Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Christopher W. Bascom, Spotts Fain counsel for Legalist, declares personal knowledge under§1746 in support of summary judgment. Filed15April
Christopher W. Bascom, Spotts Fain counsel for Legalist, declares personal knowledge under§1746 in support of summary judgment. Filed15April2026 asEDVA175-9, the four-page declaration ends with his/s/ signature and same execution date. This authenticates his assertions, not the court’s adoption of Legalist’s priorities.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER W. BASCOM IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALIST SPV III, L.P.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher W. Bascom, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare:
1. I am over 18 years old and of sound mind. The following information is based on
my personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify on the matters herein.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm Spotts Fain, P.C. and am one of the attorneys
representing Defendant/Claimant Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”) in this matter. I am duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. I submit this declaration in support of Legalist ’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. All defined terms herein are the same as those in Legalist’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support.
4. In the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties to this suit agreed to answer one
interrogatory (the “Discovery Plan Interrogatory”) and two document requests (the “Discovery
Plan RFPs”) by March 9, 2026. ECF No. 149, ¶ 6.
5. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory Number 6 served by Atlantic Wave in response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2760
claimallegation
Bascom states the joint discovery plan required responses to one interrogatory and two production requests by9March2026, citingECF149§6, and
Bascom states the joint discovery plan required responses to one interrogatory and two production requests by9March2026, citingECF149§6, and identifies Atlantic Wave’s supplemental interrogatory response asExhibit8. The plan and response are referenced rather than reproduced.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER W. BASCOM IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALIST SPV III, L.P.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher W. Bascom, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare:
1. I am over 18 years old and of sound mind. The following information is based on
my personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify on the matters herein.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm Spotts Fain, P.C. and am one of the attorneys
representing Defendant/Claimant Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”) in this matter. I am duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. I submit this declaration in support of Legalist ’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. All defined terms herein are the same as those in Legalist’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support.
4. In the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties to this suit agreed to answer one
interrogatory (the “Discovery Plan Interrogatory”) and two document requests (the “Discovery
Plan RFPs”) by March 9, 2026. ECF No. 149, ¶ 6.
5. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory Number 6 served by Atlantic Wave in response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2760
claimallegation
Exhibits9–12 are identified as the15June2023 settlement,28June2023 amended judgment, AWHUCCfilings inNC/Texas/Virginia6July2023, California2
Exhibits9–12 are identified as the15June2023 settlement,28June2023 amended judgment, AWHUCCfilings inNC/Texas/Virginia6July2023, California20October2023 and Nevada20March2026, and30July2024 Texas enforcement petition. Dates preserve distinct instruments and do not alone adjudicate perfection or priority.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
6. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement
entered between Cyberlux and Atlantic Wave on June 15, 2023.
7. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Amended Final Order and
Judgment entered in Atlantic Wave’s favor by the Richmond Circuit Court on June 28, 2023.
8. Attached as Exhibit 11 are true and correct copies of the UCC statements filed by
Atlantic Wave in in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia on July 6, 2023, in California on October
20, 2023, and in Nevada on March 20, 2026.
9. Attached as Exhibit 1 2 is a true and correct copy of Petition to Enforce Foreign
Judgment filed in the Texas Action on July 30, 2024.
10. Attached as Exhibit 1 3 is a true and correct copy of the Motion to Supplement
Receivership filed in the Texas Action on August 29, 2025.
11. Attached as Exhibit 1 4 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Motion for Distribution of Funds filed in the Texas Action on January 6, 2026.
12. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of Cyberlux’s opposition to the
Motion for Distribution of Funds in the Texas Action.
13. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the Amended (Joint) Motion
to Supplement Receivership filed in the Texas Action on February 20, 2026.
14. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of the Joint Notice of Settlement
and Joint Motion for Release of Funds, For Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership
filed in the Texas Action on February 26, 2026.
