Current and Previous Litigation:

Important Notes:

  1. 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. In an effort to be as transparent as possible, without being overbearing, I will post at least the basic original filing information.

  2. 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)

  3. As I learn more, I will be using these cases as well as all my experiences to build out the pro se/sui juris litigation course in the future. I will also have videos in that course on how to use PACER, how to break down complaints, etc.

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.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PDF IN A SHARED DROPBOX FOLDER (will open in a new window)

Personal remarks:
I’ll be frank with you, a lot of this is all new for me. I’m trying my best and not sure what will happen. But I’ll tell you this, these first few cases might be tough but we WILL straighten this whole thing out and learn what is needed to have success as pro se/sui juris litigants. As you can see in the complaint, I made it very simple and left the emotion out of it. Keep in mind that an “allegation” is defined as “setting forth that of which YOU INTEND TO PROVE.” So I’m not attaching 100 pages of bullshit. Honestly, I felt like the complaint was too long even at a little over 9 pages. The complaint is just the allegations… you don’t need to substantiate those allegations until later (such as in discovery). You can see that I placed the ens legis names as the plaintiff and then mentioned how they are, essentially, presented by upper and lower case names. Keep in mind, as the plaintiff, you MUST grant jurisdiction to the court. So I made that delineation between the ens legis and the man/woman very low-key. There is no reason to be loud and obnoxious about these various persons, but we all know it’s important to separate them out. You can see I did not use a lot of big words, did not list endless laws, and did not intend on crushing or squashing anyone. Keep in mind, we are attempting to actually get this original deal back on the rails and actually close this deal and PAY ALL THE ORIGINAL COMMISSIONS AND FULLY ADHERE TO ALL THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS. We aren’t walking into the courtroom as psychotic, PCP snorting pieces of shit. I really want you guys to see how light, gentle, clear and simple this can be.

This case is in appeals as it was dismissed on the judgment that the documents in question were not unconditional, but were actually conditional promises to pay.

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/

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.

Original mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PDF IN A SHARED DROPBOX FOLDER (will open in a new window)

UPDATE FROM 6/14/24:
This case has been refiled to remove the Title 18 claims because they were labeled as not having any “private right of action” on Case 1. CLICK HERE to see the updated complaint.

Personal remarks:
This is our first OFFICIAL prototype for infinite money. This is also our OFFICIAL first lawsuit against a mortgage company. Case #3 and 4 are slightly more polished, but this case is a massive flag in the ground and symbolized our first major case built specifically and explicitly for infinite money. If you are not involved in a time-sensitive situation, I recommend you wait until I post case #3 and 4 so you can review them all. Because we now have a solid skeletal framework for all credit situations.

This case was dismissed for basically no reason and is being appealed.

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/

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:
My client has been in a peonage situation where his entire farm has been fraudulently pledged as collateral on a loan that did not need such collateral. My client has signed multiple promissory notes and AgTexas failed to inform my client of his indorsement options on the original collateral securities.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
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 you can see, there are only slight alterations from case #2. You are starting to see how this will be our first skeletal structure for all litigation in the realm of negotiable instruments.

UPDATE 9/29/24:
I took on this case as an attorney-in-fact which you can see using the above link to RECAP. I put up a website and a GiveSendGo in an attempt to help Henrik. There was also 2 State of Texas cases that came from this whole situation (one from AgTexas and another from Henrik’s landlord) that I worked on for him at NO CHARGE. I also created a trust for him for free. In the end, Henrik has decided, even though I’m only an attorney-in-fact and Henrik was in the driver’s seat the ENTIRE time of our litigation, that we are to be blamed for everything. He has taken on an entirely victim-centric mindset and has blamed Brandon for everything as though Brandon is his personal Jesus Christ.

Brandon has offered, multiple times, to bring Henrik onto his show in order to speak his mind and Henrik has declined those offers.

It is true that Henrik had his farm and property taken in a judgement. We never told Henrik to stop paying his rent and he also sent a manufactured bill of exchange to his landlord to pay that was not approved by us. This caused tremendous difficulties during the litigation process that we had to deal with.

AgTexas and his landlord committed CRIMINAL ACTS in order to take the land and property from Henrik and Henrik should add all of what happened into the Federal case as additional damages as well as pursue damages from his previous landlord.

Henrik is knowledgeable enough to continue the Federal case without us and we are no longer working on this case. We will absolutely not put up with our own clients stabbing us in the back and attacking us secretly. All up-front charges are DONATIONS, as stated in multiple places on the website and emails, thus there is no contractual obligation to continue to work with someone that is so devoted to imploding their life with a psychotic victim-centric mindset. We have a great Federal case that Henrik can still have tremendous success with.

