Who is the Zero Fear Whistleblower

Todd A. Dyer, 62, is a financial services professional, certified paralegal, fraud examiner, and whistleblower with decades of experience structuring and launching startup ventures.

Dyer grew up spending time between homes in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, and Palm Springs, California—both renowned as historic, high-profile celebrity playgrounds where the ultra-wealthy vacation and own property.

This lifestyle was afforded to him by a highly successful, family-owned, Chicago-based boutique estate planning and wealth preservation firm that, in its heyday, counted some of America's wealthiest families among its clientele.

Throughout his career, he designed and launched new business ventures funded by private capital networks.

This work eventually drew the scrutiny of regulators and federal prosecutors, leading to a series of high-profile legal battles.

During a 2017 sentencing hearing involving agricultural investment entities Midwest Farmland Partners (Midwest), and later, American Farmland Partners (American), prosecutors labeled Dyer "the best and most dangerous fraudster they had ever encountered."

Dyer vigorously disputes this characterization. He maintains that his convictions were the product of systemic bias and flawed legal proceedings.

He notes that ultimately, he was sentenced to 24 years of combined federal prison time after being sentenced without defense counsel present.

Furthermore, Dyer points out that the lead prosecutor in his cases, former Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Joseph R. Wall, was later removed from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, for a second time, following allegations of official misconduct and overreaching.

The Farmland Controversy

Central to Dyer's whistleblower mission is his farmland investment roll-up strategy, which he designed to be farmer owned and controlled.

According to Dyer, when he resisted Wall Street's objections to a farmer control model, a select group of corporate insiders conspired to misappropriate his business model, intellectual property, and trade secrets. This group allegedly operated with the assistance of a former Illinois senator, an ethanol lobbyist, and his business associates in what Dyer alleges fits the elements of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act scheme.

While the government alleged that Midwest and American failed in 2011, Dyer asserts that these entities were covertly restructured into what is now Farmland Partners Inc. (NYSE: FPI) through concealed investment banking transactions facilitated by Milwaukee-based investment bank Robert W. Baird.

Evidence available on this site demonstrate that Midwest and American did not fail in September 2011 as alleged, but rather, operated well into 2014 and, immediately following the resolution of a State of Illinois Securities investigation of Midwest and American on March 19, 2014, just five days later, MIdwest and American re-emerged as FPI announcing its forthcoming IPO on March 24, 2014 through Baird's Milwaukee offices.

Dyer maintains that his legal defense was systematically compromised by:

Attorney Withdrawal: The government threatened to disgorge Dyer's attorneys of the fees he paid them if he were found guilty claiming the funds came from fraud, forcing his retained counsel to withdraw.

Dismissal of Counsel: The court-sanctioned removal of appointed counsel prior to trial, over Dyer's objections.

Indictment Alterations: A last-minute superseding indictment that removed 11 months from the alleged scheme's timeline, effectively blocking evidence linking Midwest, American, and FPI.

Evidentiary Restrictions: A granted motion in limine that barred Dyer from mentioning Farmland Partners, Inc. (NYSE: FPI) to the jury.

Ex Parte Communications: The ex parte dismissal of his attorneys by presiding judge JP Stadtmueller months before sentencing unbeknownst to Dyer — behavior the 7th Circuit Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Judicial Council refused to acknowledge.

The Zero Fear Whistleblower Platform

Today, Dyer leads the Zero Fear Whistleblower platform.

The organization is dedicated to investigating and exposing prosecutorial overreach, judicial misconduct, and the hidden intersections of institutional fraud.

Zero Fear provides transparency in a legal system where a protected class of wealthy and politically connected individuals often operate without public exposure or accountability.

Through rigorous investigation, the platform is committed to bringing these unchecked networks to light.

Zero Fear Whistleblower and AI Claim 7th Circuit Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct Warrant Criminal Charges

According to Dyer, he and others have been the target and victims of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and civil rights violations in the 7th Circuit's Eastern District so constitutionally outrageous and offensive that they justify, under the law, the removal of those judges from the bench and filing of criminal charges.

