institutions that Burlington college had $5 million in likely donor pledges and $2.4 million in confirmed pledges to be used to pay off the debt.
Unfortunately, that was just for the land. Sanders apparently didn’t plan for the $6 million or so required to actually build out the campus on the property to include green space, athletic fields, lecture halls, and walkways.
Compounding an already dire situation, Sanders’ original claim of $2.4 million in confirmed donor pledges was quickly reduced to $1.2 million according to documents filed in the first fiscal year after the purchase – yet in records obtained by VTDigger, Burlington College received only $279,000. Despite hopes by Sanders and college trustees that they could boost enrollment and expand the student body, nothing changed – and the school failed at raising the money to satisfy it’s loans.
And then Jane Sanders was fired, with a $200,000 severance package.
In order to try and avoid bankruptcy, Burlington college sold off pieces of the 33 acre property to a local developer – which allowed the institution to pay off some of the debt Jane Sanders had accumulated, however in April 2016 the bank called it’s loan – and on May 28th, the college closed it’s doors after 44 years in operation.
As part of its bankruptcy, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington lost at least $1.5 million and perhaps as much as $2 million on the $3.65 million loan.
Enter the FBI
Politico revealed in their June report that [F]ederal investigators and FBI agents started to pull apart the $10 million financial arrangement. They showed up at Burlington College to sift through hard drives, audit reports and spreadsheets. They began to interview donors, board members and past president Carol Moore. I was contacted and spoke with an FBI agent numerous times last spring, again last summer, Moore told Vermont Public Radio in May 2017, and recently, maybe a month ago.
With a Grand Jury now empaneled and interviewing witnesses in the Burlington College saga, one can imagine the outcome of their investigation will largely determine whether Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate in 2020, should he wish to challenge Oprah Winfrey of course.
I. The Early Years: From Procedural Frustration to Claims of Systemic Bias (2007–2016)
Billy Dewayne Frazier IV’s legal saga began in 2007, when he found himself charged in federal court with possessing a handgun whose serial number was partially obliterated. According to the government, the weapon had traveled in interstate commerce, exposing him to a felony conviction. From the start, Frazier insisted the search was improper and that the charges were fabricated to intimidate him for speaking out against police conduct in Marion, Iowa.
He was assigned a federal public defender, Casey Jones, a figure whose name would later reappear across his filings as both counsel and judge. The plea paperwork later produced in court was a chaotic, partially completed draft. It contained visible cross-outs, uninitialed paragraphs, and language waiving post-conviction rights that Frazier asserts he never agreed to. In a supplemental filing years later, he wrote:
“This was never a voluntary plea. It was a threat, wrapped in paperwork they never even finished signing.”
He maintains he was told he faced up to 14 years in prison if he refused. No forensic or fingerprint evidence was ever produced to prove the gun belonged to him, and no chain-of-custody logs were entered in the record.
That 2007 conviction would go on to color every legal proceeding that followed. For years, Frazier describes being branded high-risk based on this record—affecting child welfare cases, bond assessments, and public perceptions.
II. The 2016–2017 DHS and Domestic Cases: A Template for Leverage
By 2016, Frazier had become a familiar figure in Linn County legal circles. His frustration with court practices had escalated, and he began to document what he believed was a system determined to break him. The pivotal moment, he says, came in the form of domestic-related charges and the threatened removal of his children.
He was charged with multiple domestic counts and violations of no-contact orders after trying, he says, to help his wife escape addiction. According to Frazier, these charges were based on minimal evidence—he insists body camera footage clearly showed no assault took place and that his wife herself stated he never touched her.
The key confrontation he describes occurred with Assistant District Attorney Heidi Carmer, now a judge. In a conversation witnessed by his public defender, Nikkidra Tucker, Carmer allegedly delivered an ultimatum:
“She told me, plain as day, that if I didn’t take that plea, I would never see my kids again. That’s not justice—it’s extortion.”
