Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
The source contains an Exhibit2 cover and an amount schedule marked as of June9,2025. An unofficial-copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District
The source contains an Exhibit2 cover and an amount schedule marked as of June9,2025. An unofficial-copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark appears. No caption, cause number, author, signature or operative judicial direction appears in these two pages; the column heading Order does not itself make this a court order.
The schedule includes substantial receiver and legal fees in addition to judgment and postjudgment interest. It provides no award orders, un
The schedule includes substantial receiver and legal fees in addition to judgment and postjudgment interest. It provides no award orders, underlying invoices, interest accrual dates/day count, payment credits or evidence of actual disbursement. Its as-of total is not a current balance or proof all listed amounts were judicially approved.
The total is arithmetically reproducible, but neither the court-watermark nor the Order heading establishes that each fee component was allo
The total is arithmetically reproducible, but neither the court-watermark nor the Order heading establishes that each fee component was allowed or paid.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 2-page source reviewed at SHA-256 0662e4150511112c20a76771f7b109099fa5e0f7fe4a9e33853afe8254a2edae. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 2-page source reviewed at SHA-256 0662e4150511112c20a76771f7b109099fa5e0f7fe4a9e33853afe8254a2edae. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Exact version_b63aa618654b42eda92a6a59c5c4ac1f; SHA256 0662e4150511112c20a76771f7b109099fa5e0f7fe4a9e33853afe8254a2edae. Every supplied page read. All substantive page images checked, including financial rows and signatures. Arithmetic independently recomputed; source assertion, entitlement and payment remain separate.
What source order, invoices and interest/credit ledger establish the amount and status of each component in this June9 schedule?
distillateobservation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12.00%; prejudgment $0 at0.00%; postjudgment $420,121.22; trial attorneys’ fees $187,863.69; RO attorneys’ fees $1,750; receiver’s fee $765,113.62; expenses $83,341.22; Grady attorneys’ fees $21,677.50; Vargo attorneys’ fees $21,880; Caudle attorneys’ fees $9,392.50. All displayed monetary components sum exactly $3,083,639.75.referencesJune3,2025 $2,755,100.10 and June9 $345,000 total $3,100,100.10. Footnote1 says these covered the $3,083,639.75 protective advance and that $16,460.35 difference was applied to Legalist’s legal fees. The stated allocation reconciles exactly; the source does not provide bank execution or a full legal-fee ledger to test classification or overlap.
Schedule total exactly matches later Legalist response protective-advance component; same amount does not authenticate allowance or payment.
The source contains an Exhibit2 cover and an amount schedule marked as of June9,2025. An unofficial-copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark appears. No caption, cause number, author, signature or operative judicial direction appears in these two pages; the column heading Order does not itself make this a court order.supportsWhat source order, invoices and interest/credit ledger establish the amount and status of each component in this June9 schedule?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12.00%; prejudgment $0 at0.00%; postjudgment $420,121.22; trial attorneys’ fees $187,863.69; RO attorneys’ fees $1,750; receiver’s fee $765,113.62; expenses $83,341.22; Grady attorneys’ fees $21,677.50; Vargo attorneys’ fees $21,880; Caudle attorneys’ fees $9,392.50. All displayed monetary components sum exactly $3,083,639.75.supportsThe total is arithmetically reproducible, but neither the court-watermark nor the Order heading establishes that each fee component was allowed or paid.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12.00%; prejudgment $0 at0.00%; postjudgment $420,121.22; trial attorneys’ fees $187,863.69; RO attorneys’ fees $1,750; receiver’s fee $765,113.62; expenses $83,341.22; Grady attorneys’ fees $21,677.50; Vargo attorneys’ fees $21,880; Caudle attorneys’ fees $9,392.50. All displayed monetary components sum exactly $3,083,639.75.supportsDoes this source prove a court awarded and paid $3,083,639.75?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The schedule includes substantial receiver and legal fees in addition to judgment and postjudgment interest. It provides no award orders, underlying invoices, interest accrual dates/day count, payment credits or evidence of actual disbursement. Its as-of total is not a current balance or proof all listed amounts were judicially approved.supportsDoes this source prove a court awarded and paid $3,083,639.75?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The schedule includes substantial receiver and legal fees in addition to judgment and postjudgment interest. It provides no award orders, underlying invoices, interest accrual dates/day count, payment credits or evidence of actual disbursement. Its as-of total is not a current balance or proof all listed amounts were judicially approved.supportsThe total is arithmetically reproducible, but neither the court-watermark nor the Order heading establishes that each fee component was allowed or paid.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The source contains an Exhibit2 cover and an amount schedule marked as of June9,2025. An unofficial-copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark appears. No caption, cause number, author, signature or operative judicial direction appears in these two pages; the column heading Order does not itself make this a court order.supportsDoes this source prove a court awarded and paid $3,083,639.75?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The table lists judgment $1,572,500 at12.00%; prejudgment $0 at0.00%; postjudgment $420,121.22; trial attorneys’ fees $187,863.69; RO attorneys’ fees $1,750; receiver’s fee $765,113.62; expenses $83,341.22; Grady attorneys’ fees $21,677.50; Vargo attorneys’ fees $21,880; Caudle attorneys’ fees $9,392.50. All displayed monetary components sum exactly $3,083,639.75.supportsWhat source order, invoices and interest/credit ledger establish the amount and status of each component in this June9 schedule?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The schedule includes substantial receiver and legal fees in addition to judgment and postjudgment interest. It provides no award orders, underlying invoices, interest accrual dates/day count, payment credits or evidence of actual disbursement. Its as-of total is not a current balance or proof all listed amounts were judicially approved.supportsWhat source order, invoices and interest/credit ledger establish the amount and status of each component in this June9 schedule?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The source contains an Exhibit2 cover and an amount schedule marked as of June9,2025. An unofficial-copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk watermark appears. No caption, cause number, author, signature or operative judicial direction appears in these two pages; the column heading Order does not itself make this a court order.supportsThe total is arithmetically reproducible, but neither the court-watermark nor the Order heading establishes that each fee component was allowed or paid.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
Explained weighting
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
No published WEIGH run
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.