Before you dismiss Dyer's allegations, he asks that you review the evidence, beginning with the documents attached to this release.

The evidence of misconduct is voluminous and overwhelming.

The behavior Dyer alleges the judges and prosecutors engaged in violated federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242.

18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 criminalize the behavior of a judge and a prosecutor who collude to intentionally sabotage a defendant's constitutional rights.

Sentences associated with these violations range from 10 years of incarceration up to the death penalty.

These are real, existing federal statutes.

Congress’s intent in authorizing the death penalty for 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 was to provide a powerful federal deterrent.

Legislative intent behind including execution as a sentencing option was also to elevate the punishment to match the harm.

Noteworthy is the fact that false imprisonment and imprisonment via fraud can be considered a form of kidnapping, as documented on this site, and are part of the elevating behavior which triggers possible sentences of capital punishment.

According to Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) statistics, there are more than 150,000 inmates in federal prison.

If only 1/10th of 1% of those 150,000 federal inmates—or 150 American citizens—were incarcerated based on a conspiracy between a judge and prosecutor where they intentionally denied a defendant's constitutional rights, under the color of law, in order to secure the conviction of an innocent person, and then used that conviction to kidnap that individual, lock them in prison and separate them from their family for a decade, does that behavior not justify a lengthy prison sentence and, in cases where death occurs, the execution of a judge or prosecutor, asks Dyer?

Do you know how many judges and/or prosecutors have been executed for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242, asks Dyer.

Zero.

So ... in the last 75 years since 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 were officially encoded into Title 18 of the United States Code in 1948, no judge or prosecutor has ever been involved in behavior justifying capital punishment?

Why are judges and prosecutors not held to the same standards as everyone else, and allowed to break the law.

In the last 75 years, fewer than five judges or prosecutors have ever been incarcerated strictly for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241 or § 242.

Dyer inquires, if you were an unethical judge or prosecutor, with almost no chance of being incarcerated or executed for denying people's rights in order to win cases and incarcerate people you didn't like, and an equally unlikely chance of being disciplined by your peers for this conduct, what would be the motivation for not cheating and lying to incarcerated 90% of the defendant's brought before you?

Did Dyer mention the overall conviction rate for cases brought by the federal government exceeds 90%?

Most people believe prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity. "Not true," says Dyer.

If you have any doubt about the existance of these laws, or their ability to create criminal liability for judges and prosecutors, review the recorded digital response from the popular artificial intelligence application ChatGPT supporting Dyer's claims.

According to Dyer, AI has no ax to grind and no bias for or against anyone.

The ChatGPT response is entirely fact-based and grounded in existing federal law.

The 7th Circuit's Cover-Up: How Judicial Misconduct Complaints Triggered Conspiracy and Civil Rights Violations

To begin with, Dyer claims to be the victim of an ongoing Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act scheme whose conspirators include the US Courts, US Attorney Office in Milwaukee and a group of well-to-do and politically connected individuals, including a former Illinois senator and ethanol lobbyist, his friends, and business associates.

Unbelievably, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Joseph R. Wall (Wall) who prosecuted Dyer in the 15-CR-115-JPS Farmland case where Dyer was alleged to have been the masterminded behind a Farmland roll-up/consolidation investment scheme operated as American Farmland Partners (American) and Midwest Farmland Partners (Midwest) before it, admitted to Dyer in an email in the weeks leading up to his December 2016 trial that he might have grounds for a civil suit against publicly traded Farmland Partners, Inc. (NYSE: FPI) but believed Dyer's civil claims against FPI had no bearing on the government's Farmland case which alleged Midwest and American failed costing investors to lose, collectively, $1,800,000.

At trial, the government claimed Midwest and American failed in September 2011 and that no connection between Midwest, American and FPI existed, and had no connection to FPI.

