Press Release

Case Over Vinyl Record Album Ignites Defiant Protest Against NPR and the Supreme Court

Billy Yeager Supreme Court 2020 Clarence Thomas in His Own Words

“This decision is an abomination of the Supreme Court, and a blatant disregard of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ original intent written in the Bill of Rights and, or is proof that the Court’s cert pool memos written by Clerks is nothing more than a travesty of justice, proof that over 9000 petitions are not even read and that the Supreme Court Justices are traitors of this Nation”. William Yeager

Denied his 9th, 10th and14th Amendment Rights, musician, filmmaker, activist and humanitarian, Billy Yeager defies the United States Supreme Court dismissal of his case William Yeager v. National Public Radio, insisting he will not be arguing the merits of his case (PETITION 19-6442) by protocol and traditional procedures when filing his last appeal on January 13th, 2020.

Church close up 1

Instead, Yeager will file a ‘one page appeal’ that will provide the Court with a YouTube link embedded on a website that Yeager owns called:

The new documentary film called Clarence Thomas in His Own Words premieres January 2020, however Yeager’s website states, “In his own words Thomas is a traitor”, and on the landing page is where Yeager’s last defiant appeal can be found.

Supreme Court Justices 2020

Back in March 23, 2017 the Yeagers’ lives were destroyed by National Public Radio. NPR described Yeager to over 150 million people worldwide as a fraud, a trickster that had invested most of his life trying to deceive people because his life was purposeless. Jacob Ganz stated on the All Things Considered radio broadcast that Yeager was “more interested in infamy” and “pulling the wool over people’s eyes.” NPR’s defamatory article written by journalist Andrew Flanagan used over 43 extremely defamatory words to describe Billy Yeager’s 40 year career as an artist, musician and filmmaker.

Flanagan summed up Billy Yeager’s life as, “The story of Billy Yeager is one of purposeless obfuscation”.

(Under American law, if an alleged defamatory statement is made about a public figure or limited-purpose public figure it is not sufficient to simply demonstrate that the statement is untrue. Since the focus is a person of public interest, actual malice must be shown. This means that the person who claims he or she was defamed has to show — by clear and convincing evidence, not just a preponderance of the evidence — that the publisher of the statement either knew it was false or made or disseminated it with reckless disregard for the truth.

British courts, on the other hand, apply a much less stringent criteria for damages in a defamation case. There, the burden of proof is on the publisher, the one being sued, to prove the truth of the disputed statement. The party who claims he or she was defamed simply has to demonstrate the statements harm his or her reputation, without having to show any damage actually incurred.)

The fallout from NPR’s defamatory article and radio broadcast was devastating. On social media people wrote hateful comments; Billy was mocked and scorned, an NPR reader even compared Billy Yeager to Charles Manson; others stated he was a fraud, crook and psychopath.

Because of the extremely negative publicity the Yeagers’ Benefit Concerts and dream to “help those who cannot help themselves” were destroyed (the radio broadcast from All Things Considered reached all the way to his small hometown in Kansas with a population of 875); the venue was lost and the concerts had to be cancelled. Billy Yeager suffered major depression and attempted suicide twice. Billy’s wife, Anais, informed NPR’s general counsel about Billy’s severe depression, mental condition and quote: “could have killed him”, and although NPR’s C.E.O., including all board members, were fully aware of the seriousness, NPR’s quote: “we are taking this very seriously”, since 2017, NPR, including their new C.E.O., John Lansing, have continued to fight the Yeagers for close to 3 years hiring several attorneys hoping Yeager’s last appeal in the United States Supreme Court will be denied.

Billy Yeager Supreme Court 2020 William Yeager v. NPR

Yeager had no choice; with no attorney willing to take his case to defend his reputation, and armed with little more than an 8th grade education, Billy and Anais have been fighting against NPR’s three attorneys for 2 years and 7 months.

Yeager’s 350 million dollar defamation lawsuit against NPR also included NPR’s Senior Associate General Counsel Ashley Messenger.

william yeager v npr movie poster

This David v. Goliath showdown is being produced into a documentary film directed by Damon Blalack called William Yeager v. NPR, which follows the Yeagers’ journey right to the steps of the Supreme Court.

