Context source · CXF-S-A4C3C8657ABE
a4c3c8657abe46e647e3…4 pages · 2 MBDISTILLATES
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
EXHIBIT B 2/7/2025 9:29 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 97103416 By: Maegan McGuire Filed: 2/7/2025 9:29 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
ExhibitB filedFebruary7,2025 9:29AM, envelope97103416, reproduces AlexPennetti’s February3 12:31:28PM email to JenniferKessinger about2024-48085. Archive dateFebruary6 3:53:05PM is a separate processing event,not send date.
EXHIBIT B 2/7/2025 9:29 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 97103416 By: Maegan McGuire Filed: 2/7/2025 9:29 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Kessinger’s January24,2025 email states her constable office received the writ of execution and requests a scanned bill of costs so the deputy can begin working it. She identifies herself as HarrisCountyPrecinct4 civil/writs clerk. This is a request for paperwork,not a ruling invalidating the writ.
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 w w w .thompsoncoburn.com From: Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4) <Jennifer.Kessinger@cd4.hctx.net> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 11:06 AM To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com> Subject: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION Good morning, my office received the writ of execution for the above referenced case. Please scan and email the bill of costs so that the deputy can begin working the writ. The court should have issued the bills of costs with the writ. Thank you, Jennifer Kessinger /Civil Clerk Civil / Writs Office of Mark Herman, Constable Harris County, Precinct 4 330 Meadowfern Dr., 2 nd Floor Houston, TX 77067 Office: 832.927.6139 / Fax: 713-437-8508 This transmission is CONFIDENTIAL and the information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail and/or telephone, and delete the transmission and any attachments from your mailbox. Thank you. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Pennetti responds that the consent judgment came from a settlement rather than Texas litigation,that no costs were awarded/bill issued and a docket note said none allocated. He says four Virginia suits dispute settlement breach and judgment enforceability. These are counsel’s representations; the docket/settlement/cases are not appended.
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
He says the writ issuedJanuary15,2025 and the court then indicated at a hearing it would appoint a receiver; he lists a highlighted January16 transcript excerpt and receiver oath as attachments. He twice asserts the appointment obviates further constable activity. The email is not itself a court order staying or cancelling execution.
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Pennetti reports being told the previous day that DeputyMontgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux-leased21631RhodesRoad,Spring facility,and says the proposed receiver already inspected its property. No actual notice,inspection report or seizure inventory is included.
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
He states facility personalty is subject to a USGovernment subcontract but owned by third parties despite Cyberlux custody. He cites Watts and retiredMajorGeneralCameronG.Holt declarations and says serialised lists have been compiled and are being provided to plaintiffs for the proposed receiver. This wording does not identify the Government as owner of every item or prove any particular title.
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
The four named attachments are transcript excerpt,January17receiver oath,Watts declaration and January27Holt-related document. Their names/links are visible but their contents are not included in these four pages. There is no later Kessinger reply accepting counsel’s position or reporting discontinued execution.
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Automated eService certificate identifies defendants’ response to emergency-hearing request,FrankieHuff on behalf ofKatherineClark,envelope97103416. All21listed rows show February7 9:29:07AM SENT,including duplicateShawnGrady and BernadetteMartin entries. This records dispatch status,not recipient reading or assent; the certificate expressly says applicable service-rule compliance remains required.
