Chad Eugene Willis

This archive concerns a documented and reported multi-decade pattern involving Chad Eugene Willis, including Michigan felony records and a financial-services prohibition order, historical World Energy / Guatemala Hydro-related investor-loss material, later nutrition and supplement ventures, and current Plus Brand / AGUA Plus / All-Scratch!® public-facing activity.

• Official record: Michigan court and regulatory records identify felony convictions and a Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services prohibition order associated with Chad Eugene Willis.
• Current commercial activity: Plus Brand / AGUA Plus public materials use patent, PCT, global-protection, sponsorship, distribution, celebrity, health, hygiene, waste-reduction and technical-performance narratives.
• High-priority verification issues: current warrant status, current restitution balance, probation / absconder / enforcement indicators, All-Scratch!® patent / PCT / grant status, Mayweather / sponsorship / investment claims, product-safety claims, and health / hygiene / waste representations.
• Affected-party material: the archive preserves reported victim / investor accounts, including World Energy / Guatemala Hydro-related material and current Plus Brand / AGUA Plus-related accounts. Raw personal data is not published publicly.
• Current function: the site operates as a public-record archive, evidence map, victim / evidence intake portal, media dossier, regulator pathway, and commercial due-diligence warning.

The point of this site is not speculation. The point is to place the available records, claims, contradictions, affected-party accounts and verification gaps into a structure that regulators, journalists, lawyers, sponsors, retailers, payment processors, distributors, platforms and affected parties can test.

Older updates should be read through the Timeline, Evidence Vault, Registry & Records and Press Kit pages. This section summarises current status only.

Convicted Felon, Restitution & Warrant Indicators

Public records from Michigan identify Chad Eugene Willis as a convicted felon with an associated financial-services prohibition order, recorded restitution obligations, and warrant / enforcement-status indicators that remain directly relevant to any risk, KYC, vendor, sponsor, investor, legal, law-enforcement or media due-diligence assessment.

• Michigan OTIS and court-file material identify three felony convictions: two counts of Intent to Pass False Title and one count of False Pretences – $1,000 to $20,000, arising from conduct on 09 January 2001, sentenced on 01 June 2005.
• A Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services Lifetime Prohibition Order — DIFS Order #06-4287 — bars Willis from specified insurance / financial-services activity in that jurisdiction. The order is treated in this archive as an official regulatory record.
• Court financial ledgers record outstanding restitution obligations originally totalling approximately USD $188,000. With statutory interest potentially accruing over more than twenty years, the realistic balance may be materially higher. The precise current balance remains subject to custodian confirmation.
• Warrant-status, probation / supervision, absconder / fugitive or enforcement-status indicators connected to the underlying felony matter and unpaid restitution are treated as high-priority verification issues, not casual allegations.
• The surrounding pattern strengthens the due-diligence significance: felony history, financial-services prohibition, restitution indicators, long-term Mexico / Latin America operating pattern, and no apparent public disclosure of these adverse records in Plus Brand / AGUA Plus promotional, investor, sponsorship, licensing or founder-profile materials.

Practical point: the felony history, standing prohibition order, restitution indicators, warrant-status questions and non-disclosure pattern are material facts and material verification issues. Any regulator, sponsor, retailer, marketplace, payment partner, investor, journalist or compliance team reviewing Chad Willis or entities he controls should treat these issues as active due-diligence triggers.

Michigan DIFS Order #06-4287 and FOIA #20477

On 20 November 2025, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services responded to FOIA Request #20477, providing an official copy of Order of Prohibition #06-4287 and confirming that related examination or investigation records are confidential by statute and may only be disclosed to specified official bodies or in enforcement contexts.

This confirms the regulatory seriousness of the underlying conduct and provides a formal record foundation for the archive’s treatment of Willis as a prohibited financial-services operator in the relevant Michigan context.

Certified documents are preserved in the evidence archive. Public summaries are available; full copies are reserved for regulators, law enforcement, legal counsel and authorised reviewers where appropriate.

Regulatory filings, platform notices, legal-threat responses, public-record requests, commercial due-diligence notices and complaint-platform records are preserved as part of the evidence archive. This section retains the dated filing record because the dates, authorities and issue categories matter.

1) Regulatory Filings — United States

2) 29 May 2026 — Public-Record Verification & IP Clarification Actions

3) Platform, Financial, Retail, Distribution, Sponsor & Venue Notices

Publication note: active-warrant status and current restitution balance are not presented as final agency-confirmed facts until custodian responses are received. They are treated as high-priority verification issues because of the documented felony history, restitution indicators, prohibition order, offshore operating pattern and prior warrant-related indicators.

Beyond the criminal, regulatory and affected-party record, a separate and material issue concerns the product and technology claims used to promote Plus Brand / AGUA Plus / All-Scratch!®. These claims are not peripheral. They are part of the brand’s credibility machinery and are used in retail, sponsorship, licensing, investor-facing and public-reputation contexts.

