Current and Previous Litigation:
Important Notes:
I will be posting everything here and will give a basic outline of each case. The reason being is TRANSPARENCY as well as public access. Due to being an attorney-in-fact, I am not able to directly place my name or law firm on the documents (which would be considered “making an appearance”). We are white citizens of the State operating as attorneys-in-fact with other white citizens of the States only and we do not work with US citizens or residents of the United States. We are given explicit permission to operate on behalf of the sole proprietorships (US citizens) of our clients, as needed.
Everyone interested in this subject should sign up for a PACER account at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/. What PACER means is “Public Access to Court Electronic Records” and is a service that is free to sign up for then there is a (somewhat) small charge for pulling documents. I recommend you create an account if you have an interest in searching through my various cases for information above and beyond the initial filling documents. PACER is how you can see all the filings and activities in all the below cases (as well as any other cases you may have an interest in). PACER is an absolute MUST for anyone moving into litigation. LITIGATION MINI-COURSE VIDEO #2 EXPLAINS HOW TO USE PACER IN GREAT DETAIL (link to video #1 is above near the title of this page)! (I will also post links to the Free Law Project/RECAP page for each case below)
You also need to install a browser extension called RECAP. “RECAP” is “PACER” spelled backwards. You can find RECAP here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/. Once RECAP is installed, anything you purchase on PACER automatically uploads to RECAP forever. This is beneficial because it allows anyone, even those without RECAP, to access the files without having a RECAP account. It also allows you to prevent having to purchase items again that you may have misplaced. It is a very organized way to store and keep all your PACER docs because you basically don’t even need to organize them anymore… RECAP does all that for you.
Brandon’s Name Change Case (this case comes before we began doing any mainline litigation and is here solely for people/persons to see how I did my name change)
Venue: State (California)
Subject: Name Change
Case number: 23STCP02865
Brief overview:
This is back when I filed my name change in 2023. This could be used to show you how easy it is, but I would change the affidavit to be a separation from the sole prop instead of the way it is here. I had someone helping me with this so my personal comprehension was not great, but I was trying my best. This was done, obviously, after my USPTO Federal trademark was completed.
Click here to see all the initial filing docs and the final approval by the judge: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9ogajb27k91k9fv7gfxo/All-Name-Change-Docs-With-Approval-From-Judge-in-Case.pdf?rlkey=pg605qouo1tip9gr1zgd0ghh2&st=97qyww75&dl=0
Personal remarks:
This is back when I had only a fraction of the understanding that I have now. Now I would word it as me separating myself out from the sole prop. I would say something like: Brandon Joe Williams was born a white citizen of Indiana (non-citizen and non-resident of the United States) but is currently a white citizen of California (non-citizen and non-resident of the United States) due to a change in domicile. He is the “owner” of BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, who is a sole proprietorship and US citizen. BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS® is a “person” in accordance with 8 USC § 1101(b)(3) and a US citizen in accordance with 8 USC § 1101(a)(22)(A) and 8 USC § 1401(a).
Joey Kimbrough’s Credit Reporting Case
Venue: Federal (Indiana)
Subject: 15 USC § 1681 - Fair Credit Reporting Act
Case number: 1:22-cv-01217
Brief overview:
This was back before I knew Joey and this is the case that he actually won. For some odd (and dumb) reason, I never posted it on this site. Brandon had nothing to do with this case and this is the case that Joey won to remove items off his credit report.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63389647/kimbrough-v-snap-on-credit-llc/
Personal remarks:
Please don’t mention various critiques that you may think of regarding how this case is presented. Joey did this case before even finding my platform and HE ACTUALLY WON THE CASE. So I know a lot of my followers might mouth off but how about just keep your trap shut and be happy that we can have a case here that you can access that can give you a TON of guidance on how to structure and win a credit reporting case?