15. Attached as Exhibit 1 8 is a true and correct copy of the Order on Judgment
Creditors’ Second Amended Motion for Distribution of Funds signed by the judge in the Texas
Action on March 2, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 2761
claimallegation
Exhibits13–20 cover the29August2025 expansion motion,6January2026 distribution motion/opposition,20February expansion motion,26February join
Exhibits13–20 cover the29August2025 expansion motion,6January2026 distribution motion/opposition,20February expansion motion,26February joint settlement motion, signed2March distribution order, signed13March nonsuit order and2March hearing transcript. Describing the exhibit series is not a global discharge or expansion finding.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
6. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement
entered between Cyberlux and Atlantic Wave on June 15, 2023.
7. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Amended Final Order and
Judgment entered in Atlantic Wave’s favor by the Richmond Circuit Court on June 28, 2023.
8. Attached as Exhibit 11 are true and correct copies of the UCC statements filed by
Atlantic Wave in in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia on July 6, 2023, in California on October
20, 2023, and in Nevada on March 20, 2026.
9. Attached as Exhibit 1 2 is a true and correct copy of Petition to Enforce Foreign
Judgment filed in the Texas Action on July 30, 2024.
10. Attached as Exhibit 1 3 is a true and correct copy of the Motion to Supplement
Receivership filed in the Texas Action on August 29, 2025.
11. Attached as Exhibit 1 4 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Motion for Distribution of Funds filed in the Texas Action on January 6, 2026.
12. Attached as Exhibit 15 is a true and correct copy of Cyberlux’s opposition to the
Motion for Distribution of Funds in the Texas Action.
13. Attached as Exhibit 16 is a true and correct copy of the Amended (Joint) Motion
to Supplement Receivership filed in the Texas Action on February 20, 2026.
14. Attached as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of the Joint Notice of Settlement
and Joint Motion for Release of Funds, For Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership
filed in the Texas Action on February 26, 2026.
15. Attached as Exhibit 1 8 is a true and correct copy of the Order on Judgment
Creditors’ Second Amended Motion for Distribution of Funds signed by the judge in the Texas
Action on March 2, 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 2761
claimallegation
Exhibits21–33 identify government, confessed-judgment-debtor, ANPC, TAG, Fairwinds and ARG discovery responses and selected productions, inc
Exhibits21–33 identify government, confessed-judgment-debtor, ANPC, TAG, Fairwinds and ARG discovery responses and selected productions, including supplemental responses. Exhibit34 is expressly a chart of Legalist’s position on all parties’ claims, security and priority, not an agreed or adjudicated priority table.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
16. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of the Order on Nonsuit signed
by the judge in the Texas Action on March 13, 2026.
17. Attached as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of the transcript of a hearing that
took place on March 2, 2026 in the Texas Action.
18. Attached as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of the U.S. government’s response
to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory and Discovery Plan RFPs.
19. Attached as Exhibit 22 is a true and correct copy of the documents produced by
the U.S. government in response to the Discovery Plan RFPs.
20. Attached as Exhibit 23 is a true and correct copy of is a true and correct copy of
Confessed Judgment Debtors’ response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
21. Attached as Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of relevant documents produced
by the Confessed Judgment Debtors in response to the Discovery Plan RFPs.
22. Attached as Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of ANPC’s response to the
Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
23. Attached as Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of relevant documents produced
by the ANPC in response to the Discovery Plan RFPs.
24. Attached as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of TAG’s response to the
Discovery Plan Interrogatory and Discovery Plan RFPs.
25. Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of relevant documents produced
by TAG in response to the Discovery Plan RFPs.
26. Attached as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of TAG’s supplemental response
to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory and Discovery Plan RFPs.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 2762
claimallegation
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication a
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication and navigation map; full substantive reading of the underlying exhibits must be separately recorded.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER W. BASCOM IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALIST SPV III, L.P.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher W. Bascom, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare:
1. I am over 18 years old and of sound mind. The following information is based on
my personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify on the matters herein.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm Spotts Fain, P.C. and am one of the attorneys
representing Defendant/Claimant Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”) in this matter. I am duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. I submit this declaration in support of Legalist ’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. All defined terms herein are the same as those in Legalist’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support.
