Walton reply disputing stay and deposit representations — 22 May 2025
Original sourcefiled_counsel_letter_with_service_notifications
Metadata only
The original file isn’t published in this edition.
The record remains visible so the reader can see that it exists without mistaking metadata for access to the underlying document.
SHA-256 080811478adce0026805…0 pages · 214 KB
DISTILLATES
What the source contains
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Walton replies for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to the May 20 letter, filed 22 May 2025 at 3:28 PM, envelope 101174598. He quotes an O
Walton replies for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to the May 20 letter, filed 22 May 2025 at 3:28 PM, envelope 101174598. He quotes an October 28, 2024 hearing exchange in which Pennetti answered that enforcement had been stayed in Virginia, and alleges this was a misrepresentation. The excerpt is counsel’s reproduction; the full transcript and actual stay docket are not included in these five pages.
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
He challenges April statements about intended supersedeas funding and the May planned $1.4 million deposit, citing Petersen’s May 21 affidav
He challenges April statements about intended supersedeas funding and the May planned $1.4 million deposit, citing Petersen’s May 21 affidavit for lack of an interpleader motion or Fairfax appearance. He alleges no money had been interpleaded despite the time elapsed. These are dated non-occurrence allegations; they do not independently establish all registry activity or every jurisdiction’s docket.
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Walton reiterates that creditors seek Cyberlux’s non-exempt assets, including expected HII receipts above $20 million, and invokes Rosenthal
Walton reiterates that creditors seek Cyberlux’s non-exempt assets, including expected HII receipts above $20 million, and invokes Rosenthal’s rejection of the government-property reading. Saying the property issue is resolved is his broader characterisation: this letter does not adjudicate actual title to each drone/component or later conduct.
Read the anchor · page 2
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
MAY 22, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 3
intended to “pay into the appropriate court an amount that is a supersedeas bond.” (Case
No. 4:25-cv-01689, Doc. 5, filed April 25, 2025, pp. 11-12.) Indeed, another misleading
statement because Cyberlux has made no effort to file a motion for supersedeas bond
whether under Texas supersedeas law, federal supersedeas law, or any other law of a
competent jurisdiction. Now, in May of 2025, Cyberlux represents to this Court that it is
“planning” to pay $1.4 million into the registry of the Virginia court. Yet again Cyberlux
misleads this Court because, as of May 21, 2025, Cyberlux has not filed a motion to
interplead any funds into the Virginia court’s registry, much less filed a notice of
appearance in the action pending in Fairfax County, Virginia. (Affidavit of J. Chapman
Petersen, signed May 21, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 7-9.) Cyberlux’s smoke screen
tactics should not divert attention from the actual issues—that is, Cyberlux is in default
under the settlement agreement for lack of payment (Ex. 1, ¶¶ 4-6), among other reasons,
and Cyberlux owes several creditors, including Atlantic Wave, many millions of dollars.
Receivership Order. Cyberlux continues to raise the government property issue that
has already been discussed ad nauseum and resolved. Again, Atlantic Wave is not
attempting to seize government property, but rather it is focused on freezing non-exempt
assets of Cyberlux, for example, the substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million)
Cyberlux is in position to receive any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).
And the proposed receivership order is consistent with that focus. (Notice of Second
Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2, pp. 5-6) (finding that “the proposed
[receivership] order does not state, or even suggest, that Atlantic Wave or [the receiver
Robert] Berleth intend to seize U.S. government property.”) Indeed, Cyberlux’s blindly
obsessive repetition of the same argument does not change the facts.
Dissipation of Assets. Cyberlux contends that Atlantic Wave should “have no real
concern whatsoever” about Cyberlux’s conduct because it is “planning” to pay $1.4
million into the registry of the Virginia court. The Judgment was entered against
Cyberlux in June of 2023 (and domesticated in Texas in July of 2024), so Cyberlux had
over 22 months to interplead any disputed monies into the Virginia court registry (or
over 9 months to interplead such monies into the Texas court registry). And Cyberlux
still has not interpleaded any monies into any court registry. (Ex. 1, ¶¶ 1-3.) Thus,
Cyberlux’s purported plan to interplead funds is merely a hollow distraction.
