Welter September 2024 update — actual Virginia rulings, disputed transfers, nonappearance and five RB notes
Original sourceSigned creditor declaration and embedded orders, adversarial pleadings, contract copies, reporter transcript and dated OTC capture; source authority is separated by exhibit.
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 6edf008dddaf18708452…0 pages · 11 MB
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
Welter signs September 3, 2024 as managing director of AWH, Secure Community and Strikepoint, supporting the California update. He alleges n
Welter signs September 3, 2024 as managing director of AWH, Secure Community and Strikepoint, supporting the California update. He alleges no regular payments after May, repeated unanswered July–December 2023 drone-information requests, no agreed settlement amendment, and threatened collection assets. These are adverse creditor testimony, not findings that every disputed obligation was breached.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
and STRIKEPOINT, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company and
STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM
WELTER IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
HOLDINGS, LLC AND
STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC’S UPDATE RE: MOTION TO
VACATE
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.765 Page 1 of 164
claimallegation
Settlement’s attached proposed judgment has blank judge/date lines. The separately attached amended judgment is signed June 28 and docketed
Settlement’s attached proposed judgment has blank judge/date lines. The separately attached amended judgment is signed June 28 and docketed June 30, 2023, awards $1,572,500 jointly and severally plus $177,126.19 fees, sanctions $3,895/$6,842.50 and 12% interest, and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. Agreed security language and bankruptcy/appeal waiver language do not themselves prove perfection or bind a bankruptcy court beyond law.
Read the anchor · page 31
r
Cyberlux ~Settlement_ Agreement_Fina1_002_- I .pdf file:///C:/Users/willw/Downloads/Cyberlux_Settlement_Agreement. ..
13 of 15
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
---------------)
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC )
AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and )
MARK D. SCHl\tlIDT, individually )
)
Defendants. )
---------------)
Case No
ORDER OF FINAL JUDGEMENT
BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion for Entry of Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, and agreed to by
Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, and as the
authorized representative for CYBERLUX CORPORATION, and
IT APPEARING to the Cow-t that the parties hereto have reached a settlement agreement
that resolves the cUITent need for continuing litigation.
UPON CONSIDERA TTON of the pleadings, the evidence, argument of counsel, the
consent of the parties, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that judgement is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS,
LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, and against Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION
and MARK D. SCHMIDT, jointly and severally, as follows:
a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the sum of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,572,500) in
compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION
13
6115/2023, 5:50 PM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.795 Page 31 of 164
claimallegation
Embedded April 18 Schmidt declaration claims changed payment timing, $167,402.56 overage and continuing compliance. Its twelve listed paymen
Embedded April 18 Schmidt declaration claims changed payment timing, $167,402.56 overage and continuing compliance. Its twelve listed payments sum $779,616.14: $595,616.14 AWH and $184,000 Strikepoint, whereas prose claims $254,000 Strikepoint, a $70,000 gap. $1,110,363.89 less $595,616.14 = $514,747.75, not printed $591,102.45, a $76,354.70 difference. Paragraph 8 is visibly redacted and is not reconstructed; signature dated April 18 Vienna is visible. Underlying wire confirmations and Grimes declaration referenced there are not included in this embedded five-page extract.
Read the anchor · page 37
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 21-1 Filed 04/18/24 PagelD.534 Page 2 of 25
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0741C8C4-A675-4EF1-BE7F-A443509C5383
1 CYBERLUX CORPORATION; and
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
2
3
4
Counterclaim.ants,
v.
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS,
5 LLC; SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
6 LLC,
7
8
9
Counterclaim Defendants.
I, Mark D. Schmidt, declare:
EXHIBIT 3
10 1. I am the President and Chief Executive Office of Defendant and
11 Counterclaimant Cyberlux Corporation ("Cyberlux"). I am also individually a
12 Defendant and Counterclaimant. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained
13 within this Declaration based upon me being involved with the transactions that are
14 the subject of this lawsuit and this Declaration. If called as a witness, I would
15 competently testify as to the following facts based on my personal knowledge.
16 2. On or about June 15, 2023, Cyberlux, Schmidt, Atlantic Wave Holdings,
17 LLC ("Atlantic Wave"), Secure Community, LLC ("Secure"), and Strikepoint
18 Consulting, LLC ("Strikepoint") entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement
19 Agreement") arising from the lawsuit entitled
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC; and
20 Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, Circuit
21 Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, Case No. CL22-3882 (the "Virginia
22 Action"), in which Plaintiffs sued to enforce certain contracts to be performed in
23 Virginia through overreaching and economic duress. A true and correct copy of the
24 Settlement Agreement
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
25 3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, an Amended Final
26 Order and Judgement [sic] ("Settlement Judgement") memorializing the monetary
27 component of the settlement was filed in the Virginia Action on June 28, 2023, a true
28 and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit B. In fact, the Settlement
2 3.:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN OPPOSITION TO ATLANTIC WAVE'S MOTION TO STRIKE
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.801 Page 37 of 164
claimallegation
May 31 signed order temporarily lifts enforcement up to $550,000 until June 11 at 5 pm, authorising up to $317,000 payroll including consult
May 31 signed order temporarily lifts enforcement up to $550,000 until June 11 at 5 pm, authorising up to $317,000 payroll including consultants and $230,000 settlement payments, requiring payment records in camera and payroll proof within 48 hours. It restrains new garnishments temporarily and takes other relief under advisement. Permission to use funds is not proof they were paid.
Read the anchor · page 42
lJirginia:
Jin tbe Cll:ircuit Cll:ourt of tbe Cll:it!' of 3a.icbmonb. 31obn ~arsball Cll:ourts ,Suilbing
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. CL22-3882
CYBERLUX CORPORATION,
AND
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Defendants.
ORDER
On May 31, 2024 came the parties, by counsel, to be heard on the Defendants' "Emergency
Motion for Declaratory Relief," filed on May 21, 2024. Upon consideration of the filings, evidence,
and arguments included in the record in the above-styled matter, the Court grants Defendants'
temporary injunction only.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
(1) All judgment liens, garnishments, writs of fieri facias, and notice of judgment liens against
Defendants' accounts at any third party bank (s) and/or entity(s), including but not limited to
funds sequestered in accounts with Towne Bank and PNC Bank are hereby lifted up to
$550,000.00 effective immediately. This lift will stay in effect until June 11, 2024 at 5:00
p.m.
(2) Defendants may use up to $317,000.00 for the purpose of making payroll and shall provide
in-camera proof of payments to the Court within forty-eight (48) hours of any such
payments. For the purposes of this Order, payroll is defined as the distribution of payments
to company employees and consultants who are entitled to receive compensation as well as
other work benefits.1
(3) Defendants may use up to $230,000 for the purpose of making regularly scheduled
settlement payments to Plaintiffs and provide in-camera proof of payments to the Court.
1 The Defendants shall provide a spreadsheet of all payments made pursuant to this Order with information noting
how it complies with this Order.
CL22-3882// Page 112
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.806 Page 42 of 164
claimallegation
June 7 signed opinion holds the underlying dismissed case final and denies declaratory relief improperly brought by motion in that case, dis
June 7 signed opinion holds the underlying dismissed case final and denies declaratory relief improperly brought by motion in that case, dissolving the May 31 injunction before its scheduled expiry. It denies creditor sanctions and debtor fees, finds creditor entitlement to reasonable defence fees but reserves amount pending affidavit within seven days. It records initial April garnishments dismissed for a future June 28, 2024 judgment-date error and replacements outstanding. It does not decide all alleged settlement breaches or grant the broad injunction sought.
Read the anchor · page 45
lJirginia:
.lht tbe <lCircuit «:ourt of tbe <ltitp of l\icbmonb, Jobn fflarsbaU «:ourts
,Suilbing
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC,
AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION,
AND
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Defendants.