In a 2022 order the chief judge in the 7th Circuit's Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Pamela Pepper stated that even if some of the Farmland investors got their money back, Dyer wasn't getting any of it. This, according to Dyer, is an admission that this judge is aware of the fact that, there is a connection between 15-CR-115-JPS Farmland case entities Midwest, American and publicly traded FPI.

This would be a contradiction to the case the government presented alleging Midwest and American failed in September 2011 and that no connections between entities Midwest, American and FPI exist.

At least one law firm has verified Dyer could be owed tens of millions of dollars. Dyer puts the loss at more than 100 million dollars.

But again, don't take Dyer's word for it. See: Investigation of publicly traded Farmland Partners, Inc. (NYSE: FPI).

Denied Counsel: Secret Dismissals, Court Lies, and the Illusion of Appellate Accountability.

Dyer was sentenced to a combined 24 years in federal prison in 2017 in two separate cases without an attorney present at either sentencing, denying him his Sixth Amendment entitlement to the effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings.

Even more outrageous, according to Dyer, is what has transpired over the last decade relating to his attorneys, the judges, the government, and 7th Circuit Court Appeals Judicial Council collusive efforts to brush off an obvious violation of Dyer's rights.

Dyer was released from federal prison to a Chicago-area halfway house on November 25, 2025, after serving more than eight and a half years, including more than a year in solitary confinement, he says, to frustrate his ongoing attempts to reveal judicial and prosecutorial misconduct.

Dyer pursued his attorneys—partners at a Milwaukee law firm—following his incarceration for their failure to appear at his sentencings through complaints filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court Office of Lawyer Regulation. (OLR)(Exhibit in Support 1)(Exhibit in Support 2)

In the course of the investigation by the OLR, the attorneys, Christopher Donovan (Donovan) and Martin Pruhs (Pruhs), produced a letter they sent to Judge J.P. Stadtmueller, the judge in the 15-CR-115-JPS Farmland case where Dyer received a 15 year sentence.

The date of the letter is January 19, 2017. (Exhibit in Support 3)

Dyer received a copy of Donovan and Pruhs letter to Judge Stadtmueller after they sent a copy to investigators at the OLR via an email on July 30, 2021. (Exhibit in Support 4)

In the email, Donovan and Pruhs admit to sending the letter to Judge Stadtmueller stating, in part:

    "I am attaching a letter Mr. Donovan and I sent to Judge Stadtmueller after our appointment ended because it contains a good, some what contemporaneous chronology of the work we did as standby counsel."

The letter to Judge Stadtmueller is dated, as noted above, January 19, 2017— almost two months prior to Dyer's March 8, 2017 sentencing. (Exhibit in Support 5)

Donovan and Pruhs are lying about having sent the letter after their appointment had ended.

According to the case docket, Donovan and Pruhs's representation of Dyer did not terminate until May 11, 2017 (Exhibit in Support 6) —months after both his sentencing and their letter to Judge Stadtmueller.

The letter does not appear in the Farmland case docket and was never seen or received by Dyer prior to his sentencing or the filing of a complaint with the OLR in 2021, and is therefore ex parte. (Exhibit in Support 7)

No motion to withdraw as Dyer's counsel was ever filed by Donovan and Pruhs, nor was any hearing held, and no motion to withdraw was ever granted.

In the letter, Donovan and Pruhs inform Judge Stadtmueller that they had allegedly been instructed by a Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel administrator that, because they had not heard back from Dyer regarding whether he wanted full or standby representation for sentencing, their representation of Dyer was complete. (Exhibit in Support 3)

According to Donovan and Pruhs January 19, 2017 letter to Judge Stadtmueller and other evidence, they submitted their unpaid vouchers to Judge Stadtmueller for payment approval in January 2017 prior to Dyer's March 8, 2017 sentencing.