The other concern that elevates the risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by
Cyberlux are the number of other creditor claims against Cyberlux, e.g., as discussed in
Atlantic Wave’s letters, filed April 9 and May 15, 2025. Since those letters, a $1,631,221.32
judgment in favor of Thin Air Gear, LLC, is now pending entry by the Colorado federal
court in Thin Air Gear, LLC, v. Cyberlux Corporation. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00805, Doc. 18, filed
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
He reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He
He reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He also cites an April credit-limit increase from $7 million to $12.3 million after alleged default, collateralised by government-order assets, as a dissipation risk. A facility limit is not the amount actually drawn, and pending entry is not completed entry.
Read the anchor · page 2
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
MAY 22, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 3
intended to “pay into the appropriate court an amount that is a supersedeas bond.” (Case
No. 4:25-cv-01689, Doc. 5, filed April 25, 2025, pp. 11-12.) Indeed, another misleading
statement because Cyberlux has made no effort to file a motion for supersedeas bond
whether under Texas supersedeas law, federal supersedeas law, or any other law of a
competent jurisdiction. Now, in May of 2025, Cyberlux represents to this Court that it is
“planning” to pay $1.4 million into the registry of the Virginia court. Yet again Cyberlux
misleads this Court because, as of May 21, 2025, Cyberlux has not filed a motion to
interplead any funds into the Virginia court’s registry, much less filed a notice of
appearance in the action pending in Fairfax County, Virginia. (Affidavit of J. Chapman
Petersen, signed May 21, 2025, attached as Exhibit 1, ¶¶ 7-9.) Cyberlux’s smoke screen
tactics should not divert attention from the actual issues—that is, Cyberlux is in default
under the settlement agreement for lack of payment (Ex. 1, ¶¶ 4-6), among other reasons,
and Cyberlux owes several creditors, including Atlantic Wave, many millions of dollars.
Receivership Order. Cyberlux continues to raise the government property issue that
has already been discussed ad nauseum and resolved. Again, Atlantic Wave is not
attempting to seize government property, but rather it is focused on freezing non-exempt
assets of Cyberlux, for example, the substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million)
Cyberlux is in position to receive any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII).
And the proposed receivership order is consistent with that focus. (Notice of Second
Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2, pp. 5-6) (finding that “the proposed
[receivership] order does not state, or even suggest, that Atlantic Wave or [the receiver
Robert] Berleth intend to seize U.S. government property.”) Indeed, Cyberlux’s blindly
obsessive repetition of the same argument does not change the facts.
Dissipation of Assets. Cyberlux contends that Atlantic Wave should “have no real
concern whatsoever” about Cyberlux’s conduct because it is “planning” to pay $1.4
million into the registry of the Virginia court. The Judgment was entered against
Cyberlux in June of 2023 (and domesticated in Texas in July of 2024), so Cyberlux had
over 22 months to interplead any disputed monies into the Virginia court registry (or
over 9 months to interplead such monies into the Texas court registry). And Cyberlux
still has not interpleaded any monies into any court registry. (Ex. 1, ¶¶ 1-3.) Thus,
Cyberlux’s purported plan to interplead funds is merely a hollow distraction.
The other concern that elevates the risk of unjustified dissipation of assets by
Cyberlux are the number of other creditor claims against Cyberlux, e.g., as discussed in
Atlantic Wave’s letters, filed April 9 and May 15, 2025. Since those letters, a $1,631,221.32
judgment in favor of Thin Air Gear, LLC, is now pending entry by the Colorado federal
court in Thin Air Gear, LLC, v. Cyberlux Corporation. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00805, Doc. 18, filed
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Walton alleges prior dissipation of approximately $38 million and deliberate frustration/increased costs and requests prompt appointment of
Walton alleges prior dissipation of approximately $38 million and deliberate frustration/increased costs and requests prompt appointment of a receiver. These remain counsel allegations and requested relief. The letter describes Exhibit 1 Petersen affidavit, Exhibit 2 Thin Air material and a May 19 letter with annual-report pages, none reproduced in this five-page file.