Case No. CL22-3882
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 31, 2024 came the parties, in person and by counsel, to be heard on the
Defendants' "Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief," filed on May 21, 2024. The
Court, having considered the filings of the parties and having heard their arguments thereon,
took the Defendants' Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief under advisement. 1 After
due consideration, the Court DECIDES as follows.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2022 the Plaintiffs filed their "Complaint" against the Defendants,
alleging two claims of Breach of Contract,2 Contractual/Equitable Audit, and Quantum
Meruit. The parties subsequently entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated June 15,
2023,3 wherein the Defendants agreed to pay a total amount of $1,572,500.00 to the
Defendants in scheduled monthly payments.4 The Court entered an agreed "Order of Final
Judgment" on June 21, 2023 and then an agreed "Amended Final Order and Judgment" on
1 See page 2 of the "Order," entered by this Court on May 31, 2024. The Court NOTES that it received
correspondence from counsel for PNC Bank via electronic mail in response to its May 31, 2024 Order.
Counsel indicated that the Defendants were required to post a bond pursuant to §8.01-477 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended. However, §8.01-477 is inapplicable because a motion to quash an execution
was not brought before the Court.
2 According to the Complaint, the parties entered into a patent license agreement on July 15, 2019 and a
second agreement on October 8, 2021. Compl. 11 7, I 0. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached
both contracts. See id 1135--43.
3 Although the Amended Final Order and Judgment includes language referencing the Settlement
Agreement, the Settlement Agreement was neither filed nor attached to the Amended Final Order and
Judgment. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit I to the Defendants' "Memorandum
in Support of Defendants' Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief."
4 See paragraph 2(c) of the Settlement Agreement.
CL22-3882// Page 114
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.809 Page 45 of 164
claimallegation
July 8 separate injunction action CL24002919 and declaratory action CL24002960 repeat oral-modification/overpayment theories and seek to hal
July 8 separate injunction action CL24002919 and declaratory action CL24002960 repeat oral-modification/overpayment theories and seek to halt enforcement across states. Declaratory complaint appears twice as service copies, not two independent claims. Secure Community return shows July 19 personal service at 4 pm and July 25 filing; AWH return page70 is blank. Issued summonses and registered-agent designation do not establish service wherever return fields are uncompleted.
Read the anchor · page 56
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND CITY CIRCUIT COURT
Civil Division
400 NORTH 9TH STREET
RICHMOND VA 23219
(804) 646-6506
Summons
To: SECURE COMMUNITY LLC
RYANBROWN,PLLC
1739 CLARENDON BL VD
ARLINGTON VA 22209
Case No. 760CL240029r·00
I
The party upon whom this summons and the attached complaint are served is hereby Ltified
that unless within 21 days after such service, response is made by filing in the clerk's f>ffice
of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges may be
taken as admitted and the court may enter an order,judgment, or decree against such party
either by default or after hearing evidence. I
Appearance in person is not required by this summons.
Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia on,Thursday, August 01, 2024
Clerk of Court: EDWARD F JEWETT
Instructions:
Hearing Official:
Attorney's name:
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.820 Page 56 of 164
claimallegation
August 6 Petersen letter proposes August 23 designee/Schmidt deposition and offers alternatives; August 9 sets August 27 Richmond after no r
August 6 Petersen letter proposes August 23 designee/Schmidt deposition and offers alternatives; August 9 sets August 27 Richmond after no response, again offers changes, and announces intended counsel substitution and withdrawal of predecessor Motion to Reverse. August 23 reiterates nonresponse and attendance. Proposed August 23 notices have blank service dates; repeated copies add no independent confirmation.
Read the anchor · page 78
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.842 Page 78 of 164
J. Chapman Petersen
CHAP PETERSEN
jcp@petersenfirm.com
Direct: 571-459-2510
& ASSOCIATES, PLC
J. Chapman Petersen+*
Sharon Kim Petersen
Won Yung Uh
+also admitted in DC
Federico J. Zablah
*also admitted in MD
Christopher T. Robertson+
admitted in NY
Dylan M. Phillips
Patrick R. Corish+
Janice M. Jang^+
August 6, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
901 East Byrd Street
Suite 1300
Richmond, VA 23219
Jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
Re:
Cyberlux Corporation v. Atlantic Wave Holding, LLC, Case No. 240002919-0,
In the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Attached please find a proposed corporate designee notice for taking your client's deposition in
the above matter. You will note that we name both Mr. Schmidt and Cyberlux as deponents. If you
designate Mr. Schmidt as the corporate representative, then that would likely cover both requests.
I've tentatively set this for Friday, August 23. If that date is unavailable, please let me know a
date we can do this, preferably before the end of August. I've also set this tentatively for my office in
Northern Virginia, assuming that may be more convenient for Mr. Schmidt. If not, then I will find a place
in Richmond to do it, pursuant to Rule 4:5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Took forward to working with you and thanks,
Very sincerely yours,
J. Chapman Petersen, Esq
JCP
Enclosure
Copy: Client
3970 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030 & 571-459-2512 ID 571-459-2307 C petersenfirm.com
claimallegation
August 27 notice covers twenty topics: operations, ownership, sale efforts, valuations, assets, governance, buyers, payments, drones, settle
August 27 notice covers twenty topics: operations, ownership, sale efforts, valuations, assets, governance, buyers, payments, drones, settlement, judgment, conflicts, elections, subsidiaries, OTC status, related loans and finance. Filed copy bears August 9 upload/August 12 clerk processing. Both visible notice service certificates have handwritten August 24, whereas letters and later transcript say August 9 service. Preserve the distinction; questions about acquisitions/assets are discovery topics, not proof those facts occurred.
Read the anchor · page 94
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.858 Page 94 of 164
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually
Plaintiffs,
Case No: CL24002919-00
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Defendants.
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION CORPORATE DESIGNEE OF
PLAINTIFF'S CYBERLUX CORPORATION
To:
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT
c/o Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
901 East Byrd Street
Suite 1300
Richmond, VA 23219
Jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE on Tuesday, August 27 2024 at 10:00 AM (Easter Time),
pursuant to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:5(b)(6), Defendants Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
(*Atlantic Wave") and Secure Community, LLC ("Secure Community") (collectively
"Defendants"), by Counsel, will proceed to take the deposition of a designated representative for
Plaintiffs, Cyberlux Corporation ("Cyberlux" or "the Company") and/or Mark D. Schmidt
("Schmidt") (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), at the law office of Spotts Fain, P.C., 411 E Franklin
St # 600, Richmond, VA 23219, for all purposes allowed under the Rules of the Supreme Court of
Virginia. Plaintiffs shall designate a representative(s) who can address the following matters:
claimallegation
August 27 nonappearance transcript records Petersen with Welter, no witness, ending 10:11 am. Petersen says his team forwarded an August 26
August 27 nonappearance transcript records Petersen with Welter, no witness, ending 10:11 am. Petersen says his team forwarded an August 26 5:48 pm email saying witness would not appear; before that he had no response or motion to quash. This qualifies an absolute no-notice account. Reporter Tayloe signs certification. Case number on cover differs from spoken number; isolated “afternoon” contrasts with 10:11 am closure. Transcript records counsel’s proffer, not sworn designee answers or a sanctions finding.
Read the anchor · page 105
Transcript of Corporate Designee
of Plaintiff's Cyberlux Corporation
- SOTR
Date: August 27, 2024
Case: Cyberlux Corporation, et al. -v- Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al.
Planet Depos
Phone: 888.433.3767 | Email: transcripts@planetdepos.com
www.planetdepos.com
Michigan #8598 | Nevada #089F | New Mexico #566
WORLDWIDE COURT REPORTING & LITIGATION TECHNOLOGY
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.869 Page 105 of 164
claimallegation
RB complaint filed August 12 in SDCA 3:24-cv-01434 alleges defaults on five notes and claims July 15 principal $5,168,000 plus interest $518
RB complaint filed August 12 in SDCA 3:24-cv-01434 alleges defaults on five notes and claims July 15 principal $5,168,000 plus interest $518,960 = $5,686,960, correctly summed. First-note principal $1,418,000 includes stated $250,000 December 19 credit but is not simply $1.5m minus that credit; underlying capitalisation ledger is absent. RB disputes alleged December 2023 conversion of November 22 debt and seeks declaratory relief, damages and fees; no judgment appears here.
