Registry & Records

Current Verification Action Set — 29 May 2026

The following current-status issues are now being verified directly with relevant custodians rather than inferred from historic records, portal displays or secondary material.

• Active-warrant status: under direct verification with court / law-enforcement custodians.
• Probation / absconder / fugitive indicators: under verification with relevant Michigan / Oakland County records custodians.
• Restitution balance and enforcement status: under verification against court / collection / enforcement records.
• Madison Heights Police records: FOIA packet prepared for police records linked to Chad Eugene Willis and case no. 04-197988-FH.
• Clark Hill / All-Scratch!® IP clarification: clarification request issued concerning the scope of public professional-service statements and the broader Plus Brand / AGUA Plus patent / PCT language.

Evidence status: pending custodian responses. Once official responses are received, this page should be updated to distinguish confirmed, denied, no-record, exempt, transferred and pending items.

1.1 Criminal Case, Restitution & Prohibition Order (Michigan)

• Felony conviction – Oakland County, Michigan
  6th Judicial Circuit Court, Case 04-197988-FH (false pretences and related counts). Certified records preserved, including Register of Actions, Judgment of Sentence and related orders (where obtainable).
• Court financial ledger & restitution
  Official court financial records show an original restitution order of approximately USD $188,000 arising from Case 04-197988-FH, with an outstanding balance (including statutory interest and costs) now understood to exceed USD $500,000. Ledger extracts and payment-status snapshots are preserved in the Evidence Vault; any certified updates from the court or collection authorities will be mirrored against this entry.
• Financial-services prohibition – Michigan DIFS
  Order of Prohibition #06-4287, issued July 2006, permanently prohibiting Chad Eugene Willis from being a licensee, registrant, employee, agent or control person of entities governed by the Mortgage Brokers, Lenders, and Servicers Licensing Act and other Michigan financial licensing acts, unless explicitly terminated in writing by the Commissioner.
• FOIA confirmation – DIFS FOIA Request #20477 (November 2025)
  In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services supplied a certified copy of Order of Prohibition #06-4287 and confirmed that any related examination or investigation records are confidential under MCL 445.1670(1)(d). Those materials, where they exist, may only be disclosed to the Attorney General, other regulators, law-enforcement officials, in connection with enforcement actions, or by court authorisation.
• Cease-and-desist – Mortgage Highway, LLC
  Related enforcement action against “Mortgage Highway, LLC”, identified as an unlicensed residential mortgage company controlled by Chad Eugene Willis.

These documents are primary anchors for the entire record. They establish felony history, a standing financial-services prohibition order, and material unsatisfied restitution associated with the underlying criminal case.

2.2 Investment Notes, Licensing Programs & Prohibition Relevance

Multiple entities across this network have been used to promote investment-style arrangements – including promissory notes, investor pools, licensing revenue participation and “friends and family” raises – at a time when a Michigan financial-services prohibition order was already in force.

Each such structure is logged with:

• Entity / brand name(s) used.
• Approximate period of promotion.
• Deal type (note / equity-style / licensing / hybrid).
• Jurisdictions and channels through which it was offered.

This section exists so regulators and law-enforcement can quickly see how many separate instances of apparent non-compliance may exist relative to the standing prohibition order, and how they were packaged and presented commercially.

3.1 “All-Scratch” Patent Claims – Discrepancy File

Marketing and corporate materials for Plus Brand Industries Inc. and associated AGUA Plus brands have repeatedly described the “All-Scratch” technology as patented or patent-protected.

• Public statements and decks are logged wherever they assert patented status, “global patent protection” or similar language, including where such claims are used as support for sponsorship, licensing or investment narratives.
• Searches of public patent and IP registers are being tracked in parallel. Where a verifiable granted patent or published application can be matched to these claims, it is recorded here by jurisdiction and number; where claims appear broader than the verifiable IP footprint, the gap is flagged as a discrepancy.

This section is updated as further register data and documentary evidence is obtained. The focus is on comparing what is claimed in public-facing materials with what can be verified in official registries across jurisdictions.

3.2 Clark Hill / All-Scratch!® IP Clarification Request

A further clarification request has been sent to Clark Hill PLC concerning public statements that its attorneys supported Plus Brand's label-scratch technology and broader Plus Brand / AGUA Plus statements concerning patent protection, published status, PCT-linked jurisdictional reach and global commercial protection.

• The verification issue is not whether any IP work occurred. The issue is the precise distinction between granted patents, published applications, pending applications, PCT filings, national-phase entries, trademarks and marketing language.
• Any public claim of “patented”, “patent protected”, “published in several markets”, “protected across 150+ countries” or similar wording should be tied to patent numbers, application numbers, jurisdictions, grant status, assignee, claim scope and current enforceability.
• Response status: pending. Any correction, clarification, denial or no-response status will be preserved as part of the Registry, Evidence Log and Timeline.

Professional-service references are treated as relevant commercial / IP due-diligence records. They are not treated as verification of unrelated sponsorship, distribution, fundraising, health, safety or conduct claims.

5.1 Historical Online Complaints (Energy, Plus Brand & Related)

Over many years, multiple consumer-oriented and complaint sites have carried scam reports, warning posts and detailed narratives relating to investment schemes and commercial dealings connected with Chad Eugene Willis and associated entities, including early energy projects and later Plus Brand ventures.

Many of these reports have since become harder to locate via standard search or appear to have been removed or buried, while positive / neutral content tied to current branding is heavily surfaced. Where older complaints have been located, they are preserved as:

• Date-stamped screenshots and PDFs.
• Archived copies of narrative content.
• Source URLs where still live.

These materials are treated as allegations rather than proven fact, but are relevant for pattern-analysis, especially where themes recur across different time periods and ventures.

7.1 Cease-and-Desist Correspondence / Suppression-Response File

The archive preserves legal-threat correspondence received from counsel acting for Plus Brand-related interests, together with the archive's substantive response, later follow-up correspondence and current non-response status.

• Original cease-and-desist correspondence: preserved with email headers, attachments and any delivery / transmission details available.
• Substantive response: preserved as part of the due-process and correction-opportunity record.
• Follow-up request: a further request is being issued / preserved seeking confirmation of the asserted U.S. mail transmission and clarification of the allegations, asserted inaccuracies and any evidentiary basis relied upon.
• Status: no substantive correction, supporting evidence, or follow-through litigation step has been received as of the latest update.

Public framing: this is recorded as legal-threat correspondence, unparticularised or unsupported allegations where applicable, delivery-status clarification requested, and non-response preserved. The archive does not use this section to allege misconduct by counsel absent evidence; it records the correspondence as part of the evidentiary chronology.