Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
Email header 26 April 2024; print/export header 6 November 2024; parent filing footer 7 November 2024.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
claimallegation
The nine-page source is David M. Keithly’s declaration supporting AWH and Secure Community’s further supplemental update on the motion to va
The nine-page source is David M. Keithly’s declaration supporting AWH and Secure Community’s further supplemental update on the motion to vacate, SDCA 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET, ECF 32-1, filed and signed 7 November 2024. Keithly identifies himself as plaintiffs’ counsel and declares personal knowledge under penalty of perjury. Exhibit A is a two-page Texas order and Exhibit B a two-page email, separated by covers.
Read the anchor · page 1
Case 3:24-cV-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.951 Page 1
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
2
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
4
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
5
Irvine, California 92618
6
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
a Virginia limited liability company and
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
14
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
15
Virginia limited Liability company,
DECLARATION OF DAVID M.
Plaintiffs,
KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF
16
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
VS.
17
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE
Nevada Corporation and MARK D.
COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER
18
SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE:
SCHMIDT,
19
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
Defendants.
VACATE
20
21
Filed concurrently with Further
Supplemental Update, Declaration of
22
William Welter and Declaration of
23
Federico J. Zablah
24
25
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
26
ORDERED BY THE COURT
27
28
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
claimallegation
The sender reports a September 2023 Dun & Bradstreet report with debts, judgments and UCC entries, and a Special Activities address associat
The sender reports a September 2023 Dun & Bradstreet report with debts, judgments and UCC entries, and a Special Activities address associated with a Miami estate agent. Those source reports are not attached; debt, tax claim, security filing and misconduct remain different matters.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
claimallegation
The sender asserts CMTC and Catalyst lack SAM registration and therefore have never received government awards, and says Cyberlux and subsid
The sender asserts CMTC and Catalyst lack SAM registration and therefore have never received government awards, and says Cyberlux and subsidiaries lack FFL/FEL licences so their munitions activities are impossible. These categorical inferences exceed what this email alone can establish about historical registrations, award channels, licence scope or exceptions.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
claimallegation
The sender considers personal/facility clearances highly improbable, says no SCIF was verified and considers future direct DoD business unli
The sender considers personal/facility clearances highly improbable, says no SCIF was verified and considers future direct DoD business unlikely. These are expressed assessments and unsuccessful verification, not official clearance determinations or proof that no facility exists.
Read the anchor · page 9
2 of 2
and therefore has never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
9) Neither Cyberlux, nor any of its subsidiaries hold FFL or FEL licenses with the ATF
(atf.gov) The claims that the "special activities" group deals in munitions and
weapons is impossible given the lack of ATF licenses. This concern extends to
the fusing, detonators, and explosive payloads used on the X8 drone.
Conclusions we reached based on these factual elements
1) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Mr Schmidt, or Mr Kalenja personal security clearances.
2) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Cyberlux or any of its subsidiaries Facility Clearances to execute
"classified" contracts. We have been unable to verify that any facilities held by Cyberlux
contain SCIFs.
3) Given the past performance history and significant legal, credibility and financial issues we
find that is it highly unlikely the DOD would do any DIRECT business with Cyberlux.
4)
We suspect that the 78.8m award was "factored" in order to provide working capital as the
company appears to have inadequate banking relationships. This gives us the impression of
impending insolvency and poor cash management.
5) FMF (foreign military funding) cases are highly regulated from a financial perspective. Most
notably the use of funds awarded is auditable by the USG and restricts payments to third
parties for commissions etc. Contracts may also include limitations on profits under both FAR
and DFAR regulation. As such, we do not understand how Cyberlux could legally commit to
paying AWH a $5k commission per drone sold to settle the debt.
6) The manner in which this contract was developed and awarded is suspicious to us. Further
feedback from a customer served to, at a minimum, support our concerns. This particular
award is part of a highly publicized aid package to Ukraine.
7) It is not within the normal behavior of the government to classify contract documents
(purchase orders, performance contracts etc). Generally the WORK/PRODUCT is classified.
8) We have been unable to confidently determine where Cyberlux has been acquiring its funding
to execute the purchase of Datron or Catalyst.
9) CMTC appears to have been a shell company started by Mr Watts
10) The strong assertions in legal and financial documents that the company is engaged in highly
classified work was suspect. This open claim is contrary to the very nature of how companies
who DO execute classified work behave.
11) The inconsistencies identified after finer review of the legal narrative seems to imply that
Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth.
12) One legal filing by Mr Ozols asserted that Cyberlux was attempting to shield datron by
"transferring, pledging, hypothecating, encumbering" the asset. A merger or acquisition
between cyberlux and the company I advise would have made us party to this effort. This
would have a negative effect on our company's reputation and standing.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.959 Page 9
of 9
claimallegation
The sender suspects factoring of the $78.8 million award to fund working capital and describes an impression of impending insolvency. They s
The sender suspects factoring of the $78.8 million award to fund working capital and describes an impression of impending insolvency. They say the Datron/Catalyst acquisition funding could not be confidently determined. Suspicion and acknowledged uncertainty remain explicit; no cash tracing, loan instrument or insolvency adjudication is supplied.
Read the anchor · page 9
2 of 2
and therefore has never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
9) Neither Cyberlux, nor any of its subsidiaries hold FFL or FEL licenses with the ATF
(atf.gov) The claims that the "special activities" group deals in munitions and
weapons is impossible given the lack of ATF licenses. This concern extends to
the fusing, detonators, and explosive payloads used on the X8 drone.
Conclusions we reached based on these factual elements
1) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Mr Schmidt, or Mr Kalenja personal security clearances.
2) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Cyberlux or any of its subsidiaries Facility Clearances to execute
"classified" contracts. We have been unable to verify that any facilities held by Cyberlux
contain SCIFs.
3) Given the past performance history and significant legal, credibility and financial issues we
find that is it highly unlikely the DOD would do any DIRECT business with Cyberlux.
4)
We suspect that the 78.8m award was "factored" in order to provide working capital as the
company appears to have inadequate banking relationships. This gives us the impression of
impending insolvency and poor cash management.
5) FMF (foreign military funding) cases are highly regulated from a financial perspective. Most
notably the use of funds awarded is auditable by the USG and restricts payments to third
parties for commissions etc. Contracts may also include limitations on profits under both FAR
and DFAR regulation. As such, we do not understand how Cyberlux could legally commit to
paying AWH a $5k commission per drone sold to settle the debt.
6) The manner in which this contract was developed and awarded is suspicious to us. Further
feedback from a customer served to, at a minimum, support our concerns. This particular
award is part of a highly publicized aid package to Ukraine.
7) It is not within the normal behavior of the government to classify contract documents
(purchase orders, performance contracts etc). Generally the WORK/PRODUCT is classified.
8) We have been unable to confidently determine where Cyberlux has been acquiring its funding
to execute the purchase of Datron or Catalyst.
9) CMTC appears to have been a shell company started by Mr Watts
10) The strong assertions in legal and financial documents that the company is engaged in highly
classified work was suspect. This open claim is contrary to the very nature of how companies
who DO execute classified work behave.
11) The inconsistencies identified after finer review of the legal narrative seems to imply that
Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth.
12) One legal filing by Mr Ozols asserted that Cyberlux was attempting to shield datron by
"transferring, pledging, hypothecating, encumbering" the asset. A merger or acquisition
between cyberlux and the company I advise would have made us party to this effort. This
would have a negative effect on our company's reputation and standing.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.959 Page 9
of 9
claimallegation
The sender questions the legality of a $5,000-per-drone AWH commission under FMF/FAR/DFAR restrictions and possible profit limits, expresses
The sender questions the legality of a $5,000-per-drone AWH commission under FMF/FAR/DFAR restrictions and possible profit limits, expresses suspicion about award development and customer feedback, and contrasts classification of work/product with classification of contract documents. These legal and behavioural interpretations are not adopted as governing law or transaction findings.
Read the anchor · page 9
2 of 2
and therefore has never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
9) Neither Cyberlux, nor any of its subsidiaries hold FFL or FEL licenses with the ATF
(atf.gov) The claims that the "special activities" group deals in munitions and
weapons is impossible given the lack of ATF licenses. This concern extends to
the fusing, detonators, and explosive payloads used on the X8 drone.
Conclusions we reached based on these factual elements
1) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Mr Schmidt, or Mr Kalenja personal security clearances.
2) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Cyberlux or any of its subsidiaries Facility Clearances to execute
"classified" contracts. We have been unable to verify that any facilities held by Cyberlux
contain SCIFs.
3) Given the past performance history and significant legal, credibility and financial issues we
find that is it highly unlikely the DOD would do any DIRECT business with Cyberlux.
4)
We suspect that the 78.8m award was "factored" in order to provide working capital as the
company appears to have inadequate banking relationships. This gives us the impression of
impending insolvency and poor cash management.
5) FMF (foreign military funding) cases are highly regulated from a financial perspective. Most
notably the use of funds awarded is auditable by the USG and restricts payments to third
parties for commissions etc. Contracts may also include limitations on profits under both FAR
and DFAR regulation. As such, we do not understand how Cyberlux could legally commit to
paying AWH a $5k commission per drone sold to settle the debt.
6) The manner in which this contract was developed and awarded is suspicious to us. Further
feedback from a customer served to, at a minimum, support our concerns. This particular
award is part of a highly publicized aid package to Ukraine.
7) It is not within the normal behavior of the government to classify contract documents
(purchase orders, performance contracts etc). Generally the WORK/PRODUCT is classified.
8) We have been unable to confidently determine where Cyberlux has been acquiring its funding
to execute the purchase of Datron or Catalyst.
9) CMTC appears to have been a shell company started by Mr Watts
10) The strong assertions in legal and financial documents that the company is engaged in highly
classified work was suspect. This open claim is contrary to the very nature of how companies
who DO execute classified work behave.
11) The inconsistencies identified after finer review of the legal narrative seems to imply that
Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth.
12) One legal filing by Mr Ozols asserted that Cyberlux was attempting to shield datron by
"transferring, pledging, hypothecating, encumbering" the asset. A merger or acquisition
between cyberlux and the company I advise would have made us party to this effort. This
would have a negative effect on our company's reputation and standing.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.959 Page 9
of 9
claimallegation
The sender describes CMTC as apparently a Watts shell, suggests Cyberlux counsel may not be told the truth, cites an Ozols filing about shie
The sender describes CMTC as apparently a Watts shell, suggests Cyberlux counsel may not be told the truth, cites an Ozols filing about shielding Datron by transfers/pledges and fears a merger would associate the advised company with that effort. The cited filing and transaction proposal are absent, and appearance, implication and reputational concern retain their qualifiers.
Read the anchor · page 9
2 of 2
and therefore has never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
9) Neither Cyberlux, nor any of its subsidiaries hold FFL or FEL licenses with the ATF
(atf.gov) The claims that the "special activities" group deals in munitions and
weapons is impossible given the lack of ATF licenses. This concern extends to
the fusing, detonators, and explosive payloads used on the X8 drone.
Conclusions we reached based on these factual elements
1) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Mr Schmidt, or Mr Kalenja personal security clearances.
2) Given the significant legal and financial issues we find that it is highly improbable that the US
DOD has granted Cyberlux or any of its subsidiaries Facility Clearances to execute
"classified" contracts. We have been unable to verify that any facilities held by Cyberlux
contain SCIFs.