Read the anchor · page 121
1
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
4855-9015-5478, v. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sean C. Coughlin, Esq. (SBN 167900)
scoughlin@noonanlance.com
Ethan T. Boyer, Esq. (SBN 173959)
eboyer@noonanlance.com
Sara K. Gediman, Esq. (SBN 337792)
sgediman@noonanlance.com
NOONAN LANCE BOYER & BANACH LLP
701 Island Avenue, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-0880
Facsimile: (619) 780-0877
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RB Capital Partners, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RB CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a Nevada
Corporation; DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff RB Capital Partners, Inc., by and through its attorneys, allege against Defendant
Cyberlux Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. RB Capital Partners, Inc , (“RB CAPITAL”) is, and at all times mentioned in this
complaint was, a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California.
RB CAPITAL is a venture capital lender to various emerging and technology-based industries.
2. RB CAPTIAL is informed and believes that Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“CYBERLUX”) is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a Nevada corporation, with
its business mailing address in 800 Park Offices Dr., Suite 3209, Research Tria ngle Park, North
Carolina 27709, and that CYBERLUX also maintains offices in San Diego County at 995 Joshua
Way Suite A, Vista, California, 92081. RB CAPITAL is informed and believes that CYBERLUX
was founded in 2000 and is a defense industry technology solutions company.
'24
CV1434
BJC
AJB
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.1 Page 1 of 6Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.885 Page 121 of 164
claimallegation
Four attached notes dated October 22, November 8, November 22, 2021 ($1.5m each) and May 23, 2022 ($500,000) provide 5% annual interest, 24-
Four attached notes dated October 22, November 8, November 22, 2021 ($1.5m each) and May 23, 2022 ($500,000) provide 5% annual interest, 24-month terms, no conversion for six months and $0.25 conversion, with 4.99% beneficial ownership cap. Holder elects conversion in writing with note delivery; issuer must deliver shares within twenty business days and give five-business-day prepayment notice after repayment demand. Split provisions say conversion price is affected. Signatures of both sides appear on three; November 22 copy has issuer signature but blank holder line.
Read the anchor · page 131
THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HA VE BEEN ACQUIRED
FOR INVESTMENT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION THEREOF. NO SUCH SALE OR DISPOSITION MAY BE
EFFECTED WITHOUT AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATED
THERETO OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY ACCEPT ABLE TO THE
COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.
CYBERLUX CORP.
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
Principal Amount: $1,500,000.00 USD October 22, 2021
WHEREAS on October 22, 2021, RB Capital Partners , Inc., with its office s at 2856 Torrey Pines
Road, La Jolla, California 92037 (the "Holder") loaned funds totaling , $1,500,000.00 to
Cyber lux Corp., a Nevada corporation with its office at 800 Park Offices Drive.; Suite 3209;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (the "Company"). Payment for the loan was made directly to
the Compa ny in the form of a Wire Transfer.
WHEREAS the Compa ny and Holder further agreed that such services provided by the Holder to
the Company would be evidenced in a convertible note, which convertible note would be
convertible into shares of common stock of the Company at the rate of $0.25 in accordance with
Section 3 below;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that for and in consideration of the
mutual premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties covenant
and agree each with the other as follows:
1. Principal and Interest.
1.1 The Company , for value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of the Holder
the sum of One Mi I lion Five Hundred Thousand Do liars ($1,500,000.00) , which amount represents
the amount owed to Holder as of October 22, 2021.
1.2 This Convert ible Promi ssory Note (the "Note") shall bear five percent (5%) interest per
annum. The Note is for a period of (24) months and cannot be converted until (6) months from the
date first written above has passed.
1.3 Upon payment in full of the principal, this Note shall be surrendered to the Company
for cancellat ion.
1
EXHIBIT 1
Page 9
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1-3 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.11 Page 2 of 7Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.895 Page 131 of 164
claimallegation
August 9 signed orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for Cyberlux and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank for Schmidt, $188,661.20 combined.
August 9 signed orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for Cyberlux and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank for Schmidt, $188,661.20 combined. Welter says those funds were credited. His August balances are AWH/SC principal $430,295.59 plus interest $95,000.62 = $525,296.21; Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Component totals equal $977,882.30, one cent below printed $977,882.31. No complete account ledger is attached.
Read the anchor · page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
with Defendants' refusal to provide any information on the number of drones sold,
further complicates the accurate determination of the total amount owed.
29. Despite receiving $38 million under a US Government contract to supply
drones to Ukraine, Defendants have consistently failed to provide the required
information and payments as stipulated in the settlement agreement.
30. Following the garnishment of Defendants’ funds held in PNC and Towne
Bank accounts in Virginia and subsequent court orders, Plaintiffs applied the
remaining garnished funds to reduce the total amount Defendants owe. Specifically,
$183,798.34 from PNC Bank and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank were released to
Plaintiffs on August 9, 2024. These amounts were applied to partially satisfy
Defendants' outstanding obligations under the settlement agreement.
31. As of August 2024, the outstanding amounts due under the Settlement
Agreement are as follows:
o Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (AWH/SC):
Principal: $430,295.59, Interest Due: $95,000.62, Total Owed: $525,296.21
o StrikePoint, LLC: Principal: $372,669.40, Interest Due: $79,916.69,
Total Owed: $452,586.09
o Grand Total Owed: $977,882.31
32. Despite these received payments, Defendants have failed to make timely
and complete payments as required under the Settlement Agreement. The cessation
of payments since May 2024, coupled with Defendants' refusal to provide necessary
information on drone sales, complicates the accurate determination of the total
amount owed. This persistent non-compliance underscores the need for immediate
court intervention to ensure that Plaintiffs can enforce their rightful claims under the
settlement agreement and secure the assets needed to satisfy the judgment.
33. There is a remaining dispute over the Caveat Emptor status of Cyberlux's
stock. According to the settlement agreement, Defendants promised that the Caveat
Emptor status would be removed from their stock on or before December 31, 2023.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.771 Page 7 of 164
claimallegation
July 12, 2022 $250,000 note likewise has 5% annual interest, 24-month term, six-month conversion bar and 4.99% cap, but $0.10 conversion and
July 12, 2022 $250,000 note likewise has 5% annual interest, 24-month term, six-month conversion bar and 4.99% cap, but $0.10 conversion and price expressly unaffected by forward/reverse splits. Both issuer and holder signatures appear. These distinct economics must not be overwritten with earlier-note boilerplate.
Read the anchor · page 159
THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HA VE BEEN ACQUIRED
FOR INVESTMENT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION THEREOF. NO SUCH SALE OR DISPOSITION MAY BE
EFFECTED WITHOUT AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATED
THERETO OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE
COMP ANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.
CYBERLUX CORP.
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
Principal Amount: $250,000.00 USO July 12, 2022
WHEREAS on July 12, 2022, RB Capital Partners, Inc., with its offices at 2856 Torrey Pines
Road, La Jolla, California 92037 (the "Holder") loaned funds totaling , $250,000.00 to Cyberlux
Corp., a Nevada corporation with its office at 800 Park Offices Drive.; Suite 3209; Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709 (the "Company "). Payment for the loan was made directly to the
Company in the form of a Wire Transfer.
WHEREAS the Company and Holder further agreed that such services provided by the Holder to
the Company would be evidenced in a convertible note, which convertible note would be
convertible into shares of common stock of the Company at the rate of $0.10 in accordance with
Section 3 below;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that for and in consideration of the
mutual premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties covenant
and agree each with the other as follows:
1. Principal and Interest .
1. 1 The Company, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of the Holder
the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00), which amount represents the
amount owed to Holder as of July 12, 2022.
1.2 This Convertible Promissory Note (the "Note") shall bear five percent (5%) interest per
annum. The Note is for a period of (24) months and cannot be converted until (6) months from the
date first written above has passed.
1.3 Upon payment in full of the principal , this Note shall be surrendered to the Company
for cancellation.
1
Exhibit 5
Page 37
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1-7 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.39 Page 2 of 7Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.923 Page 159 of 164
Note boilerplate provides reasonable collection fees, issuer authority/no-violation warranties, holder investment/sophistication and indefinite-holding risk acknowledgements, transfer notice and restriction legends, written amendments, California law, issuer presentment/dishonour waiver, no-delay waiver and no impairment covenant. These are contractual terms, not proof regulatory compliance, current enforceability or completed conversion.
