Brandon Joe Williams

[JamesVincent]

In other words, the focus is on fighting, not on winning, which is what most normal people want out of a battle. Losing might even be turned into a positive feedback cycle somehow.

On top of what Obs said the loss, to many of them, proves that the PTB are corrupt and just squash them like little bugs to prove how powerful they are. They relish the perpetual cycle and self fulfilling prophecies and, in fact, actively go after motions that anyone with a brain could see would fail. It all adds to their fuel of megalomania. They are so important, in their minds, that the corrupt judges and legal system have to keep them down. Just look at all the people we've covered who made a living off of losing. Not a single one has ever succeeded in winning a case on it's merits, a few have won here and there on technicalities, but they still plug on and still have a following. Payme is a good example. FLS has never won a single case on it's merits yet he is still very active and has many disciples trying to defend him. And still making money on speaking gigs and YouTube videos.

[RSVPini]

I'm really enjoying browsing the W&W website. Although I've just begun, the following notice at the How Litigation Works section is particularly amusing:

5. THERE WILL BE A VERY LARGE DOWN PAYMENT THAT WILL BE DUE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LAWSUIT, IF WE DECIDE TO WORK WITH YOU. THIS DOWN PAYMENT KEEPS YOU IN THE GAME. IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO GIVE UP LIKE A WEAKLING THEN YOU FORFEIT THAT DOWN PAYMENT.

That certainly boosts my confidence in them...


Note: The website looks like something from National Lampoon.

[The Observer]

That certainly boosts my confidence in them...

This is the exact thing that bewilders most sane people. You, like most, are alert to the certainity that BJW is just going to run with the money. The language that he presents screams loudly, "I am going to rip you off." In essence it is just an advance-fee scam hiding behind the ineffectual claims that Brandon Joe can deliver a person into economic freedom and wealth. But there are people that will pony up the cash with a smile and a feeling of joy naively thinking tomorrow is going to be a better day.

[wserra]

And now Williams' case #6 (actually an appeal of case #1 - see above) is officially an ex-case. The reader may recall that Williams' efforts on behalf of his "client" not only resulted in the dismissal of the case, but the award of sanctions in the amount of $64K for filing a frivolous action. The Eighth Circuit agrees.

Since the order is short, it's worth reproducing in its entirety:

Preston and Michelle Knapp appeal following the district court’s dismissal of their pro se action and the entry of a separate judgment granting the defendants’ joint motion for sanctions. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms the judgment for sanctions and dismisses the balance of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

After careful review, this court finds no abuse of discretion in the judgment for sanctions. See Coonts v. Potts, 316 F.3d 745, 753 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). As the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the dismissal order. See Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). The judgment for sanctions is affirmed and the balance of the appeal is dismissed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

So award of sanctions affirmed, rest of appeal dismissed. It's hard to lose any more thoroughly than that.

Nice work, Brandon Joe Williams.

ETA: I went back and looked at what Williams wrote on his site about this appeal. It was worth the look:

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.

Well, Brandon, you got your wish - the appeal not only failed, but crashed and burned. Personally, I can't wait for your "BEYOND exciting" backup plan. The mind-blowingly stupid is always entertaining.

[The Observer]

Personally, I can't wait for your "BEYOND exciting" backup plan. The mind-blowingly stupid is always entertaining.

It will certainly be that. The question I have though is where this exciting plan will happen. I can't see one chance that cert will be granted by the Supreme Court given that there is no question about the law involved. Even if cert was miraculously granted, the Knapps are certainly not going to be able to steer the bench into allowing Brandon's ridiculous interpretations of the UCC, Article III or not, to be part of the appeal. And Brandon won't be allowed to make such arguments on behalf of the Knapps.

My guess is that he starts over again, either in a municpal or state court, and this time gets the Knapps to pay him for a new line of arguments that involves his obsession with UCC. He is certainly heading on that route with his AMEX case:

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.

Regarding the Knapp's appeal, BJW said this:

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.

Maybe Brandon should actually try lighting that lantern and using it to probe his own thought process.

Regarding his SBA loan case, Brandon shows off his one-track mind:

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.