3) Given the past performance history and significant legal, credibility and financial issues we
find that is it highly unlikely the DOD would do any DIRECT business with Cyberlux.
4)
We suspect that the 78.8m award was "factored" in order to provide working capital as the
company appears to have inadequate banking relationships. This gives us the impression of
impending insolvency and poor cash management.
5) FMF (foreign military funding) cases are highly regulated from a financial perspective. Most
notably the use of funds awarded is auditable by the USG and restricts payments to third
parties for commissions etc. Contracts may also include limitations on profits under both FAR
and DFAR regulation. As such, we do not understand how Cyberlux could legally commit to
paying AWH a $5k commission per drone sold to settle the debt.
6) The manner in which this contract was developed and awarded is suspicious to us. Further
feedback from a customer served to, at a minimum, support our concerns. This particular
award is part of a highly publicized aid package to Ukraine.
7) It is not within the normal behavior of the government to classify contract documents
(purchase orders, performance contracts etc). Generally the WORK/PRODUCT is classified.
8) We have been unable to confidently determine where Cyberlux has been acquiring its funding
to execute the purchase of Datron or Catalyst.
9) CMTC appears to have been a shell company started by Mr Watts
10) The strong assertions in legal and financial documents that the company is engaged in highly
classified work was suspect. This open claim is contrary to the very nature of how companies
who DO execute classified work behave.
11) The inconsistencies identified after finer review of the legal narrative seems to imply that
Cyberlux's legal team is not being told the truth.
12) One legal filing by Mr Ozols asserted that Cyberlux was attempting to shield datron by
"transferring, pledging, hypothecating, encumbering" the asset. A merger or acquisition
between cyberlux and the company I advise would have made us party to this effort. This
would have a negative effect on our company's reputation and standing.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.959 Page 9
of 9
claimallegation
Keithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay,
Keithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay, and says this misled the Texas court into a thirty-day enforcement stay while discovery continued. His broader delay-strategy claim is his interpretation. He cites Zablah paragraphs 4–5 for Virginia status; that declaration is not embedded here.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.952 Page 2
DECLARATION OF DAVID M. KEITHLY
2
I, David M. Keithly, declare and state as follows:
1.
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California
and before this Court. I am a partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, counsel of
record for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and,
if called to testity, I could and would competently testity to the following facts.
2. On October 28, 2024, I attended the hearing via Zoom on Cyberlux's
motion to vacate Plaintiffs' domesticated Judgment in Texas. During this hearing, I
observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement
11
was entered in the Virginia proceedings.
12
3.
The representation made by Defendants' counsel was entirely false, as
13
no stay has been granted or even considered in Virginia. (Declaration of Federico J.
Zablah in Support of Plaintiffs' Further Supplemental Update (Zablah Decl.), 11 4-
5.) This misrepresentation misled the Texas court into temporarily staying
enforcement of the Judgment for 30 days to allow Defendants the opportunity to
17
present evidence of the supposed stay, although it did not halt discovery. A true and
18
correct unofficial copy of the Texas Court's order on Defendants' Motion to Vacate
19
dated 10/31/2024 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
20
4.
This misrepresentation exemplifies Defendants' broader strategy to
21
create jurisdictional confusion and delay Plaintiffs' enforcement efforts, thereby
22
obstructing the legitimate collection of the Judgment.
23
5.
Additionally, I received an email from an anonymous sender on April
13, 2024, which provided information about questionable activities at Cyberlux. The
25
sender, claiming to be an advisor for a significant defense company, indicated that
26
Cyberlux approached them for a potential partnership or acquisition. During a
preliminary due diligence, several issues were discovered, including dual litigation
involving Cyberlux and the Plaintiffs, which undermined the credibility of Mr.
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID M. KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
claimallegation
Exhibit A denies the motion to vacate and grants an execution-only stay until 28 November 2024, expressly permitting post-judgment discovery
Exhibit A denies the motion to vacate and grants an execution-only stay until 28 November 2024, expressly permitting post-judgment discovery and applications to extend. It bears Michael Gomez’s signature dated 31 October 2024 and an earlier 29 October filing/submission stamp. The stated expiry and distinct stamp/signature dates are preserved, not recomputed as thirty days after signature. The generic granting title does not override the operative denial of vacatur.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24
PagelD.955
PPO28/2824 11:29 AM
of 9
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 93684126
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 10/29/2024 11:29 AM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
Pgs-2
STPRX
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SPJUY
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor
V.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually,
Defendant/Judgment Debtors.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION TO VACATE
Before the Court is the Motion to Stay and Motion to Vacate Plaintiffs' Petition for
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment filed by Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D.
Schmidt (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court has considered the Motion, responses, replies,
and arguments of counsel and finds that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Vacate is DENIED.
ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Stay is GRANTED for a period of thirty days, only
to stay execution on the judgment, until November 28, 2024. Plaintiffs may proceed with post-
judgment discovery in this matter, which is not stayed.
ORDERED, Plaintiffs or Defendants may seek to extend the stay of this matter by
appropriate motion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed:
Michael tony
10/31/2024
[Analyst visual transcription: Judicial signature reads Michael Gomez, dated 10/31/2024. Earlier filing/submission stamp reads 10/29/2024 11:29 AM. Operative stay end is November 28, 2024, and discovery is not stayed.]
claimallegation
The order’s second page records agreement as to form and substance with /s/ Shawn M. Grady for plaintiffs and /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark fo
The order’s second page records agreement as to form and substance with /s/ Shawn M. Grady for plaintiffs and /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark for Cyberlux; Alexander J. Pennetti is also listed. It is visibly an unofficial clerk copy reproduced in the California filing, not evidence of a later extension or present stay.
