Brandon Joe Williams

[wserra]

The third or fourth time I saw someone sing the praises for this guy at the usual numbnuts' hangouts, I thought it was time to check him out. What I found was the usual sov bullshit, but with enough interesting twists to be worth writing him up.

Usual sov bullshit. Williams does business as "Williams & Williams Law Group" - the site is williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com, which is edging uncomfortably close to UPL. Many pages, especially those where he "sells" stuff (explanation for quotes below) such as this one, contain a disclaimer at the bottom. He leads off by proclaiming that

All transactions are donations

My guess is that the IRS and the courts would not agree that an exchange of something of value for goods and services is a "donation". Elsewhere he states that your "donations" "go toward a religious crusade"; while he does not say so specifically, perhaps (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) you should deduct them as religious contributions. He continues:

Negotiable instrument and securities donations are officially classified as gifts and are done WITHOUT the United States as per 28 USC 1746

28 U.S.C. § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of per­jury - has absolutely nothing to do with negotiable instruments, securities, gifts, donations or locations; Williams' apparent line of thought is "let me throw in a random cite; these idiots won't look it up - or, if they do, won't be able to read it". Continuing:

We are defined as an unincorporated foreign government as per 18 USC 11

Hint to Williams: you saying it doesn't make it so.

All living members interface in commercial matters using their franchise of their name in all capital letters - those franchises are nationals of the United States as per 8 USC 1101(a)(22)(A)

Not the incredibly stupid all caps nonsense. I actually thought somewhat better of Williams. My mistake. And the statute he cites reads, in its entirety, "The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States". What do you mean, you don't see how that supports some bullshit about "franchises" and "all capital letters"?

Williams and WILLIAMS Law Group does not “operate under the laws of the United States"

despite the fact that Williams is in Los Angeles. Guess he's speshul.

Williams considerately supplies "definitions" for terms he uses. For example:

Federal (when capitalized, for example in 28 USC 3002(15)(A)): Meaning in between the corporate States, all of which are located in the District of Columbia

28 U.S.C. 3002(15) reads "United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States." Not only does Williams leave out (B) and (C), but (A) fails to mention either the states or DC. Other than that, he's right on point.

State (when capitalized, for example in 28 USC 3002(14)): A corporation that is physically located in the District of Columbia. All the corporate States are located only and exclusively in the District of Columbia

28 U.S.C. 3002(14) reads: "(14)“State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States". All those places are located in DC, right?

Additional note: “The United States is located in the District of Columbia.” as per UCC 9-307(h)

Additional note: this one is such nonsense, it's hard to know where to start. First of all, of course, the UCC applies to sale of goods, secured transactions, commercial paper and a few related matters. It is not - despite the mewlings of idiots - some Code of Everything Everywhere. Second, Chapter 9 (and thus section 9-307) applies only to secured transactions. Finally, section 9-307(b) provides the context for section 9-307(h), as in "(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following rules determine a debtor's location . . . (h) The United States is located in the District of Columbia". So, for a secured transaction in which the U.S. is a debtor, it is located in DC. But that doesn't help Williams to scam people, so it must mean something else.

Williams lists eight cases in which he participated. Two are pending; the other six he (or his "client") lost. I'll write those up in the near future.

[JohnPCapitalist]

The third or fourth time I saw someone sing the praises for this guy at the usual numbnuts' hangouts, I thought it was time to check him out. What I found was the usual sov bullshit, but with enough interesting twists to be worth writing him up.

Now that I see this thread, I'm surprised that BJW (as his acolytes and his haters on Reddit style him) hasn't already earned a thread here.

My favorite part of his antics is how he keeps getting shut down in court but manages to come up with some sort of explanation as to why each defeat is secretly a major win. I hope this becomes one of the more active threads on Quatloos because there is certainly so much to mock and to expose.

[wserra]

So Williams lists eight cases as illustrative of his "abilities". One would expect the cases he chooses to be the wins of which he is most proud. If one is right, given the abject failure of these cases, his losses must involve someone being drawn and quartered.

1. Knapp v. Compass Minnesota, LLC, 24-cv-00100 (DMN). Action for some arglebargle relief based on a failed real estate transaction. The pro se plaintiff notes in his complaint that "During the process, plaintiffs hired attorney-in-fact, Brandon Joe Williams, to review documents." Bad move. The Court had in fact heard of the esteemed Mr. Williams: "The Court takes judicial notice that Brandon Joe Williams is the principal of “Williams & WILLIAMS Law Group,” (“WWLG”) an entity that concedes that it engages in the unlicensed practice of law as a matter of course . . . According to their website, WWLG endorses beliefs concerning the U.S. legal system consistent with the Sovereign Citizen movement." As the pro se complaint puts it, Williams "gave orders to have those collateral securities exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes and to have those notes placed in escrow" pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 412 - which statute (as is clear in its first sentence) only applies to Federal Reserve Banks. Just taking a wild guess: Preston Byron Knapp was not a Federal Reserve Bank. Not to mention that contracts aren't securities.
Dismissed. Moreover, the Court directed that "Defendants shall submit an affidavit and supporting evidence showing their reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses". Dum-da-DUM-DUM. Final order: Williams' "client" not only loses, but must pay $65K in costs and attorneys' fees to defendants. Good job, Brandon.

