Evidence Record
Declaration of David M. Keithly in Support of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC’s and Secure Community, LLC’s Further Supplemental Update re: Defendants’ Motion to Vacate
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this Court. I am a partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Atlantic...
DISTIL analysis
DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
court_declaration
Total Nodes
32
Node Legend
Entity (ENT)
Event (EVT)
Claim (CLM)
Anchor (ANC)
Omission (OMI)
Tension (TEN)
Tell (TEL)
Inference (INF)
Hypothesis (HYP)
Stage 1
Index
Orientation · No nodes
Document Classification
court_declaration attorney_for_plaintiffs civil_litigation_judgment_enforcement 2024-04-13 to 2024-11-07
contains_allegations_of_fraudcontains_anonymous_sourcejudgment_enforcement_disputeinterstate_jurisdictional_conflict
Analytical Frame
evidence_of_misrepresentation_and_financial_instability
Analytical Summary
This declaration by attorney David M. Keithly supports plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community in their judgment enforcement action against Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt. Keithly attests that defendants' counsel falsely represented to a Texas court that a stay of enforcement had been granted in Virginia proceedings, when no such stay existed. The Texas court granted a temporary 30-day stay based on this misrepresentation. Additionally, Keithly presents an anonymous email from an alleged defense industry advisor detailing concerns discovered during due diligence on Cyberlux, including cessation of direct DOD contracts since 2015, significant unpaid debts, questionable claims about classified work, and absence of required security clearances and facilities. The declaration characterizes these matters as evidence of defendants' strategy to obstruct judgment collection through jurisdictional confusion and highlights credibility issues regarding Cyberlux's financial stability and representations about its government contracting activities.
Key Points
- Defendants' counsel falsely told Texas court that Virginia stay of enforcement existed
- Texas court granted 30-day stay based on misrepresentation, but allowed discovery to continue
- Anonymous advisor email claims Cyberlux has no direct DOD contracts since 2015
- Due diligence allegedly revealed significant unpaid debts, tax liens, and judgments against Cyberlux
- Anonymous source questions legitimacy of Cyberlux's claimed classified work and security clearances
- Keithly characterizes defendants' actions as strategy to create jurisdictional confusion and delay enforcement
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
17 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
David M. Keithly
David M. Keithly, attorney licensed in California, partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, counsel for plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC and Secure Community LLC
Page 1, 2 — David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101...I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this Court. I am a partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
ENT-002
Entity
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, plaintiff and judgment creditor in enforcement action
Page 1, 2 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company...Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
ENT-003
Entity
Secure Community, LLC
Secure Community, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, plaintiff and judgment creditor in enforcement action
Page 1, 2 — SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a Virginia limited Liability company...Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
ENT-004
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Cyberlux Corporation, a Nevada corporation, defendant and judgment debtor in enforcement action
Page 1, 5 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation...Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (collectively, "Defendants")
ENT-005
Entity
Mark D. Schmidt
Mark D. Schmidt, individual defendant and CEO of Cyberlux Corporation, judgment debtor
Page 1, 2 — MARK D. SCHMIDT...Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (collectively, "Defendants")...Mr. Schmidt, the CEO of Cyberlux
ENT-006
Entity
Texas District Court (Harris County)
129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, venue for domesticated judgment enforcement proceedings
Page 5 — IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF...HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS...129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT...CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ENT-007
Entity
Anonymous Defense Industry Advisor
Anonymous individual claiming to be advisor to significant defense company, sender of April 26, 2024 email regarding Cyberlux due diligence
Page 2, 8 — I received an email from an anonymous sender on April 13, 2024...The sender, claiming to be an advisor for a significant defense company, indicated that Cyberlux approached them for a potential partnership or acquisition
EVT-001
Event
Texas Court Hearing on Motion to Vacate
Hearing held October 28, 2024 via Zoom in Texas court on Cyberlux's motion to vacate plaintiffs' domesticated judgment, during which defendants' counsel allegedly misrepresented existence of Virginia stay
Page 2 — On October 28, 2024, I attended the hearing via Zoom on Cyberlux's motion to vacate Plaintiffs' domesticated Judgment in Texas. During this hearing, I observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement was entered in the Virginia proceedings.
EVT-002
Event
Texas Court Order Granting Partial Stay
Texas court issued order on October 31, 2024 denying motion to vacate but granting 30-day stay of execution on judgment until November 28, 2024, while allowing post-judgment discovery to proceed
Page 5 — ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Vacate is DENIED. ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Stay is GRANTED for a period of thirty days, only to stay execution on the judgment, until November 28, 2024. Plaintiffs may proceed with post-judgment discovery in this matter, which is not stayed.
