Sections are offset using scroll margins so headings do not sit hard against the top edge when you click a chip.

The purpose of this site is to preserve a structured, verifiable record of conduct associated with Chad Eugene Willis and the companies he has operated, and to provide stakeholders with sufficient information to make informed, lawful decisions.

• Collect and preserve official records, filings, and date-stamped captures in one place.
• Document patterns of conduct across projects, brands, and jurisdictions.
• Alert retailers, sponsors, marketplaces, investors, and regulators when serious red-flags are evident.
• Support victims, journalists, and investigators with organized, referenced material rather than rumours.

Where any item is later disproven by primary evidence, this site will be updated accordingly. The intention is accuracy, not exaggeration.

The following points synthesize recurring patterns drawn from public records, preserved communications, corporate/registry trails, media reports, and first-hand accounts. Where examples are based on reports rather than final legal findings, they are treated as allegations and are documented as such.

• Borrowed credibility & halo effects. Aggressively attaching brands to celebrities, athletes, venues, and charitable causes, then recycling those names widely in decks, pitches, and marketing collateral to imply depth, scale, or validation that may not match underlying economics.
• Manufactured image & staged optics. Heavy emphasis on photo-ops (schools, charity events, “community” scenes) and polished language that suggests impact, without equivalent hard evidence of delivery, audited outcomes, or transparent accounting.
• Technical and legal “baffling.” Use of complex-sounding legal, financial, or technical language (promissory notes, structured instruments, IP narratives, etc.) to overwhelm or impress non-specialist investors and partners, often without providing simple, verifiable explanations.
• Shells, aliases & brand recycling. Repeated cycling of entities and brand identities — e.g. shifts between energy projects, nutrition brands, and beverage/“clarity technology” — while re-using similar narratives about innovation, impact, and imminent scale.
• Payment deferral & “imminent money” stories. Reliance on “funding is about to land,” “major deal is closing,” or “you’ll be paid out of X settlement” as recurring justifications for delays, extensions, or restructured agreements.
• Proxy communicators & intermediaries. Using others to convey assurances, negotiate extensions, or relay updates, which has the effect of diffusing responsibility and softening direct accountability.
• Registry and jurisdiction hopping. Moving activity across jurisdictions (corporate registrations, IP filings, operating addresses) in ways that can fragment oversight and make the overall pattern harder for any single regulator or counterparty to see in full.
• Selective compliance branding. Prominent references to “quality,” “compliance,” “patented technology,” and “global IP protection” while underlying verifiable filings may be thin, limited in scope, or difficult to match to the public claims.
• Social proof inflation. Periods where follower counts, impressions, or “reach” claims do not appear to align with organic engagement levels, suggesting that image and perceived scale are treated as assets in themselves.
• Deferral of hard questions. Tendency, as reported by various parties, to respond to detailed or uncomfortable questions with further promises, future events, or procedural complexity rather than clear, documentary answers.
• Reframing setbacks as temporary “noise.” When challenged, criticism or losses are often framed as misunderstandings, malicious attacks, or short-term noise, while the core narratives about imminent success and protection of stakeholders remain largely unchanged.

Concrete examples and supporting documents corresponding to these patterns are referenced on the Registry & Records, Timeline of Conduct, and Evidence Vault pages.

Full datasets appear on Registry & Records. Highlights include:

• Corporate registrations and dissolutions across multiple jurisdictions (energy, nutrition, beverage, and “clarity technology”).
• Trademark and IP references connected with Plus Brand, Agua Plus, and related marks.
• Sponsorship and partnership references involving stadiums, venues, sports leagues, and personalities.
• Historical energy and nutrition ventures linked to the same controlling mind.

Where registry IDs, filing numbers, or URLs are used, they are listed so third parties can independently confirm the records.