2. Knapp v. Wings Credit Union, 24-cv-00434 (DMN). Preston Byron Knapp is not what you might call a quick learner. After Williams not only loses his case but gets him sanctioned to the tune of $65K, Knapp - dissatisfied with actually having to pay his mortgage but wanting to stay in his house - goes back to him. Williams invents something basically unintelligible that, since he on behalf of Knapp sent the mortgage holder some package of meaningless paper, Knapp now owns the house without a mortgage. In dismissing the case, the Court called this idea "frivolous and nonsensical". The Court summarized Williams' BS as follows: " What is clear from the pleadings is that Plaintiff obtained a loan of over $1 million to purchase his house. The argument that Plaintiff is now being subjected to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor because Wings is requiring Plaintiff to pay back the loans is frivolous, nonsensical, and unsupported by the law." Dismissed with prejudice, Knapp barred from filing any further actions. Good job, Brandon.

3. Hauschildt v. AgTexas Farm Credit Services, 6:24-cv-00086 (TXWD). The complaint is a virtual copy of the complaint in (2) above: by actually expecting him to pay back money he borrowed, AgTexas is subjecting poor Hauschildt to "peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude and forced labor". Motion to dismiss pending. There is every reason to believe that this case will suffer the same unlamented fate of the others.

4. Brandon Joe Williams v. American Express Company, 2:24-cv-01631 (CACD). So here we have Williams actually screwing his own pooch, rather than someone else's. Think that means he'll be more careful to avoid authentic frontier gibberish? If you do, you don't know our donkey. He begins the complaint by explaining the basis for federal jurisdiction as follows: "Through the power of naturalization, found in 8 USC 1101 (a)(23), Brandon Joe Williams confers the nationality of the State called "STATE OF CALIFORNIA" on BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, after birth, by any means whatsoever. This satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the court." Good start. Might as well let the Court know up front that you're a dumbass sov.

So Williams is upset about how AmEx handled his account. How so? Well, I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn that it's not at all clear. This is how he puts it:

Brandon Joe Williams is the representative for BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®.
Brandon Joe Williams gave permission to AMEX to access and use the credit of BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®.
Improper performance was made on these accounts by extraneous and unnecessary Federal Reserve Notes being used to pay the accounts.
Proper performance would have been to indorse the original collateral securities under special negotiation, prior to them being exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes.

Understand now? Whatever else that gobbledygook means, it also means that AmEx must zero Williams' account and pay him $250M. It seems that Judge Fitzgerald did not agree. Dismissed with prejudice, leave to amend denied. The last is worth a brief explanation. Typically a plaintiff who, following a motion to dismiss, moves for leave to amend the complaint to correct deficiencies or omissions, will receive that opportunity. As Judge Fitzgerald wrote in his order, "the Court generally grants at least one opportunity to amend". Not for you though, Brandon Joe. There is no way to put lipstick on this pig. The Court put it a little more politely: "The Court’s view [is] that amendment would be futile." Bye.

Other cases to follow.

[The Observer]

Wes, this guy is simply amazing - and I don't mean that in a good sense. It is obvious just from some of the trash I have read on the main site and other linked sites that he suffers from a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger effect. Yeah, he admits he is still "learning" but he claims he is getting better at doing this type of thing. Not really, it's just that he doesn't have a clue at all. For example in a list of "services" he provides on his site is this gem:

Debt/tax discharge:

This is being rolled into litigation now as it seems [my empahsis] like you cannot do any of this without litigation. Please view our How Litigation Works page for more information.

Apparently he has tried his sovrun stuff on the IRS a few times and walked away empty-handed. I would not recommend following the link to his "how-litigation-works" page if you have concerns about your eyeballs suddenly hemorrhaging. The hilarious thing is that if you only have IRS problems, then you have an easy fix and don't need Brandon. All that you have to do is this:

If you’re attempting to handle IRS debt, that is SUPER easy and you don’t need to hire me for that. Check out the document entitled “Authorization for the Campus to use Fedwire to Settle Account(use this to get existing IRS bills to simply VANISH):”

Yep, that's right, just use the Fed to pay the IRS instead of your own money. Of course there is some other stupid stuff to do like attach a sample of IRS billings to your package and endorse it with the magic words "without recourse, pay to the order of: U.S Treasury". Yeah, that'll work.

If you are still having problems with the IRS, BJW has the silver bullet:

8822-B and Cover Letter to Permanently Handle the IRS

Who wouldn't want that? The problem is that Form 8822-B is merely a change of address form for businesses. Why would that help me, I'm not a business? According to Brandon, your SSN is really a number that establishes a sole proprietorship in your name. So all you have to do is report that your home address has been changed to the IRS HQ in DC. Complete the form and mail it in. I have a nagging sense that this will accomplish nothing.