EVT-003
Event
Receipt of Anonymous Email
David Keithly received anonymous email dated April 26, 2024 (referencing April 13, 2024 investigation) containing due diligence findings about Cyberlux from purported defense industry advisor
Page 2, 8 — Additionally, I received an email from an anonymous sender on April 13, 2024, which provided information about questionable activities at Cyberlux...Date: Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
EVT-004
Event
Cyberlux Approach to Defense Company
Cyberlux approached significant defense company for potential partnership or acquisition, prompting preliminary due diligence investigation
Page 8 — I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux. The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging into) with the company I advise. We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux.
CLM-001
Claim
False Representation about Virginia Stay
Keithly claims defendants' counsel falsely represented to Texas court that stay of enforcement was entered in Virginia proceedings, when no stay existed
Page 2 — I observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement was entered in the Virginia proceedings. The representation made by Defendants' counsel was entirely false, as no stay has been granted or even considered in Virginia.
CLM-002
Claim
Cyberlux No Direct DOD Contracts Since 2015
Anonymous source claims Cyberlux is not currently a direct supplier to US DOD and direct contracts ceased in 2015, with current work being through subcontracts
Page 8 — CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD...The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HII Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries)...you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux ceased in 2015.
CLM-003
Claim
Cyberlux GSA Contract Cancelled in 2020
Anonymous source claims Cyberlux GSA contract (GS-07F-9409S) was cancelled by government on November 2, 2020, but company still advertises it on website
Page 8 — the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
CLM-004
Claim
Cyberlux Significant Unpaid Debts
Anonymous source claims Dun and Bradstreet credit report from September 2023 revealed significant unpaid debts, judgments, and tax liens against Cyberlux
Page 8 — a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements, and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
CLM-005
Claim
Questionable Security Clearance Claims
Anonymous source concludes it is highly improbable that DOD granted personal security clearances or facility clearances to Cyberlux given legal and financial issues
Page 9 — Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US DOD has granted Mr Schmidt, or Mr Kalenja personal security clearances...we find that it is highly improbable that the US DOD has granted Cyberlux or any of its subsidiaries Facility Clearances to execute "classified" contracts.
CLM-006
Claim
Litigation Damaged Schmidt's Credibility
Anonymous source states dual litigation between AWH and Cyberlux damaged Mark Schmidt's credibility due to allegations of misuse of funds and withholding information
Page 8 — During the course of that investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility (misuse of funds, withholding information).
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
8 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Keithly on False Representation
Direct attestation by Keithly that he observed false representation about Virginia stay during hearing
Page 2 — During this hearing, I observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement was entered in the Virginia proceedings.
QUO-002
Quotation
Anonymous Source: Credibility Damage
Anonymous source characterizes AWH litigation as most troubling discovery damaging Schmidt's credibility
Page 8 — This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility (misuse of funds, withholding information).
TEN-001
Tension
Court Granted Stay Despite False Premise
Texas court granted 30-day stay based on allegedly false representation about Virginia stay, though motion to vacate was denied
Page 2, 5 — This misrepresentation misled the Texas court into temporarily staying enforcement of the Judgment for 30 days to allow Defendants the opportunity to present evidence of the supposed stay...ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Vacate is DENIED. ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Stay is GRANTED for a period of thirty days
TEN-002
Tension
Classified Work Claims vs. Lack of Clearances
Cyberlux allegedly claims classified work while lacking required facility clearances, SCIFs, and ATF licenses according to anonymous source
Page 9 — The strong assertions in legal and financial documents that the company is engaged in highly classified work was suspect...We have been unable to verify that any facilities held by Cyberlux contain SCIFs...Neither Cyberlux, nor any of its subsidiaries hold FFL or FEL licenses with the ATF
TEN-003
Tension
Website Advertising Cancelled Contract
Cyberlux allegedly continues to advertise GSA contract on website despite government cancellation in 2020
Page 8 — the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020.
QST-001
Question
Reliability of Anonymous Source
What is the credibility and verifiability of the anonymous advisor's claims about Cyberlux, given the lack of identified source and potential bias?
Page 2, 8 — I received an email from an anonymous sender...claiming to be an advisor for a significant defense company...These elements are verifiable through public records.
QST-002
Question
Virginia Stay Status
What is the actual status of stay proceedings in Virginia, and was defendants' representation demonstrably false or based on pending motion?
Page 2 — The representation made by Defendants' counsel was entirely false, as no stay has been granted or even considered in Virginia. (Declaration of Federico J. Zablah in Support of Plaintiffs' Further Supplemental Update ("Zablah Decl."), 11 4-5.)