Read the anchor · page 3
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
MAY 22, 2025
PAGE 3 OF 3
May 16, 2025, attached as Exhibit 2.) Considering the prior dissipation of $38 million in
September of 2023 by Cyberlux, among other questionable actions, there is a good faith
basis to believe that Cyberlux will continue to take active steps to frustrate the recovery
of monies due to its creditors, including Atlantic Wave. One such step was Cyberlux
“amend[ing] its line of credit increasing the limit under the agreement [from $7 million]
to $12.3 million” in April 2025 after defaulting on the agreement which is “collateralized
by the accounts receivable, inventory and other assets related to the specific purchase
orders [from government customers].” (Atlantic Wave Letter to Court, filed May 19, 2025,
at Ex. A, pp. 44-46.) These other creditors’ claims show the necessity of a receivership to
preserve the status quo and minimize any risk of dissipation of assets by Cyberlux.
Cyberlux’s deliberate conduct is not only frustrating efforts to recover monies due
and owed to Atlantic Wave, but also needlessly increasing attorney fees and costs and
taking up valuable time of the courts. Atlantic Wave respectfully requests the Court’s
prompt intervention, including but not limited to the appointment of a receiver.
Very truly yours,
David A. Walton
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 22, 2025, a true and correct copy of this document was
served on all parties of record via electronic service from the court’s ECF system for
registered users, in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
By: /s/ David A. Walton UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Walton signs and certifies service May 22. Two automated pages show SENT entries at 3:28:07 PM and status as of 3:38 PM CST; some contacts r
Walton signs and certifies service May 22. Two automated pages show SENT entries at 3:28:07 PM and status as of 3:38 PM CST; some contacts repeat across pages. These are dispatch records, not proof of reading or judicial acceptance. The source consists of three reply pages and two automated certificate pages.
Read the anchor · page 3
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
MAY 22, 2025
PAGE 3 OF 3
May 16, 2025, attached as Exhibit 2.) Considering the prior dissipation of $38 million in
September of 2023 by Cyberlux, among other questionable actions, there is a good faith
basis to believe that Cyberlux will continue to take active steps to frustrate the recovery
of monies due to its creditors, including Atlantic Wave. One such step was Cyberlux
“amend[ing] its line of credit increasing the limit under the agreement [from $7 million]
to $12.3 million” in April 2025 after defaulting on the agreement which is “collateralized
by the accounts receivable, inventory and other assets related to the specific purchase
orders [from government customers].” (Atlantic Wave Letter to Court, filed May 19, 2025,
at Ex. A, pp. 44-46.) These other creditors’ claims show the necessity of a receivership to
preserve the status quo and minimize any risk of dissipation of assets by Cyberlux.
Cyberlux’s deliberate conduct is not only frustrating efforts to recover monies due
and owed to Atlantic Wave, but also needlessly increasing attorney fees and costs and
taking up valuable time of the courts. Atlantic Wave respectfully requests the Court’s
prompt intervention, including but not limited to the appointment of a receiver.
Very truly yours,
David A. Walton
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 22, 2025, a true and correct copy of this document was
served on all parties of record via electronic service from the court’s ECF system for
registered users, in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
By: /s/ David A. Walton UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
David A. Walton
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Michael Gomez
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Mark D. Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Walton filed the reply and request for intervention.
Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference
The reply directly contests the debtor’s reassurance but relies on separately cited records for stay status, deposits and another creditor’s
The reply directly contests the debtor’s reassurance but relies on separately cited records for stay status, deposits and another creditor’s pending judgment. The dispute can be indexed now without treating either counsel’s characterisation as the court’s resolution.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 080811478adce002680589290abea780536eefdcd3e7c3ac32eb1222901bc29f. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 080811478adce002680589290abea780536eefdcd3e7c3ac32eb1222901bc29f. 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
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
May 22, 2025
VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV
Honorable Michael Gomez
129th Judicial District Court
Harris County Civil Courthouse
201 Caroline, 10th Floor
Houston Texas 77002
RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.
Dear Judge Gomez:
I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC
(Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to address the letter dated May
20, 2025, filed by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(Cyberlux). As shown throughout this case and further confirmed by Cyberlux’s May 20
letter, Cyberlux does not let factual accuracy get in the way of its narrative.
Amended Final Order and Judgment. In October of 2024, Cyberlux represented to this
Court that a stay of execution of the Amended Final Order and Judgment (Judgment) had
been granted:
THE COURT: Has it been stayed? I mean has it been stayed
in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: Those -- all those litigations, yes, the stay has
occurred in Virginia. There’s no -- the collection – there’s no
activity in the collection suit. Then you’ve got the three other
lawsuits.