In a more recent March 5, 2024 correspondence, based on Dyer's continuing inquiries, Donovan and Pruhs changed their story. (Exhibit in Support 8)

In the March 5, 2024 letter to Dyer, Donovan and Pruhs claim, not that they had not heard back from him, or that he was undecided about wanting full or standby representation, but now claim 7 years later that Dyer made it clear he wanted no assistance at sentencing—a claim Dyer vehemently denies.

Specifically, Donovan and Pruhs state in the March 5, 2024 letter:

    "... you made clear to us that you did not want our assistance for anything to do with sentencing, so we submitted our vouchers in January 2017 because our work was then complete."

Dyer insists no CJA panel administrator would have told Donovan and Pruhs that their representation was complete, leaving him unrepresented at sentencing where he faced, and Judge Stadtmueller sentenced him to 15 years in federal prison without the advice or assistance of counsel.

According to federal and local court rules, and the rules of professional conduct, once an attorney is appointed to represent a defendant in a criminal case, that attorney or attorneys remain counsel of record until a motion to withdraw is filed, a hearing is held, and the motion is formally granted.

While Rule 44 governs the overall Right to and Appointment of Counsel, the actual rules, procedures, and grounds for standby counsel withdrawing once appointed are governed by a combination of local district court rules, constitutional case law, and ethical rules of professional conduct.

Here is how the process actually works in federal criminal courts:

Under virtually all federal local rules (e.g., Local Rule 83 in many jurisdictions), once an attorney’s name is on the docket—whether as full defense counsel or standby counsel—they are the attorney of record.

    ●They cannot simply walk away or file a standard notice of withdrawal.

    ●They must file a formal Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, which requires a showing of "good cause."

    ●The trial judge has absolute discretion to grant or deny the request.

Dyer has repeatedly—including in a recent inquiry made in preparation for this release—requested from Donovan, Pruhs, and Craig Albee of the Federal Defender's Office in Milwaukee, the name of the CJA panel administrator that allegedly told Donovan and Pruhs that their representation had concluded, and/or proof that any such instruction was ever given. Donovan, Pruhs, and Mr. Albee all failed to respond to Dyer's request.

Wisconsin federal and other courts use an online portal for communications between attorneys and judges. Any such instruction by a CJA panel administrator to Donovan and Pruhs would certainly exist on that portal, if it occurred at all, according to Dyer.

It is also a fact that Judge Stadtmueller made no mention of Donovan and Pruhs's absence at Dyer's sentencing, supporting Donovan and Pruhs's claim that Judge Stadtmueller was aware of, and presumably approved, their dismissal unbeknownst to Dyer.

Dyer has requested information—including in a recent inquiry made in preparation for this release—regarding when Judge Stadtmueller authorized final payment to Donovan and Pruhs. All have failed to respond.

This information would confirm the fact that Judge Stadtmueller knew that Dyer was losing his representation prior to sentencing and played a knowing and intentional role in keeping it from him, without question, a clear case of judicial misconduct, according to Dyer.

Dyer inquires how a letter even made its way to Judge Stadtmueller and bypassed the clerks of courts suggesting strongly, according to Dyer that, there was a coordinated effort to deny him something as fundamental as the right to an attorney by Judge Stadtmueller and others.

In the other case, where Dyer received a nine-year sentence without an attorney, those same attorneys, Donovan and Pruhs, informed the OLR that they were not present at Dyer's March 23, 2017 sentencing in the 16-CR-100-PP Bakley case because they were not appointed to represent him it that case, something they mention in the January 19, 2017 letter to Judge Stadtmueller, (Exhibit in Support 3) and again in a January 2019 email thread. (Exhibit in Support 9)

In the 2019 email Dyer asks Donovan and Pruhs to identify the date and corresponding docket when they were appointed to represent him in the 16-CR-100-PP Bakley case and when they filed their appearances.

In their response, Donovan and Pruhs email states, in part:

    "We were only standbv counsel for the trial with Judge Stadtmueller."

The judge in that case, Judge Pamela Pepper, the Chief Judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, states in her orders that Dyer appeared with counsel. (Exhibit in Support 10)

Specifically, Judge Pepper stated, in part:

    "On December 7, 2016 the defendant (and standby counsel) appeared before Magistrate Judge David E. Jones for a change-of-plea hearing."

