Press & Media Kit

Public records show felony conviction(s) and a lifetime financial-services prohibition order issued in Michigan, contrasted with current online portrayals of Chad Eugene Willis as a high-impact, philanthropic entrepreneur heading global hydration and wellness brands.

Core tension: how past criminal and regulatory history sits against the present narrative being used with retailers, sponsors, and investors.

While a lifetime prohibition order from Michigan’s financial regulator remains on record, public materials, preserved webpages, and first-hand agreements show investment-style raises, promissory notes, and licensing revenue deals promoted under Plus Brand / AGUA Plus banners.

Core angle: whether those programs, taken together, amount to a long-running pattern of prohibition-breaching behaviour.

AGUA Plus / Plus Brand marketing repeatedly refers to “All-Scratch” as a patented or patent-protected label technology. Independent patent searches and documented correspondence show no matching granted patent or published application consistent with those claims as at the time of writing, and no supporting evidence has been supplied in response to written requests.

Core angle: IP claims and investor / retailer reliance where public language may blur the line between granted patents, published applications, pending applications, trademarks, PCT filings and national-phase rights.

Clark Hill PLC has publicly referenced its work supporting Plus Brand's label-scratch technology. The relevant reporting issue is whether Plus Brand / AGUA Plus public language accurately reflects the narrower professional-service statement, the actual filings, the jurisdictions involved, and the legal difference between patent protection, published status, PCT procedures and enforceable granted rights.

Core angle: professional credibility signals and public-claim inflation — especially where lawyer, patent and global-IP references are used with investors, sponsors, retailers or journalists.

Plus Brand counsel issued cease-and-desist correspondence after public visibility increased. The archive records that a substantive response and follow-up clarification request were sent. As of the current update, no substantive correction, supporting evidence or follow-through litigation step has been recorded.

Core angle: legal-threat correspondence as part of the public-record chronology, not as proof of the disputed claims themselves.

Historic scam reports and online complaints were once the dominant search results for “Chad Willis”. Today, searches are led by glowing personal profiles, curated interviews, and high-polish imagery, while negative reports are harder to locate or appear on de-emphasised or archived domains.

Core angle: the mechanics and ethics of aggressive online reputation management where serious allegations and records exist.

Across energy, investment, nutrition and beverage ventures over roughly two decades, multiple cohorts report substantial financial loss, long-term stress, and family impact. Some exhausted retirement funds, sold assets, or saw businesses compromised while waiting for promised returns that did not materialise.

Core angle: the real-world cost behind the branding and PR – told carefully, anonymised where appropriate, and with consent from those willing to speak.

The record does not describe a single failed project. It maps a multi-decade trajectory involving energy ventures, investment schemes, nutrition projects, and now hydration / clarity-technology brands – with a recurring pattern of:

• Grand narratives of imminent scale and transformative impact.
• Investment-style or quasi-financial structures around those narratives.
• Complex branding, shells and cross-border / cross-jurisdiction structures.
• Disappointed or damaged counterparties left behind when campaigns move on.

Visuals and language emphasise celebrity association, charity, and community impact, while detailed, independently-audited evidence of sustainable delivery is sparse in the public record. Social metrics on some channels show inflated or asymmetric engagement, while others remain comparatively dormant.

For coverage, the contrast between image, reach and claims vs verified outcomes and compliance is a central thread.

• Homepage – Public Record & Evidence Map
  High-level flags: criminal history, prohibition, All-Scratch patent discrepancy, regulatory-breach indicators, reputation management, ethics & stakeholder risk, associated parties.
• Registry & Records
  Corporate, IP, domain and related registry data in structured form.
• Timeline of Conduct
  Chronological summary tying events to documents and deals.
• Evidence Vault
  Category-based index of documents, captures, and first-hand materials.
• Commercial Associations
  Sponsors, retailers, distributors, media, public figures, Clark Hill / IP references and investor-facing credibility signals.
• Restricted Vault
  Public description of non-public legal correspondence, recordings, transcripts, payment records and sensitive exhibits.
• Law Enforcement & Regulators
  For agencies seeking full, unredacted material and chain-of-custody detail.

• Michigan court and corrections portals (felony file and any restitution / warrant status).
• Michigan DIFS public orders (for the prohibition order).
• U.S. and international patent databases, including PCT and national-phase records where relevant (for All-Scratch claims).
• Clark Hill's public professional-service reference concerning Plus Brand label-scratch technology.
• Corporate registries in relevant U.S. states and foreign jurisdictions where entities are registered.
• Historic scam-report sites and consumer forums (many preserved here as captures).

This site can be treated as a map and archive, not a replacement for your own retrieval of official records where they are accessible.

You may wish to put specific, written questions to Chad Eugene Willis, Plus Brand Industries Inc., and any current officers, asking for comment on:

• The felony record and prohibition order, and how they should be weighed by stakeholders today.
• Investment-style offers, promissory notes, and licensing revenue deals in light of the prohibition order.
• The basis for “patented”, patent-protected, published-status, PCT, global-IP and 150+ country All-Scratch claims.
• Whether Plus Brand / AGUA Plus public IP language accurately reflects any Clark Hill work and the public patent record.
• The cease-and-desist correspondence, the basis for the stated allegations, and whether any correction or litigation step is actually being pursued.
• Historic scam reports and losses reported by counterparties to prior ventures.
• Reputation-management activities that changed the profile of search results over the last several years.

Any response should be quoted accurately and in full context, with clear indication of what has and has not been directly addressed.

For background briefings, clarification on documents, or to verify specific details before publication, you may use the channels on the Contact page. Indicate that you are media, include your outlet and role, and specify deadlines where relevant.

Where possible, responses will include links to underlying documents or captures so your legal team can review them independently.