Brandon Joe Williams Lawsuits: Vapor Money Theory and Rulings

The lawsuits brought by Brandon Joe Williams — against American Express, the City of Glendale, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and (as a representative) a Minnesota credit union — have all ended the same way: dismissal, most of them with prejudice. Every federal court to review the “vapor money” theory that underlies his filings has rejected it, using words like “utterly frivolous,” “patently ludicrous,” and “nonsensical.”¹²

Who Brandon Joe Williams Is

Williams runs a website under the name Williams & Williams Law Group, where he lists his cases and promotes legal services. He is not a licensed attorney and holds no bar card. He has said openly that he will “never be” a member of the bar and uses words like “lawyer” only as shorthand. In June 2024, a federal court in Minnesota took judicial notice of his lack of a law license, citing the state’s public policy against unauthorized practice.² California dockets list him as a pro se litigant.³

Williams does not consider himself a U.S. citizen. He identifies as a “foreign national of the Nation of the Amnesty Coalition,” a group he founded in April 2022 that claims no physical territory.⁴ He uses that claimed status in filings to argue he sits outside federal and state jurisdiction. He has also registered “BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS” as a federal trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under International Class 036, financial consultancy services, and treats the trademarked name as if it were a separate financial entity.⁵

The Vapor Money Theory Behind the Lawsuits

The same theory runs through every case Williams has been part of. Sometimes called the “redemptionist” or “unlawful money” theory, it claims that a borrower’s signature on a loan agreement itself creates the money, so the lender never actually funded anything and the debt is satisfied at signing. Williams has described his lawsuits as “official prototype[s] for infinite money.”²

In practice, Williams tries to pay debts by sending creditors IRS 1099-A forms and self-created documents he labels “negotiable instruments,” directing the recipient to zero out his balance.¹ When the creditor refuses, he sues. Courts across jurisdictions have rejected the theory as having “no basis in law,” and similar suits have been dismissed in states including Kansas and Florida.⁶

The American Express Case

Williams has called his American Express lawsuit his “magnum opus.” In January 2023, he tried to pay his credit card debts by submitting three IRS 1099-A forms. When that didn’t work, he sent three more packets in May 2023 ordering the company’s chief financial officer to use “negotiable instruments” to zero the account. American Express rejected the documents and closed his accounts.¹

He then sued in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, bringing eleven claims that ranged from breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty to alleged violations of the Federal Reserve Act, money laundering statutes, securities fraud statutes, and multiple slavery and peonage laws. He asked for a full discharge of his debts, $250 million in damages, and a credit-limit-free “Black Card.”¹

On July 10, 2024, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted American Express’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court called the vapor money theory “utterly frivolous” and “patently ludicrous” and described the documents Williams had submitted as “a worthless piece of paper.” The federal criminal statutes he invoked, the court held, do not create a private right to sue. Williams asked to amend, but the court denied leave because the proposed amendment relied on the same theory. Dismissal was without leave to amend. American Express’s request for sanctions was denied.¹⁷

The Wings Financial Credit Union Case

Williams served as “attorney-in-fact” for Preston and Michelle Knapp, who sued Wings Financial Credit Union, a Minnesota state-chartered credit union, hoping to discharge their mortgage. The Knapps alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal banking statutes, and criminal offenses including peonage, slavery, and trafficking.²

In November 2024, Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case with prejudice, calling the claims “meritless” and “frivolous” and noting that courts have consistently rejected the vapor money theory as “nonsensical.” He treated the dismissal itself as the sanction, declining to impose monetary penalties, but barred the Knapps from filing any future lawsuits in that court against Wings or associated parties without permission from a judge.²

The Knapps did far worse in a related matter. In June 2024, in a separate suit against Compass Minnesota and Daniel Hollerman, Judge Susan Nelson sanctioned them, awarding Compass $36,520.63 and Hollerman $27,816.83. That is the case in which Judge Nelson took judicial notice that Williams is not licensed to practice law and rejected the argument that the Knapps’ choice of Williams as a representative was constitutionally protected. That ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit as of late 2024.²

The City of Glendale Case

In August 2024, Williams sued the City of Glendale, California, and its utility, Glendale Water and Power, in the Central District of California. The case, assigned to Judge Hernan D. Vera, used the same negotiable-instrument theory. Williams sought $4,000 in damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty after the city refused to accept his self-created payment documents.³

The city moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On November 27, 2024, Judge Vera agreed: the claims arose under state law, both parties were California residents, and the $4,000 at stake fell far below the $75,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. Williams was given 30 days to amend. He didn’t, and on January 27, 2025, Judge Vera dismissed the case and ordered the file closed.³

The SBA Case Through the Supreme Court

Williams received an Economic Injury Disaster Loan from the Small Business Administration in May 2020. On June 20, 2024, he sent the SBA a letter declaring the loan void and “ordering” the agency to discharge it, citing his readings of the Uniform Commercial Code.⁸ When the SBA did not comply, he filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court in September 2024, asking for rescission of the loan and $2 million in damages. His claims included breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of several California statutes.⁹

The SBA removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity and pleading grounds. On December 30, 2024, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Williams’s motion to remand and granted the SBA’s motion, ruling that Williams’s arguments were “legally frivolous” and matched sovereign citizen theories courts have “uniformly rejected.” Because amendment could not fix the problem, the dismissal was with prejudice.⁹¹⁰

Williams appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On July 16, 2025, the appellate court granted the government’s motion for summary disposition and affirmed the district court without further analysis.⁸ He then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, filing case No. 25-1221 on October 9, 2025, on questions about whether a “sue and be sued” clause defeats sovereign immunity and whether removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442.¹¹ The SBA waived response. On June 1, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the petition.¹²

What the Pattern Means

Across every case in which Williams has been a plaintiff or a representative, the outcome has been dismissal. American Express: dismissed with prejudice, July 2024. Knapp v. Wings: dismissed with prejudice, November 2024, with a pre-filing bar. Glendale: dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, January 2025. SBA: dismissed with prejudice December 2024, affirmed on appeal July 2025, cert denied June 2026. In the related Knapp v. Compass matter, the clients Williams advised paid more than $64,000 in sanctions.

Williams continues to list these cases on his website and to promote his theories. The published opinions have taken the unusual step of stating that the vapor money theory and related sovereign citizen arguments have been “uniformly rejected” by the federal judiciary, and that individuals who bring them face dismissal and, in some courts, financial penalties.

1
Midpage. Brandon Joe Williams v. American Express
2
Minnesota Lawyer. Court Rejects Vapor Money Theory
3
CourtListener. Brandon Joe Williams v. City of Glendale
4
The Amnesty Coalition. Questions and Answers
5
USPTO. Trademark Search – BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS
6
Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Mercado v. Arrow Truck Sales and Transport Funding
7
CourtListener. Brandon Joe Williams v. American Express Company
8
U.S. Supreme Court. Brandon Joe Williams v. Small Business Administration – Appendix
9
Archive.org. Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration – Order
10
Justia. Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration – Order
11
U.S. Supreme Court. Brandon Joe Williams v. Small Business Administration – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
12
U.S. Supreme Court. Docket for No. 25-1221