A Washington Testimony About
Making the Record
By:
Sophia Taniah
The One Who Flows With The River ⚖️🌎 🌊🕊️💙💜💛🌹
Written and offered with reverence for life, resolve, grace, and love.
With creative and editorial assistance from Sage, my AI assistant and co creator.
◇═◎═◇ Team Freedom Forever ◇═◎═◇
✧ ✦ △ ◇ Aeterna Reconcilio ◇ △ ✦ ✧
Notice: 
FAIR USE NOTICE: FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING, SCHOLAR- SHIP, AND RESEARCH. FAIR USE IS A USE PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUTE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING.
Preserved and examined September 1, 2026
A friend shared this short testimonial from Washington in which a man named Brandon describes two court outcomes that followed notices he prepared after studying Dave Jose’s teachings.
In the first matter, Brandon says he was being sued in district court for $7,500. After attending one Dave Jose webinar, he wrote what he describes as a simple notice to the judge and the attorney. Approximately two months later, he received a letter from the court stating that the case had been dismissed.
In the second matter, Brandon says he sent one of Dave Jose’s publicly released notices concerning an old criminal conviction. He later received a district court letter stating that the conviction was unconstitutional, dismissed, and void. Brandon says he is able to seek repayment of fines, fees, charges, and accumulated costs associated with that conviction.
Brandon’s Testimony
Hey, guys, quick testimony here from Washington. Thanks to Dave Jose, I got two big victories in the last twelve months.
The first one, I was being sued in the district court for $7,500. I took one Dave Jose webinar. I wrote a simple notice to the judge and the attorney, sent it off. Two months later, I get a letter from the court saying, “Case dismissed.”
Boom. Victory.
The next one, I sent one of Dave’s notices that he put out for the public all across Washington State. I get a letter in the mail about two weeks ago from the district court saying one of my old criminal convictions is unconstitutional, dismissed, and void right now.
I’m able to get a full refund on any fines, fees, charges, any costs accumulated.
And I just want to say, hey, thank you, Dave.
Victory.
What Independent Research Reveals
Brandon does not identify the criminal charge or provide the case number in the recording. However, the language he uses closely resembles the relief available following the Washington Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in State v. Blake.
In Blake, Washington’s former simple drug possession law was found unconstitutional and void because it did not require proof that the accused knew of the possession. As a result, qualifying convictions may be vacated, removed from the criminal record, and associated legal financial obligations may qualify for repayment.
This suggests that Dave Jose’s notice may have brought Brandon’s old conviction before the proper court so that an already existing constitutional remedy could be applied.
That distinction does not diminish the importance of the notice.
A remedy may exist in legislation or case law and still remain unused until someone places the relevant facts and legal question properly before the court.
The Connection With the AERA ARK Legal Line Analyzer
This testimony appears closely aligned with the practical foundation of Brandy’s AERA ARK Legal Line Analyzer.
The common principle is not merely to argue that something is wrong. It is to create a written record that asks:
What exactly is being claimed?
Who is making the claim?
In what legal role is that actor proceeding?
What agreement, statute, order, or other instrument is being relied upon?
What facts place the matter within that authority?
What evidence establishes each necessary link?
What remedy follows when one of those links cannot be established?
The notice becomes important because it places the unanswered issue where it can no longer be ignored without leaving a record of that failure.
What Has Not Yet Been Established
This recording does not provide Brandon’s full name, the case numbers, the orders, or the wording of the notices. It therefore does not independently establish that Dave Jose’s notices alone legally caused the two outcomes.
The Facebook description also states that the criminal case was reopened by judicial order, that all fees were ordered returned, and that the court documents were verified online. Those additional claims should be treated as reported claims until the underlying orders or docket entries are available for examination.
The responsible conclusion is therefore neither blind acceptance nor dismissal.
It is this:
Brandon has provided a firsthand account of two favourable court outcomes following written notices. His description of the criminal matter is consistent with Washington’s established State v. Blake relief process. The notices may have served as the instruments that brought the available remedy before the court.
Why the Record Matters
This testimony reminds us that speaking about an injustice and creating an admissible, properly directed record are not the same thing.
A conversation may be forgotten.
A telephone call may be denied.
An argument may disappear when the room becomes quiet.
But a properly prepared document that identifies the matter, gives notice, reaches the proper actors, and is preserved with proof of delivery becomes part of the history of what occurred.