4. In the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties to this suit agreed to answer one
interrogatory (the “Discovery Plan Interrogatory”) and two document requests (the “Discovery
Plan RFPs”) by March 9, 2026. ECF No. 149, ¶ 6.
5. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory Number 6 served by Atlantic Wave in response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2760
entityobservation
Christopher W. Bascom
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER W. BASCOM IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALIST SPV III, L.P.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher W. Bascom, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare:
1. I am over 18 years old and of sound mind. The following information is based on
my personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify on the matters herein.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm Spotts Fain, P.C. and am one of the attorneys
representing Defendant/Claimant Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”) in this matter. I am duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. I submit this declaration in support of Legalist ’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. All defined terms herein are the same as those in Legalist’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support.
4. In the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties to this suit agreed to answer one
interrogatory (the “Discovery Plan Interrogatory”) and two document requests (the “Discovery
Plan RFPs”) by March 9, 2026. ECF No. 149, ¶ 6.
5. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory Number 6 served by Atlantic Wave in response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2760
inferenceinference
This document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Le
This document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Legalist’s priority chart into a court determination.
omissiongap
The27identified exhibits are absent from the supplied declaration-only file; underlying response content and priority evidence cannot be ind
The27identified exhibits are absent from the supplied declaration-only file; underlying response content and priority evidence cannot be independently assessed here.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER W. BASCOM IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALIST SPV III, L.P.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher W. Bascom, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare:
1. I am over 18 years old and of sound mind. The following information is based on
my personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify on the matters herein.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm Spotts Fain, P.C. and am one of the attorneys
representing Defendant/Claimant Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”) in this matter. I am duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. I submit this declaration in support of Legalist ’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. All defined terms herein are the same as those in Legalist’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support.
4. In the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties to this suit agreed to answer one
interrogatory (the “Discovery Plan Interrogatory”) and two document requests (the “Discovery
Plan RFPs”) by March 9, 2026. ECF No. 149, ¶ 6.
5. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory Number 6 served by Atlantic Wave in response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2760
otherattribution
Complete supplied 4-page source reviewed at SHA-256 77c2ae7c0c1a0ea29bd0a64241891c6ef3ebf8a744ec98a0d14d868ae89bcd5f. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 4-page source reviewed at SHA-256 77c2ae7c0c1a0ea29bd0a64241891c6ef3ebf8a744ec98a0d14d868ae89bcd5f. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Full 4-page reading of version_4777d64496d6485eb48aba919b94c017, SHA256 77c2ae7c0c1a0ea29bd0a64241891c6ef3ebf8a744ec98a0d14d868ae89bcd5f; source bytes and original extraction preserved.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND DIVISION
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER W. BASCOM IN SUPPORT OF
LEGALIST SPV III, L.P.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Christopher W. Bascom, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare:
1. I am over 18 years old and of sound mind. The following information is based on
my personal knowledge, and I am competent to testify on the matters herein.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm Spotts Fain, P.C. and am one of the attorneys
representing Defendant/Claimant Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”) in this matter. I am duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Virginia. I submit this declaration in support of Legalist ’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. All defined terms herein are the same as those in Legalist’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support.
4. In the Joint Discovery Plan, the parties to this suit agreed to answer one
interrogatory (the “Discovery Plan Interrogatory”) and two document requests (the “Discovery
Plan RFPs”) by March 9, 2026. ECF No. 149, ¶ 6.
5. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory Number 6 served by Atlantic Wave in response to the Discovery Plan Interrogatory.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2760
questionquestion
Are all27referenced exhibits registered, readable and linked to their exact originating instruments, including Nevada’s20March2026 filing an
Are all27referenced exhibits registered, readable and linked to their exact originating instruments, including Nevada’s20March2026 filing and the2March transcript?
questionquestion
Which entries in Legalist’sExhibit34 are party positions, uncontested facts or later adjudicated priorities?
