Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Berleth’s final report/accounting and disbursement/termination motion is verified and service-certified June11,2025, later filed as August4
Berleth’s final report/accounting and disbursement/termination motion is verified and service-certified June11,2025, later filed as August4 federal Exhibit9. The receiver swears personal knowledge and truth of facts; his opinions and requests remain distinguishable from court findings.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 9
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 582
claimallegation
The receiver reports legal research, communications, oath and bond, physical possession, inventory/shipment supervision and receipt/accounti
The receiver reports legal research, communications, oath and bond, physical possession, inventory/shipment supervision and receipt/accounting work. He states $3,083,639.75 recovered and $83,341.22 expenses, describing work and fees as reasonable and necessary. No time records, invoices, inventory or banking support is attached.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
claimallegation
He seeks allocation of $2,182,234.91 to plaintiff, $21,677.50 to BellNunnally, $21,880 to Vargo Law Firm, $9,392.50 to Caudle Law Firm, $83,
He seeks allocation of $2,182,234.91 to plaintiff, $21,677.50 to BellNunnally, $21,880 to Vargo Law Firm, $9,392.50 to Caudle Law Firm, $83,341.22 receiver expenses and $765,113.62 receiver fee. The six figures sum exactly to $3,083,639.75. BellNunnally/Vargo lines awkwardly say to Defendant while describing plaintiff fees, and the main judgment is labelled cause23-07422; those printed ambiguities are not silently repaired.
Read the anchor · page 4
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9 Filed 08/04/25 Page 4 of 8 PagelD# 585
B. COLLECTIONS ACCOUNTING
6. During the receivership there have been funds totaling $3,083,639.75
which are being held in trust for this receivership.
7. The Receiver recommends and request authorization to disburse funds as
tollows:
a. $2,182,234.91 to Plaintiff, reflecting full and final satisfaction of the
Virginia court judgment, cause no. 23-07422, styled Atlantic Waves
Holdings, LLC, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia.
b. $21,677-50 to BellNunnally to Defendant, reflecting a portion of the
legal fees incurred by the Plaintiff.
c. $21,880.00 to Vargo Law Firm, PC to Defendant, reflecting attorney's
fees incurred by the Plaintiff.
d. $9,392.50 to Caudle Law Firm, reflecting full and final satisfaction of
cause no. CL22-3882-4, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond,
Virginia.
e. $83,341.22 to the Receiver as reasonable and incurred expenses in the
prosecution of the receivership, to be taxed as a cost of court.
†. $765,113.62 as the Receiver's Fee to be taxed as a cost of court.
g. Any incidental interest, fractional cents, or small calculation errors to
be forwarded to the Texas Access to Justice Foundation.
8. As of date of this filing, the Receiver has not distributed funds, funds are
being held by the Receiver for distribution in trust.
claimallegation
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of th
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of the $3,083,639.75 recovered.33% of that total would be $1,017,601.12 rounded. No alternative denominator or calculation explains the difference. This is a reconciliation gap, not proof of overcharging.
Read the anchor · page 3
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 8 PagelD# 584
reviewing records concerning Defendant, preparing and filing the Receiver Oath,
posting bond, taking physical possession of the real property, engaging and
supervising the inventory and shipment of goods in a commercially reasonable
manner, receiving and accounting for recovered funds, physical reconnoiter of the
debtors going concerns, and preparing and filing this Receiver's Verified Motion
for Disbursement and the proposed Order.
2. In accordance with the Order, The Receiver has recovered from the
Debtor $3,083,639.75, the balance owed on the Judgment Calculation.
3. It is the Receiver's opinion the Receiver's actions in this receivership
to date were reasonable and necessary. It is the Receiver's belief all expenses and
fees incurred during the receivership is a customary, reasonable, and necessary fee
for the services rendered in Harris County, Texas. The receiver collected the full
amount of the judgment, and is thus entitled to his presumptive fee of 33% of the
total amount collected.
4.
The receiver incurred expenses of $83,341.22. These expenses were
necessary to complete the receivership and shipment of the final inventory.
5.