THE COURT: So the enforcement of this judgment that they
domesticated has been stayed in Virginia?
MR. PENNETI: That’s correct.
(October 28, 2024, Hearing Transcript at 8:8-18.)
But that was a misrepresentation because no such stay of execution was requested or has
been granted. Then, in April of 2025, Cyberlux represented to the Texas federal court it
5/22/2025 3:28 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101174598
By: Angelica Rodriguez
Filed: 5/22/2025 3:28 PM
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
questionquestion
What do the full October transcript, actual stay orders and May registry/docket records establish about the challenged representations?
questionquestion
What entered Thin Air judgment and actual Legalist draws/repayments establish exposure beyond the quoted proposed award and credit limit?
distillatequestion
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Legalist SPV III, LP is lender; Cyberlux and Datron World Communications are each and together Borrower. The facility is a revolving maximum $7 million for a stated one-year period, with availability capped at 50% of eligible, undisputed government-related purchase orders less outstanding amounts. The limit and eligibility formula do not show actual draws, a $7 million funded balance or maturity under any later amendment.referencesHe reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He also cites an April credit-limit increase from $7 million to $12.3 million after alleged default, collateralised by government-order assets, as a dissipation risk. A facility limit is not the amount actually drawn, and pending entry is not completed entry.
The supplied agreement has a $7 million limit. The later letter reports a $12.3 million increase. Obtain the actual amendment; neither limit is a draw or current balance.
AWH reports Legalist’s initial $3 million March 27, 2024 facility, April 1 Nevada UCC filing, July 13 amended $7 million limit and an approximately April 24, 2025 temporary $12.5 million protective-advance ceiling. It does not dispute entry of the loan documents or the stated Nevada filing, but challenges priority, eligible-order predicates, alleged voidability/estoppel and roughly $3.083 million said to lack contract/collateral connection. Limits and legal objections are not actual balances or rulings.referencesHe reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He also cites an April credit-limit increase from $7 million to $12.3 million after alleged default, collateralised by government-order assets, as a dissipation risk. A facility limit is not the amount actually drawn, and pending entry is not completed entry.
This memorandum reports a $12.5 million protective-advance limit; the May 2025 letter reports $12.3 million. The actual later amendment is needed; neither figure is silently chosen or equated with a drawn balance.
The letter first describes a planned Virginia registry deposit above $1 million and later specifies above $1.4 million: $912,000 plus approximately $500,000 against disputed fees. It promises documentation as soon as the deposit is made. Both formulations are prospective, with no fixed deposit date and no receipt included. The more specific figure is not a contradictory separate deposit.referencesHe challenges April statements about intended supersedeas funding and the May planned $1.4 million deposit, citing Petersen’s May 21 affidavit for lack of an interpleader motion or Fairfax appearance. He alleges no money had been interpleaded despite the time elapsed. These are dated non-occurrence allegations; they do not independently establish all registry activity or every jurisdiction’s docket.
May 20 prospective deposit is challenged May 22 by cited missing filing/deposit evidence; neither letter supplies an actual receipt.
Walton reiterates that creditors seek Cyberlux’s non-exempt assets, including expected HII receipts above $20 million, and invokes Rosenthal’s rejection of the government-property reading. Saying the property issue is resolved is his broader characterisation: this letter does not adjudicate actual title to each drone/component or later conduct.referencesThe opinion finds no evidence on that record of a receiver attempt to seize/sell Government property or of the asserted crossed boundary. It distinguishes a prior hearing’s hypothetical possible removal trigger from the actual facts and notes federal-officer removal might still not apply. This is not a prospective licence or a later title adjudication.
The signed opinion confines the government-property conclusion to its historical record; the letter’s broader resolved wording is counsel characterisation.
Pennetti 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.referencesWalton replies for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to the May 20 letter, filed 22 May 2025 at 3:28 PM, envelope 101174598. He quotes an October 28, 2024 hearing exchange in which Pennetti answered that enforcement had been stayed in Virginia, and alleges this was a misrepresentation. The excerpt is counsel’s reproduction; the full transcript and actual stay docket are not included in these five pages.
May reply quotes the initial stay representation; full transcript also records no-order/no-bond clarification and final limited Texas stay.