QST-003
Question
Purpose of Anonymous Email to Plaintiffs' Counsel
Why did the anonymous advisor send due diligence findings to plaintiffs' counsel, and what is the relationship or motive behind this communication?
Page 2, 8 — I received an email from an anonymous sender on April 13, 2024, which provided information about questionable activities at Cyberlux...There are elements which I wish to share with you.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
7 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Strategy of Jurisdictional Confusion
Keithly characterizes defendants' false representation about Virginia stay as part of broader strategy to create jurisdictional confusion and delay enforcement
Page 2 — This misrepresentation exemplifies Defendants' broader strategy to create jurisdictional confusion and delay Plaintiffs' enforcement efforts, thereby obstructing the legitimate collection of the Judgment.
INF-002
Inference
Financial Instability and Inability to Fulfill Obligations
Keithly infers from anonymous email that Cyberlux's financial stability is questionable and it may lack ability to fulfill contractual obligations
Page 3 — This email raises significant doubts about Cyberlux's financial stability and its ability to fulfill its contractual obligations, further highlighting the credibility issues surrounding the Defendants.
INF-003
Inference
Cyberlux Legal Team Not Being Told Truth
Anonymous source infers that inconsistencies in legal narrative suggest Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth by company
Page 9 — The inconsistencies identified after finer review of the legal narrative seems to imply that Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth.
INF-004
Inference
Impending Insolvency and Poor Cash Management
Anonymous source suspects factoring of $78.8M award indicates impending insolvency and poor cash management due to inadequate banking relationships
Page 9 — We suspect that the 78.8m award was "factored" in order to provide working capital as the company appears to have inadequate banking relationships. This gives us the impression of impending insolvency and poor cash management.
OMI-001
Omission
Defendants' Explanation for Court Statement
Declaration does not include defendants' counsel's explanation or basis for representation about Virginia stay, only Keithly's characterization as false
Page 2 — I observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement was entered in the Virginia proceedings. The representation made by Defendants' counsel was entirely false
OMI-002
Omission
Identity and Credentials of Anonymous Source
No verification provided of anonymous advisor's identity, credentials, or affiliation with claimed defense company, despite significant factual allegations
Page 2, 8 — I received an email from an anonymous sender...claiming to be an advisor for a significant defense company
OMI-003
Omission
Verification of Public Records Claims
While anonymous source states elements are verifiable through public records, declaration does not include independent verification of these claims by Keithly or plaintiffs
Page 8 — These elements are verifiable through public records...I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US Government and Cyberlux
Extracted text
9 pages · 12799 charactersFiling Header
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101 dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153 sross@mortensontaggart.com
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 774-2224 Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a Virginia limited Liability company, Plaintiffs, VS. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation and MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
Declaration
DECLARATION OF DAVID M. KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE
Filed concurrently with Further Supplemental Update, Declaration of William Welter and Declaration of Federico J. Zablah
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED BY THE COURT
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
DECLARATION OF DAVID M. KEITHLY
Declaration
I, David M. Keithly, declare and state as follows:
1.
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this Court. I am a partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, counsel of record for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called to testify, I could and would competently testify to the following facts.
2.
On October 28, 2024, I attended the hearing via Zoom on Cyberlux's motion to vacate Plaintiffs' domesticated Judgment in Texas. During this hearing, I observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement was entered in the Virginia proceedings.
3.
The representation made by Defendants' counsel was entirely false, as no stay has been granted or even considered in Virginia. (Declaration of Federico J. Zablah in Support of Plaintiffs' Further Supplemental Update ("Zablah Decl."), 11 4- 5.) This misrepresentation misled the Texas court into temporarily staying enforcement of the Judgment for 30 days to allow Defendants the opportunity to present evidence of the supposed stay, although it did not halt discovery. A true and correct unofficial copy of the Texas Court's order on Defendants' Motion to Vacate dated 10/31/2024 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4.
This misrepresentation exemplifies Defendants' broader strategy to create jurisdictional confusion and delay Plaintiffs' enforcement efforts, thereby obstructing the legitimate collection of the Judgment.
5.
Additionally, I received an email from an anonymous sender on April 13, 2024, which provided information about questionable activities at Cyberlux. The sender, claiming to be an advisor for a significant defense company, indicated that Cyberlux approached them for a potential partnership or acquisition. During a preliminary due diligence, several issues were discovered, including dual litigation involving Cyberlux and the Plaintiffs, which undermined the credibility of Mr.