The receiver is aware of a TRO/serial receivership in cause no. 2025-
41073, styled Tucker v. Cyberlux, in the 129th District Court that will take effect
upon the termination of this receivership.
claimallegation
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termina
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termination and discharge, and reports a Tucker v Cyberlux TRO/serial receivership in2025-41073 expected to take effect upon termination. Those are reported custody and requested/anticipated transitions, not evidence this motion was granted or funds paid.
Read the anchor · page 3
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 8 PagelD# 584
reviewing records concerning Defendant, preparing and filing the Receiver Oath,
posting bond, taking physical possession of the real property, engaging and
supervising the inventory and shipment of goods in a commercially reasonable
manner, receiving and accounting for recovered funds, physical reconnoiter of the
debtors going concerns, and preparing and filing this Receiver's Verified Motion
for Disbursement and the proposed Order.
2. In accordance with the Order, The Receiver has recovered from the
Debtor $3,083,639.75, the balance owed on the Judgment Calculation.
3. It is the Receiver's opinion the Receiver's actions in this receivership
to date were reasonable and necessary. It is the Receiver's belief all expenses and
fees incurred during the receivership is a customary, reasonable, and necessary fee
for the services rendered in Harris County, Texas. The receiver collected the full
amount of the judgment, and is thus entitled to his presumptive fee of 33% of the
total amount collected.
4.
The receiver incurred expenses of $83,341.22. These expenses were
necessary to complete the receivership and shipment of the final inventory.
5.
The receiver is aware of a TRO/serial receivership in cause no. 2025-
41073, styled Tucker v. Cyberlux, in the 129th District Court that will take effect
upon the termination of this receivership.
claimallegation
The motion seeks submission more than five days after service or an oral hearing and warns relief may be granted absent response within five
The motion seeks submission more than five days after service or an oral hearing and warns relief may be granted absent response within five days. Verification bears June11 and notary Sheli Marie Davis; the visible stamp expiration is02-26-2029 while typed expiration says April25,2029. The discrepancy is preserved without declaring notarisation invalid.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
entityobservation
Robert W. Berleth
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
entityobservation
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
entityobservation
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
entityobservation
MARK D. SCHMIDT
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
entityobservation
Sheli Marie Davis
Read the anchor · page 7
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9 Filed 08/04/25 Page 7 of 8 PagelD# 588
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared
Robert Berleth, who, being by me duly sworn upon oath deposed and stated as
tollows:
"My name is Robert Berleth. I am the appointed Receiver in the above-
styled case and I have personal knowledge of the facts contained and asserted
herein. The facts contained herein are true and correct and I am fully authorized
to make this affidavit."
RIBAL
Robert Berleth
APPOINTED RECEIVER
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me by Robert Berleth on Wednesday,
June 11, 2025, to certify which, witness my hand and seal of office.
• Notary Public, Stata of Toxas
SHELI MARIE DAVIS
Comm. Cxpires 02-26-2029
Notary Public in and for the
Notary ID 132943751
State of Texas
Printed Name:
Sheli Marie Davis
My Commission Expires:
April 25, 2029
inferenceinference
The proposed allocation reconciles completely to reported trust funds while the percentage explanation does not reconcile to the fee line. A
The proposed allocation reconciles completely to reported trust funds while the percentage explanation does not reconcile to the fee line. A reviewer must separate an internally balanced distribution schedule from an adequately justified fee and from actual distribution.