1) Patent, PCT and global-IP protection claims

Public-facing materials from AGUA Plus / Plus Brand have described All-Scratch!® using escalating patent and global-protection language, including:

• “Patent-pending” or application-stage language in earlier promotional material.
• “Patented All-Scratch!® Technology” in later advertising, website copy, sponsorship and partner-facing material.
• Patent-issued, published, protected or globally protected language in relation to the United States, Europe, Mexico, India and PCT-linked jurisdictions.
• “Protected across 150+ countries” or equivalent PCT / global-IP phrasing used to support licensing, retail, sponsorship and investor-facing credibility claims.

A PCT filing can preserve a pathway to seek patent protection in multiple jurisdictions. It does not itself create a single enforceable patent across 150+ countries. Patent rights must be examined and granted by national or regional patent offices. Any public claim of “patented”, “globally patented” or “protected across 150+ countries” requires verification by patent number, application number, jurisdiction, filing date, publication date, grant date, assignee, claim scope, national-phase status and enforceability.

2) Filtration and purification claims

AGUA Plus markets its bottled water through technical-sounding process claims that imply superior purification, scientific differentiation and proprietary advantages.

• “7-step purification system” claims requiring process description, lab data or certification.
• “Ultra-purified alkaline water at pH 9+” claims requiring independent analysis.
• “Unique proprietary water-processing system” claims requiring technical documentation.
• Scientific-sounding terminology that should be tested against actual evidence, not accepted at marketing-copy level.

3) Health, safety, hygiene and waste claims

AGUA Plus / Plus Brand materials imply health, safety, hygiene, disease-risk, waste-reduction and product-performance benefits that ordinarily require regulatory-grade substantiation or independent scientific evidence.

• “All-natural and non-toxic scratch ink” claims, including ingestion-safety implications.
• Positioning of AGUA Plus as a superior health hydration product.
• Claims implying reduced hygiene risks or health threats related to bottle sharing.
• Waste / sustainability claims connected to All-Scratch!® branding and commercial positioning.

4) Escalating claim pattern

The record indicates progressive escalation over time: patent-pending → patented → globally protected / 150+ jurisdictions; basic product claims → health / hygiene / safety positioning; ordinary brand launch material → major sponsorship and global licensing credibility claims. The issue is not whether marketing language exists. The issue is whether the underlying public records support the scope and certainty of the claims being made.

Status: High-priority product, patent, PCT, health, hygiene and technology verification issue. These claims should not be accepted on promotional wording alone.

Open the Patent Claims Review page

In addition to historical criminal and regulatory records, public materials and preserved first-hand evidence indicate that Willis-linked ventures have used investment-style opportunities, licensing-based revenue programs, promissory-note structures, staged repayment arrangements and participation schemes through or around brands including Plus Brand / AGUA Plus.

These structures go beyond ordinary product marketing. They raise securities, financial-services, licensing, debt, repayment, investor-solicitation and prohibition-order issues — particularly where they sit alongside the Michigan DIFS prohibition order and a long-running record of reported non-payment, delayed payments, broken timelines, amended obligations and affected-party losses.

• Dedicated investor or investor-style navigation and associated materials previously appearing in public-facing Plus Brand / AGUA Plus contexts.
• Licensing / programmatic participation language tied to sales, technology usage, distribution or revenue.
• Promissory-note, investor-pool, revenue-participation, rescission, repayment or staged-payment structures reported by affected parties.
• Public-facing removals, reductions or changes following scrutiny, with screenshots and captures preserved where available.

Regulatory relevance: a lifetime prohibition order combined with investment-style or licensing-based financial activity is a serious due-diligence issue. The question is not branding. The question is who controlled, promoted, benefited from, communicated, or concealed the financial substance of the arrangements.

Public search results for Chad Willis, Plus Brand, AGUA Plus, All-Scratch!® and related terms can present a heavily curated public image: founder profiles, promotional interviews, sponsorship announcements, media placements, self-authored or brand-controlled narratives, and favourable reputation assets.

This archive treats that as a due-diligence issue because a surface-level search can conceal or bury the official-record and affected-party material that should be central to any serious risk review.

This is not proof by itself. It is a search-hygiene warning. Retailers, sponsors, platforms, investors and journalists should not rely on curated search results or promotional interviews as evidence of clean history, compliance or financial reliability.

Martin K. McKernan — Intermediary, Assurance Channel and Payment / Timeline Narrative Participant

Over multi-year preserved communications, Martin K. McKernan appears as a key intermediary linking creditors, investors and affected counterparties to payment assurances, revised timelines, repayment explanations and supposed funding or settlement events involving Chad Willis / Plus Brand / AGUA Plus-related matters.

• Initially presented as a fellow creditor / prior investor or affected party, while also becoming a conduit for assurances and explanations.
• Repeatedly communicated or relayed claims about imminent wires, closing deals, incoming funds, “just around the corner” events, staged payments, settlement frameworks and deferral arrangements.
• Participated in or communicated revised settlement / deferral frameworks which had the practical effect of extending time, delaying enforcement and keeping affected parties waiting.
• Appears in preserved call / communication material as part of the machinery through which explanations, timelines and payment narratives were kept alive.
• The role is materially relevant because the pattern is not merely “being caught in the middle”; it is the repeated use of an intermediary channel to manage pressure, expectations, creditor fatigue and delay.