Case 1 (Real Estate Deal with Compass Realty and Dan Hollerman):
Venue: Minnesota - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments
Case number: 24-CV-100-SRN-DTS
Brief overview:
I was brought in on a real estate deal with multiple properties that was headed south. Upon investigation into the various contracts and documents, I noticed that several of the documents were unclaimed negotiable instruments that were released by all parties using a blank indorsement. I rapidly moved in and claimed those securities and commanded the real estate broker to have those collateral securities exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes in accordance with 12 USC § 412. These orders were directly denied, thus causing our first lawsuit. This is also the first lawsuit where I met Joey Kimbrough and, without his help, this lawsuit would probably not have happened.
We are attempting to actually still do the original deal and pay everyone their commissions, as originally agreed. What is lacking is proper funding. This problem can be easily solved by simply following 12 USC § 412.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at:https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68339268/knapp-v-compass-minnesota-llc/
Personal remarks:
This was my first case working as an attorney-in-fact on behalf of another white citizen of a State. It was pretty rocky and resulted in sanctions. The reason being is that the original instruments were, in fact, CONDITIONAL… not UNCONDITIONAL. At the time, I didn’t really understand the difference with great depth. This case is what sparked the 6-part UCC Article 3 video series that you see in the 2.0 Contract Killer Course. We took this case to appeals, which you will see below, but it was unsuccessful. The original instruments in the case were, in fact, conditional, which I fully realized a few months later as I continued to look over UCC Article 3 many, many times.
Case 2 (Wings Financial Credit Union - Mortgage):
Venue: Minnesota - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments and Peonage (Mortgage Lawsuit)
Case number: 24-CV-434-DWF-ECW
Brief overview:
My client had already sent a promissory note to his mortgage company to perform on his mortgage account. He also did an entire land patent process ALL ON HIS OWN. He sent the entire land patent, after completion, to the mortgage company. This is litigation after several attempts of my client to perform and inform. This is our first official case for infinite money.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at:https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68394277/knapp-v-wings-credit-union/
Personal remarks:
This case was the first prototype for infinite currency. It is quite rough and will be left here for mainly historical purposes just to show the line of research and attempts that had to be done to move research forward and get better. This case was appealed unsuccessfully, which you will see down below.
Case 3 (AgTexas Farm Credit Services - Farm loan):
Venue: Texas - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments and Peonage (Business loan)
Case number: 6:24-cv-00086-ADA-JCM
Brief overview:
This client was enslaved by his debt finance company. He literally would have the payments of his farm first going to the finance company then they would take their part and forward the rest to him. It was disgusting and he was also disgusted by it, hence this lawsuit.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68256560/hauschildt-v-agtexas-farm-credit-services/
Personal remarks:
As this case continued, it became very overwhelming. There was a war between Henrik and AgTexas and then eventually also with his landlord as well. At one point in time we had the Federal case as well as two State cases all raging at the same time. I even set up a GiveSendGo for Henrik to help him during all this (thank you to everyone who donated). By the end, Henrik was too overwhelmed and basically sabotaged all the cases as well as his relationship with Williams and WILLIAMS Law Group. Due to this, the relationship was severed but Henrik knows how to file into his case and how to make arguments and his Federal case is still valid and open. Henrik has not pursued the case any farther on his own, as you can see from the above docket.
This case is quite the epic journey if you care to dig through the various filings.
Case 4 (The AMEX case):
Venue: California - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments and Peonage
Case number: 2:24-cv-01631-MWF-PVC
Brief overview:
This is my first time up to bat on my own account with AMEX for infinite money.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68310355/brandon-joe-williams-v-american-express-company/
Personal remarks:
I felt VERY confident going into this case but, years later, I now look back and laugh at where I had to start and how ignorant I actually was. This case is VERY convoluted and confusing and you can tell that I’m not really able to clearly and directly communicate my claims until the reply brief in the appeal of this case (which you will find below).