Billy Yeager is an award winning filmmaker and musician who has recorded and performed with musicians such as Ira Sullivan, and the world’s greatest bass player Jaco Pastorius; he has been discovered by Columbia Records executive Chuck Gregory in 1983, Grammy Award Winner Bruce Hornsby in 1991, and Doc McGhee (Kiss and Bon Jovi manager) in 2000; Rod Stewart went to hear Billy perform his music back when they both lived in Palm Beach, Florida, Stewart has a collection of Yeager’s self-made CDs.


Billy Yeager Bruce Hornsby

Billy Yeager The Breakers

Billy Yeager Rod Stewart

Yeager met his wife, Anais, who is also an artist, back in 2005. Soon after they met, Billy was hired as a house musician at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach; during this time he was also hired for many Palm Beach high society events playing for famous people and even presidents, but as artists devoted to a mission “to change the world for the betterment of humanity,” after 5 years of preparation, in an act of faith, Billy and Anais made a decision to give away and sell most of their possessions, bought a 1970 14-ft travel trailer and headed west to the Mojave desert, where they lived in ghost towns, Indian ruins and BLM land, spending the next 4 years writing, directing, acting and composing all the music for their feature film trilogy Jesus of Malibu.

Billy and Anais Yeager

Billy and Anais Jesus of Malibu

The Yeagers story was featured on Inside Edition and CNN, CBS, ABC, and Good Morning America when they claimed the Mysterious Piano incident in 2012, to promote their film Jesus of Malibu and the JOM Revolution for the Freedom of the Mind, making a protest statement against greed, over-consumption, materialism, and lack of consciousness, which they believe promote injustice.

Mysterious Piano Billy Yeager Anais Yeager

Soon after, they were discovered and their life story was produced into a film documentary called The Film That Changed The World, which was awarded Most Inspirational Movie Award at the Red Dirt International Film Festival in 2015.

jesus of malibu film the film that changed the world

In 2016, Damon Blalack, the Executive Director of the Red Dirt International film festival, became the Yeagers’ personal manager. Together they began planning a series of benefit concerts called What 4?, that were going to take place at an underground missile base located in Kansas.

Billy Yeager Benefit Concerts

Over 30 people worked on the concerts; it took over 9 months just to audition musicians, and tickets were set up on the Brown Paper Tickets platform. The proceeds of the benefit concerts were going to be used to purchase wheelchairs for landmine victims.

Mindy's Wish Billy and Anais Yeager
Benefit Concerts Billy and Anais Yeager

For over 4 months, Billy tried desperately to find an attorney to take his case; he called Libby Locke and Lin L. Wood dozens of times; Anais even wrote Lin Wood, “lawyer of the damned”, a personal letter, but not one single attorney ever reached out to the Yeagers.

Yeager finally made the decision to contact NPR himself in June of 2017. NPR’s general counsel Ashley Messenger began corresponding with both Billy and his wife. Messenger was fully aware of the seriousness of the matter stating, “We are taking this seriously”. 3 weeks of correspondence ensued with Messenger. Billy and Anais forwarded documents, letters, videos, sound files, videos (from Billy Yeager’s official website), proof of philanthropy work that the Yeagers had been doing over the years, to prove and defend his good reputation.

The Yeagers relentlessly asked that the defamatory article be removed.

NPR removed the article from NPR’s website; Yeager then informed NPR that the removal of the article would not be enough to compensate for all the damage done, soon after, NPR put the article back on their website.

As NPR’s CEO and Board members dragged their feet for over 2 weeks, Yeager’s wife wrote Messenger a 14,000 word letter stating they could have killed her husband. Billy also informed them he was going to the hospital, but Messenger and her superiors never replied to Anais or Billy’s email, and instead NPR allowed Messenger to take a 7 day vacation and no one was assigned to replace her.

Months later, NPR’s C.E.O. Jarl Mohn was being called out by dozens of female employees for not addressing the issues regarding the sexual allegations in the workplace. For over 2 years, Michael Oreskes was known for sexually harassing NPR’s female employees. It soon became apparent to the Yeagers why Jarl Mohn was not going to do anything about their lives either. For over 2 years and 7 months, NPR never once called the Yeagers and showed any remorse or concern; it was apparent that the only thing they cared about was winning, and they knew the law was on their side.

The last file that Yeager forwarded to NPR and Ashley Messenger was a Vimeo link that provided over 60 minutes of raw footage from the documentary film The Film That Changed The World (Sample Trailer). Immediately after, Messenger and NPR’s  management team came up with an “offer” for Yeager, obviously hoping that he didn’t realize that NPR had violated their Codes of Ethics and Conduct

(such as:

NPR’s CODE: We make every effort to gather responses from those who are subjects of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in our stories. In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides.