This profile does not pre-judge criminal liability. It records that Martin McKernan’s role is evidentially relevant as an intermediary and repeated assurance channel in disputed payment, settlement, timeline and explanation narratives. Regulators, civil claimants, journalists and affected parties should treat that role as a material part of the conduct map.

Plus Brand / AGUA Plus has used sponsors, venues, retailers, platforms, athletes, celebrities, media appearances and distribution references as credibility anchors. The issue is not that a sponsor, retailer or venue automatically did anything wrong. The issue is whether these public associations were used to imply legitimacy, scale, funding, compliance or market validation while material adverse records and verification gaps were not disclosed.

Floyd Mayweather / The Money Team

Public materials have promoted a Mayweather / TMT association and claimed major investment, sponsorship, strategic or brand-alignment significance. Those claims function as a flagship credibility anchor in public, investor, sponsor and retail-facing narratives.

Verification issue: whether the claimed structure, amount, role, funding, consideration, duration and actual commercial substance are independently supported by Mayweather / TMT confirmation, corporate records, credible financial documents or only promotional channels.

Aretha Franklin Amphitheatre, Major League Pickleball, PBC, Sampson Boxing and related sports / venue associations

AGUA Plus / Plus Brand materials have used sports, boxing, pickleball, venue and event associations to project mainstream trust and scale. Those associations are highly valuable in pitch decks, sponsor materials, public media and first-impression due diligence.

Verification issue: whether the relevant counterparties were given complete background disclosure and whether public claims accurately reflect the scope, term, current status, commercial consideration and legal substance of the relationship.

Amazon, Walmart, KEHE, Circle K and retailer / distribution references

Retail, marketplace and distributor references can be used as shorthand for “mainstream validation”. This archive treats those references as due-diligence nodes, especially where retailer, distributor or marketplace visibility is used to support investor, sponsor, licensing or credibility claims.

Verification issue: current distribution status, achieved store count, actual purchase orders, continuing availability, distributor confirmation, marketplace listing status, and whether material adverse background records were disclosed.

Every sponsor, venue, athlete, retailer, distributor, marketplace, payment processor and platform named in this archive is a due-diligence node. Inclusion does not allege wrongdoing by that third party. It flags that the public association may have been used to manufacture credibility for the broader Plus Brand / AGUA Plus narrative.

Open Commercial Associations page

Across the official record, preserved communications, public claims, corporate / registry trail and reported affected-party material, the following recurring pattern categories appear.

• Borrowed credibility and halo effects: attaching brands to celebrities, athletes, venues, public figures, retail channels, media placements and charitable or community optics, then recycling those associations through pitches and public material.
• Manufactured image and staged optics: heavy reliance on visual proof-points, founder narratives, community imagery and promotional media while independently audited financial, delivery, technical and regulatory substantiation remains limited or absent.
• Investment-style schemes under prohibition-order risk: promissory notes, investor pools, licensing revenue participation, rescission agreements, staged repayment proposals and friends-and-family capital raises in contexts requiring regulatory scrutiny.
• Shells, aliases and brand recycling: movement across energy, nutrition, supplement, beverage, clarity-technology and licensing narratives while unresolved obligations remain behind previous ventures.
• Registry and jurisdiction complexity: multiple corporate registrations, jurisdictions, brand names, domains and public identities that make the full pattern difficult to see without a consolidated archive.
• Technical and legal baffling: dense IP, PCT, licensing, promissory-note, revenue-participation and “global protection” language used where the simple questions remain: who owns what, what is registered, where is it enforceable, who paid, and who was repaid?
• Payment deferral and imminent-money narratives: repeated claims that funds, wires, deals, closings, sponsorship money, investments or settlements are imminent, followed by delay, explanation, restructuring or silence.
• Proxy communicators and intermediaries: use of others to carry assurances, negotiate deferrals, manage pressure and dilute direct accountability.
• Search and public-persona management: positive founder profiles, promotional interviews and search-friendly reputation assets sitting above or beside older adverse records, complaint records and affected-party accounts.

These are pattern categories, not free-floating insults. Specific examples and supporting documents are mapped through Registry & Records, Timeline of Conduct, Evidence Vault, Case Files and Commercial Associations.

Victim / affected-party material

The archive includes reported affected-party material from multiple periods and ventures, including World Energy / Guatemala Hydro-related material, later disputed ventures and current Plus Brand / AGUA Plus-related accounts. Raw personal data is not published publicly.

• Financial losses: reported losses across multiple cohorts are described by affected parties as reaching the tens of millions of dollars collectively. Precise totals require forensic audit and document-by-document verification.
• Regulatory dimension: many reported losses arise from investment-style arrangements, promissory notes, licensing revenue structures, rescission agreements or repayment promises promoted in contexts requiring legal and regulatory review.
• Collateral harm: affected-party accounts include retirement losses, property losses, business damage, family strain, long-term stress and extended creditor fatigue caused by repeated delay and non-performance narratives.

Affected parties, witnesses and source holders should use the Victim & Evidence Intake page. The current URL may still use the older /class-action slug for continuity.

Go to Victim & Evidence Intake