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Frankie Huff on behalf of Katherine Clark Bar No. 24046712 fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 97103416 Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents Filing Description: Defs Response to Plfs Request for Emergency Hearing Status as of 2/7/2025 3:22 PM CST Case Contacts Name Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Micah Jackson Laurie DeBardeleben Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Bernadette Martin Lena Brasher Sheli Davis Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Frankie Huff Michael Poynter Hannah Fischer Bernadette Martin Jocelin A.Tapia Katharine Clark Alex Pennetti Edward W.Gray, Jr. BarNumber Email smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com jtapia@thompsoncoburn.com kclark@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com EGray@thompsoncoburn.com TimestampSubmitted 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM 2/7/2025 9:29:07 AM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201 w w w .thompsoncoburn.com From: Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4) <Jennifer.Kessinger@cd4.hctx.net> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 11:06 AM To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com> Subject: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION Good morning, my office received the writ of execution for the above referenced case. Please scan and email the bill of costs so that the deputy can begin working the writ. The court should have issued the bills of costs with the writ. Thank you, Jennifer Kessinger /Civil Clerk Civil / Writs Office of Mark Herman, Constable Harris County, Precinct 4 330 Meadowfern Dr., 2 nd Floor Houston, TX 77067 Office: 832.927.6139 / Fax: 713-437-8508 This transmission is CONFIDENTIAL and the information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail and/or telephone, and delete the transmission and any attachments from your mailbox. Thank you. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Archived: Thursday, February 6, 2025 3:53:05 PM From: Pennetti, Alex Sent: Monday, February 3, 2025 12:31:28 PM To: 'Kessinger, Jennifer (CD4)' Subject: RE: 2024-48085; Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC vs. Cyberlux Corp. and Mark D Schmidt Importance: Normal Sensitivity: None Attachments: Jan 16 hearing transcript excerpt.pdf; 2025.01.17 Oath of Receiver Robert W. Berleth.pdf; Declaration of C Watts.pdf; Jan 27 - Doc - VA COE Mitchell Holt 1.pdf; Good morning, Ms. Kessinger. I apologize for the delay, as I was traveling for business when you contacted me. The underlying consent judgment was signed as part of a settlement agreement between the parties. It did not flow from any litigation in Texas. As a result, the Court has not awarded the plaintiffs any costs or issued a bill of costs for this matter. In fact, the Court entered on its docket a note stating no costs have been allocated in this matter. The settlement agreement of which this judgment is a part is currently the subject of litigation in fourseparate lawsuits in Virginia. In those lawsuits, the parties to this judgment are disputing whether a breach of the settlement has occurred and whether the consent judgment is enforceable. Notwithstanding the above, after requesting a writ of execution be issued to your office, Plaintiffs sought the appointment of a receiver. After the writ was issued to your office on January 15, 2025, the Court held a hearing at which the Court indicated it would appoint a receiver. An excerpt from the hearing transcript is attached, and for convenience I highlighted the relevant portion of the transcript where the Court expressed its ruling on the receivership application. I also attached the Oath of Receiver that was submitted to the Court. In short, the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates the need for any further activity by the Harris County constable’s office. As an aside, yesterday I was notified that Deputy Constable Montgomery left a notice at the Cyberlux leased facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas. Of note, the receiver plaintiffs proposed has already participated in an inspection of property at that facility. Additionally, the personalty in the facility is subject to a United States Government subcontract and, although being held and stored by Cyberlux, is owned by third parties. Please see the attached declarations of Charles Watts, special counsel to Cyberlux, and United States Air Force Major General (ret.) Cameron G. Holt. These declarations have already been provided to the plaintiffs, and my clients have compiled serialized inventory lists of said property. Those lists are also being provided to the plaintiffs for the proposed receiver’s benefit. Although the Court’s appointment of a receiver obviates any need for further activity by the Harris County constable, if someone from your office wishes to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me. Best, Alex Pennetti apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com P: 972 629 7168 F: 972 629 7171 Thompson Coburn LLP UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
The exhibit establishes a documented counsel-to-constable communication contesting practical execution and asserting third-party ownership. It cannot convert counsel’s receiver-based conclusion into a court stay or substitute an asset-specific title chain for the missing declarations and inventory.
Complete supplied 4-page source reviewed at SHA-256 a4c3c8657abe46e647e389c5002545f105c63c9a38bd3e62229066bbe42991db. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own complete native text read, all 4 pages; material page images 2,3,4 checked. Exact source identity retained; signature observation does not independently authenticate execution.
EXHIBIT B 2/7/2025 9:29 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 97103416 By: Maegan McGuire Filed: 2/7/2025 9:29 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
What operative orders,writ/cost docket,listed declarations,serialised title records and constable response establish the actual execution authority and ownership?
CONNECT
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.