And Brandon offers even more nonsense in the form of how to become exempt from withholding. But in a moment of almost charitable frankness BJW advises you:

WARNING: THIS LETTER IS VERY AGGRESSIVE. YOU BETTER FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS ONE BEFORE YOU SEND IT. IT’S LIKE THROWING A HAND GRENADE INTO LEGAL OR HR/PAYROLL

Uh-huh, I bet it will. Because Brandon tells you to send in a W8-BEN (form used for foreign employees) and I-9 (Immigration form for verifying eligibility for employment in the US). Most employers are going to toss those out at the first submission. But Brandon has anticipated this, so he tells you to submit a W-4 claiming exempt instead and then sign it with this example:

Without prejudice
By: Williams, Brandon Joe/agent
For: BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS/principal

Oh Brandon, so close and yet so far! It is not a secret that over the years of tax deniers battling the IRS that the exempt W-4 tactic had been one way to defeat (temporarily) the IRS by putting "exempt" on your W-4 and watch the cash start rolling in on paydays. So the IRS played catchup and provided additional instructions to employers and employees about what would be acceptable for an "exempt" W-4 to be accepted by the IRS. One of the first rules is that the employee must have had no tax liability for the year previous to the current year. Guess how many of BJW's marks qualify for that rule? Another rule is that the form can't be modified or altered and that it can only include the information that was requested. My guess is that the "without prejudice" signature is going to cause more problems in terms of the employer accepting the form. And my other guess is the IRS will follow up with a lock-in letter to the employer specifying mandatory withholding from the employee's pay immediately and to ignore any attempts by the employee to change the witholding. That will be followed by an assessed civil penalty for $500, courtesy of IRC 6682. Brandon doesn't mention any of these hurdles in his instructions - I am guessing that his search for knowledge hasn't quite gotten to covering all of the bases. But hey, its only the marks wandering the minefield Brandon sent them into and not his own selfish ass.

His websites offer more of the same idiotic, clueless and dangerous material. Thanks for posting about this guy, Wes. I am sure we have weeks of material to analyze and dissect.

[The Observer]

3. Hauschildt v. AgTexas Farm Credit Services, 6:24-cv-00086 (TXWD). The complaint is a virtual copy of the complaint in (2) above: by actually expecting him to pay back money he borrowed, AgTexas is subjecting poor Hauschildt to "peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude and forced labor". Motion to dismiss pending. There is every reason to believe that this case will suffer the same unlamented fate of the others.

I ran across a post in Reddit's SovereignCitizen thread that is apparently about this case. The original poster (OP) "UncleNeedleFarts" engaged in a debate with Brandon Joe on his livestream podcast back in August of 2023. This turned out as you would expect to be over 2.5 hours of watching 2 non-lawyers going at each other over the law. But this would be totally irrelevant except for the fact that 3 months ago, a person going by the name of "Henrik" reached out to the OP in regards to their alleged involvement with Brandon and how they ended up losing money to him.

If you have looked at the link that Wes provide on case example 3 above, you would have seen that the plaintiff in the case is one "Henrik Hauschildt." And the Reddit "Henrik" claims to have lost his "farm, house, cows, everything" due to him following Brandon's advice.

Here are the links to the two Reddit threads that cover the interaction between "Henrik" and the OP:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sovereigncitiz ... nt_henrik/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sovereigncitiz ... for_legal/

For those not interested in reading through the threads, here is the summary:

"Henrik" reaches out to the OP by text due to his watching the podcast. He is confused, thinking that the OP is an attorney who is mad at Brandon and will help him on a pro bono basis. The OP explains he is not an attorney but wants to know what happened. "Henrik" says that everything went wrong after he hired Brandon and that it cost him $117,000 (92k for Brandon and 25k to a "Joey" who is identified as being Brandon's right-hand man and preparer of his fraudulent documents. So right off the bat we see that "Henrik" is at best naive in believing in what Brandon promises.

It is not quite clear in the thread what "Henrik" was originally trying to accomplish by going to Brandon. It appears that "Henrik" thinks that he got cheated by the "banksters". Brandon apparently promised him that this suit would stop all the attempts by the lender(s) to collect against him. Whether "Henrik" was unable to pay or didn't want to pay is not clear. What is clear is that Henrik realized that Brandon had made promises that he wasn't keeping; at one point police drove into his farm with 18 wheelers (presumably for cattle transport) and collected.

From there, the OP finds out that "Henrik" hired a lawyer (Henrik says he "kind of had to get a real lawyer") due to the fact that he wasn't being allowed to represent his LLC pro se in court due to court rules. And naturally, Brandon as an attorney in fact, couldn't either. Brandon talks to the attorney, but assures "Henrik" that everything will turn out all right. "Henrik" also knows of a woman who paid money to Brandon so that she could get a car for free. Surprise, surprise the car got repossessed.

The conversation goes downhill at that point. The OP had assumed that "Henrik" had hired the "real attorney" to sue Brandon. "Henrik" starts unintentionally revealing that he still thinks that there is a chance that this could all work out and that he wants to go after the "criminal" bankers, he is still hoping for "remedy". At this point, our long-term members recognize that "Henrik" has been neck-deep in the sovcit Kool-ade for some time.

The OP explains that Brandon is a liar and a cheater, has taken other people he knows for $500K and that by suing Brandon, "Henrik" may have a chance of getting some of his money back. "Henrik" says he wants to think about that, but wants to know about how to punish the banksters? Since we shouldn't be worrying about the "little guys" like Brandon? The OP tries to reason with "Hendrik" about why he should stand up and get Brandon investigated by the governmental authorities that oversee fraud. It's a wasted attempt as "Hendrik" tells him that he isn't going to the FBI due to him being "illegal."