Read the anchor · page 132
1.4 The principal under this Note shall be payable at the principal office of the Company
and shall be forwarded to the address of the Holder hereof as such Holder shall from time to time
designate .
2. Attorney's Fees. If the indebtedness represented by this Note or any part thereof is
collected in bankruptcy, receivership or other judicial proceedings or if this Note is placed in the
hands of attorneys for collection after default , the Company agrees to pay, in addition to the
principal payable hereunder , reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the Holder.
3. Conversion .
3.1 Voluntary Conversion. The Holder shall have the right, exercisab le in whole or in part,
to convert the outstanding principal into a number of fully paid and non-assessable whole shares
of the Company's $0.001 Par Value common stock ("Common Stock") determined in accordance
with Section 3.2 below.
3.2 Shares Issuable. The number of whole shares of Common Stock into which this Note
may be voluntarily converted (the "Conversion Shares") shall be determined by dividing the
aggregate principal amount borrowed hereunder by $0.25 (the "Note Conversion Price");
provided , however, that, in no event, shall Holder be entitled to convert any portion of this Note
in excess of that portion of this Note upon conversion of which the sum of (1) the number of shares
of Common stock beneficially owned by Holder and its affiliates (other than shares of Common
Stock which may be deemed beneficially owned through the ownership of the unconverted portion
of this Note or the unexercised or unconverted portion of any other security of Maker subject to a
limitation on conversion or exercise analogous to the limitations contained herein) and (2) the
number of shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of the portion of this Note with
respect to which the determination of this proviso is being made, would result in the beneficial
ownership by Holder and its affiliates of more than 4.99% of the outstanding shares of common
stock of the Company. For purposes of the proviso to the immediate ly preceding sentence,
beneficial ownersh ip shall be determined in accordance with Section I 3( d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation 13O-G thereunder , except as otherwise provided in clause
( 1) of such proviso. The number of shares of Common Stock to be issued upon each conversion
of this Note shall be determined by dividing the Conversion Amount (as defined below) by the
Note Convers ion Price. The Term "Conversion Amount" means, with respect to any convers ion
of this Note, the sum of ( I) the principal amount of this Note to be converted in such conversion
plus, (2) at the Company's option, accrued and unpaid interest, if any, on such principal amount at
the interest rate provided in this Note to the conversion date, provided; however, that the Company
shall have the right to pay any or all interest in cash.
3.3 Notice and Conver sion Procedure s. After receipt of demand for repayment , the
Company agrees to give the Holder notice at least five (5) business days prior to the time that the
Company repays this Note. If the Holder elects to convert this Note, the Holder shall provide the
Company with a written notice of conversion setting forth the amount to be converted. The notice
must be delivered to the Company together with this Note. Within twenty (20) business days of
receipt of such notice, the Company shall deliver to the Holder certificate(s) for the Common Stock
2
EXHIBIT 1
Page 10
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1-3 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.12 Page 3 of 7Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.896 Page 132 of 164
claimallegation
Welter says discovery bank records show September 8, 2023 receipt of $38.7 million for the drone contract and a May 31, 2024 request for a $
Welter says discovery bank records show September 8, 2023 receipt of $38.7 million for the drone contract and a May 31, 2024 request for a $198,798.37 attorney-fee check. He explicitly withholds bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon request. The exhibit therefore supports the declarant’s account, not direct examination of those transactions.
Read the anchor · page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
6. Bank records obtained in discovery show that the same day the Court
issued the temporary order, Cyberlux requested a check for $198,798.37 to pay its
attorneys’ fees.
7. However, the same judge who signed the original order later found that
Defendants' request for declaratory relief was improperly filed. In the June 7, 2024,
Opinion and Order, the court dismissed Defendants' declaratory relief complaint and
awarded Plaintiffs their attorneys' fees for defending against the improperly brought
action. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Virginia Court’s
June 7, 2024 Order.
8. Subsequently, on August 9, 2024, the court released $183,798.34 from
PNC Bank and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank to Plaintiffs. Exhibits D and E are true
and correct copies of the Orders releasing the remaining garnished funds to Plaintiffs.
9. On July 8, 2024, Cyberlux filed a Declaratory Relief action and a
Complaint for Temporary Preliminary Injunction in Virginia. Attached hereto as
Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ July 8, 2024 filings.
10. Despite these filings claiming the need for emergency relief, Defendants
have done nothing to schedule a hearing or submit further briefing regarding their
emergency.
11. Additionally, Defendants have ignored several letters from Plaintiffs'
counsel regarding deposition scheduling, demonstrating their refusal to engage in the
legal process. For instance, letters sent by Plaintiffs' counsel on August 6, 2024,
August 9, 2024, and August 23, 2024, went unanswered. Attached hereto as Exhibits
G, H, and I are true and correct copies of the letters Plaintiffs’ counsel sent to
Defendants’ counsel that remain unanswered.
12. Defendants have also failed to respond to discovery requests and did not
appear for a deposition scheduled for August 27, 2024, resulting in a non-appearance.
Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the non-appearance
documents related to Defendants’ failure to produce a witness on August 27, 2024.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.767 Page 3 of 164
claimallegation
Welter lists alleged transfers: September 8 $250,000 phone transfer; September 11 $213,000 Fletcher Jones vehicle purchase; September 14 $18
Welter lists alleged transfers: September 8 $250,000 phone transfer; September 11 $213,000 Fletcher Jones vehicle purchase; September 14 $187,500 phone transfer; September 19 $55,000 Schwab; September 20 $600,000 phone transfer; September 26 $692,689.64 debit memo; October 16 $850,000 Schmidt Edward Jones and $994,460 G2G Global; October 23 $6,000 Schwab; November 7 $25,000 Schmidt; January 4 $108,555.42 Schmidt; January 29 $25,000 Schmidt; February 7 $20,000 Schmidt; March 6 $290,000 Schmidt; April 11 $50,000 Schmidt, $25,000 Holly Schmidt and $25,000 Schmidt. These sum $4,417,205.06 as stated. Personal misuse and lack of authorisation remain Welter’s characterisations without underlying bank or purpose records.
Read the anchor · page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
As of the date of this filing, the Caveat Emptor status has not been removed. On
September 1, 2024, I accessed OTCMarkets.com and searched for CYBL stock.
Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the information I obtained
from OTCMarkets.com regarding CYBL stock. While this dispute remains
unresolved, it is not a subject of Plaintiffs' collection action, which deals solely with
the enforcement of the amended final judgment and order.
34. I reviewed Defendants’ bank records obtained in discovery. These
records confirmed that Defendants received a payment of $38.7 million from a US
Government contract to supply drones to Ukraine on September 8, 2023. Due to
extensive third-party financial information contained in the bank records, Plaintiffs
are not filing the bank records publicly, but Plaintiffs will submit these records for the
Court to review in camera upon the Court’s request.
35. Despite receiving a substantial $38 million payment from a US
Government contract in September 2023, Defendants misused these funds for
personal expenses and transfers instead of fulfilling their obligations under the
settlement agreement.
36. Bank records obtained in discovery reveal that Defendants transferred
significant sums of money to personal accounts, friends, and family members,
beginning on the same day the $38 million was transferred into Cyberlux’s account.
Instead of making the required payments to Plaintiffs, Defendant Mark D. Schmidt
and his associates diverted these funds for personal use. Specific transfers include:
September 8, 2023: $250,000 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 11, 2023: $213,000 wire to Fletcher Jones Motorcars for a
vehicle purchase
September 14, 2023: $187,500 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 19, 2023: $55,000 transfer to Schwab account
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.772 Page 8 of 164
claimallegation
Welter describes Texas collection against Catalyst, a motion-to-vacate stay and failed service at leased premises, based partly on process-s
Welter describes Texas collection against Catalyst, a motion-to-vacate stay and failed service at leased premises, based partly on process-server/leasing-office reports not attached. He separately treats unresolved Caveat Emptor status as outside this collection claim. September 1 OTC capture shows Pink Limited Information and Caveat Emptor; its generic possible reasons do not prove Cyberlux was under a fraud investigation. Footer OTCM quote belongs to OTC Markets, not CYBL.