Henrik should retain an attorney-at-law if he is going to behave like an infant or person of unsound mind.

Case 4 (The AMEX case):

Venue: California - Federal

Subject: Negotiable instruments and Peonage

Case number: 2:24-cv-01631-MWF-PVC

Brief overview:
Here it is… the one you have been waiting for. My first pro se case on behalf of the ens legis. Let’s get this party started.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PDF IN A SHARED DROPBOX FOLDER (will open in a new window)

UPDATE FROM 6/14/24:
This case has been refiled to remove the Title 18 claims because they were labeled as not having any “private right of action” on Case 1. CLICK HERE to see the updated complaint.

Personal remarks:
None needed on this one. The magnum opus.

This case was dismissed for absolutely no reason and is now in appeals.

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/

Case 5 (City of Glendale - Utilities):

Venue: California - Federal

Subject: Negotiable instruments

Case number: 2:24-cv-07039

Brief overview:
The AMEX case was my first time up to bat and I attempted to explain too many things which opened the door for a lot of, what I think, was feigned misunderstanding. This case is an ultra-simplified version to curb any attempt to pretend ignorance on the subjects of negotiation, negotiable instruments, indorsements and UCC Article 3.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
Just get everything on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69068973/brandon-joe-williams-v-city-of-glendale/

Personal remarks:
Just trying to force an actual conversation into UCC Article 3, rather than conversations about all sorts of completely irrelevant subjects, which appears to be the defensive tactic of choice.

This case was dismissed as I should have filed it in State court and filed it in Federal court instead. I am putting together everything needed to bring this to State court.

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 incorrectly on case 1. This appeals is to execute 2 various affirmative defense positions, the first one has already been executed and there is a more extreme second set of actions that we have ready to go if this initial appeal is not successful.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
Just get everything on RECAP/Court Listener (if items are not available, you may need to buy them on PACER): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69106908/preston-knapp-v-compass-minnesota-llc/

Personal remarks:
Despite an effort to communicate objections on the original case, these were ignored and a judgment was made against the clear aspects of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This appeal is to handle that. I almost hope, personally, that this initial appeal fails because our backup plan is BEYOND exciting and will cause a massive conversation into UCC Article 3. At this point, with how difficult it has been to spark a conversation into UCC Article 3, I’m willing to walk into literally almost any fire in order to simply spark a conversation on the subject. I am a man with a lantern searching for someone willing to speak on the subject and have not found anyone yet… but I will. I’ll never stop until I do.

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 completely ignored. Zero feedback was given and only one small, tiny little portion of my pleadings were “heard.” I’m trying to figure out why my judge will not hear any of my case… I guess we’ll head to appeals to try and figure it out.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
Just get everything on RECAP/Court Listener (if items are not available, you may need to buy them on PACER): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69137510/williams-v-american-express-company-et-al/

Personal remarks:
I tried to do everything I could to get the case heard and it was all entirely ignored. I paid for relief and will continue to move this forward no matter what it takes to get relief. My judge believed he could just ignore me and that maybe I would go away and he is sadly mistaken. I desire relief and will not stop until it is granted.

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:
Trying out a State case on the subject of negotiable instruments. It makes ZERO sense to me that negotiable instruments are not regulated at the Federal level by the UCC (maybe they are and simply no one will tell me?) But regardless, here we go into a State case, where I know, for a FACT, that UCC Article 3 is considered LAW.

Mailing, civil cover sheet, summons and complaint:
I need to learn the State version of e-filing and all that. For now just use this link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wn18kio4ekd4fyhzep9g5/SBA-State-Case-Full-Servicing-Packet.pdf?rlkey=5qqn27kmh9dkdgfm67ysbhsd6&st=dcjd69yt&dl=0

Personal remarks:
Still just trying to talk about UCC Article 3. I’m ready to keep pushing like this for 20 years before anyone will talk to me. I’ve already lost everything and had to rebuild my life from nothing. People think I’m lonely having no one to talk to about this? Think again. I’m absolutely thrilled and will be actively looking to speak to someone about UCC Article 3 UNTIL THE DAY I FUCKING DIE.

This case was removed to Federal court by the DOJ attorney on the defense side and I am moving it back to State court. You can actually find the Federal case here on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69344443/brandon-joe-williams-v-united-states-small-business-administration/