Case 5 (City of Glendale Round 1 - Utilities):
Venue: California - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments
Case number: 2:24-cv-07039
Brief overview:
This case was another attempt at me working at using the original unconditional order to pay (bill/draft) as payment. It should have never been filed in Federal court but I did not know that at the time and this case is simply part of my journey.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69068973/brandon-joe-williams-v-city-of-glendale/
Recorded meet and confer calls:
These two recordings are quite special because I didn’t know what a “Meet and Confer” was when I started doing this. It is essentially an action that needs to take place a week before a motion is entered into the case (only in some jurisdictions).
I hadn’t realized yet that Federal court was the wrong venue and I was attempting to keep it going in the Federal court. But the main purpose as to why these calls are good to have is that it gives you the basic flavor of how I have these conversations live on the phone… which you can’t really get anywhere else. It shows how you pretty much want to be friendly and willing to educate and answer questions the entire time. It’s hard for them to pretend as though they don’t understand in court when you’re willing to answer their questions at literally any time.
Meet and Confer 1 from 9-19-2024: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kmnbt87ldx6hugbuoyznx/City-of-Glendale-Round-1-Meet-and-Confer-1-09-19-2024-2.27-PM.mp3?rlkey=nf0kwd7n83wh5zn131fh81ty6&st=puvh081k&dl=0
Meet and Confer 2 from 9-30-24: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p0jwj3loe4sl9wxfv0fu1/City-of-Glendale-Round-1-Meet-and-Confer-2-09-30-2024-3.12-PM.mp3?rlkey=jyk0pf7xhdpxpi7z1fvrjnjru&st=hocqpebw&dl=0
Personal remarks:
I didn’t realize it at the time, but the proper UCC for Federal Court is actually the one in the Code of the District of Columbia. Also, Federal jurisdiction was impossible (or nearly impossible) to establish here. This case was a big swing and a miss, which is why it never went to appeals. When it was dismissed, I never even motioned for reconsideration because I knew there was no way I was going to get jurisdiction. So I decided to go back to the drawing board, study, and return to use Small Claims for the next attempt at getting the City of Glendale to follow the laws in the California Commercial Code.
Case 6 (Appeals on Case 1 - Compass/Dan Hollerman):
Venue: Appellate - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments
Case number: 24-2722 (8th Circuit Appeals)
Brief overview:
Sanctions were given on case 1, which is almost never done on pro se litigants. This appeal is to overturn that and also the final judgment in the case.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69106908/preston-knapp-v-compass-minnesota-llc/
Personal remarks:
I had no idea at the time, and didn’t until months later, but the original instruments in case 1 were not actually unconditional, they were conditional. Had I known that at the time, I would have never went to appeals. It took me several months of intense study to fully recognize that the judge in case 1 was actually correct on her opinion that the instruments were conditional.
Case 7 (Appeals on Case 4 - AMEX):
Venue: Appellate - Federal
Subject: Negotiable instruments
Case number: 24-5426 (9th Circuit Appeals)
Brief overview:
My Federal case was a mess but I still wanted to do anything I could to have the case heard on the merits, hence this appeal.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69137510/williams-v-american-express-company-et-al/
Personal remarks:
You can see how far I have come by viewing the opening brief then the reply brief on this case. This is when I finally started flying solo and was only getting help from Joey a tiny bit for things here and there but I was fully “out of the nest” and going solo in the reply. This is also when I developed the rebuttals to “sovereign citizen” and “vapor money theory” that we still use to this day. I personally think that the reply brief in this case is the VERY FIRST FILING where you can tell I’m finally starting to really get it.
I’m more than willing to head to the Supreme Court with this case if it is dismissed in appeals.
Case 8 (Small Business Administration):
VIDEO COVERING THIS ENTIRE CASE AVAILABLE HERE: https://youtu.be/59kUMpfg6qE
Venue: State (California)
Subject: “Other Contract” (essentially a negotiable instruments case)
Case number: 24NNCV04461
Brief overview:
The problem with this case is that I didn’t understand yet that the UCC version that applies at the Federal level is the one found in the Code of the District of Columbia.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69344443/brandon-joe-williams-v-united-states-small-business-administration/
Personal remarks:
This case was a mess. The DOJ attorney removed it to Federal court and I got basically no chance to do much because the agreement with the idea of “sovereign immunity” was so strong that I was rapidly kicked out of the District court and then also appeals… resulting in my first writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court. You will see all of that below.