Read the anchor · page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
13. In Texas, the Virginia judgment was domesticated, and garnishment
proceedings were initiated to obtain assets related to Cyberlux’s subsidiary, Catalyst
Machine Works. However, Defendants filed a motion to vacate the domesticated
judgment, which automatically stayed the proceedings. Depositions of Cyberlux's
PMK and other personnel were scheduled for August 27, 2024, but did not occur due
to the motion to vacate.
14. When attempting to serve the PMK subpoena, the process server noted
that there were no vehicles parked at the address, and there was no answer at the door.
Employees in the leasing office confirmed that Catalyst / Cyberlux employees Neil
Whiteley and Phillip Tucker work at this address but are not currently in possession
of their office as they are negotiating the terms of their lease.
15. Defendants do not deny making late payments under the settlement
agreement. The agreement explicitly states that Defendants shall transmit thirty-six
(36) non-defeasible monthly payments of $21,459.00 payable on the first day of each
month, beginning in July 2023. Time being of the essence, these monthly payments
were to continue on the first of each month until the total Settlement Consideration
due to Plaintiffs was paid. Defendants also agreed to accelerate and pay the full
outstanding balance of all sums owed under the Consent Judgment within twenty-one
(21) days of receiving payment for any contract to purchase drone aircraft (Dkt No.
24-1 at pp. 5-6).
16. The settlement agreement defines a late payment as any payment not
received by the first of each month, and states that any breach not cured within three
(3) calendar days will be considered a breach of the agreement (Dkt No. 24-1 at p.
10). Specifically, Section 21 of the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 24-1 at p. 11)
states: "For the avoidance of doubt, any payment not received by the first of each
month shall be deemed late, any information requested shall be due in ten (10)
calendar days and, unless cured within 3 calendar days, will be considered a breach
of this Agreement."
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.768 Page 4 of 164
claimallegation
May 21 Robinson memorandum seeks injunction and release of garnishments, alleging settlement renegotiation, full performance, improper admin
May 21 Robinson memorandum seeks injunction and release of garnishments, alleging settlement renegotiation, full performance, improper administrative enforcement and harm to payroll. It invokes equitable standards and requests fees. The filing is advocacy, not the court’s adoption of its accusations; references to June 30 judgment filing require comparison to June 28 signed entry and June 30 docket stamp.
Read the anchor · page 12
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Plaintiffs
RECEIVED AND F ED
CIRCUIT C9'URT
c,:5'5.
MAY 2 1 2024
v. Case No. CL22-3882-oo
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually
Defendants
Memorandum in Support of Defendants'
Emergency Motion for Declaratory Relief
Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, (hereinafter, collectively,
"Defendants"), entered into a Settlement Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") with
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (hereinafter
"Plaintiffs"). In the face of discovery sanctions, Defendants entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Plaintiffs on June 13, 2023 that called for a total amount of $1,572,500
to be paid in scheduled monthly installments. 1 Section 21 of the Settlement Agreement
proscribes the remedies available to Plaintiffs should there be a breach of the Agreement.
Defendants have not breached the Agreement and continue to timely make
the agreed upon payments. 2 . Knowing this, instead of following the terms of the
1 See Settlement Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Settlement Agreement incorporated the Court's Order.
The Order was ultimately Amended and entered by this Court on June 30, 2023. See Attached Amended Final Order
and Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The Final Amended Order was entered pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement and operates in collaboration with that Agreement not alone.
2 If there had been a breach of the Agreement, Plaintiffs would have had to Petition this court for relief. They did
not because they are fully aware that there has not been a breach. Instead they acted in contrary to the Rules of
Ethics of the Commonwealth - they purposefully ignored the Agreement and this Court and in bad faith initiated
administrative processes erroneously representing to third party banks that this Court's Amended Final Order gave
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.776 Page 12 of 164
claimallegation
Attached June 15 settlement bears party signatures and fixes $922,500 IP balance plus $650,000 consulting balance = $1,572,500, with sanctio
Attached June 15 settlement bears party signatures and fixes $922,500 IP balance plus $650,000 consulting balance = $1,572,500, with sanctions $3,895/$6,842.50. First $150,000 payment has multiple triggers but a 45-day outer limit; monthly obligations are $21,459 AWH/SC and $18,055.56 Strikepoint from July 2023 for 36 months. Each acceleration clause includes up to $5,000 per drone sold and payment within 21 days of first receipt by defendants or related entities. Welter’s shorthand full-balance acceleration omits this per-drone qualification.
Read the anchor · page 19
Cyberlux _·settlement_ Agreement __ Final_002 _-1.pdf file:///C:/Users/willw/Downloads/Cyberlux_Settlement_Agreement...
I of 15
EXHIBIT 1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of this 1 Sthth day of June 2023,
by and between ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT
(collectively, "Defendants"), and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING, . LLC ("Strikepoint") a.
separate party with some common interest holders to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
Strikepoint shall collectively be refeiTed to as the "Parties to this Agreement" and Plaintiffs and
Defendants shaHcollectively be rcfc1Tcd to as "Parties to the Litigation."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into. an agreement on October 8, 2021,
which compensated Plaintiffs for the reacquisition by Defendant Cyberlux of certain intellectual
property in exchange for certain installment payments of fixed liquidated sums by Defendants to
Plaintiffs and "Freely Trading" stock, which had fallen into arrears ("the JP Agreement");
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2021, an agreement was executed between an entity
dcsc1ibed as "Strikepoints Consulting, LLC" and Defendant Cyberlux Corporation for certain
consulting services (the "Strikepoint Consulting Agreement"), which called for, inter alia,
installment payments of fixed liquidated sums owed by Defendants to Plaintiff, which also fell into
arrears;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed its Complaint for breach of said agreements in the Circuit Court
of the City of Richmond, Virginia (the "Court"), against Defendants in the civil action titled,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D.
Schmidt (Case No. CL22-3882) (the "Litigation"), which remains pending;
WHEREAS, the Patties to this Agreement desire to resolve and settle any and all existing
disputes between the Plaintiffs and Defendants and between Strikepoint and Defendants to
eliminate uncertainty and facilitate final resolution of their respective relationships between the
parties; and
6/15/2023, 5:50 PM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.783 Page 19 of 164
claimallegation
Settlement caps existing litigation costs at $188,700, excluding later breach enforcement; full satisfaction requires all terms and notice w
Settlement caps existing litigation costs at $188,700, excluding later breach enforcement; full satisfaction requires all terms and notice within ten business days. Debtor release is immediate, creditor release follows first payment. It grants asset security interests and contemplates UCC memorialisation without proving perfection. Drone disclosures are demand-driven, subject to classification/restriction limits. Written modification, ten-day information deadline, three-day cure and Virginia venue clauses frame the later dispute; confidentiality has its own fourteen-day cure and enforcement-use exception.
Read the anchor · page 23
...
Cyberlux _ Settlement_ Agreement_Final_002 _-1.pdf file:///C:/Users/willw/Downloads/Cyberlux_Settlernent_Agreernent...
5 of 15
in July 2023. Monthly payments shall continue on the first of each month, time
being of the essence, until the total Settlement Consideration due to Plaintiffs is
paid. Defendants agree to accelerate and pay the full outstanding balance of all
sums owed under the Consent Judgment up to a total of FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($5,000) per drone sold within twenty-one (21) days of Defendants, or
any parent's, subsidiary's, affiliate's, or assign's first receipt of payment for any
contract to purchase drone aircraft.
£:. Monthly Installments Thereafter to Strikepoint: Defendants
shall transmit to Strikepoint, by wire transmission.thirty-Six non-defeasible
monthly payments of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FWTY-FNE DOLLARS AND
FIFTY-STX CENTS ($18,055.56) payable on ihe first day of each month, beginning
in July of 2023. Monthly payments shall continue on the first of each month, time
being of the essence, until the total Settlement Consideration due to Strikepoint is
paid. Defendants agree to accelerate and pay the full outstanding balance of all
sums owed under the Consent Judgment up to a total of FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($5,000) per drone sold within twenty-one (21) days of Defendants, or
any parent's, subsidiary's, affiliate's, or assign's first receipt of payment for any
contract to purchase drone aircraft.