omissiongap
No bank ledger, expense support, fee calculation, inventory, objections, termination order or successor order accompanies the motion.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9
Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 583
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC.,
Plaintiffs, Judgment-Creditors,
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants, Judgment-Debtors. §
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT, FINAL ACCOUNTING,
VERIFIED MOTION FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS,
AND MOTION TO TERMINATE RECEIVERSHIP
NOTICE: IF NO WRITTEN RESPONSE OR OBJECTION TO THE
MOTION IS FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE
DATE OF SERVICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF
REQUESTED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OF HEARING.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert W. Berleth, of Berleth, as Receiver, appointed by this
Honorable Court as Receiver on May 22, 2025 hereinafter the "Order" to take and
files this Receiver's Final Report, Final Accounting, Verified Motion for
Disbursement of Funds, and Motion to Terminate Receivership, and for good
cause shows the following:
A. REPORT OF RECEIVER
1. The work performed by Receiver in this Receivership to date includes,
without limitation, the following: researching the latest developments in relevant
turnover receivership law, communications with Plaintiff's counsel,
communications with Defendant's counsel, communications with other creditors,
otherattribution
Complete supplied 8-page source reviewed at SHA-256 2776c8fa34854f3cf0a4a664f6a325228e246c4228c1f5874539e1a9de5c4419. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 8-page source reviewed at SHA-256 2776c8fa34854f3cf0a4a664f6a325228e246c4228c1f5874539e1a9de5c4419. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Exact version_ea5c232354fb4fc2a9d180bc8e21a6f2; SHA256 2776c8fa34854f3cf0a4a664f6a325228e246c4228c1f5874539e1a9de5c4419. All8 pages read; allocation and verification visually checked; original extraction preserved.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 9
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-9 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 582
questionquestion
What ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successo
What ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successor receivership?
distillateallegation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termination and discharge, and reports a Tucker v Cyberlux TRO/serial receivership in2025-41073 expected to take effect upon termination. Those are reported custody and requested/anticipated transitions, not evidence this motion was granted or funds paid.qualifiesAt 9:49 AM Berleth disputes payment in full, cites Cyberlux objections to disbursement and says the receivership remains. He predicts September or October as the earliest termination hearing and asserts the appeal prevents setting it meanwhile. These are counsel’s legal and procedural assertions; no docket or order establishes them here. He interprets Priddy’s email as instructions to proceed without Legalist.
June11 requests termination with funds held; June27 disputes satisfaction and describes ongoing receivership. Intervening objections/orders are required, not an assumed contradiction in cash receipt.
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of the $3,083,639.75 recovered.33% of that total would be $1,017,601.12 rounded. No alternative denominator or calculation explains the difference. This is a reconciliation gap, not proof of overcharging.qualifiesThe fee clause states 25% of asset sales, recoveries and judgment credits, with hearing and proof language referring to Rohrmoos. More than 25% may be awarded after notice and opportunity for hearing; 33% is described as a possible award on full collection. A bankruptcy clause specifies 25% of debt and a secured-claim condition. These terms do not establish an actual fee calculation or payment.
Signed order describes potential33% award after conditions; motion asserts presumptive entitlement but fee denominator remains unexplained.
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termination and discharge, and reports a Tucker v Cyberlux TRO/serial receivership in2025-41073 expected to take effect upon termination. Those are reported custody and requested/anticipated transitions, not evidence this motion was granted or funds paid.supportsWhat ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successor receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He seeks allocation of $2,182,234.91 to plaintiff, $21,677.50 to BellNunnally, $21,880 to Vargo Law Firm, $9,392.50 to Caudle Law Firm, $83,341.22 receiver expenses and $765,113.62 receiver fee. The six figures sum exactly to $3,083,639.75. BellNunnally/Vargo lines awkwardly say to Defendant while describing plaintiff fees, and the main judgment is labelled cause23-07422; those printed ambiguities are not silently repaired.supportsHad this accounting already distributed funds or terminated the receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion seeks submission more than five days after service or an oral hearing and warns relief may be granted absent response within five days. Verification bears June11 and notary Sheli Marie Davis; the visible stamp expiration is02-26-2029 while typed expiration says April25,2029. The discrepancy is preserved without declaring notarisation invalid.supportsWhat ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successor receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of the $3,083,639.75 recovered.33% of that total would be $1,017,601.12 rounded. No alternative denominator or calculation explains the difference. This is a reconciliation gap, not proof of overcharging.supportsNo bank ledger, expense support, fee calculation, inventory, objections, termination order or successor order accompanies the motion.