A more granular chronology is provided on Timeline of Conduct. In broad strokes:

• Early–mid 2000s: Michigan felony case and financial-services prohibition order.
• Late 2000s–2010s: International energy and investment projects; investor complaints and media scrutiny begin appearing.
• 2010s: Nutrition and supplement ventures, including brands later connected to the same network of entities.
• 2020s: Beverage, hydration, and “clarity technology” ventures under the Plus Brand / Agua Plus umbrellas, with growing sponsorship and retail visibility.
• Recent years: Increasing convergence of prior patterns — complex narratives, high-profile branding, and questions about delivery, compliance, and transparency.

The Evidence Vault consolidates material into structured categories:

• Official & Regulatory: court orders, prohibitions, corporate records, and IP references.
• Commercial Footprint: marketplace listings, sponsorship announcements, and retailer placements.
• Marketing & Claims: extracts from websites, social channels, and collateral, including claims about IP, safety, “clarity technology,” and impact.
• First-Hand & Direct Communications: redacted excerpts from calls, emails, and agreements, with hashes and timestamps.

A separate Restricted Vault holds sensitive material accessible only to law enforcement, regulators, and legal counsel, referenced via the Law Enforcement and Contact pages.

Major retailers, sponsors, venues, and marketplaces typically maintain ethics and compliance standards requiring review — and in some cases suspension or termination — when credible information about serious past conduct surfaces.

• Truth-in-advertising and deceptive-practices standards (e.g. U.S. FTC guidance and analogous frameworks).
• Supply-chain, KYC, and integrity expectations for listed vendors and brand partners.
• Reputational risk policies where association with undisclosed criminal or regulatory histories may be unacceptable.

Formal notices and structured summaries are being prepared for relevant stakeholders (retailers, sponsors, marketplaces, boards, and responsible officers), with links to this site and supporting records.

Multi-year email threads, message logs, contractual drafts, and recorded calls are preserved with SHA-256 hashes and timestamps to evidence chain-of-custody. Redacted excerpts may be made available selectively where they illuminate specific patterns of conduct. Unredacted versions are reserved for law enforcement, regulators, and legal counsel.

Requests from authorities can be submitted via the Law Enforcement channel.

• Financial: statements and accounts from multiple cohorts indicate losses in the tens of millions of dollars collectively across different projects and periods. Based on scale and duration, lifetime exposure may plausibly exceed USD 100 million, though precise totals would require formal forensic audit.
• Collateral damage: reports of retirement savings exhausted, properties sold or lost, and businesses compromised as a result of involvement.
• Human cost: consistent themes of stress, anxiety, family strain, and long-term mistrust arising from extended payment delays, broken assurances, and opaque explanations.

Victim identities are anonymised for privacy unless and until individuals choose to participate in media, legal, or class-action processes.

• Law Enforcement & Regulators: use the dedicated channel on the Law Enforcement or Contact page to request documents, hashes, or clarifications. Certified replies (e.g. warrant status, regulatory confirmations) will be summarized here and archived in the Evidence Vault.
• Press & Media: the Press Kit provides a structured overview, suggested angles, and a pathway to request supporting records, subject to privacy and legal constraints.
• Victims & Witnesses: individuals who believe they have been affected by projects controlled by or closely associated with Chad Eugene Willis can submit statements and documentation via the Class Action / Victim Liaison and Contact pages.

Every effort is made to ensure that this archive reflects the public record accurately. Where a claim is based on allegation or personal testimony, it is framed as such. Where a claim is based on official documents, registry entries, or primary evidence, the underlying source is retained and catalogued.

If you identify an error, or can supply primary documentation that materially clarifies or corrects any entry, you are invited to submit it via the Contact page. Submissions will be reviewed, and where warranted, this site will be updated with clear change-notes so that the evolution of the record is itself transparent.

Official social channels (LinkedIn, X, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram) will be linked from this page once activated. Updates, new confirmations, and material additions to the Evidence Vault will be announced there and reflected in the site’s Updates / blog section.