NPR never attempted to contact Billy, he was never informed about the breaking news; never contacted after the publication of the news; never contacted to be invited to the broadcast; never contacted afterwards.

NPR’s CODE: Any falsehoods in our news reports can cause harm. But errors that may damage reputations or bring about grief are especially dangerous, and extra precautions should be taken to avoid them. In those cases, err on the side of caution. Go slowly, and above all, get clearance from a senior manager.)

NPR admitted their mistake stating in an email they had misunderstood Billy Yeager.

Ashley Messenger also wrote, “We think our audience would be best served by having you say for yourself what your purpose has been.” and

Ashley Messenger NPR Lawsuit Billy YeagerNot only did NPR not offer Yeager to go on the radio, where his reputation had been destroyed (being accused without proof) of being a fraud to millions of people all over the world, but NPR CENSORED Billy’s speech; Messenger made it clear that Yeager would not be able to state certain matters; it was clear what they knew could create liability.

(NPR’s journalists (and their editors) involved in the publication and broadcast of the news article and radio broadcast defaming Billy Yeager, his work, and his life, committed a great amount of violations of even some of the most basic journalistic ethics).

NPR offered the petitioner to write his own story, but this “offer” had “conditions/restrictions”; Yeager addressed this in his writ of certiorari LINK; his First Amendment Rights of Free Speech were violated by National Public Radio, the only media outlet that receives governmental funding.

From William Yeager v. NPR case # 19-6442:

Yeager addressed this question as # 8 in his writ of certiorari:

Question A) Whether the Petitioner’s First Amendment rights were violated by “viewpoint discrimination” when National Public Radio issued ‘prior restraint/censorship’ on the petitioner when NPR’s in-house general counsel stated that they would “decline” to publish the petitioner’s reply/viewpoint if they considered that his reply/viewpoint “might create liability” or “not serve their audience,” which represents subjecting the petitioner under ‘restrictions/conditions’ that would abridge the petitioner’s Freedom of Speech.

Yeager’s also challenged the Courts to answer whether or not the government was a state actor.

Question A) Whether there are sufficient facts to render the United States Government a joint participant with NPR, and to invoke the First and 14th amendments.

Question B) Whether the Constitution and Bill of Rights grant the First Amendment clause ‘Freedom of Press’ precedence over the First Amendment clause “Freedom of Speech”, allowing the media the right to be able to issue prior restraint and censorship on the subjects of their reports and broadcasts?

Yeager also questioned the Constitutionality of the Fairness doctrine that was removed, allowing NPR to be able to attack Yeager on the airwaves without ever contacting him, neither before nor after the “breaking news” were published and broadcast.

Question # 7: Whether the removal of the Fairness Doctrine/personal attack rule by an “administrative law” is unconstitutional (infringes upon the petitioner and the public’s right to “freedom of speech”) in the case of an attack on a private citizen on the air waves via National Public Radio.

Yeager made his arguments strong, insisting that he was not a ‘limited-purpose public figure’ but a private figure, for he had had no participation in the controversy. Yeager addressed this in Question # 1.

Yeager made the decision to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court after researching Justice Byron White’s statements addressed in Writ Question # 3. Yeager was surprised when soon after his discovery, he read Clarence Thomas’s opinion, which was published by the New York Times. On February 19, 2019, in Mckee v. Bill Cosby, Thomas wrote, “…I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should reconsider the precedents that require courts to ask it in the first place”.

Justice Thomas argued: New York Times and the Court’s decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law. Instead of simply applying the First Amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it, the Court fashioned its own “‘federal rule[s]’” by balancing the “competing values at stake in defamation suits.” Gertz, supra, at 334, 348 (quoting New York Times, supra, at 279).

We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy-driven approach to the Constitution. Instead, we should carefully examine the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If the Constitution does not require public figures to satisfy an actual-malice standard in state-law defamation suits, then neither should we. Justice Clarence Thomas February 19, 2019 McKee v. Cosby No. 17–1542

This gave Billy hope; together he and his wife worked for months creating several Constitutional questions; in two of those questions, # 3 and # 4, the Yeagers used both Justice Byron White and Clarence Thomas’ words. Yeager was appalled that Clarence Thomas had his “appropriate case,” yet turned his back on his own words.