I think all we are going to learn is how many times will the Knapps keep following his useless plans and cut their losses.

[The Observer]

I think Brandon has added a new section to his "law firm" website. This section invites people to share their own attempts at litigation, to which Brandon will add his critiques/suggestions on what they could have done better or should not have done. Essentially this is just the blind leading the blind - the only difference is the blind follower already got bit by the alligators he encountered in the legal pond he wandered into and now Brandon will take them into that pond again.

One case has been added. Of course it is extremely stupid and appear to have been shredded and tossed by the court. The litigant filed suit against the State Department for not issuing him a passport. Why wouldn't State issue the passport? Because the plaintiff wanted the passport to be issued to his sole proprietership/strawman. Of course this is the nonsense that Brandon pushes about how everyone has a strawman sole prop with your name in upper-case lettering. And it appears that the plaintiff sued for a ridiculous amount of purported damages. Even Brandon thought it was too much.

The amazing thing here is then Brandon criticizes the plaintiff for stamping his claim (this is in the Court of Federal Claims that has a form to complete the complaint) with "without recourse" and "pay to the order of" since the filing is a "non-negotiable instrument." That didn't stop Brandon when he advised to stamp the same phrase on IRS billings and send them to the Fed. But he does compliment the plaintiff for stamping "without prejudice" on the filing.

Brandon provides an example of how to complete the "statement of claim" on the filing form:

I am an unincorporated “freeman” of the “Union,” as quoted from the Honorable Mr. Justice MILLER, as he spoke on the difference between state citizenship and Federal US citizenship in the Supreme Court case: The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). I applied for a diplomatic passport for my sole proprietorship named ROBBIE BAUTISTA. This is on behalf of my diplomatic mission of helping Congress to correct the 14th Amendment in relation to their very sharp and biting words regarding it from the 90th Congress, Volume 113-Part 12. I am a member of a nonprofit international organization called The Amnesty Coalition and we seek to have the 14th Amendment corrected as having never been legally ratified, which was the wish of Congress for us to handle. I am also a national of The Nation of The Amnesty Coalition, which assists the United States with the lawful elimination of the 14th Amendment as well as helping to bring lawful money (gold and silver coins) back as a method of commercial exchange, rather than Federal Reserve Notes (which are negotiable instruments). I will attach a copy of the Explanatory Statement that was sent with the application as Exhibit A.

None of this is going to help the plaintiff if he decides to file again, given Brandon's total ignorance of how the law really works. But that isn't going to bother Brandon.

[wserra]

And . . . back to Williams' case against the SBA which, as you will recall, Judge Klausner unceremoniously booted back on Dec 30. Given that it involves Williams that, of course, isn't the end of the story. The best description of Williams' litigation style (such as it is) is "mindless flailing".

I described above the first such flail, as so-called "NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to respond in opposition and void order". The Court struck it a couple of days after Williams filed it for failing to follow multiple rules. Williams refiled it after a couple of days. On January 17, the SBA opposes it on completely obvious grounds - whatever Williams calls it, the thing is a motion for reconsideration, and Williams doesn't even bother to allege any of the permissible grounds for such a motion. On Jan 23, Williams indignantly responds that "First of all, this is not a 'motion for reconsideration.'" Well, you see, Brandon Joe, your original motion (remand denied, cross-motion to dismiss granted, see above) has already been decided; either this is a motion for reconsideration or it is nothing at all, and should once again be stricken - this time on the merits. The idea is pretty damn obvious. Judge Klausner entered an order. Unless somehow reversed, that order is law of the case: remand denied, case dismissed. Only two ways for an order to be reversed - appeal or reconsideration. So if Williams' motion is not for reconsideration, it does nothing at all (much like Williams himself). Not a proposition from Wittgenstein.

