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 does not necessarily reflect underlying economics or delivery.
• Manufactured image & staged optics. Heavy emphasis on photo-ops (schools, charity events, “community” scenes) and polished language about impact, while hard, independently-audited data on outcomes, revenue, and benefit to counterparties remains thin or opaque.
• Investment-style schemes under a prohibition order. Persistent use of promissory notes, investor pools, licensing revenue participation and “friends and family” raises despite a lifetime Michigan financial-services prohibition. Each funder or counterparty drawn into such structures is another instance of apparent disregard for that order.
• Shells, aliases & brand recycling. Cycling activity through a chain of entities and brand identities — shifting between energy projects, nutrition, beverage and “clarity technology” — while re-using very similar narratives about innovation, imminent scale, and life-changing upside, and leaving unresolved obligations behind previous entities.
• Registry and jurisdiction hopping. Moving corporate registrations, trading entities and apparent control points across multiple jurisdictions, making it difficult for any single regulator or counterparty to see the full pattern without a consolidated map like this one.
• Technical and legal “baffling.” Use of complex legal/financial language and dense documentation (structured notes, layered IP stories, “global patent” claims) to overwhelm non-specialists and deflect from simple questions such as “who owns what”, “what is registered where”, and “when do we get paid”.
• Payment deferral & “imminent money” stories. Reliance on narratives such as “funding is about to land”, “major deal is closing”, or “you’ll be paid from X settlement” to justify repeated extensions and restructures while counterparties bear the financial and psychological load.
• Proxy communicators & intermediaries. Using others to communicate assurances, negotiate deferrals or carry messages, diluting direct accountability and creating buffers that make it harder to pin responsibility on the controlling mind.
• Social proof inflation. Follower counts, “reach” and engagement on some channels (e.g. Agua Plus Alkaline) appear heavily boosted relative to organic interaction, while supposedly central corporate channels remain anaemic — a pattern consistent with paid or artificial engagement directed where it best supports current narratives.
• Reputation laundering & search manipulation. Systematic removal or suppression of scam reports and critical commentary, and the parallel creation of flattering “entrepreneur” profiles and interviews (including highly grandiose, self-aggrandising pieces) that dominate search results when quick checks are performed.
• Deferral and reframing of hard questions. When pressed on specifics, responses typically pivot to future events, process complexity, or attacks on critics rather than straightforward documentary answers, while critics and victims are often framed as outliers, misunderstandings or “noise”.

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. Given the duration, breadth of schemes, and number of affected jurisdictions, lifetime exposure may plausibly exceed USD 100 million, though precise totals would require formal forensic audit.
• Regulatory dimension: many of these losses arise from investment-style arrangements, promissory notes, and licensing revenue schemes promoted while a lifetime financial-services prohibition was already in force. Each such arrangement is not only a financial harm but an additional instance of apparent non-compliance with that prohibition order.
• 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.

Removed or altered online materials — including historical scam reports, website pages, and social content that no longer appear in public search — have been preserved in date-stamped screenshots, PDFs and recordings. This ensures that attempts to “clean” or rewrite the online record do not erase the underlying history for regulators, investigators, or victims.

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.