Costs, including Legal Fees: Tn addition to the sums above,
Defendants agree to pay all Plaintiffs' costs, including but not limited to, attorney's
fees and expert witness fees, accrued in and with this Litigation within 60 (sixty)
days of the full execution of this Agreement or upon tem1s agreed to by the parties.
Subject to the following CAP. Plaintiffs agree to CAP costs and attorney's fees, for
cost and attorney's fees relevant the matters dealt with in this settlement agreement,
at 12% of the value of the total settlement or ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT
5
6/15/2023, 5:50 PM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.787 Page 23 of 164
claimallegation
The stock provision reserves an option to refile negotiable-share claims if Pink Current/Caveat Emptor issues remain after December 31, 2023
The stock provision reserves an option to refile negotiable-share claims if Pink Current/Caveat Emptor issues remain after December 31, 2023, with a discretionary extension on credible evidence. Other sections promise reasonable compliance efforts and materially accurate financial statements. Non-disparagement ends December 31, 2023 and has fourteen-day notice/cure terms. These conditional rights are narrower than a guaranteed regulatory outcome.
Read the anchor · page 21
,..
Cyberlux~Settlement_ Agreement_Final_002_- l .pdf file:///C:/Users/willw/Downloads/Cyberlux_Settlement_Agreement. ..
3 of 15
Balance of Consulting Agreement: The parties agree to terminate
and resolve any disputes arising out of the Strikepoint Consulting Agreement for
consideration of: SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($650,000), as
the balance due and owing for installment payments under the Consulting
Agreement between the parties.
£: Total Value of the Consent Judgment: The total liquidated sum
that shall be due and owing to Plaintiffs under the parties' Consent Judgment shall
be ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND AND
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,572,500), plus Plaintiffs' costs as defined in
4(d) (the "Settlement Consideration"), which is the sum of the outstanding
installment payments owing in the IP Ag1~ement, the Strikepoint Consulting
Agreement, and Plaintiffs' costs as appropriately allocated between Plaintiffs and
Strikepoint below.
Effect of Consent Judgment: The Consent Judgment shall be
promptly entered jointly and severally against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs
in exchange for payment of the full Settlement Consideration, which shall resolve
the above styled matter. The parties agree that the Consent Judgment shall not be
dischargeable, including by appeal or bankruptcy, in any manner other than by
agreement of the parties, to the fullest extent pem,issible under the law,
£: Stock. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that entry of
the Consent Judgment awarding FINAL judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against
Defendants shall resolve the pending Litigation. Notwithstanding entry of a Final
Order, the parties herby agree that if the Cyberlux stock is not brought to current
"Pink Status" and the Caveat Emptor legend and restriction is not remedied and
removed on or before December 31, 2023, Plaintiffs shall have the option, at their
3
• 6/15/2023, 5:50 PM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.785 Page 21 of 164
otherattribution
Defendants undertake the stated monthly and conditional per-drone settlement payments.
Read the anchor · page 19
Cyberlux _·settlement_ Agreement __ Final_002 _-1.pdf file:///C:/Users/willw/Downloads/Cyberlux_Settlement_Agreement...
I of 15
EXHIBIT 1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of this 1 Sthth day of June 2023,
by and between ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
(collectively, "Plaintiffs"), CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT
(collectively, "Defendants"), and STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING, . LLC ("Strikepoint") a.
separate party with some common interest holders to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, Defendants, and
Strikepoint shall collectively be refeiTed to as the "Parties to this Agreement" and Plaintiffs and
Defendants shaHcollectively be rcfc1Tcd to as "Parties to the Litigation."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into. an agreement on October 8, 2021,
which compensated Plaintiffs for the reacquisition by Defendant Cyberlux of certain intellectual
property in exchange for certain installment payments of fixed liquidated sums by Defendants to
Plaintiffs and "Freely Trading" stock, which had fallen into arrears ("the JP Agreement");
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2021, an agreement was executed between an entity
dcsc1ibed as "Strikepoints Consulting, LLC" and Defendant Cyberlux Corporation for certain
consulting services (the "Strikepoint Consulting Agreement"), which called for, inter alia,
installment payments of fixed liquidated sums owed by Defendants to Plaintiff, which also fell into
arrears;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed its Complaint for breach of said agreements in the Circuit Court
of the City of Richmond, Virginia (the "Court"), against Defendants in the civil action titled,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D.
Schmidt (Case No. CL22-3882) (the "Litigation"), which remains pending;
WHEREAS, the Patties to this Agreement desire to resolve and settle any and all existing
disputes between the Plaintiffs and Defendants and between Strikepoint and Defendants to
eliminate uncertainty and facilitate final resolution of their respective relationships between the
parties; and
6/15/2023, 5:50 PM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.783 Page 19 of 164
otherattribution
Issuer must deliver shares upon the holder’s compliant conversion election.
Read the anchor · page 131
THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HA VE BEEN ACQUIRED
FOR INVESTMENT AND NOT WITH A VIEW TO, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THE
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION THEREOF. NO SUCH SALE OR DISPOSITION MAY BE
EFFECTED WITHOUT AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATED
THERETO OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY ACCEPT ABLE TO THE
COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.
CYBERLUX CORP.
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
Principal Amount: $1,500,000.00 USD October 22, 2021
WHEREAS on October 22, 2021, RB Capital Partners , Inc., with its office s at 2856 Torrey Pines
Road, La Jolla, California 92037 (the "Holder") loaned funds totaling , $1,500,000.00 to
Cyber lux Corp., a Nevada corporation with its office at 800 Park Offices Drive.; Suite 3209;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (the "Company"). Payment for the loan was made directly to
the Compa ny in the form of a Wire Transfer.
WHEREAS the Compa ny and Holder further agreed that such services provided by the Holder to
the Company would be evidenced in a convertible note, which convertible note would be
convertible into shares of common stock of the Company at the rate of $0.25 in accordance with
Section 3 below;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that for and in consideration of the
mutual premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties covenant
and agree each with the other as follows:
1. Principal and Interest.
1.1 The Company , for value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of the Holder
the sum of One Mi I lion Five Hundred Thousand Do liars ($1,500,000.00) , which amount represents
the amount owed to Holder as of October 22, 2021.
1.2 This Convert ible Promi ssory Note (the "Note") shall bear five percent (5%) interest per
annum. The Note is for a period of (24) months and cannot be converted until (6) months from the
date first written above has passed.
1.3 Upon payment in full of the principal, this Note shall be surrendered to the Company
for cancellat ion.
1
EXHIBIT 1
Page 9
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1-3 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.11 Page 2 of 7Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.895 Page 131 of 164
entityobservation
William Welter
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
I, William Welter, declare as follows:
1. I am the Managing Director of Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure
Community, LLC, and Strikepoint, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-
captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called
upon to testify, could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is
submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing on Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's Motion to Vacate the domesticated judgment (Dkt. No. 9) and to
provide updates on the litigation, disputes, and payments surrounding the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Plaintiffs initiated a straightforward collection action in California to
enforce the Virginia Judgment against Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron,
Inc., located in Vista, California. This action was necessary due to Defendants'
consistent breaches of the settlement agreement and failure to comply with their
payment obligations.
3. The original action in Virginia resulted in the Settlement Agreement
(Dkt. No. 24-1) and the Amended Final Order and Judgment (“Virginia Judgment”)
(Dkt. No. 9-2 at p. 29) which form the basis of Plaintiffs' collection efforts.
4. After Plaintiffs garnished Defendants’ funds held in PNC and Towne
Bank accounts, Defendants filed an emergency motion seeking access to the
garnished funds. Defendants sought declarations regarding the validity and
enforceability of the settlement agreement. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of Defendants’ filing.
5. The court initially allowed Cyberlux to access up to $317,000 for payroll
purposes and $230,000 to pay Plaintiffs. This initial relief was granted to address
alleged urgent payroll needs and partial payment obligations. Attached hereto as
Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 Order.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.766 Page 2 of 164
entityobservation
Carol M. Tayloe
Read the anchor · page 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Carol M. Tayloe, RMR, CMRS, CCR,
certify that I recorded verbatim by stenotype the
proceedings in the captioned cause, Richmond,
Virginia, on August 27, 2024.