Schmidt, the CEO of Cyberlux. The email detailed various concerns such as the cessation of direct contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense since 2015, significant unpaid debts, and questionable legal and financial practices. It also included claims that Cyberlux's purported classified work was suspect and not supported by required government clearances or facilities. This email raises significant doubts about Cyberlux's financial stability and its ability to fulfill its contractual obligations, further highlighting the credibility issues surrounding the Defendants. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the anonymous email I received.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration was executed on November 7, 2024, at Irvine, California.
0
David M. Keithly
Exhibit A
of 9
PageID.955 99/2024 11:29 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 93684126
By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 10/29/2024 11:29 AM
Pgs-2
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
STPRX
SPJUY
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
§
§
Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor
§
§
V.
§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
§
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually,
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors.
§
§ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION TO VACATE
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment filed by Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court has considered the Motion, responses, replies, and arguments of counsel and finds that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Vacate is DENIED.
ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Stay is GRANTED for a period of thirty days, only to stay execution on the judgment, until November 28, 2024. Plaintiffs may proceed with post- judgment discovery in this matter, which is not stayed.
ORDERED, Plaintiffs or Defendants may seek to extend the stay of this matter by appropriate motion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: Michael Romy
10/31/2024
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
By: /s/ Shawn M. Grady Shawn M. Grady SBN 24076411 LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLLC shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com 2100 West Loop South, Ste. 805 Houston, Texas 77027 Phone (832) 692-4542 Fax (832) 565-1796
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
By: /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark Katharine Battaia Clark State Bar No. 24046712 Alexander J. Pennetti State Bar No. 24110208 THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (972) 629-7171 kclark@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
COUNSEL FOR CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk
Exhibit B
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
To:
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachments: PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging into) with the company I advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility (misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public records.
1)
CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged "secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of $39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HII Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2)
An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3)
I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts within 90 days of award.
4)
the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5)
a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements, and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6)
An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7)
CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8)
Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
and therefore has never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
9)
Neither Cyberlux, nor any of its subsidiaries hold FFL or FEL licenses with the ATF (atf.gov) The claims that the "special activities" group deals in munitions and weapons is impossible given the lack of ATF licenses. This concern extends to the fusing, detonators, and explosive payloads used on the X8 drone.
Conclusions we reached based on these factual elements
1)
Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US DOD has granted Mr Schmidt, or Mr Kalenja personal security clearances.
2)
Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US DOD has granted Cyberlux or any of its subsidiaries Facility Clearances to execute "classified" contracts. We have been unable to verify that any facilities held by Cyberlux contain SCIFs.
3)
Given the past performance history and significant legal, credibility and financial issues we find that is it highly unlikely the DOD would do any DIRECT business with Cyberlux.
4)
We suspect that the 78.8m award was "factored" in order to provide working capital as the company appears to have inadequate banking relationships. This gives us the impression of impending insolvency and poor cash management.
5)
FMF (foreign military funding) cases are highly regulated from a financial perspective. Most notably the use of funds awarded is auditable by the USG and restricts payments to third parties for commissions etc. Contracts may also include limitations on profits under both FAR and DFAR regulation. As such, we do not understand how Cyberlux could legally commit to paying AWH a $5k commission per drone sold to settle the debt.
6)
The manner in which this contract was developed and awarded is suspicious to us. Further feedback from a customer served to, at a minimum, support our concerns. This particular award is part of a highly publicized aid package to Ukraine.
7)
It is not within the normal behavior of the government to classify contract documents (purchase orders, performance contracts etc). Generally the WORK/PRODUCT is classified.
8)
We have been unable to confidently determine where Cyberlux has been acquiring its funding to execute the purchase of Datron or Catalyst.
9)
CMTC appears to have been a shell company started by Mr Watts
10)
The strong assertions in legal and financial documents that the company is engaged in highly classified work was suspect. This open claim is contrary to the very nature of how companies who DO execute classified work behave.
11)
The inconsistencies identified after finer review of the legal narrative seems to imply that Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth.
12)
One legal filing by Mr Ozols asserted that Cyberlux was attempting to shield datron by "transferring, pledging, hypothecating, encumbering" the asset. A merger or acquisition between cyberlux and the company I advise would have made us party to this effort. This would have a negative effect on our company's reputation and standing.
Original source file
No source file is attached yet. The record is ready for the PDF/media link when the attachment importer is connected.
- File
- aw-awh-sdcal-00482-doc-032-attachment-1.pdf
- Source UID
- source:d0c1322ac60002250cc481dafac30b14daa0604067444180ca08ed7d2f78b315
- Full SHA-256
- d0c1322ac60002250cc481dafac30b14daa0604067444180ca08ed7d2f78b315