Yeager also tried for over sixty days to contact the Solicitor General regarding the constitutionality of an Act of Congress ( Rule 29. (b) ) regarding his question about the FCC ruling on equal fair time rule. Congress made its own decision to remove the law that the Supreme Court previously stated was constitutional, but Noel Francisco’s office never replied to Yeager’s phone calls and dozens of emails submitted to the office.

The Supreme Court admonishes the respondents’ counsel (in this case NPR) they have the obligation to file a brief in opposition if any perceived misstatements are perceived in the petitioner’s (in this case William Yeager) writ of certiorari.

National Public Radio did not file any brief naming any misstatement of fact or law.

On pages 27-36 of the pdf or pages 7-16 you can read the Statement of the Case (facts of the case): CLICK HERE

Yeager’s case was distributed for conference on December 13th 2019. On Monday December 16th, Yeager’s case was denied.

The purpose of the government and of the Supreme Court is among others to secure and to protect the God-given inalienable rights and Constitutional rights of the people. In this case the Court denied an American Citizen his Rights to the protection of his reputation in a jury trial guaranteed to him by the the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

In other countries such as England William Yeager would have received the opportunity to defend his reputation.

NPR Lawsuit Supreme Court Protest 2020 Billy Yeager

After 2 years and 7 months with no justice, it was too much to take. On Christmas Day, Yeager’s wife decided to make a video to call out those who had severely damaged her husband; Yeager now on several medications, had not played any instrument or written any songs in over a year. On Christmas Day, while about to film a video with Damon Blalack, Anais had to stop Billy from cutting his fingers off with an electric skill saw, as Yeager was intending to send them to the Supreme Court Justices. This would not be the first time Anais saved Billy from hurting himself.

All the cases accepted in by the Supreme Court allow parties to argue for 30 minutes before the 9 justices. Yeager knows that he doesn’t have a chance to have his case accepted; he was told by a Clerk of the Court that the Justices never consider these appeals, so he is making his statement/address to the Court and to the world by video instead; the Supreme Court will receive Yeager’s link to his 30 minute video statement on January the 10th.

Will the court approve? It doesn’t matter, as Yeager’s words are as adamantly defying and clear as one can be: justice will be served.

“I fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and then my denial came without even an explanation. Denied the chance to protect my 40 year career, to reveal the truth of the false accusations, to repair my destroyed reputation, to speak before a jury of my peers, I was rejected and denied my guaranteed 9th, 10th and 14th amendment rights by the Nation that I was born in, after having paid taxes for over 40 years; consider that my tax dollars were given to the media outlet that destroy my life.
The Supreme Court gave myself a so called “appeal” which is really no more than a big joke; from the Federal Courts to the 10th circuit, judges donning robs, swearing oaths taking God’s name in vain, and not even following our Founding Father’s original intent. What intent? That no American citizen’s life should be invaded and violated, and that no man should be stripped of his integrity and dignity leaving him to ruin; never would our Founding Fathers allow for something such as this to happen, for the government was to be for the people.” William Yeager

Yeager also quoted Justice Stewart regarding his 9th and 10th amendment rights.

Justice Stewart: While some risk of exposure “is a concomitant of life in a civilized community,” Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 388 (1967), the private citizen does not bargain for defamatory falsehoods. Nor is society powerless to vindicate unfair injury to his reputation. It is a fallacy … to assume that the First Amendment is the only guidepost in the area of state defamation laws. It is not… The right of a man to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified invasion and wrongful hurt reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being — a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty. The protection of private personality, like the protection of life itself, is left primarily to the individual States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But this does not mean that the right is entitled to any less recognition by this Court as a basic of our constitutional system. Rosenblatt v. Baer, supra, at 92 (STEWART, J., concurring).

Next? The Yeagers are taking their JOM REVOLUTION internationally and beginning their protest campaign called the Jericho March to Washington.




The Yeagers are also filing a $500 million lawsuit for Tort of Negligence against NPR, including NPR’s CEO, and members of the management/legal teams and the board of directors.

The new C.E.O John Lansing was hired to replace Jarl Mohn just 4 months ago. Before filing their lawsuit they asked NPR’s lead attorney to speak with Mr. Lansing to see if they could clear up the matter after almost 3 years.

On December 30th, 2019 attorney David Bodney replied: NPR will not be returning your telephone calls, nor will it be arranging the call you requested with John Lansing.

Damon Black

Producer & Director of William Yeager v. NPR

Executive Director of Red Dirt International Film Festival