He says the HII modification requires delivery of all Spring-facility drones and equipment before payment. He asks the court to decide title to drones, equipment and unassembled parts, asserting a wrongful seizure could expose Cyberlux to more than $20 million liability. Those are counsel’s transaction/ownership positions and predictions; no executed modification or title instrument is attached.referencesWalton reiterates that creditors seek Cyberlux’s non-exempt assets, including expected HII receipts above $20 million, and invokes Rosenthal’s rejection of the government-property reading. Saying the property issue is resolved is his broader characterisation: this letter does not adjudicate actual title to each drone/component or later conduct.
Debtor requests actual ownership hearing; creditor relies on remand’s boundary. Remand is not an item-by-item title finding.
Walton alleges prior dissipation of approximately $38 million and deliberate frustration/increased costs and requests prompt appointment of a receiver. These remain counsel allegations and requested relief. The letter describes Exhibit 1 Petersen affidavit, Exhibit 2 Thin Air material and a May 19 letter with annual-report pages, none reproduced in this five-page file.supportsThe reply directly contests the debtor’s reassurance but relies on separately cited records for stay status, deposits and another creditor’s pending judgment. The dispute can be indexed now without treating either counsel’s characterisation as the court’s resolution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He also cites an April credit-limit increase from $7 million to $12.3 million after alleged default, collateralised by government-order assets, as a dissipation risk. A facility limit is not the amount actually drawn, and pending entry is not completed entry.supportsWhat entered Thin Air judgment and actual Legalist draws/repayments establish exposure beyond the quoted proposed award and credit limit?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He challenges April statements about intended supersedeas funding and the May planned $1.4 million deposit, citing Petersen’s May 21 affidavit for lack of an interpleader motion or Fairfax appearance. He alleges no money had been interpleaded despite the time elapsed. These are dated non-occurrence allegations; they do not independently establish all registry activity or every jurisdiction’s docket.supportsWhat do the full October transcript, actual stay orders and May registry/docket records establish about the challenged representations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He also cites an April credit-limit increase from $7 million to $12.3 million after alleged default, collateralised by government-order assets, as a dissipation risk. A facility limit is not the amount actually drawn, and pending entry is not completed entry.supportsThe reply directly contests the debtor’s reassurance but relies on separately cited records for stay status, deposits and another creditor’s pending judgment. The dispute can be indexed now without treating either counsel’s characterisation as the court’s resolution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He challenges April statements about intended supersedeas funding and the May planned $1.4 million deposit, citing Petersen’s May 21 affidavit for lack of an interpleader motion or Fairfax appearance. He alleges no money had been interpleaded despite the time elapsed. These are dated non-occurrence allegations; they do not independently establish all registry activity or every jurisdiction’s docket.supportsThe reply directly contests the debtor’s reassurance but relies on separately cited records for stay status, deposits and another creditor’s pending judgment. The dispute can be indexed now without treating either counsel’s characterisation as the court’s resolution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton replies for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to the May 20 letter, filed 22 May 2025 at 3:28 PM, envelope 101174598. He quotes an October 28, 2024 hearing exchange in which Pennetti answered that enforcement had been stayed in Virginia, and alleges this was a misrepresentation. The excerpt is counsel’s reproduction; the full transcript and actual stay docket are not included in these five pages.supportsThe reply directly contests the debtor’s reassurance but relies on separately cited records for stay status, deposits and another creditor’s pending judgment. The dispute can be indexed now without treating either counsel’s characterisation as the court’s resolution.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton replies for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to the May 20 letter, filed 22 May 2025 at 3:28 PM, envelope 101174598. He quotes an October 28, 2024 hearing exchange in which Pennetti answered that enforcement had been stayed in Virginia, and alleges this was a misrepresentation. The excerpt is counsel’s reproduction; the full transcript and actual stay docket are not included in these five pages.supportsWhat do the full October transcript, actual stay orders and May registry/docket records establish about the challenged representations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He reports a $1,631,221.32 Thin Air judgment pending entry, citing May 16 ECF 18, rather than saying this letter is the entered judgment. He also cites an April credit-limit increase from $7 million to $12.3 million after alleged default, collateralised by government-order assets, as a dissipation risk. A facility limit is not the amount actually drawn, and pending entry is not completed entry.supportsDoes this reply establish $12.3 million was borrowed?
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.