The OP presumes that means "Hendrik" is in the US illegally and tells "Hendrik" that is the least of his problems at the moment. "Hendrik" agrees but still twiddles his thumbs at contacting government authorities. Finally, he says he wants to see if the FBI guys are interested in what he wants to tell them, but wouldn't be surprised if they are not in league with Brandon in some type of psyop against him.

Later on, "Henrik" reaches out again and complains about the OP posting all of this to Reddit without his permission.

[wserra]

Continuing the list of Brandon Joe Williams (sorry, BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®') beatdowns:

5. Brandon Joe Williams v. City of Glendale, 2:24-cv-07039 (CACD). Brandon Joe sues his city of residence. He doesn't believe he should have to pay his water bill because he sent the City some homebrew arglebargle.

This ship doesn't even leave the dock. As anyone with any knowledge at all of federalism and its relationship to the courts knows, federal courts have limited jurisdiction; you can't just take a dispute with your neighbor there. Basically, federal courts have original jurisdiction in two circumstances: diversity of citizenship and federal question. Those both can get somewhat complicated in certain situations - but not this one. Williams alleges only state causes of action (breach of contract and fiduciary duty), and he and Glendale are both citizens of California. Dismissed, no federal jurisdiction.

6. This is not a separate case, but rather Knapp/Williams' appeal of (1) (see my earlier post). As of today, the matter is fully briefed, but not yet decided. A cursory examination of the Knapp/Williams brief indicates that there is little suspense as to the outcome. As described above, not only was the complaint dismissed with prejudice, but Knapp was sanctioned $65K for bringing a frivolous action. He appeals both. Most of the "argument" on sanctions focusses on how it was not frivolous for Knapp to insist that defendants communicate with Williams, a non-lawyer. Not only is that wrong, but Knapp gives relatively short shrift to the elephant in the room - the fact that, as the District Court found, the entire action was frivolous. They claim that they should have been permitted to conduct discovery, which would somehow have shown that the action was not frivolous. Unsurprisingly, they have that backwards. If you don't state a cognizable legal basis for your claim, you don't get to go fishing for something. No amount of discovery will prove that 1+1=3.

All of this notwithstanding, there are at least two potentially dispositive issues which Knapp/Williams either addresses cursorily or fails to address at all: untimely notice of appeal (jurisdictional in federal courts) and improper service of the summons and complaint. Other than this, an undeniably meritorious appeal.

7. Also not a separate case, but rather an appeal of (2) in my earlier post - Williams' own pro se action against AmEx for refusing to credit his account with thousands of dollars in exchange for his meaningless paper. He is appealing because he "was completely ignored . . . I’m trying to figure out why my judge will not hear any of my case". In Williams-speak, an eight-page order equals "completely ignored", and its detailed explanation as to why Williams' blather fails to state a case is insufficient for him to figure it out. The best he can do is call the decision "complete nonsense" and whine that it "shows tremendous laziness and ignorance by anyone who does it". Brandon Joe, you silver-tongued devil, I'm sure that will endear you to the Ninth Circuit.

AmEx has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, same as above. Apparently Williams has issues with counting to 30. Motion is pending.

8. Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration, 2:24-cv-09553 (CACD) So Williams sues the SBA - a federal agency - in CA state court. Completely predictably, the SBA removes it to federal court. Williams moves to remand, on the grounds that there is no federal question. He apparently has never heard of sovereign immunity.

Williams' claim against the SBA is more interesting than procedural issues. At the beginning of the pandemic, he received an emergency loan from the SBA, eventually totaling nearly $200K. I knew they were given out fairly freely, but to Williams? Anyway, the reader will be interested to know that he doesn't have to pay it back. He "explains" why in 42 pages of gobbledygook. It amounts to the same dead-solid loser as his other stuff: he sent them a bunch of homebrew arglebargle, so not only doesn't he owe them anything, they owe him $2M more. He is kind enough to warn everyone up front: "Absolutely any attempt to degrade the Uniform Commercial Code by equating it or the technology of negotiable instruments to any "vapor money. theory," "redemption scheme," or any other nonsense will be reported to the Supreme Court of the State, the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as to the Bar. Anyone attempting to degrade our law will not be tolerated." Guess I'm in trouble now.

The SBA, of course, opposes Williams' motion to remand to state court. It also moves to dismiss. The results arrived yesterday, Dec 30: remand denied, case dismissed. It's worth quoting part of Judge Klausner's order:

This is an action brought by Brandon Joe Williams ("Plaintiff')-a "natural person" who, despite being born in Indiana, identifies as a "foreign national of the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition" and not a citizen of any state or country, and therefore not subject to this Court's or any court's jurisdiction-on behalf of "BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS ®"-a "public corporation" in Plaintiffs name that was purportedly created at the time of Plaintiffs birth "as a buffer or flow-through for all commercial transactions" by Plaintiff . . .

To put it bluntly, Plaintiff's Complaint is unintelligible. Plaintiff's claims rely on various strange, legally unsound arguments based on commercial codes, citizenship (or the purported lack thereof), and corporate statuses to conclude that he should be allowed to not just rescind his loan and have his debt cancelled, but also receive $2 million in unexplainable damages. These arguments are highly similar to those made by sovereign citizens, which courts have uniformly rejected.