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of the $3,083,639.75 recovered.33% of that total would be $1,017,601.12 rounded. No alternative denominator or calculation explains the difference. This is a reconciliation gap, not proof of overcharging.supportsHad this accounting already distributed funds or terminated the receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He seeks allocation of $2,182,234.91 to plaintiff, $21,677.50 to BellNunnally, $21,880 to Vargo Law Firm, $9,392.50 to Caudle Law Firm, $83,341.22 receiver expenses and $765,113.62 receiver fee. The six figures sum exactly to $3,083,639.75. BellNunnally/Vargo lines awkwardly say to Defendant while describing plaintiff fees, and the main judgment is labelled cause23-07422; those printed ambiguities are not silently repaired.supportsThe proposed allocation reconciles completely to reported trust funds while the percentage explanation does not reconcile to the fee line. A reviewer must separate an internally balanced distribution schedule from an adequately justified fee and from actual distribution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver reports legal research, communications, oath and bond, physical possession, inventory/shipment supervision and receipt/accounting work. He states $3,083,639.75 recovered and $83,341.22 expenses, describing work and fees as reasonable and necessary. No time records, invoices, inventory or banking support is attached.supportsWhat ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successor receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of the $3,083,639.75 recovered.33% of that total would be $1,017,601.12 rounded. No alternative denominator or calculation explains the difference. This is a reconciliation gap, not proof of overcharging.supportsWhat ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successor receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver reports legal research, communications, oath and bond, physical possession, inventory/shipment supervision and receipt/accounting work. He states $3,083,639.75 recovered and $83,341.22 expenses, describing work and fees as reasonable and necessary. No time records, invoices, inventory or banking support is attached.supportsNo bank ledger, expense support, fee calculation, inventory, objections, termination order or successor order accompanies the motion.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver reports legal research, communications, oath and bond, physical possession, inventory/shipment supervision and receipt/accounting work. He states $3,083,639.75 recovered and $83,341.22 expenses, describing work and fees as reasonable and necessary. No time records, invoices, inventory or banking support is attached.supportsThe proposed allocation reconciles completely to reported trust funds while the percentage explanation does not reconcile to the fee line. A reviewer must separate an internally balanced distribution schedule from an adequately justified fee and from actual distribution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termination and discharge, and reports a Tucker v Cyberlux TRO/serial receivership in2025-41073 expected to take effect upon termination. Those are reported custody and requested/anticipated transitions, not evidence this motion was granted or funds paid.supportsThe proposed allocation reconciles completely to reported trust funds while the percentage explanation does not reconcile to the fee line. A reviewer must separate an internally balanced distribution schedule from an adequately justified fee and from actual distribution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion asserts entitlement to a presumptive33% fee on the total amount collected, yet proposed $765,113.62 is approximately24.812% of the $3,083,639.75 recovered.33% of that total would be $1,017,601.12 rounded. No alternative denominator or calculation explains the difference. This is a reconciliation gap, not proof of overcharging.supportsThe proposed allocation reconciles completely to reported trust funds while the percentage explanation does not reconcile to the fee line. A reviewer must separate an internally balanced distribution schedule from an adequately justified fee and from actual distribution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He seeks allocation of $2,182,234.91 to plaintiff, $21,677.50 to BellNunnally, $21,880 to Vargo Law Firm, $9,392.50 to Caudle Law Firm, $83,341.22 receiver expenses and $765,113.62 receiver fee. The six figures sum exactly to $3,083,639.75. BellNunnally/Vargo lines awkwardly say to Defendant while describing plaintiff fees, and the main judgment is labelled cause23-07422; those printed ambiguities are not silently repaired.supportsWhat ledger, fee calculation, invoices, objections and granting order establish the approved and actually paid distribution and any successor receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termination and discharge, and reports a Tucker v Cyberlux TRO/serial receivership in2025-41073 expected to take effect upon termination. Those are reported custody and requested/anticipated transitions, not evidence this motion was granted or funds paid.supportsHad this accounting already distributed funds or terminated the receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Berleth expressly states no funds have been distributed and they remain held in trust. He seeks judgment satisfaction, distribution, termination and discharge, and reports a Tucker v Cyberlux TRO/serial receivership in2025-41073 expected to take effect upon termination. Those are reported custody and requested/anticipated transitions, not evidence this motion was granted or funds paid.supportsNo bank ledger, expense support, fee calculation, inventory, objections, termination order or successor order accompanies the motion.
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.