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.
Exhibits13–20 cover the29August2025 expansion motion,6January2026 distribution motion/opposition,20February expansion motion,26February joint settlement motion, signed2March distribution order, signed13March nonsuit order and2March hearing transcript. Describing the exhibit series is not a global discharge or expansion finding.supportsThis document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Legalist’s priority chart into a court determination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibits21–33 identify government, confessed-judgment-debtor, ANPC, TAG, Fairwinds and ARG discovery responses and selected productions, including supplemental responses. Exhibit34 is expressly a chart of Legalist’s position on all parties’ claims, security and priority, not an agreed or adjudicated priority table.supportsWhich entries in Legalist’sExhibit34 are party positions, uncontested facts or later adjudicated priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibits9–12 are identified as the15June2023 settlement,28June2023 amended judgment, AWHUCCfilings inNC/Texas/Virginia6July2023, California20October2023 and Nevada20March2026, and30July2024 Texas enforcement petition. Dates preserve distinct instruments and do not alone adjudicate perfection or priority.supportsThis document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Legalist’s priority chart into a court determination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication and navigation map; full substantive reading of the underlying exhibits must be separately recorded.supportsThis document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Legalist’s priority chart into a court determination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication and navigation map; full substantive reading of the underlying exhibits must be separately recorded.supportsDoes the described priority chart establish the creditors’ legal ranking?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication and navigation map; full substantive reading of the underlying exhibits must be separately recorded.supportsAre all27referenced exhibits registered, readable and linked to their exact originating instruments, including Nevada’s20March2026 filing and the2March transcript?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibits9–12 are identified as the15June2023 settlement,28June2023 amended judgment, AWHUCCfilings inNC/Texas/Virginia6July2023, California20October2023 and Nevada20March2026, and30July2024 Texas enforcement petition. Dates preserve distinct instruments and do not alone adjudicate perfection or priority.supportsAre all27referenced exhibits registered, readable and linked to their exact originating instruments, including Nevada’s20March2026 filing and the2March transcript?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Bascom states the joint discovery plan required responses to one interrogatory and two production requests by9March2026, citingECF149§6, and identifies Atlantic Wave’s supplemental interrogatory response asExhibit8. The plan and response are referenced rather than reproduced.supportsThis document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Legalist’s priority chart into a court determination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibits13–20 cover the29August2025 expansion motion,6January2026 distribution motion/opposition,20February expansion motion,26February joint settlement motion, signed2March distribution order, signed13March nonsuit order and2March hearing transcript. Describing the exhibit series is not a global discharge or expansion finding.supportsAre all27referenced exhibits registered, readable and linked to their exact originating instruments, including Nevada’s20March2026 filing and the2March transcript?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibits21–33 identify government, confessed-judgment-debtor, ANPC, TAG, Fairwinds and ARG discovery responses and selected productions, including supplemental responses. Exhibit34 is expressly a chart of Legalist’s position on all parties’ claims, security and priority, not an agreed or adjudicated priority table.supportsDoes the described priority chart establish the creditors’ legal ranking?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication and navigation map; full substantive reading of the underlying exhibits must be separately recorded.supportsWhich entries in Legalist’sExhibit34 are party positions, uncontested facts or later adjudicated priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The declaration references27exhibits numbered8–34, but none is physically included in this four-pagePDF. It functions as an authentication and navigation map; full substantive reading of the underlying exhibits must be separately recorded.supportsThe27identified exhibits are absent from the supplied declaration-only file; underlying response content and priority evidence cannot be independently assessed here.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibits21–33 identify government, confessed-judgment-debtor, ANPC, TAG, Fairwinds and ARG discovery responses and selected productions, including supplemental responses. Exhibit34 is expressly a chart of Legalist’s position on all parties’ claims, security and priority, not an agreed or adjudicated priority table.supportsThis document provides an exact exhibit map and claimed authentication basis. It cannot substitute for the underlying evidence or convert Legalist’s priority chart into a court determination.
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.