Bye. Again. Every time he goes to court, this guy not only loses but is unceremoniously booted out the door. Why would anyone pay him for anything more involved than chopping firewood?

[Frater I*I]

Continuing the list of Brandon Joe Williams (sorry, BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®') beatdowns:

Bye. Again. Every time he goes to court, this guy not only loses but is unceremoniously booted out the door. Why would anyone pay him for anything more involved than chopping firewood?

At this point I wouldn't even trust him to do that without screwing it up.

Thanks for the fascinating gaze into this particular sovcit abyss...

[wserra]

Here are the links to the two Reddit threads that cover the interaction between "Henrik" and the OP:

Nice find, Obs, but I don't know that I believe everything there. How could anyone who was able to accumulate over $100K ever give it to Williams? I mean, there are heirs of dead Nigerian princes with more credibility.

[The Observer]

...I don't know that I believe everything there. How could anyone who was able to accumulate over $100K ever give it to Williams? I mean, there are heirs of dead Nigerian princes with more credibility.

I can't disagree that we should take everything in that thread with a boulder-sized grain of salt. For all I know, the OP and/or Henrik could be alter-egos of Brandon and trying to gain some publicity.

But as far as people giving away chunks of monies to scammers, we have way too much evidence on this site over the years of people doing exactly that. Remember the widow testifying at Irwin Schiff's trial how her husband took money out of his life savings to "de-tax" himself? And when he was terminally ill and realized that Schiff had scammed him had asked for the money back?

People do incredibly stupid things because of their ego, their greed, their desperation, their incompetence or some combination thereof. Given that BJW is charging people $20,000 to see him about getting an "diplomatic" passport, that Brandon wants a permanent cut of those businesses that he "rescues and turns around" (starting at a minimm of 20% if they have a positive cash flow), that for a "private" revocable trust you have to pay an initial $10,000 plus $2000 an hour to get it set up, for other businesses that BJW isn't interested in becoming a partner you get to pay $4000 an hour to have Brandon "clean" up the business, I can certainly believe that some people under the right circumstances will gladly turn over hard-earned money in order for all of their problems to disappear.

Here is another Reddit thread related to the Hauschildt case:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sovereigncitiz ... 3&sort=old

I saw this comment:

I feel sorry for the Hauschildt family. They immigrated to us from Germany in 2017 to start a horse farm. Then covid, then they met BJW and got sucked into this bullshit. It’s not gonna end well for them.

So I went looking further and found Henrik's Facebook page. Give it a scroll and see if you see what I see.

[wserra]

People do incredibly stupid things because of their ego, their greed, their desperation, their incompetence or some combination thereof. . . . I can certainly believe that some people under the right circumstances will gladly turn over hard-earned money in order for all of their problems to disappear.

Hard to argue with. As you say, over the years we have repeatedly witnessed exactly that. I guess I still marvel at it when it happens.

So I went looking further and found Henrik's Facebook page. Give it a scroll and see if you see what I see.

I see a couple of things. First, someone who drinks multiple flavors of Kool-Aid, mostly since the beginning of the pandemic. Second, enough errors (non-factual claims, mis-attributions, Alex Jones) to indicate someone who exercises confirmation bias rather than doing research. Third, someone who has deleted a whole lot of his own posts.

And, fourth, "Former Owner at Double H Dairy LLC". Good work, Brandon Joe. Especially since it didn't have to come to this - AgTexas specifically offered Hauschildt an opportunity to restructure his loan. But Williams knew better.

[The Observer]

I see a couple of things.

You nailed it.

AgTexas specifically offered Hauschildt an opportunity to restructure his loan.

Great find. This is the kind of thing that keeps me from feeling any sympathy for sovruns. They will set fire to their home, and then blame the rest of the world for their homelessness.

[wserra]

In addition to the Williams "methods" of dealing with the IRS that Obs describes above, consider the video he describes as "How to LEGALLY never pay taxes again (in ten minutes)". I'm not going into the contents. Basically the only true thing he says is in the first 30 seconds - that the U.S. Code is divided into chapters - and the rest is abject bullshit which he derives from pulling random definitions from random parts of the USC. Most have nothing to do with taxes, and he misinterprets them in any event. Oh, yeah, he's one of the illiterates who don't know what "includes" means.

But I'm not posting this to critique the content, which any regular reader of this site could do with ease. Watch the first couple of minutes of the video just for his affect. The guy sounds as though he is suffering the effects of a traumatic brain injury.

[The Observer]

The guy sounds as though he is suffering the effects of a traumatic brain injury.

It could be caused from the sources of "information" to which he has been listening. I caught a video posted 2 days ago at another "skeptic" site where BJW was invited to be a guest. I only watched the first few minutes, but Brandon talked about how he had watched Joe Bannister and "Sherry" videos (the last name was garbled but it could be referring to Jackson). Then he related how he was a really big fan of "KL" which turned out to be Karl Lentz. That right there alone could be responsible for thousands of gray cells dying. It is interesting to note that the host and BJW never brought up the fact that these three had lost their cases in a big way when they went to court. It is as if they are willfully ignorant of the fact that these losses mattered and severely undercut what JB, SJ and KL have been preaching.