The next day, Frazier was scheduled to regain custody. Faced with that pressure, he accepted the plea. But in 2017, he took DHS to trial over the same allegations and successfully defeated the agency’s attempt to terminate or limit his parental rights—a victory he says was all but ignored in later criminal proceedings.
For Frazier, this episode established a clear pattern: when he refused to cooperate or challenged procedural abuses, prosecutors used DHS as a tool to force compliance.
III. Mounting Documentation and Claims of Retaliation (2017–2023)
After the DHS trial, Frazier returned to a familiar cycle: motions denied without explanation, ADA accommodation requests rejected, and clerks who, in his telling, mishandled filings. By this point, he no longer viewed these incidents as isolated bureaucratic failures.
Instead, he saw them as evidence of coordinated retaliation. In his filings, he described court personnel acting in concert to suppress evidence and obstruct his defense:
“This isn’t just about one arrest or one case. It’s about a pattern that goes back twenty years, and nobody will look at it because they’re all connected.”
During these years, he requested:
Written instructions because of PTSD and learning disabilities.
Longer deadlines due to cognitive issues.
Paper filings to replace online systems he struggled to navigate.
All were denied, he says, reinforcing his conviction that the system viewed him as an irritant to be contained.
IV. April 2024: The OWI Arrest and Immediate Aftermath
The night of April 5, 2024, marked what Frazier describes as the turning point of his legal story. Witness Allen Deschau reported to 911 that a brown Hyundai had drifted over a curb and stopped. Deschau later said he feared the driver was overdosing. Cedar Rapids police arrived to find Frazier behind the wheel.
Officers Mosher, McAtee, and Kuba’s report claimed he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, and refused a breath test. Frazier disputes every point: that he was intoxicated, that he was uncooperative, and that the vehicle stopped for any reason other than mechanical failure.
His handwritten notes on the pre-trial report read like a plea for recognition:
“They knew no children were there, but they did it anyway. They wanted a way to control me while I fought the OWI.”
V. April 26, 2024: Ex Parte DHS Order Without a Case Number
What happened next, he argues, proves his point. According to audit trail records he filed in federal court, ADA Heidi Weiland emailed DHS on April 9, 2024—four days after the arrest. No children were present in the vehicle. No allegations of child endangerment appeared in any police report.
Despite this, an ex parte order dated April 26, 2024, authorized DHS to enter his home and question his children. It listed no juvenile court case number, a procedural omission that, in Frazier’s view, was deliberate:
“This was the setup. No kids were there. This is what they do to retaliate.”
He argues this tactic was identical to what he experienced in 2016—using family leverage to distract and intimidate him as he prepared a legal defense.
VI. March–April 2025: The RICO Complaint and Federal Escalation
By March 2025, Frazier decided no Iowa court would ever impartially consider his evidence. He filed a federal civil RICO complaint in the Northern District of Iowa, naming over 40 defendants. Among them:
Judge Casey Jones, who had once defended him in the 2007 plea.
DHS supervisors and caseworkers.
Linn County prosecutors and clerks.
Officers from the OWI arrest.
He alleged a coordinated enterprise operating over nearly two decades to obstruct justice, retaliate against protected complaints, and deny his constitutional rights. In his words:
“If the same people I’m accusing are the ones judging me, how could I ever get a fair hearing in this state?”
The complaint demanded over $80 million in damages and the expungement of every conviction tainted by this alleged enterprise.
VII. Recent Developments and Eighth Circuit Appeals (Spring–Summer 2025)
On June 26, 2025, the Linn County District Court dismissed his Petition for Judicial Review, citing a two-day late filing. In doing so, the court rejected all claims of evidence tampering or bias, warning that further unsubstantiated filings could trigger sanctions.
Frazier escalated immediately to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, filing three consolidated appeals. He submitted:
Motion to Compel Record Transfer.
Notice of Constitutional Emergency, accusing Judge CJ Williams of retaliation.