Finally, two days ago Williams files a "NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Vacate Order on Motion to Dismiss Case,,, Order on Motion to Remand Case to State Court,, 23 Motion to vacate order dismissing the case as well as the original removal of the case from State of California court to Federal court". I'm sure that, all appearances notwithstanding, this "motion" also is not one for reconsideration, meaning that it is again nothing at all. Additionally, Williams explicitly proves something that in the past he has only hinted at: that he is one of those illiterates who don't know what "includes" means. To wit:

In 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), the term “State court” is defined in 28 USC § 1442(d)(6) as “(6) The term “State court” includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United States territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.” State of California is not any of the following items: 1. the Superior Court of the District of Columbia 2. a court of a United States territory 3. a court of a United States insular possession 4. a tribal court

In other words, in every single one of the cases that have been removed from state to federal court in the history of the Republic - gotta be thousands - there was actually no federal jurisdiction. Because Brandon Joe Williams says so.

[The Observer]

This is classic sovrun behavior. The only reason Brandon keeps pushing for this case to be reopened is so that he can start pontificating on what he thinks the law is. And he will do that by regurgitating the sov pap he has been devouring for the last 3 years or so. His only goal is to delay the court by forcing them to deal with his nonsense arguments point by point in the hope that the court will get frustrated and give up. Not that this will happen, but sovs love to dream.

[wserra]

So the SBA, of course, responds to Bozo Joe in the completely appropriate way discussed above: if the latest from him is anything at all, it is a motion to reconsider, and he doesn't even bother to allege permissible grounds for one. Bozo responds:

the defense attorneys . . . have again attempted to label the plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration. If this continues, there will be a motion for sanctions . . . I’m beginning to wonder if they are also confused as to which cases they are working. . . . this was not a motion for reconsideration . . . There will be a motion for sanctions if this continues.

Oh, no! Not a motion for sanctions!

The Human Punching Bag having thus insisted that his latest piece of epic is not a motion for reconsideration, and having threatened to increase the general mirth by moving for sanctions against the SBA for stating the obvious, he proceeds to hedge his bets. In the process, he reinforces that he still has no idea what "includes" means (see above):

The definition of “State court” from 28 USC 1442(d)(6) is a MASSIVE “new material fact” of this case.

Um, Bozo, a couple of things. (1) A statute is law, not fact - new or not, material or not. (2) 28 USC 1442 was first enacted in 1948, and was last amended in 2013. That sorta means it's not "new". (3) If this isn't a motion for reconsideration, then a "new material fact" isn't relevant anyway. (4) Did I mention that you still don't know what "includes" means?

What a dolt.

[The Observer]

And Brandon still doesn't know how to use a calendar (not that it would have made any difference if he did):

The SecondMotion for Reconsideration however was filed on January 31, 2025, more than 14 days
after the entry of the Order. See Motion at 1. Plaintiff cannot show good cause of why
this Court should consider this untimely motion.

By the way, Wes, have you made any progress on your write-up on Joey Kimbrough's suits? I know that you are busy with work, but I am looking forward to seeing what the definition of "victory" is in Joey's mind.

[wserra]

So yesterday a minute order appears on the docket of the SBA case denying whatever relief (see below) Bozo Joe sought. For those unfamiliar with the phrase, a "minute order" (at least in federal courts) is a form of summary order, much of it simple fill-in-the-blanks, that is typically prepared by a clerk disposing of some obvious matter. A judge usually - as here - doesn't even sign it.

As I discuss above, it was obvious to anyone with any remote familiarity with court procedure that Bozo's "motion" was - if it was anything at all - a motion for reconsideration. Joe stomped his widdle footsies at that, to the point of stupidly threatening the SBA with a motion for sanctions - sorta like a certain president threatening to beat up the Mike Tyson of 35 years ago. So how does the Court characterize it? Well, after generally calling his nonsense "unintelligible", the Court concludes that "While not entirely clear, it appears that [Joe] seeks reconsideration". Think Joe will now move to sanction the Judge? Anyway, while noting that "there are multiple issues" with Joe's position - a very polite way of characterizing authentic frontier gibberish - Judge Klausner rules exactly as predicted - that Joe nowhere alleges anything resembling a basis for reconsideration. Bye. Joe hears that a lot.

By the way, Wes, have you made any progress on your write-up on Joey Kimbrough's suits?

For someone who has been trying to retire for years now, I've been unreasonably busy. Speaking of authentic frontier gibberish, Kimbrough has filed a good deal of it, so I've confined myself over the last couple of months to dealing with more discrete subjects. I'm working on it.