So Brandon is definitely recycling a lot of court-rejected theories that has been pushed before by tax deniers and sovcits. His apparent big dream is to get all of these arguments up and firing on all cylinders since it means he will be able to produce the sovcit equivalent of the Philospher' Stone. He calls it "infinite money", apparently because he believes that the government and legitimate creditors are just going to roll over and start issuing checks and wiping out debt every time he throws his garbage at them. Besides the obvious reality of what "infinite money" would do to the economy, Brandon does not grasp that infinite money simply does not exist. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that BJW believes in perpetual motion machines.

[The Observer]

I thought that another person on Brandon's "team" bears some mention. He appears on BJW's "lawgroup" site as their "litigation expert." He identifies himself as Joey Kimbrough aka Pro Se Joe. So how long has Joey spent doing the work of an "expert?" He claims he started in 2021 "passionately assisting others as an attorney-in-fact, empowering individuals to navigate the legal system independently." Which sounds more of the same that Brandon has done - by basically sending people straight down the throat of the dragon without a stitch of armor. But Joey wants to be able to create a system where anyone will be able to navigate the justice system on their own two feet. That translates to essentially collecting the money from the marks and wishing them well, then ghosting them if they come back unhappy with the results.

Joey thinks well enough of his abilities, however, to list his successful cases in case anyone doubts what he can achieve:

1. Cause number 34D04-2112-CC-003201: Joey claims success on defending himself from a suit by American Express (AMEX). If we remember from a few posts back, BJW lost a case against AMEX. No explanation on why Joey is doing better than Brandon did. I guess that it is a really shallow learning curve they are on. Note that as per their website that this case hasn't ended. Joey doesn't give us any details except that it is winding down in his favor and that he has filed a motion for default judgment that is before the court for approval. He tells us in a cocky manner that while he loves being a defendant he would much rather be the one bringing forth the complaint as a plaintiff.

This suit was filed in Indiana and the docket shows that Joey did file a motion for default judgment. But what Joey failed to tell us was that AMEX filed a motion opposing that motion. After that, the court wanted to appoint a mediator to resolve the case and Joey filed motions opposing the mediator appointment and the fee schedule for a mediator. The court as well issued an order, all of this happening in July of 2024. I was not able to access the electronic documents so it is not clear what finally happened.

2. Cause number 1:22-cv-01217-SEB-DML: Another claimed victory where he sues Snap-on Credit, Experian and Equifax (last two defendants are credit reporting companies). Joey brags he took on all three of these giants by suing them on the basis of 15 USC 1681 (covering the accuracy and fairness of credit reporting) and won a settlement of approximately $35,000 and a corrected credit rating of 839 - which Joey points out is the highest in the US. The problem here is that again no details are provided as to what torts were committed by the 3 plaintiffs against Joey and why he was able to get a settlement and a corrected credit rating under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This suit was also filed in Indiana and I could not find any more details.

3. Cause number 1:23-cv-00372-JPH-TAB: This case, explains Joey, is the result of his efforts in assisting a combat veteran in filing a complaint against eight defendants. Joey went back to his one-trick-pony offense of using 15 USC 1681. He claims he demolished 7 of them into providing settlements to his friend. Again, no details on the issues and why there were settlements.

The final defendant, USAA Savings file a motion to sever their case from the other seven defendants and was successful after the court found that "As noted above, while Branyan [the pro se veteran] alleges all Defendants violated the FCRA, the underlying facts for each Defendant are different. Branyan's complaint sets forth separate and distinct claims and allegations against multiple unrelated Defendants, who operated, controlled, or maintained separate and distinct accounts and partook in separate allegedly violative activities. Many Defendants have either resolved their claims with Branyan or moved to dismiss. If there were reasons to not sever Branyan's claims against USAA, Branyan has failed to articulate them." Sloppy work on Joey's part. But his combat veteran buddy got sloppy as well, failing to respond to the original motion to sever.

4. Cause number 1:22-cv-1993-TWP-MJD: Joey told us he'd rather be a plaintiff than a defendant and he does so here. He sues AMEX, in federal court, again under allegations of violations of 15 USC 1681 - this seems to be the dead horse he wants to beat. Again, the details are severely lacking and Joey seems to be very aware of that. All he will say is that the case was a very valuable experience and has given much insight in various aspects of the litigation process and
"the lengths to which the Courts (and their officers - i.e. Bar Card Attorneys) will go in an attempt to keep us from our rights to due process." In other words, it sounds like they wiped the floor with Joey and threw him into the trash can on their way out of the court room.

I only found a little online about this case. Joey filed two motions to strike articles from the docket which the court ruled against. The court's description of the case background in the denial brief is interesting:

I. DISCUSSION

Kimbrough filed this action alleging violations by Defendant American Express Company aka American Express National Bank ("Defendant" or "American Express") of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Kimbrough had multiple accounts through American Express: (1) Hilton Honors Card ending in 61004; (2) Platinum Delta SkyMiles Business Card ending in 61007; (3) Business Platinum Card ending in 71005; (4) Hilton Honors Ascend Card ending in 01002; and (5) Platinum Delta SkyMiles Business Card ending in 41007 (collectively, the "Accounts"). Some of the Accounts were used as personal accounts, while others were used for Kimbrough's businesses. He alleges that American Express failed to properly investigate Kimbrough's disputes regarding inaccuracies, which damaged Kimbrough's creditworthiness.