Sworn affidavits describing missing filings, 2AM surveillance noises, and denied ADA accommodations.
Formal declarations about the chain of custody for his evidence.
Supplemental filings referencing Google reviews and local news coverage as evidence of a broader culture of corruption.
In the coming months, his arguments will test whether the system he describes can, in fact, investigate itself.
VIII. Patterns and Allegations: The Theory of Continuity
Frazier’s filings consistently return to one theme: that these incidents were never isolated. Instead, he argues, they represent a continuum of tactics:
Threatening to remove children to secure plea agreements.
Delaying or denying discovery.
Ignoring ADA requests.
Refusing recusal motions despite conflicts.
Leveraging DHS involvement as a parallel pressure mechanism.
He maintains that the same personnel reappear repeatedly, building an unbroken chain of influence and retaliation.
IX. Special Focus: The Use of DHS to Pressure Defendants
For Frazier, no part of this story illustrates the pattern more clearly than the 2016–2017 DHS case and the 2024 ex parte order. In his telling, the identical tactics—using child protective services to extract leverage—prove systemic misconduct.
“First they used my kids in 2016 to make me plead, and then in 2024 they did it again with no reason at all. It’s the same playbook.”
He emphasizes that the 2024 order lacked any case number, preventing him from filing motions to quash or appeal—evidence, he says, that the system was not simply broken but weaponized.
X. What Comes Next
At the time of writing, Frazier’s litigation is pending in multiple venues:
The Northern District RICO complaint awaits motion practice.
His §2255 motion to vacate the 2007 conviction is pending.
A habeas petition remains active.
The Eighth Circuit has not yet ruled on his emergency motions or appeals.
Frazier has made clear he has no intention of dropping his claims. He has repeatedly said that if federal judges dismiss his filings without a hearing, it will prove his point that no impartial review exists in Iowa.
Conclusion
Billy Frazier’s case is an extraordinary example of a pro se litigant alleging systemic misconduct across nearly every institution that has touched his life. Whether federal courts ultimately credit his claims, they paint a vivid picture of how procedural denials, threats to family integrity, and the power of public institutions can converge on one person.
Trump’s Blunt Rebuke of Israel and Iran: A Strategic Display of Control Amid Ceasefire Chaos
On June 24, 2025, President Donald J. Trump delivered a characteristically unfiltered assessment of the faltering ceasefire between Israel and Iran, declaring, “Two countries don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.” The comment, made to reporters as he departed for a NATO summit, underscored his frustration with both nations for violating a fragile truce brokered just a day earlier on June 23, 2025. Far from a mere outburst, Trump’s statement and the actions surrounding it reveal a calculated approach to reasserting U.S. influence over a volatile Middle East conflict, showcasing his ability to navigate and control a complex geopolitical crisis.
The Context: A Ceasefire Undermined
The ceasefire, intended to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Iran, was a significant diplomatic achievement for the Trump administration, signaling a potential pause in a conflict that has long threatened regional stability. However, within hours, Iran launched a strike that killed several people, prompting Israel to respond with a “symbolic attack” on the same day. These violations unraveled the truce, drawing global attention and risking further escalation, particularly given Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Israel’s military resolve.
Trump’s blunt remark came in response to this rapid deterioration. He expressed particular displeasure with Israel, noting that it “unloaded” on Iran shortly after the agreement, undermining the deal he had championed. “I’m really unhappy with Israel,” he told reporters, a rare public rebuke of a key U.S. ally. Yet, his criticism extended to both parties, reflecting his view that their tit-for-tat actions lacked strategic clarity and jeopardized a cycle of violence.
Why Trump Said It: A Strategic Calculus
Trump’s choice of words was no accident. His provocative language served multiple purposes, each reinforcing his ability to steer the situation:
Reasserting U.S. Authority: By publicly chastising both Israel and Iran, Trump signaled that the United States, under his leadership, remains the dominant force in Middle East diplomacy. His frustration highlighted the U.S.’s role as the ceasefire’s architect and underscored that violations would not be tolerated without consequences. This move reminded both nations of their reliance on U.S. support—militarily for Israel and diplomatically for Iran in avoiding broader sanctions or isolation.