Case 9 (Wings Federal Credit Union - Appeal):
Venue: Federal (Minnesota)
Subject: Negotiable Instruments
Case number: 24-3359
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69517784/preston-knapp-v-wings-credit-union/
Brief overview:
This appeal was mostly on procedural grounds and won’t make much sense for anyone new to litigation trying to read it, most likely.
Personal remarks:
The 8th Circuit Appeals agreed the lower court without even a single word as to why. Literally just “affirmed” with no additional comment. So that was the end of that one.
Case 10 (Small Business Administration - Appeal):
Venue: Federal - Appeals (9th Circuit)
Subject: “Other Contract” (essentially a negotiable instruments case)
Case number: 25-1808
Brief overview:
This case was originally brought in State of California under the California Commercial Code but was removed, by the DOJ, to Federal court under 28 USC § 1442.
28 USC § 1442 has a definition of “State court” in 28 USC § 1442(d)(6), of which “State of California” would not be included in the definition… but the judge fraudulently took jurisdiction over the case and dismissed it. The term “State court” only includes areas of which the Federal government has exclusive territorial jurisdiction… of which would not include State of California.
You can see most or all of the docket for this case on RECAP from the Free Law Project at:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69771410/williams-v-united-states-small-business-administration/
Personal remarks:
There was absolutely no discussion on this appeal. It was instantly agreed by the 9th Circuit that the SBA has sovereign immunity. I then took this case to the US Supreme Court.
Case 11 (City of Glendale - Round 2 - Small Claims):
Venue: Los Angeles - Small Claims
Subject: Small claims (California Commercial Code 3603(b) claim)
Case number: 25PDSC01538
Brief overview:
I wanted to try Small Claims, just to gain experience using it.
This case is not on PACER and here is the full packet that was served on the city:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6nirc1jdleq4vc36noh07/City-of-Glendale-Round-2-Small-Claims-for-CCC-3-603b.pdf?rlkey=xv6okctzfc8rslb059pzut3ac&st=40b7y33u&dl=0
Personal remarks:
I already sued the city once before in Federal court, but there was no way to gain jurisdiction… which is why you never saw me file for reconsideration or an appeal on that case. That last case is when I started to understand the various jurisdictional options for Federal court. I could not see how I could get Federal jurisdiction in that case so I decided to send in a new batch of drafts using a blank indorsement in preparation of heading to State court. This packet was subsequently refused without dishonor and this lawsuit is to get those payments processed and also to learn and test out the small claims option for litigation. You will also see that the complaint is heavily simplified from previous attempts. I’m trying to make the complaints as short as possible.
We had the in-person hearing for this. I explained my position and the judge had concerns like “what if everyone started doing this” and “so you don’t think you have to pay or you think the government should pay?” After handling all of his concerns but still not getting much rapport, I said “this all comes down to the legal definition of the word ‘payment,’ your honor.” This really impressed him and it was at that point that he brightened up. He dismissed the case due to lack of damages but he complimented me on how well and thorough my research was. I attempted to get a copy of audio and I got denied stating that the equipment was “malfunctioning.” So, after this, I sent a letter to the City letting them know that all I need is damages and they are more than welcome to turn off my power. So now I’m just waiting for that so that we can move into Round 3, which will be in State court.
Case 12 - SBA - Writ of Certiorari for U.S. Supreme Court
Venue: U.S. Supreme Court
Subject: Questions as regards to “sovereign immunity” and removal from State to Federal courts
Case number: NOT ACTIVE YET
Brief overview:
Writ, booklets, payment, evidence of service of process for the Solicitor General of the United States and the word count were all sent in a package that was signed for and picked up by someone at the Supreme Court on October 14th, 2025 - tracking # 9505 5137 1772 5282 6345 14.