Upon learning of Donovan and Pruhs's claim that they were not appointed in the Bakley case, Dyer informed Judge Pepper of Donovan and Pruhs's statements and asked her to identify what attorney or attorney(s) she was referring to in her orders. (Exhibit in Support 11)

Donovan and Pruhs's claim in this case is, in part, factually accurate. They were never hired by Dyer, and neither Judge Pepper nor any other judicial officer ever appointed Donovan or Pruhs to represent Dyer in the Bakley case.

Donovan and Pruhs filed no appearance in the Bakley case, submitted no CJA vouchers identifying time spent representing Dyer, received no case evidence, and were not paid to represent him. They are not mentioned by name in the the Bakley case docket. (Exhibit in Support 12)

When Dyer filed a motion requesting copies of the CJA 20 vouchers to confirm Donovan and Pruhs were never paid to represent him in her case (Exhibit in Support 12) and spent no time working on his case Judge Pepper denied Dyer's request, to conceal her own misconduct, this according to Dyer. (Exhibit in Support 13)

This raises the obvious question: if Dyer had counsel, as Judge Pepper claimed in the Bakley case orders, where were those attorneys during sentencing, and why did Judge Pepper not inquire as to their whereabouts before sentencing Dyer to nine years in prison without counsel present?

Judge Pepper has ignored Dyer's many requests to identify what attorney or attorneys she claims represented him in her orders associated with the Bakley case—including a recent inquiry made in preparation for this release.

Dyer's simple request that Judge Pepper identify who she claims represented Dyer is a reasonable one and something Judge Pepper does not have the luxury of ignoring.

Complaints of Judicial Misconduct Filed

Ultimately, Dyer filed complaints of judicial misconduct against both Judge Stadtmueller and Judge Pepper with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. (Exhibit in Support 14)(Exhibit in Support 15)

Complaint Against Judge Stadtmueller

Dyer's complaint against Judge JP Stadtmueller is a clear and simple one. Judge Stadtmueller accepted an ex parte letter from Dyer's counsel relating to the termination of Dyer's representation and a request for payment for his attorneys services almost two months prior to Dyer's sentencing NOT at the conclusion of the case.

The Court of Appeals— Chief Judge Diane Sykes and members of the Judicial Council —dismissed the complaint against Judge Stadtmueller, stating falsely that the January 19, 2017 letter sent by Donovan and Pruhs to Judge Stadtmueller nearly two months prior to Dyer March 8, 2017 sentencing was not ex parte because it came at the conclusion of the case. (Exhibit in Support 16)

Judge Sykes order dismissing Dyer's complaint says specifically:

    "He also accuses the judge of engaging in ex parte communications with him appointed standby attorneys they sent a letter to the judge at the conclusion of the case concerning compensation under the Criminal Justice Act."

Further, that:

    "Allegations of misconduct must be supported by sufficient facts to raise an inference that misconduct occurred; adverse rulings alone are not evidence of any type of misconduct. 28 U.S.C. sec. 352(b)(1)(A)(iii)."

    "Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed pursuant to sec. 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii)."

Clearly, the letter did not come at the conclusion of the case—which would have been sentencing—but as noted, two months prior to sentencing and nearly four months prior to the termination of Donovan and Pruhs' representation on May 11, 2017.

Dyer did not claim his standby counsel sent a letter to Judge Stadtmueller at the conclusion of the case. That is a lie.

It is a lie the then Chief Judge, Diane Sykes falsely insert into the orginal order dismissing Dyer's legitimate complaint of judicial misconduct on which the entire Judicial Council later bases their decision to affirm a denial on appeal.

Judge Sykes's statement that complaints of misconduct must be supported by sufficient facts would be laughable were it not so constitutionally offensive.