Read the anchor · page 6
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.956 Page 6
of 9
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
By: Is/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
SBN 24076411
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLEC
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Ste. 805
Houston, Texas 77027
Phone (832) 692-4542
Fax (832) 565-1796
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Burgess District Clerk
By: S/ Katharine Battaia Clark
Katharine Battaia Clark
State Bar No. 24046712
Alexander J. Pennetti
State Bar No. 24110208
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
ce of Marilyn Burgess Di
Dallas, Texas 75201
Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100
Fax: (972) 629-7171
kclark(@thompsoncoburn.com
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
COUNSEL FOR
CYBERLUX CORPORATIONG
Unofficial Copy
- 2 -
claimallegation
Keithly says he received the anonymous email on 13 April 2024 and attaches it as a true copy, while the exhibit’s email header says 26 April
Keithly says he received the anonymous email on 13 April 2024 and attaches it as a true copy, while the exhibit’s email header says 26 April 2024 and the attached ZIP filename includes 2024-04-13. These distinct dates conflict if treated as the same receipt event; the filename is not evidence of transmission on 13 April. No explanation or original message headers are supplied.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.952 Page 2
DECLARATION OF DAVID M. KEITHLY
2
I, David M. Keithly, declare and state as follows:
1.
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California
and before this Court. I am a partner at Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP, counsel of
record for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and,
if called to testity, I could and would competently testity to the following facts.
2. On October 28, 2024, I attended the hearing via Zoom on Cyberlux's
motion to vacate Plaintiffs' domesticated Judgment in Texas. During this hearing, I
observed Defendants' counsel falsely represent to the court that a stay of enforcement
11
was entered in the Virginia proceedings.
12
3.
The representation made by Defendants' counsel was entirely false, as
13
no stay has been granted or even considered in Virginia. (Declaration of Federico J.
Zablah in Support of Plaintiffs' Further Supplemental Update (Zablah Decl.), 11 4-
5.) This misrepresentation misled the Texas court into temporarily staying
enforcement of the Judgment for 30 days to allow Defendants the opportunity to
17
present evidence of the supposed stay, although it did not halt discovery. A true and
18
correct unofficial copy of the Texas Court's order on Defendants' Motion to Vacate
19
dated 10/31/2024 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
20
4.
This misrepresentation exemplifies Defendants' broader strategy to
21
create jurisdictional confusion and delay Plaintiffs' enforcement efforts, thereby
22
obstructing the legitimate collection of the Judgment.
23
5.
Additionally, I received an email from an anonymous sender on April
13, 2024, which provided information about questionable activities at Cyberlux. The
25
sender, claiming to be an advisor for a significant defense company, indicated that
26
Cyberlux approached them for a potential partnership or acquisition. During a
preliminary due diligence, several issues were discovered, including dual litigation
involving Cyberlux and the Plaintiffs, which undermined the credibility of Mr.
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID M. KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
claimallegation
The email header gives 26 April 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sender identifier 49121719, recipients David M. Keithly and Sara R
The email header gives 26 April 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sender identifier 49121719, recipients David M. Keithly and Sara Ross, and a displayed print/export timestamp of 6 November 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time. It lists PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip; the ZIP contents are not included in these email pages.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
claimallegation
The unnamed sender says they advise a significant defence company approached by Cyberlux about acquisition or merger and performed prelimina
The unnamed sender says they advise a significant defence company approached by Cyberlux about acquisition or merger and performed preliminary lite diligence. They describe the AWH litigation as damaging Schmidt’s credibility. The sender and advised company are not independently identified by this exhibit.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
claimallegation
The sender asserts Cyberlux is an HII subcontractor rather than a direct DoD supplier for 2,000 K8 drones at $39,400 each including training
The sender asserts Cyberlux is an HII subcontractor rather than a direct DoD supplier for 2,000 K8 drones at $39,400 each including training, an FMF Ukraine case; 2,000 times $39,400 equals $78.8 million. They also assert an approximately $400,000 ADS commercial-drone subcontract. These are sender statements referring to public records, not attached contract instruments.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
claimallegation
The sender asserts direct contracts ceased in 2015, says government publication of all DoD contracts is required within ninety days, and all
The sender asserts direct contracts ceased in 2015, says government publication of all DoD contracts is required within ninety days, and alleges GSA contract GS-07F-9409S was cancelled on the printed date 11/2/2020 while still advertised. Universal publication and current-absence conclusions are the sender’s claims; the underlying search scope, transaction files and cancellation record are absent.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
entityobservation
49121719
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
entityobservation
David M. Keithly
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
entityobservation
Sara Ross
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
entityobservation
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
Case 3:24-cV-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.951 Page 1
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
2
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
4
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
5
Irvine, California 92618
6
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
a Virginia limited liability company and
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
14
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
15
Virginia limited Liability company,
DECLARATION OF DAVID M.
Plaintiffs,
KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF
16
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
VS.
17
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE
Nevada Corporation and MARK D.
COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER
18
SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE:
SCHMIDT,
19
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
Defendants.
VACATE
20
21
Filed concurrently with Further
Supplemental Update, Declaration of
22
William Welter and Declaration of
23
Federico J. Zablah
24
25
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
26
ORDERED BY THE COURT
27
28
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
entityobservation
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
Case 3:24-cV-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.951 Page 1
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
2
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
4
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
5
Irvine, California 92618
6
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
a Virginia limited liability company and
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
14
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
15
Virginia limited Liability company,
DECLARATION OF DAVID M.
Plaintiffs,
KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF
16
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
VS.
17
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE
Nevada Corporation and MARK D.
COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER
18
SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE:
SCHMIDT,
19
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
Defendants.
VACATE
20
21
Filed concurrently with Further
Supplemental Update, Declaration of
22
William Welter and Declaration of
23
Federico J. Zablah
24
25
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
26
ORDERED BY THE COURT
27
28
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 1
Case 3:24-cV-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.951 Page 1
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
2
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
4
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
5
Irvine, California 92618
6
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
a Virginia limited liability company and
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
14
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
15
Virginia limited Liability company,
DECLARATION OF DAVID M.
Plaintiffs,
KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF
16
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
VS.
17
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE
Nevada Corporation and MARK D.
COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER
18
SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE:
SCHMIDT,
19
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
Defendants.
VACATE
20
21
Filed concurrently with Further
Supplemental Update, Declaration of
22
William Welter and Declaration of
23
Federico J. Zablah
24
25
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
26
ORDERED BY THE COURT
27
28
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
entityobservation
Katharine Battaia Clark
Read the anchor · page 6
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.956 Page 6
of 9
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
By: Is/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
SBN 24076411
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLEC
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Ste. 805
Houston, Texas 77027
Phone (832) 692-4542
Fax (832) 565-1796
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Burgess District Clerk
By: S/ Katharine Battaia Clark
Katharine Battaia Clark
State Bar No. 24046712
Alexander J. Pennetti
State Bar No. 24110208
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
ce of Marilyn Burgess Di
Dallas, Texas 75201
Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100
Fax: (972) 629-7171
kclark(@thompsoncoburn.com
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
COUNSEL FOR
CYBERLUX CORPORATIONG
Unofficial Copy
- 2 -
entityobservation
Shawn M. Grady
Read the anchor · page 6
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.956 Page 6
of 9
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
By: Is/ Shawn M. Grady
Shawn M. Grady
SBN 24076411
LAW FIRM OF SHAWN M. GRADY, PLEC
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
2100 West Loop South, Ste. 805
Houston, Texas 77027
Phone (832) 692-4542
Fax (832) 565-1796
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
Burgess District Clerk
By: S/ Katharine Battaia Clark
Katharine Battaia Clark
State Bar No. 24046712
Alexander J. Pennetti
State Bar No. 24110208
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
ce of Marilyn Burgess Di
Dallas, Texas 75201
Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100
Fax: (972) 629-7171
kclark(@thompsoncoburn.com
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
COUNSEL FOR
CYBERLUX CORPORATIONG
Unofficial Copy
- 2 -
eventattribution
The exhibit displays a 26 April 2024 email date; original transmission metadata is not supplied.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.958 Page 8
of 9
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time
Subject:
Cyberlux
Date:
Friday, April 26, 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
49121719
To-
David M. Keithly, Sara Ross
Attachmemts= PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip
CAUTION: This email originated from outside Mortenson Taggart Adams LLP. Exercise
caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
I am an advisor to a significant defense company which was recently approached by Cyberlux.
The purpose of the approach was to discuss the potential of partnership (acquisition by, or merging
into) with the company advise.
We therefore conducted preliminary "lite" due diligence on Cyberlux. During the course of that
investigation several issues became known to us, including the dual litigation between AWH and
Cyberlux. This action is perhaps the most troubling discovery as it damaged Mr Schmidt's credibility
(misuse of funds, withholding information).
There are elements which I wish to share with you. These elements are verifiable through public
records.
1) CYBERLUX is not currently a DIRECT supplier to the US DOD. The alleged
"secret" contract for drones can be found through a recipient search at
USASPENDING.GOV. The contract is for 2000 K8 drones with a per unit price of
$39.4k including training. The contract is in fact a SUBCONTRACT with HIl
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries). This is an FMF case for Ukraine.
2) An additional SUB contract was issued to Cyberlux by ADS (Atlantic Diving Supply) for
approximately $400k for commercial variants of drones.
3) I have attached a series of files which show the all transactions between the US
Government and Cyberlux. you will note that DIRECT contracts with Cyberlux
ceased in 2015. The US government is required to make public all DOD contracts
within 90 days of award.
4) the GSA contract (contract GS-07F-9409S) which Cyberlux, to this day, advertises
on their website was cancelled by the government on 11/2/2020. This can
be verified in the files attached. search term "legal contract cancellation"
5) a Dun and Bradstreet credit report revealed significant unpaid debts, judgements,
and UCC's including to the IRS, NC Tax Authority and the Texas Tax Authority as
well as private lenders (Sep 2023)
6) An address check of the "Special Activities" group (3rd qtr 2023 report) revealed
that this address is in fact an address used by a real estate agent in Miami.
7) CMTC LLC is not registered with the US Government (sam.gov) and therefore has
never been awarded contracts (verifiable at usaspending.gov)
8) Catalyst Machine Works LLC s not registered with the US Government (sam.gov)
1 of 2
eventattribution
Keithly’s declaration is signed and filed 7 November 2024.
Read the anchor · page 1
Case 3:24-cV-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.951 Page 1
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
2
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
4
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
5
Irvine, California 92618
6
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
a Virginia limited liability company and
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
14
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
15
Virginia limited Liability company,
DECLARATION OF DAVID M.
Plaintiffs,
KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF
16
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
VS.
17
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE
Nevada Corporation and MARK D.
COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER
18
SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE:
SCHMIDT,
19
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
Defendants.
VACATE
20
21
Filed concurrently with Further
Supplemental Update, Declaration of
22
William Welter and Declaration of
23
Federico J. Zablah
24
25
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
26
ORDERED BY THE COURT
27
28
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
eventattribution
The reproduced Texas order bears a 31 October 2024 judicial signature and states expiry 28 November.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24
PagelD.955
PPO28/2824 11:29 AM
of 9
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 93684126
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 10/29/2024 11:29 AM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
Pgs-2
STPRX
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SPJUY
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor
V.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually,
Defendant/Judgment Debtors.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION TO VACATE
Before the Court is the Motion to Stay and Motion to Vacate Plaintiffs' Petition for
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment filed by Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D.