Pressuring for Compliance: Trump’s bluntness was a calculated pressure tactic. By calling out Israel’s “unloading” and Iran’s initial strike, he aimed to shame both into reconsidering further violations. His urgent appeal to Israel to avoid additional strikes against Iran, labeling such actions a “serious violation” of the ceasefire, was a direct warning to an ally accustomed to significant autonomy. Similarly, his criticism of Iran’s actions reinforced his earlier stance of giving them “chance after chance” to negotiate, signaling that his patience was not infinite.
Shaping the Narrative: Trump’s colorful language ensured his message dominated global headlines, keeping the focus on his administration’s efforts to broker peace rather than the ceasefire’s collapse. By framing Israel and Iran as directionless, he positioned himself as the clear-headed leader seeking order amid chaos. This narrative was particularly critical as he headed to the NATO summit, where allies would scrutinize his handling of the crisis.
Balancing Domestic and International Audiences: Domestically, Trump’s tough talk resonated with his base, who value his no-nonsense style. Internationally, it sent a message to adversaries like Iran that he was not afraid to confront allies like Israel, challenging perceptions of unchecked U.S. support for Israeli actions. This balancing act strengthened his leverage in future negotiations.
Trump’s Control: Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Beyond his rhetoric, Trump demonstrated control through decisive actions that underscored his influence over the situation:
Direct Diplomacy: Prior to the ceasefire, Trump had privately and publicly urged Israel to refrain from striking Iran, emphasizing his desire for a deal to prevent escalation. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to act, Trump’s ability to extract a ceasefire agreement in the first place showcased his diplomatic clout.
Public Rebuke as Leverage: By openly criticizing Israel, a move described as a “rare public rebuke of an ally,” Trump shifted the dynamic of U.S.-Israel relations. This signaled to Israel that U.S. support, while steadfast, comes with expectations of compliance with American-led initiatives. It also positioned Trump as a neutral arbiter, increasing his credibility with other regional players.
Pushing for De-escalation: Trump’s comments were paired with a clear call for negotiations to resume, particularly with Iran, to address its nuclear program and prevent further strikes. His insistence that both nations “don’t know what they’re doing” was a strategic jab to nudge them toward the negotiating table, where the U.S. could dictate terms.
Navigating NATO and Global Opinion: Departing for the NATO summit, Trump used the crisis to project strength to allies wary of U.S. foreign policy under his second term. His ability to manage the ceasefire’s fallout while engaging with global leaders demonstrated his multitasking prowess and commitment to U.S. leadership on the world stage.
The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Control
Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran ceasefire breach aligns with his broader foreign policy approach: bold rhetoric, strategic pressure, and a knack for keeping adversaries and allies alike off balance. His critics, such as those on X who argue he has ceded too much control to Israel, overlook the nuance of his strategy. While Israel’s actions may have tested his influence, Trump’s public frustration and diplomatic maneuvering suggest he is far from a bystander. Instead, he is actively shaping the conflict’s trajectory, using the ceasefire’s collapse as an opportunity to reinforce U.S. dominance.
Conclusion
President Trump’s June 24, 2025, statement that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the f*** they’re doing” was more than a soundbite—it was a calculated move to reassert control over a spiraling Middle East crisis. By leveraging blunt rhetoric, public rebukes, and diplomatic pressure, Trump demonstrated his ability to steer the actions of both allies and adversaries. While the ceasefire’s breach exposed the region’s volatility, Trump’s response showcased his strategic acumen, ensuring the U.S. remains the central player in the quest for stability. As he navigates this crisis, his blend of bravado and pragmatism continues to define his approach, proving that even in chaos, he knows exactly what he’s doing.
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.
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.