I had placed many phone calls attempting to see what happened to the package in December without success. Then, a Pickletarian named John, went to the Supreme Court physically on 12/22/25 and was told by a clerk that the package was most likely lost in the mail and to resend it.
The petition was resent on Jan 7th 2026 and picked up by the Supreme Court on Jan 9th, tracking number: 9505 5137 1767 6007 0655 98.
Then, amazingly, I finally got a response from the Supreme Court on 3/9/26 which you can see here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vzqhx665ytqqnm9nffbfx/Supreme-Court-Response-to-Writ-of-Certiorari-3-2-26.pdf?rlkey=l5rbquhv4g7rafw1mm5m6ycdi&st=2ineuv6e&dl=0
The petition was fixed using the help of Supreme Court Press. I had an excellent and very streamlined, painless experience with them. It cost $3100 to use them but I had already wasted around $700 trying to do it myself (which doesn’t include the $300 filing fee because they only deposit that check for the filing fee if the petition is accepted and docketed). The $3100 included serving the DOJ as well as the $300 filing fee. I highly recommend the service if you can afford it and are looking for a more painless way to get your writ of certiorari filed. I will definitely be using their services again.
There were a few slight adjustments that were done to the actual petition and then it was resent. It is now docketed and you can see the docket here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/25-1221.html
Click here to see my original submission that I made entirely myself before I got help (petition on the official docket is the one after working with Supreme Court Press):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5w8xgrp9az3evol1m4cvp/SBA-Writ-of-Certiorari-Final-Version-Ready-for-Printing-and-Service.pdf?rlkey=f5o5vlfkkpsibvafd1g33zt2x&st=1w3hbnw3&dl=0
Personal remarks:
I’m starting to get much more professional and clear with my briefs and writings, I think. This is, just like each piece that has come before it, my best work so far. It took over 6 months of work and waiting to make this happen, most likely due to how it is structured where the sole prop is being presented pro se by the owner which is a white citizen of a State. Just the fact that they never mentioned that as an issue in the response letter ALONE and docketed the case was well worth the almost $4000 total I spent on getting this thing filing. This is MASSIVE and is a huge landmark flag for us to prove the relationship between the white citizen of the State and the sole prop.
You’re more than welcome to use just the fact that this case is docketed as evidence of the relationship between the sole prop and a white citizen of the State. That’s why I do what I do, so it can be used.
Case 13 - City of Glendale - Round 3
Venue: California State Court
Subject: Utility bills as negotiable instruments
Case number: 26NNCV00519
Brief overview:
It’s been a long road but it’s starting to get fun. This case is ready to go all the way to the Supreme Court, if needed. The whole story is told beautifully in the complaint so I recommend you just dive in! You can see a link to a video of me breaking down this case as well as a link to access my UCC 3 flowchart down in the “personal remarks” section below.
This case is not available on RECAP because it is a State case so I have a shared Dropbox folder with all filings for you to have easy access to the case files:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/4tcllok8kpmpstc9ox8ai/APiqlJA7NdaHG_py92cH0pg?rlkey=ebbolikb0qycrt9pm8rwpn7ok&st=e9c319dg&dl=0
Personal remarks:
This is the next level for us with negotiable instruments. I’ll be letting everyone know when I have hearings and I invite you to bring your friends. It will be at the Burbank Courthouse. I’ll do social media updates and email blasts on hearing dates and new files available in the above shared folder. Video of me covering this entire case in detail is here: https://youtu.be/_yXhJePT4bk. You can also see a video of me breaking down the entire initial discovery packet that I sent to the Defendant here: https://youtu.be/znJJCIaqpfQ?si=crHJfieRo3II7tRS. Also, due to all the work that went into putting this case together, the UCC 3 flowchart has been EXTENSIVELY upgraded and edited, which is available for free at https://www.theamnestycoalition.org/resources-and-documents.