There seems to be a pattern here. I wonder if Joey loves charging up a ton of merchandise and services on his various credit cards and then decides that it is the fault of the creditors when he fails to pay his bills on time. Whether Joey got lucky on being able to show that his creditors have harmed him in some factual way or that his creditors decided it was cheaper to settle on bogus claims than pursue Joey on judgments is not seen from what Joey is claiming.

In any event, since Joey only goes to battle when 15 USC 1681 is involved, I am not thinking that anyone else going to him for legal help over other issues like taxes and contract violations is going to get any help at all.

[Frater I*I]

4. Cause number 1:22-cv-1993-TWP-MJD

About that one...

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bppyevq3 ... r5emj&dl=0

[morrand]

2. Cause number 1:22-cv-01217-SEB-DML: Another claimed victory where he sues Snap-on Credit, Experian and Equifax (last two defendants are credit reporting companies). Joey brags he took on all three of these giants by suing them on the basis of 15 USC 1681 (covering the accuracy and fairness of credit reporting) and won a settlement of approximately $35,000 and a corrected credit rating of 839 - which Joey points out is the highest in the US. The problem here is that again no details are provided as to what torts were committed by the 3 plaintiffs against Joey and why he was able to get a settlement and a corrected credit rating under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

This suit was also filed in Indiana and I could not find any more details.

For reference, that appears to be this docket. Document #6 tells a story: about 9 days before the case was filed, Snap-on Credit wrote to say that the offending line of credit would be deleted. Apparently the complaint is that Snap-On was slow.

3. Cause number 1:23-cv-00372-JPH-TAB: This case, explains Joey, is the result of his efforts in assisting a combat veteran in filing a complaint against eight defendants. Joey went back to his one-trick-pony offense of using 15 USC 1681. He claims he demolished 7 of them into providing settlements to his friend. Again, no details on the issues and why there were settlements.

The final defendant, USAA Savings file a motion to sever their case from the other seven defendants and was successful after the court found that "As noted above, while Branyan [the pro se veteran] alleges all Defendants violated the FCRA, the underlying facts for each Defendant are different. Branyan's complaint sets forth separate and distinct claims and allegations against multiple unrelated Defendants, who operated, controlled, or maintained separate and distinct accounts and partook in separate allegedly violative activities. Many Defendants have either resolved their claims with Branyan or moved to dismiss. If there were reasons to not sever Branyan's claims against USAA, Branyan has failed to articulate them." Sloppy work on Joey's part. But his combat veteran buddy got sloppy as well, failing to respond to the original motion to sever.

The case appears to be this docket. It went on for a year and drew 146 numbered filings.

4. Cause number 1:22-cv-1993-TWP-MJD: Joey told us he'd rather be a plaintiff than a defendant and he does so here. He sues AMEX, in federal court, again under allegations of violations of 15 USC 1681 - this seems to be the dead horse he wants to beat. Again, the details are severely lacking and Joey seems to be very aware of that. All he will say is that the case was a very valuable experience and has given much insight in various aspects of the litigation process and
"the lengths to which the Courts (and their officers - i.e. Bar Card Attorneys) will go in an attempt to keep us from our rights to due process." In other words, it sounds like they wiped the floor with Joey and threw him into the trash can on their way out of the court room.

This appears to be this docket. Went on for about two years and 131 filings, although the tail end of the docket report's a bit weird.

What the "Bar Card Attorneys" apparently did is to invoke a provision of the card agreement and move to compel arbitration (doc #29), which was granted by the court (doc #49). Kimbrough doesn't seem to have appreciated that. He appealed up to the 7th Circuit (#23-2912, dismissed Jan. 17, 2024) and then (based on AmEx's reports on the status of arbitration) hemmed and hawed and never got the arbitration going. (He did object repeatedly to being forced to arbitrate, accused AmEx's attorney of UPL, and other various gripes.) The docket report doesn't entirely say what happened, but based on appearances, it looks like the case is back up at the 7th Circuit, so I suspect Kimbrough was not successful. I'm not sure of whether it's worth the PACER charges to get more detail than that. (LATE UPDATE: my thanks to Frater I*I for spending the PACER charges.)

[Frater I*I]

(LATE UPDATE: my thanks to Frater I*I for spending the PACER charges.)

No problem, my PACER bucks reset on the first, so I splurged for the Quatloosians...

[wserra]

I am in the middle of writing a fairly lengthy post with further details on the Joey Kimbrough cases - but I interrupt myself with breaking news. Brandon Joe is dissatisfied with Judge Klausner not only refusing to remand his case against the SBA but throwing it out as "unintelligible". See my post above. So he has filed . . . well, something unintelligible: "NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 11/8/24 (DCKT #8) AND TO VACATE VOID ORDER FROM 12/30/24". Trying to make some sense out of nonsense: (1) he had his opportunity to oppose the SBA's motion to dismiss, and (2) I'm sure that Judge Klausner will be interested to learn that his order is "VOID" because Brandon Joe Williams says it is.