I further certify that to the best of my
knowledge and belief, the foregoing transcript
constitutes a true and correct transcript of the
said proceedings.
Given under my hand this 27th day of
August, 2024, at Norfolk, Virginia.
_________________________________
Carol M. Tayloe
Transcript of Corporate Designee of Plaintiff's Cyberlux Corporation - SOTR
Conducted on August 27, 2024 8
PLANET DEPOS
888.433.3767 | WWW.PLANETDEPOS.COM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.877 Page 113 of 164
entityobservation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
I, William Welter, declare as follows:
1. I am the Managing Director of Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure
Community, LLC, and Strikepoint, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-
captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called
upon to testify, could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is
submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing on Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's Motion to Vacate the domesticated judgment (Dkt. No. 9) and to
provide updates on the litigation, disputes, and payments surrounding the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Plaintiffs initiated a straightforward collection action in California to
enforce the Virginia Judgment against Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron,
Inc., located in Vista, California. This action was necessary due to Defendants'
consistent breaches of the settlement agreement and failure to comply with their
payment obligations.
3. The original action in Virginia resulted in the Settlement Agreement
(Dkt. No. 24-1) and the Amended Final Order and Judgment (“Virginia Judgment”)
(Dkt. No. 9-2 at p. 29) which form the basis of Plaintiffs' collection efforts.
4. After Plaintiffs garnished Defendants’ funds held in PNC and Towne
Bank accounts, Defendants filed an emergency motion seeking access to the
garnished funds. Defendants sought declarations regarding the validity and
enforceability of the settlement agreement. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of Defendants’ filing.
5. The court initially allowed Cyberlux to access up to $317,000 for payroll
purposes and $230,000 to pay Plaintiffs. This initial relief was granted to address
alleged urgent payroll needs and partial payment obligations. Attached hereto as
Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 Order.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.766 Page 2 of 164
entityobservation
Secure Community, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
I, William Welter, declare as follows:
1. I am the Managing Director of Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure
Community, LLC, and Strikepoint, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-
captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called
upon to testify, could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is
submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing on Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's Motion to Vacate the domesticated judgment (Dkt. No. 9) and to
provide updates on the litigation, disputes, and payments surrounding the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Plaintiffs initiated a straightforward collection action in California to
enforce the Virginia Judgment against Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron,
Inc., located in Vista, California. This action was necessary due to Defendants'
consistent breaches of the settlement agreement and failure to comply with their
payment obligations.
3. The original action in Virginia resulted in the Settlement Agreement
(Dkt. No. 24-1) and the Amended Final Order and Judgment (“Virginia Judgment”)
(Dkt. No. 9-2 at p. 29) which form the basis of Plaintiffs' collection efforts.
4. After Plaintiffs garnished Defendants’ funds held in PNC and Towne
Bank accounts, Defendants filed an emergency motion seeking access to the
garnished funds. Defendants sought declarations regarding the validity and
enforceability of the settlement agreement. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of Defendants’ filing.
5. The court initially allowed Cyberlux to access up to $317,000 for payroll
purposes and $230,000 to pay Plaintiffs. This initial relief was granted to address
alleged urgent payroll needs and partial payment obligations. Attached hereto as
Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 Order.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.766 Page 2 of 164
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
I, William Welter, declare as follows:
1. I am the Managing Director of Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure
Community, LLC, and Strikepoint, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-
captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and, if called
upon to testify, could and would competently testify thereto. This declaration is
submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing on Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's Motion to Vacate the domesticated judgment (Dkt. No. 9) and to
provide updates on the litigation, disputes, and payments surrounding the Settlement
Agreement.
2. Plaintiffs initiated a straightforward collection action in California to
enforce the Virginia Judgment against Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron,
Inc., located in Vista, California. This action was necessary due to Defendants'
consistent breaches of the settlement agreement and failure to comply with their
payment obligations.
3. The original action in Virginia resulted in the Settlement Agreement
(Dkt. No. 24-1) and the Amended Final Order and Judgment (“Virginia Judgment”)
(Dkt. No. 9-2 at p. 29) which form the basis of Plaintiffs' collection efforts.
4. After Plaintiffs garnished Defendants’ funds held in PNC and Towne
Bank accounts, Defendants filed an emergency motion seeking access to the
garnished funds. Defendants sought declarations regarding the validity and
enforceability of the settlement agreement. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of Defendants’ filing.
5. The court initially allowed Cyberlux to access up to $317,000 for payroll
purposes and $230,000 to pay Plaintiffs. This initial relief was granted to address
alleged urgent payroll needs and partial payment obligations. Attached hereto as
Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Court’s May 31, 2024 Order.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.766 Page 2 of 164
entityobservation
Mark D. Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
As of the date of this filing, the Caveat Emptor status has not been removed. On
September 1, 2024, I accessed OTCMarkets.com and searched for CYBL stock.
Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of the information I obtained
from OTCMarkets.com regarding CYBL stock. While this dispute remains
unresolved, it is not a subject of Plaintiffs' collection action, which deals solely with
the enforcement of the amended final judgment and order.
34. I reviewed Defendants’ bank records obtained in discovery. These
records confirmed that Defendants received a payment of $38.7 million from a US
Government contract to supply drones to Ukraine on September 8, 2023. Due to
extensive third-party financial information contained in the bank records, Plaintiffs
are not filing the bank records publicly, but Plaintiffs will submit these records for the
Court to review in camera upon the Court’s request.
35. Despite receiving a substantial $38 million payment from a US
Government contract in September 2023, Defendants misused these funds for
personal expenses and transfers instead of fulfilling their obligations under the
settlement agreement.
36. Bank records obtained in discovery reveal that Defendants transferred
significant sums of money to personal accounts, friends, and family members,
beginning on the same day the $38 million was transferred into Cyberlux’s account.
Instead of making the required payments to Plaintiffs, Defendant Mark D. Schmidt
and his associates diverted these funds for personal use. Specific transfers include:
September 8, 2023: $250,000 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 11, 2023: $213,000 wire to Fletcher Jones Motorcars for a
vehicle purchase
September 14, 2023: $187,500 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 19, 2023: $55,000 transfer to Schwab account
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.772 Page 8 of 164
entityobservation
J. Chapman Petersen
Read the anchor · page 78
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.842 Page 78 of 164
J. Chapman Petersen
CHAP PETERSEN
jcp@petersenfirm.com
Direct: 571-459-2510
& ASSOCIATES, PLC
J. Chapman Petersen+*
Sharon Kim Petersen
Won Yung Uh
+also admitted in DC
Federico J. Zablah
*also admitted in MD
Christopher T. Robertson+
admitted in NY
Dylan M. Phillips
Patrick R. Corish+
Janice M. Jang^+
August 6, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
901 East Byrd Street
Suite 1300
Richmond, VA 23219
Jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
Re:
Cyberlux Corporation v. Atlantic Wave Holding, LLC, Case No. 240002919-0,
In the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Attached please find a proposed corporate designee notice for taking your client's deposition in
the above matter. You will note that we name both Mr. Schmidt and Cyberlux as deponents. If you
designate Mr. Schmidt as the corporate representative, then that would likely cover both requests.
I've tentatively set this for Friday, August 23. If that date is unavailable, please let me know a
date we can do this, preferably before the end of August. I've also set this tentatively for my office in
Northern Virginia, assuming that may be more convenient for Mr. Schmidt. If not, then I will find a place
in Richmond to do it, pursuant to Rule 4:5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
Took forward to working with you and thanks,
Very sincerely yours,
J. Chapman Petersen, Esq
JCP
Enclosure
Copy: Client
3970 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030 & 571-459-2512 ID 571-459-2307 C petersenfirm.com
entityobservation
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Read the anchor · page 18
Dated May 21. 2024 Respectfully Submitted,
CYBERLUX CORPORATION LLC AND
MARK D. SCHMIDT
By Isl Jimmy F. Robinson. Jr.