Schmidt (collectively, "Defendants"). The Court has considered the Motion, responses, replies,
and arguments of counsel and finds that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED:
ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Vacate is DENIED.
ORDERED, Defendants' Motion to Stay is GRANTED for a period of thirty days, only
to stay execution on the judgment, until November 28, 2024. Plaintiffs may proceed with post-
judgment discovery in this matter, which is not stayed.
ORDERED, Plaintiffs or Defendants may seek to extend the stay of this matter by
appropriate motion.
SO ORDERED.
Signed:
Michael tony
10/31/2024
[Analyst visual transcription: Judicial signature reads Michael Gomez, dated 10/31/2024. Earlier filing/submission stamp reads 10/29/2024 11:29 AM. Operative stay end is November 28, 2024, and discovery is not stayed.]
inferenceinference
The email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions requ
The email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
inferenceinference
The attached order establishes a limited Texas stay and denial of vacatur, but it does not itself establish Keithly’s explanation that the c
The attached order establishes a limited Texas stay and denial of vacatur, but it does not itself establish Keithly’s explanation that the court was misled or the alleged motive of opposing counsel. Those causal claims must be tested against the complete hearing record.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 9-page source reviewed at SHA-256 d0c1322ac60002250cc481dafac30b14daa0604067444180ca08ed7d2f78b315. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 9-page source reviewed at SHA-256 d0c1322ac60002250cc481dafac30b14daa0604067444180ca08ed7d2f78b315. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. No unexamined later court outcome is inferred.
Read the anchor · page 1
Case 3:24-cV-00482-RBM-VET
Document 32-1
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.951 Page 1
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
2
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
4
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
5
Irvine, California 92618
6
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
9
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
a Virginia limited liability company and
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
14
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
15
Virginia limited Liability company,
DECLARATION OF DAVID M.
Plaintiffs,
KEITHLY IN SUPPORT OF
16
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
VS.
17
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
HOLDINGS, LLC'S AND SECURE
Nevada Corporation and MARK D.
COMMUNITY, LLC'S FURTHER
18
SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE RE:
SCHMIDT,
19
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
Defendants.
VACATE
20
21
Filed concurrently with Further
Supplemental Update, Declaration of
22
William Welter and Declaration of
23
Federico J. Zablah
24
25
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
26
ORDERED BY THE COURT
27
28
MORTENSON
TAGGART
DECLARATION OF DAVID KEITHLY
ADAMS LLP
questionquestion
Which exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s
Which exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
questionquestion
What original message and authorised source evidence establish the sender’s identity, advised-company capacity and transmission history?
questionquestion
How does the full hearing transcript treat counsel’s initial stay statement, subsequent clarification and the judge’s stated basis for relie
How does the full hearing transcript treat counsel’s initial stay statement, subsequent clarification and the judge’s stated basis for relief?
questionquestion
What resolves the declaration’s 13 April receipt date against the exhibit’s 26 April email header?
distillateobservation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Exhibit A denies the motion to vacate and grants an execution-only stay until 28 November 2024, expressly permitting post-judgment discovery and applications to extend. It bears Michael Gomez’s signature dated 31 October 2024 and an earlier 29 October filing/submission stamp. The stated expiry and distinct stamp/signature dates are preserved, not recomputed as thirty days after signature. The generic granting title does not override the operative denial of vacatur.referencesThe final exchange changes the proposed two weeks to thirty days at Pennetti’s request, with Grady’s agreement. Gomez expressly stays enforcement for thirty days, excludes discovery and permits supplementation and a further hearing/submission if continued relief is sought. He says the stay expires after thirty days. This is an actual oral ruling recorded in the transcript, not merely a requested stay or an outright failure to obtain relief.
The signed order’s execution-only stay and discovery exception match the full transcript’s final thirty-day ruling; signature/filing/expiry dates remain distinct.
Welter alleges asset-sale attempts, dilatory Virginia suits filed 8 July 2024 and loss of judgment collateral, relying on separate Zablah and docket materials. He says he attended the 28 October Texas hearing telephonically and claims a false Virginia-stay statement misled the court into a thirty-day execution stay while discovery continued. This includes an express acknowledgement of the limited stay; his causal/motive account remains an allegation requiring the full transcript.referencesKeithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay, and says this misled the Texas court into a thirty-day enforcement stay while discovery continued. His broader delay-strategy claim is his interpretation. He cites Zablah paragraphs 4–5 for Virginia status; that declaration is not embedded here.
Welter and counsel offer matching hearing interpretations for the same creditor side; this is not independent verification of the alleged causal mechanism.
Exhibit A denies the motion to vacate and grants an execution-only stay until 28 November 2024, expressly permitting post-judgment discovery and applications to extend. It bears Michael Gomez’s signature dated 31 October 2024 and an earlier 29 October filing/submission stamp. The stated expiry and distinct stamp/signature dates are preserved, not recomputed as thirty days after signature. The generic granting title does not override the operative denial of vacatur.referencesThe motion says prior emergency stay attempts all failed and specifically says Pennetti failed to persuade Gomez on October 28, 2024, quoting page 14 of that transcript. It also describes the separate $9,392.50 Virginia fee award as arising from a similar emergency motion and alleges non-payment. The partial hearing quotation does not include that transcript’s final ruling; the actual full transcript is a separate controlling dependency.
Actual limited stay conflicts with the later statement that the October stay attempt failed; denial of vacatur does not eliminate granted stay relief.
Keithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay, and says this misled the Texas court into a thirty-day enforcement stay while discovery continued. His broader delay-strategy claim is his interpretation. He cites Zablah paragraphs 4–5 for Virginia status; that declaration is not embedded here.referencesThe final exchange changes the proposed two weeks to thirty days at Pennetti’s request, with Grady’s agreement. Gomez expressly stays enforcement for thirty days, excludes discovery and permits supplementation and a further hearing/submission if continued relief is sought. He says the stay expires after thirty days. This is an actual oral ruling recorded in the transcript, not merely a requested stay or an outright failure to obtain relief.
The transcript records the final stay with discovery continuing; Keithly’s interpretation of why it was granted remains distinct from the recorded relief.
Keithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay, and says this misled the Texas court into a thirty-day enforcement stay while discovery continued. His broader delay-strategy claim is his interpretation. He cites Zablah paragraphs 4–5 for Virginia status; that declaration is not embedded here.referencesPennetti shifts to arguing that a requested stay and security require a Texas stay under section 35.006. After saying a bond has been posted, he answers the court that they do not have a bond and instead granted a security interest. On page 13 he expressly says they do not have an order and describes pending requests. Gomez rejects an automatic stay based solely on filing something and asks about a genuinely pursued, secured proceeding.
Keithly attributes the stay to a false Virginia-stay claim. The transcript also records counsel acknowledging no bond and no order before the ruling; preserve that clarification when testing the alleged causal mechanism, without deciding intentional deception.
The unnamed sender says they advise a significant defence company approached by Cyberlux about acquisition or merger and performed preliminary lite diligence. They describe the AWH litigation as damaging Schmidt’s credibility. The sender and advised company are not independently identified by this exhibit.supportsWhat original message and authorised source evidence establish the sender’s identity, advised-company capacity and transmission history?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts Cyberlux is an HII subcontractor rather than a direct DoD supplier for 2,000 K8 drones at $39,400 each including training, an FMF Ukraine case; 2,000 times $39,400 equals $78.8 million. They also assert an approximately $400,000 ADS commercial-drone subcontract. These are sender statements referring to public records, not attached contract instruments.supportsWhich exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender considers personal/facility clearances highly improbable, says no SCIF was verified and considers future direct DoD business unlikely. These are expressed assessments and unsuccessful verification, not official clearance determinations or proof that no facility exists.supportsDoes filing this email establish all its procurement, clearance and financial claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts direct contracts ceased in 2015, says government publication of all DoD contracts is required within ninety days, and alleges GSA contract GS-07F-9409S was cancelled on the printed date 11/2/2020 while still advertised. Universal publication and current-absence conclusions are the sender’s claims; the underlying search scope, transaction files and cancellation record are absent.supportsDoes filing this email establish all its procurement, clearance and financial claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts direct contracts ceased in 2015, says government publication of all DoD contracts is required within ninety days, and alleges GSA contract GS-07F-9409S was cancelled on the printed date 11/2/2020 while still advertised. Universal publication and current-absence conclusions are the sender’s claims; the underlying search scope, transaction files and cancellation record are absent.supportsWhich exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A denies the motion to vacate and grants an execution-only stay until 28 November 2024, expressly permitting post-judgment discovery and applications to extend. It bears Michael Gomez’s signature dated 31 October 2024 and an earlier 29 October filing/submission stamp. The stated expiry and distinct stamp/signature dates are preserved, not recomputed as thirty days after signature. The generic granting title does not override the operative denial of vacatur.supportsHow does the full hearing transcript treat counsel’s initial stay statement, subsequent clarification and the judge’s stated basis for relief?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts CMTC and Catalyst lack SAM registration and therefore have never received government awards, and says Cyberlux and subsidiaries lack FFL/FEL licences so their munitions activities are impossible. These categorical inferences exceed what this email alone can establish about historical registrations, award channels, licence scope or exceptions.supportsWhich exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The email header gives 26 April 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sender identifier 49121719, recipients David M. Keithly and Sara Ross, and a displayed print/export timestamp of 6 November 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time. It lists PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip; the ZIP contents are not included in these email pages.supportsWhich exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order’s second page records agreement as to form and substance with /s/ Shawn M. Grady for plaintiffs and /s/ Katharine Battaia Clark for Cyberlux; Alexander J. Pennetti is also listed. It is visibly an unofficial clerk copy reproduced in the California filing, not evidence of a later extension or present stay.supportsThe attached order establishes a limited Texas stay and denial of vacatur, but it does not itself establish Keithly’s explanation that the court was misled or the alleged motive of opposing counsel. Those causal claims must be tested against the complete hearing record.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender describes CMTC as apparently a Watts shell, suggests Cyberlux counsel may not be told the truth, cites an Ozols filing about shielding Datron by transfers/pledges and fears a merger would associate the advised company with that effort. The cited filing and transaction proposal are absent, and appearance, implication and reputational concern retain their qualifiers.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts CMTC and Catalyst lack SAM registration and therefore have never received government awards, and says Cyberlux and subsidiaries lack FFL/FEL licences so their munitions activities are impossible. These categorical inferences exceed what this email alone can establish about historical registrations, award channels, licence scope or exceptions.supportsDoes filing this email establish all its procurement, clearance and financial claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Keithly says he received the anonymous email on 13 April 2024 and attaches it as a true copy, while the exhibit’s email header says 26 April 2024 and the attached ZIP filename includes 2024-04-13. These distinct dates conflict if treated as the same receipt event; the filename is not evidence of transmission on 13 April. No explanation or original message headers are supplied.supportsWhat resolves the declaration’s 13 April receipt date against the exhibit’s 26 April email header?