Raymond E. Butler II

This First Amended Verified Complaint was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan in Butler v. Eddi, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00134 (filed September 20, 2024). The pleading asserts federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and RICO-conspiracy claims, along with a wide set of related state-law and equitable causes of action, arising from the alleged improper administration and conversion of assets connected to the GPN Family Trust, the Doros Generation Trust, and related trusts/sub-trusts for which the plaintiff is a beneficiary. The complaint alleges that the trust structure was intentionally complicated through subsequent trusts, trustee changes, and the use of aliases/name changes to obscure asset trails, and it places the value of the assets the plaintiff claims he is entitled to at over $100 million.

The filing frames the case as an “association-in-fact” enterprise that allegedly used a pattern of racketeering activity, identified in the complaint as including mail and wire fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, and other financial frauds, to withhold trust assets and enrich others. A central factual issue highlighted in the pleading is an alleged “fraudulent release” dated September 23, 2009, which the plaintiff claims bears a forged signature and purportedly released claims relating to trust interests in exchange for a disbursement he did not receive in full. The complaint also alleges extended concealment and “sequestration” of information to prevent the plaintiff from learning about trust assets and transactions, and it seeks damages (including treble damages under RICO), recovery of allegedly misappropriated assets, and a jury trial.

These court filings document a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit alleging a coordinated pattern of misconduct  and activism involving members of the federal judiciary. The materials below include the original RICO complaint, a motion resulting in the recusal of the initially assigned judge, the formal reassignment of the case to a new judge, and subsequent filings detailing difficulties in serving the named judicial defendants. They further show the court’s involvement in resolving service obstacles through U.S. Marshal process and record the official returns of service. Taken together, these documents trace a rare and procedurally significant sequence in which a federal judge steps aside, the case is reassigned, and extraordinary service measures are pursued providing insight into how the federal court system responds when its own officers are named as defendants.