Williams attaches an "Affidavit of Facts" to his motion. First of all, I've never understood what an "affidavit of facts" and its cousin "affidavit of truth" are. An affidavit is, of course, by definition a sworn document in which one presents facts. If an "affidavit of facts" exists, then so should an "affidavit of bullshit"; an "affidavit of truth", then also an "affidavit of lies". Actually, the latter of each pair do exist, and people like Williams file them.

Anyway, Williams up front tells the Court that he is filing the "motion" as a favor - so that the Court can "stop wasting time". Probably the best remedy for that problem would be to declare Williams a vexatious litigant. He repeats the gibberish he previously wrote, as though repetition will clear everything up.

BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, by and through agent Brandon Joe Williams [is a] man of the "Union" [who] has a commercial entity called a sole proprietorship that was given to him to use in commercial transactions. The birth of this sole proprietorship, as a person, was Feb 14th, 1986.

No strawman stuff there. Why, that would be the work of a sovereign citizen, and Brandon Joe isn't one. No siree. He says so.

Continuing:

Brandon Joe Williams is not a resident of State of California. BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS® is a resident of State of California.
Brandon Joe Williams is not an "individual" as per legal definitions. BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS® is an "individual" as per most legal definitions.

Williams (in whatever form) appears to have multiple personality disorder.

Several times now both the defense and this court has (sic) misspelled the plaintiff's name, causing confusion. It is requested that this stop. This affidavit will assist to clean that up.

I somehow doubt that.

BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, due to being a legal fiction, cannot write, talk, answer, communicate, indorse negotiate negotiable instruments, etc.

We've noticed. But it's not because he is a "legal fiction".

Williams doesn't appreciate the Court calling his masterwork "unintelligible".

It has been stated that the case of the plaintiff is unintelligible, yet there has been absolutely no attempt by this court to clarify or ask for specifics . . . . This is unacceptable. . . .
For anyone, judge or council (sic), to use the word "unintelligible" without there having been any hearing or attempt at contacting the plaintiff or agent directly is disgusting and unacceptable.
For anyone, judge or council (sic), to use the word "frivolous" without having presented evidence as to intent to harm, harass or degrade is disgusting and unacceptable.
For anyone, judge or council (sic), to use the term "bad faith" without having presented evidence as to intent to harm, harass or degrade is disgusting and unacceptable.

So what is a poor Court, faced with a lawsuit based on unintelligible gibberish, to do?

Any “unintelligible” aspects of this case should be clarified via simple hearings and requests for additional information.

This is Williams Rule of Civil Procedure (WRCP) 134075(b)(3)(iv): when faced with a complaint consisting of unintelligible written gibberish, the Court must direct a hearing so that it can obtain some unintelligible oral gibberish. I don't think such a rule is likely to be adopted in the real world anytime soon.

[JohnPCapitalist]

It is interesting to note that the host and BJW never brought up the fact that these three had lost their cases in a big way when they went to court. It is as if they are willfully ignorant of the fact that these losses mattered and severely undercut what JB, SJ and KL have been preaching.

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.

It occurs to me that endless fighting and defiance, even when it's unnecessary, is the hallmark of Oppositional-Defiant Disorder. A Johns Hopkins overview is here: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... t-disorder. Reading over the summary, it certainly seems like that description describes a lot of SovCits fairly accurately.

ODD is a conduct disorder rather than an organic brain dysfunction like schizophrenia, etc. As Dr. Netolitzky Esq. has told us before, SovCits aren't mentally ill in the classic sense (i.e., organic brain dysfunction), but it sure seems like SovCittery is a channel that normalizes and enables rationalizing their behavior in their minds.

The various forums where those people hang out also gives them a reward structure where adoring peers praise them for being such a valiant fighter. The ability to ban people who question why there are no actual victories, just lots of battles, means that the attention can stay on the endless fight.

[The Observer]

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.

It occurs to me that endless fighting and defiance, even when it's unnecessary, is the hallmark of Oppositional-Defiant Disorder. A Johns Hopkins overview is here: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... t-disorder. Reading over the summary, it certainly seems like that description describes a lot of SovCits fairly accurately.

We have discussed that over the 24 years I have been participating here. I think there is merit in raising this issue. We have some tax deniers or sovcits actually claim that their loss was really a win. Usually it proceeded along the lines of a "I-now-have-them-where-I-want-them" rationalization or just complete denial that they actually lost. All of this is done in a combative attitude to the point that they continue completion of their own personal Ragnarok. I think grixit, one of our original members, summed up their attitude nicely: "Waaah! You're not the boss of me!"

As well, the supporters of the sovcit/tax denier/guru who has summed up the nerve to go to Valhalla are equally to blame. I think they are the moral equivalent of those who buy tickets to watch a train crash. They egg on their hero, sing his or her praises, and promise to be there to the bitter end in full support. My conclusion is that they just enjoy watching the guru fall on his sword. After the authorities swoop in to ruin him financially or imprison him for the crimes he was convicted, they quickly (and conveniently) forget their leader and move on to the next idiot willing to burn on his pyre.

It is a weird and immoral relationship and I agree with you that it seems to be a relationship that is parasitic and just perpetuates the cycle.