Dyer's complaints and allegations of misconduct are supported by a written email admission by his attorneys to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) that they sent a letter to Judge Stadtmueller nearly two months prior to Dyer's sentencing while they were still his attorneys along with a copy of the docket sheet documenting the fact that Judge Stadtmueller did not immediately, upon receiving a copy of the ex parte letter, making it known to all parties, and seeing that the letter was properly filed in the docket.

It is supported by the letter itself showing Judge Stadtmueller was sent an ex parte letter. (Exhibit in Support 3)

Evidence doesn't get any stronger.

The Judges of the 7th Circuit have done this before and use the same tactic repeatedly to dismiss legitimate claims of judicial misconduct.

The letter is, without question, ex parte and grounds for Dyer's convictions to be overturned, and Judge Stadtmueller, Judge Sykes, and the members of the Judicial Council's involvement in knowingly and intentionally violating his rights and the subsequent cover-up, grounds for all to be charged criminally under federal criminal statutes 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 and removed from the bench, this according to Dyer.

In federal criminal proceedings, the following rules apply.

Definition and Prohibition

Definition: An "ex parte communication" is any written or oral communication between a party (or their attorney) and the judge about a case that occurs outside the presence of, or without notice to, the opposing party.

Prohibition: Prohibition: Judges are prohibited from initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications regarding pending matters to ensure fairness and due process.

Requirements for Withdrawal of Counsel

Motion and Notice: Federal and local rules typically require that an attorney wishing to withdraw must file a formal motion—not a private letter—and serve that motion on their client and opposing counsel.

Transparency: The motion must be filed on the public docket so all parties are aware of the request, and removing counsel at a critical stage like sentencing without the defendant's knowledge is a violation of due process.

Right to Counsel: The removal of counsel is a procedural change that the defendant is entitled to know about and potentially contest.

Complaint Against Chief Judge Pamela Pepper

In the complaint of judicial misconduct filed against Judge Pepper, Dyer alleged that she stated in her orders that he appeared with counsel while knowing he was not represented.

To be abundantly clear, Dyer alleged Chief Judge Pepper lied in her orders relating to the 16-CR-100-PP Bakley case.

As noted above, prior to filing the complaint against Judge Pepper, Dyer gave Judge Pepper an opportunity to identify the attorney or attorney(s) she referenced in her orders, a request Judge Pepper ignored.

In response to Dyer's complaint against Judge Pepper, Chief Judge Diane Sykes and other members of the Judicial Council dismissed the complaint, stating there was no evidence of bias. (Exhibit in Support ?)

Dyer did not allege bias.

He alleged in his complaint that Judge Pepper made knowingly false statements in official court orders; that she lied.

It is noteworthy that, not a single other case in the entire federal court record exists where a judge claims that a defendant was represented by a particular attorney or attorney(s) while the attorneys in question simultaneously state, "We were not appointed to represent the defendant in that case."

If Dyer had any attorney as Judge Pepper alleges in her orders, any attorney, why was there no attorney at Dyer's March 23, 2017 sentencing where Judge Pepper sentenced Dyer to 110 months without the advice or assistance of counsel, and why didn't Judge Pepper inquired as to the whereabouts of this attorney?

These facts, all supported by a clear record, document the fact that Chief Judge Diane Sykes in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, along with other members of the Judicial Council who are entrusted with ensuring members of the federal judiciary maintain good conduct and, in turn, the public's confidence, all lied in an attempt to avoid disciplining their friends and colleagues, members of the federal judiciary, and officers of the court.

Dyer alleges this conduct is knowing, intentional, and ongoing, as Dyer has made a request—including in preparation for this release—that the judges take voluntary corrective action, all have ignored Dyer's requests.

This behavior falls squarely within the conduct prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 because judges and prosecutors conspired to deny his constitutional rights.

Dyer is now appealing to the legal community, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and President Donald Trump—who Dyer claims has been the victim of similar abuses—to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate corrupt federal prosecutors and judges, charge and sentence them, beginning with those involved in his cases.