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender suspects factoring of the $78.8 million award to fund working capital and describes an impression of impending insolvency. They say the Datron/Catalyst acquisition funding could not be confidently determined. Suspicion and acknowledged uncertainty remain explicit; no cash tracing, loan instrument or insolvency adjudication is supplied.supportsWhich exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender questions the legality of a $5,000-per-drone AWH commission under FMF/FAR/DFAR restrictions and possible profit limits, expresses suspicion about award development and customer feedback, and contrasts classification of work/product with classification of contract documents. These legal and behavioural interpretations are not adopted as governing law or transaction findings.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The email header gives 26 April 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sender identifier 49121719, recipients David M. Keithly and Sara Ross, and a displayed print/export timestamp of 6 November 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time. It lists PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip; the ZIP contents are not included in these email pages.supportsWhat resolves the declaration’s 13 April receipt date against the exhibit’s 26 April email header?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender suspects factoring of the $78.8 million award to fund working capital and describes an impression of impending insolvency. They say the Datron/Catalyst acquisition funding could not be confidently determined. Suspicion and acknowledged uncertainty remain explicit; no cash tracing, loan instrument or insolvency adjudication is supplied.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender reports a September 2023 Dun & Bradstreet report with debts, judgments and UCC entries, and a Special Activities address associated with a Miami estate agent. Those source reports are not attached; debt, tax claim, security filing and misconduct remain different matters.supportsWhich exact attached ZIP, credit report, procurement/cancellation records, licence searches and financing instruments establish the sender’s specific claims and search scope?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A denies the motion to vacate and grants an execution-only stay until 28 November 2024, expressly permitting post-judgment discovery and applications to extend. It bears Michael Gomez’s signature dated 31 October 2024 and an earlier 29 October filing/submission stamp. The stated expiry and distinct stamp/signature dates are preserved, not recomputed as thirty days after signature. The generic granting title does not override the operative denial of vacatur.supportsThe attached order establishes a limited Texas stay and denial of vacatur, but it does not itself establish Keithly’s explanation that the court was misled or the alleged motive of opposing counsel. Those causal claims must be tested against the complete hearing record.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts direct contracts ceased in 2015, says government publication of all DoD contracts is required within ninety days, and alleges GSA contract GS-07F-9409S was cancelled on the printed date 11/2/2020 while still advertised. Universal publication and current-absence conclusions are the sender’s claims; the underlying search scope, transaction files and cancellation record are absent.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender suspects factoring of the $78.8 million award to fund working capital and describes an impression of impending insolvency. They say the Datron/Catalyst acquisition funding could not be confidently determined. Suspicion and acknowledged uncertainty remain explicit; no cash tracing, loan instrument or insolvency adjudication is supplied.supportsDoes filing this email establish all its procurement, clearance and financial claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts Cyberlux is an HII subcontractor rather than a direct DoD supplier for 2,000 K8 drones at $39,400 each including training, an FMF Ukraine case; 2,000 times $39,400 equals $78.8 million. They also assert an approximately $400,000 ADS commercial-drone subcontract. These are sender statements referring to public records, not attached contract instruments.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The email header gives 26 April 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sender identifier 49121719, recipients David M. Keithly and Sara Ross, and a displayed print/export timestamp of 6 November 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time. It lists PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip; the ZIP contents are not included in these email pages.supportsWhat original message and authorised source evidence establish the sender’s identity, advised-company capacity and transmission history?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Keithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay, and says this misled the Texas court into a thirty-day enforcement stay while discovery continued. His broader delay-strategy claim is his interpretation. He cites Zablah paragraphs 4–5 for Virginia status; that declaration is not embedded here.supportsHow does the full hearing transcript treat counsel’s initial stay statement, subsequent clarification and the judge’s stated basis for relief?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender considers personal/facility clearances highly improbable, says no SCIF was verified and considers future direct DoD business unlikely. These are expressed assessments and unsuccessful verification, not official clearance determinations or proof that no facility exists.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sender asserts CMTC and Catalyst lack SAM registration and therefore have never received government awards, and says Cyberlux and subsidiaries lack FFL/FEL licences so their munitions activities are impossible. These categorical inferences exceed what this email alone can establish about historical registrations, award channels, licence scope or exceptions.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The unnamed sender says they advise a significant defence company approached by Cyberlux about acquisition or merger and performed preliminary lite diligence. They describe the AWH litigation as damaging Schmidt’s credibility. The sender and advised company are not independently identified by this exhibit.supportsThe email supplies an attributed diligence account and leads to named record types. Its categorical assertions and expressed suspicions require original contracts, registry/search evidence and financing records; repeated quotation or filing as an exhibit does not validate each underlying claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The email header gives 26 April 2024 at 3:37:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sender identifier 49121719, recipients David M. Keithly and Sara Ross, and a displayed print/export timestamp of 6 November 2024 at 20:21:37 Pacific Standard Time. It lists PrimeTransactionsAndSubawards_2024-04-13_H14M34S55768219.zip; the ZIP contents are not included in these email pages.supportsDoes filing this email establish all its procurement, clearance and financial claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Keithly says he attended the 28 October 2024 hearing by Zoom, accuses defendants’ counsel of falsely representing an entered Virginia stay, and says this misled the Texas court into a thirty-day enforcement stay while discovery continued. His broader delay-strategy claim is his interpretation. He cites Zablah paragraphs 4–5 for Virginia status; that declaration is not embedded here.supportsThe attached order establishes a limited Texas stay and denial of vacatur, but it does not itself establish Keithly’s explanation that the court was misled or the alleged motive of opposing counsel. Those causal claims must be tested against the complete hearing record.
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.