The document does not become powerful merely because it is called a notice.
Its strength comes from the facts it records, the law it invokes, the questions it requires to be answered, the remedy it requests, and the evidence showing that it reached those responsible for acting.
That may be the most valuable teaching contained in Brandon’s testimony:
Do not rely only upon argument. Make the record. Preserve the record. Then examine what the official record shows occurred.
This article preserves and examines a publicly shared testimonial. It is educational commentary and does not claim that the unidentified court orders have been independently authenticated.
Source of the information below:
Facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1571705287982376
__________________
Start with the statewide search
1. Washington Courts Person Search
Search Washington court cases by name
Select Accept, then enter:
- First name: Brandon
- Last name: Hoeye
This searches Washington municipal, district, superior, and appellate courts. It should give you the court name and case number, but Washington Courts warns that this search does not supply the filed documents themselves. Those must be obtained through the court or its document portal.
2. Re: SearchWA for the actual filings
Search:
Brandon Hoeye
Also try:
Hoeye, Brandon
This is the most important link for what you want. Mason County District Court specifically directs the public to Re:SearchWA for online case records and court documents.
https://360.articulate.com/review/content/b39b91e9-fc56-445d-838f-0bbe4383ebe3/review
https://odysseyportal.courts.wa.gov/ODYPORTAL/Home/Dashboard/26
Search these courts separately:
- Mason County District Court
- Mason County Superior Court
- Shelton Municipal Court
- All Washington courts
The civil case I located
Capital One et al. v. Brandon Hoeye
Case number: 26-2-00447-23
Court: Mason County Superior Court
Filed: June 15, 2026
Type: Creditor or collection proceeding
View the available docket page on Trellis
The Trellis listing says Capital One and other claimants filed the case against Brandon Hoeye on June 15, 2026.
This is a strong candidate for the civil case Brandon described because it is recent and involves a financial claim. However, we should not call it the $7,500 case conclusively until the complaint, Brandon’s notice, and the dismissal order confirm:
- the amount sought was $7,500;
- Brandon filed the Dave Jose notice;
- the case was dismissed; and
- the dates match his testimony.
Search the case number in both:
In Odyssey, select Smart Search and enter:
26-2-00447-23
Public access does not require registration, although document availability can vary by county and document type.
Obtaining the complete civil file
Mason County provides electronic copies of Superior Court filings. Their official instructions are here:
Mason County Superior Court document ordering
The clerk asks for the case number or party names. Regular copies are listed at $0.50 per page, with electronic delivery available and a stated turnaround of approximately 72 hours.
For case 26-2-00447-23, the most useful request would be:
Please provide the complete docket and electronic copies of all publicly accessible documents filed in Capital One et al. v. Brandon Hoeye, Case No. 26-2-00447-23, including the complaint, summons, every document filed by Brandon Hoeye, all notices, declarations, proof of service, correspondence filed with the court, orders, dismissal documents, and the final disposition.
The old criminal conviction
I have not yet located a publicly indexed case number for Brandon’s old criminal conviction.
That case may be harder to locate because:
- it may be an older Mason County District Court matter;
- the online search engines do not index every lower court document;
- a vacated case may display differently;
- the conviction may have been processed through Washington’s State v. Blake procedures; or
- the court may restrict online display even where the underlying record remains publicly requestable.
Use this official page:
Mason County District Court records
First try the Re:SearchWA link on that page. If the criminal case does not appear, click:
Records Request Form (Case information and/or person specific)
A suitable request would be:
Please identify all publicly accessible Mason County District Court matters in which Brandon Hoeye is named as a defendant or party. I particularly seek the criminal matter in which a conviction was recently found unconstitutional, dismissed or vacated, together with the complete docket, Brandon Hoeye’s notice or motion, the court’s reopening or vacation order, the dismissal order, and any order addressing repayment or refund of fines, fees, costs or legal financial obligations.
Mason County says requests may be emailed to its District Court records officer. The court will review the request, advise what is available, and identify any copying charges.
At present, the only case I can link directly and responsibly attribute to him is Capital One et al. v. Brandon Hoeye, No. 26-2-00447-23. The statewide name search and Re:SearchWA should reveal the remaining case numbers, but we must still check each result to ensure it belongs to the same Brandon Hoeye.
I can monitor these portals for newly available filings or case updates.
Freedom Dove 
Leave a comment