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., Esquire
Virginia States Bar Number 43622
jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
Counselfor Defendants
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel.: (804) 663-2336
Fax: (855) 843-1809
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on May 21, 2024, a copy of the
foregoing document was served via electronic means upon the following
Robert Keith Caudle, III
Caudle and Caudle, P.C.
1910 Byrd Avenue, Suite 118
Richmond, VA 23230
p: 804-358-4961
f: 804-353-1036
robcaudle@caudleandcaudle.com
Counselfor Plaintiffs
CYBERLUX CORPORATION LLC AND
MARKD. SCHMIDT
By Isl Jimmy F. Robinson. Jr.
JimmyF. Robinson, Jr., Esquire
Virginia States Bar Number 43622
jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
Counselfor Defendants
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300
Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel.: (804) 663-2336
Fax: (855) 843-1809
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.782 Page 18 of 164
entityobservation
RB Capital Partners, Inc.
Read the anchor · page 121
1
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
4855-9015-5478, v. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sean C. Coughlin, Esq. (SBN 167900)
scoughlin@noonanlance.com
Ethan T. Boyer, Esq. (SBN 173959)
eboyer@noonanlance.com
Sara K. Gediman, Esq. (SBN 337792)
sgediman@noonanlance.com
NOONAN LANCE BOYER & BANACH LLP
701 Island Avenue, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-0880
Facsimile: (619) 780-0877
Attorneys for Plaintiff
RB Capital Partners, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RB CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a Nevada
Corporation; DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff RB Capital Partners, Inc., by and through its attorneys, allege against Defendant
Cyberlux Corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. RB Capital Partners, Inc , (“RB CAPITAL”) is, and at all times mentioned in this
complaint was, a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California.
RB CAPITAL is a venture capital lender to various emerging and technology-based industries.
2. RB CAPTIAL is informed and believes that Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“CYBERLUX”) is, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was, a Nevada corporation, with
its business mailing address in 800 Park Offices Dr., Suite 3209, Research Tria ngle Park, North
Carolina 27709, and that CYBERLUX also maintains offices in San Diego County at 995 Joshua
Way Suite A, Vista, California, 92081. RB CAPITAL is informed and believes that CYBERLUX
was founded in 2000 and is a defense industry technology solutions company.
'24
CV1434
BJC
AJB
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.1 Page 1 of 6Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.885 Page 121 of 164
entityobservation
Brett Rosen
Read the anchor · page 136
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Cyberlux Corp. has caused this Note to be executed in its corporate
name and this Note to be dated, issued and delivered, all on the date first above written .
Date: October 22, 2021
Date: October 22, 2021
CYBERLUX CORP.
By~
Mark Schmidt
Its: CEO & Director
RB CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.
~~£~ By: ______ _______ _
Brett Rosen
Its: Managing Member
6
EXHIBIT 1
Page 14
Case 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-BJC Document 1-3 Filed 08/12/24 PageID.16 Page 7 of 7Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.900 Page 136 of 164
inferenceinference
The actual June7 ruling defeats a continuing May31-stay account, but its procedural basis does not itself adjudicate every settlement breach
The actual June7 ruling defeats a continuing May31-stay account, but its procedural basis does not itself adjudicate every settlement breach.
inferenceinference
Transfer totals can reconcile while their personal-purpose and unauthorised character remain unverified because the bank records are express
Transfer totals can reconcile while their personal-purpose and unauthorised character remain unverified because the bank records are expressly absent.
inferenceinference
Repeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract
Repeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract variants remain source-specific.
omissiongap
Bank records were expressly withheld; no underlying bank authentication, use-of-funds documentation, complete creditor ledger or conversion-
Bank records were expressly withheld; no underlying bank authentication, use-of-funds documentation, complete creditor ledger or conversion-performance records accompany the allegations.
Read the anchor · page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
6. Bank records obtained in discovery show that the same day the Court
issued the temporary order, Cyberlux requested a check for $198,798.37 to pay its
attorneys’ fees.
7. However, the same judge who signed the original order later found that
Defendants' request for declaratory relief was improperly filed. In the June 7, 2024,
Opinion and Order, the court dismissed Defendants' declaratory relief complaint and
awarded Plaintiffs their attorneys' fees for defending against the improperly brought
action. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Virginia Court’s
June 7, 2024 Order.
8. Subsequently, on August 9, 2024, the court released $183,798.34 from
PNC Bank and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank to Plaintiffs. Exhibits D and E are true
and correct copies of the Orders releasing the remaining garnished funds to Plaintiffs.
9. On July 8, 2024, Cyberlux filed a Declaratory Relief action and a
Complaint for Temporary Preliminary Injunction in Virginia. Attached hereto as
Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Defendants’ July 8, 2024 filings.
10. Despite these filings claiming the need for emergency relief, Defendants
have done nothing to schedule a hearing or submit further briefing regarding their
emergency.
11. Additionally, Defendants have ignored several letters from Plaintiffs'
counsel regarding deposition scheduling, demonstrating their refusal to engage in the
legal process. For instance, letters sent by Plaintiffs' counsel on August 6, 2024,
August 9, 2024, and August 23, 2024, went unanswered. Attached hereto as Exhibits
G, H, and I are true and correct copies of the letters Plaintiffs’ counsel sent to
Defendants’ counsel that remain unanswered.
12. Defendants have also failed to respond to discovery requests and did not
appear for a deposition scheduled for August 27, 2024, resulting in a non-appearance.
Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the non-appearance
documents related to Defendants’ failure to produce a witness on August 27, 2024.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.767 Page 3 of 164
otherattribution
Complete supplied 164-page source reviewed at SHA-256 6edf008dddaf18708452a8028a7a5822dd6d7bb4e50ecd895b24ee3f49c8d18d. Source assertions, o
Complete supplied 164-page source reviewed at SHA-256 6edf008dddaf18708452a8028a7a5822dd6d7bb4e50ecd895b24ee3f49c8d18d. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. All164 supplied pages fully read, including repeated service copies, transcript concordance and all five notes. SHA256 6edf008dddaf18708452a8028a7a5822dd6d7bb4e50ecd895b24ee3f49c8d18d; version_160bb2b803ae444988a6ba5a2cb027aa. Original extraction preserved; images resolve signature, date, redaction and note-variant boundaries without changing raw bytes.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
Defendants
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
and STRIKEPOINT, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company and
STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM
WELTER IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
HOLDINGS, LLC AND
STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC’S UPDATE RE: MOTION TO
VACATE
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.765 Page 1 of 164
questionquestion
Which bank records, authorised purposes and complete payment ledger resolve the transfer allegations and creditor balances?
questionquestion
What August26 email and proof of actual notice/service explain the August9/August24 certificate tension and failure to appear?
questionquestion
What conversion election, certificate delivery, amendment and debt ledger resolve RB’s disputed November22 conversion and first-note balance
What conversion election, certificate delivery, amendment and debt ledger resolve RB’s disputed November22 conversion and first-note balance?
distillateallegation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
The embedded RB civil cover sheet visibly identifies RB Capital and Cyberlux, San Diego/Durham counties, diversity basis, other-contract classification, original proceeding, $5,686,960 demand and jury request, dated August 12, 2024. Plaintiff citizenship is ticked as citizen of this state rather than corporate category, while complaint describes a corporation. The cover sheet is administrative metadata and does not replace the complaint.qualifiesRB complaint filed August 12 in SDCA 3:24-cv-01434 alleges defaults on five notes and claims July 15 principal $5,168,000 plus interest $518,960 = $5,686,960, correctly summed. First-note principal $1,418,000 includes stated $250,000 December 19 credit but is not simply $1.5m minus that credit; underlying capitalisation ledger is absent. RB disputes alleged December 2023 conversion of November 22 debt and seeks declaratory relief, damages and fees; no judgment appears here.
Welter signs September 3, 2024 as managing director of AWH, Secure Community and Strikepoint, supporting the California update. He alleges no regular payments after May, repeated unanswered July–December 2023 drone-information requests, no agreed settlement amendment, and threatened collection assets. These are adverse creditor testimony, not findings that every disputed obligation was breached.supportsWelter signs September 3, 2024 as managing director of AWH, Secure Community and Strikepoint, supporting the California update. He alleges no regular payments after May, repeated unanswered July–December 2023 drone-information requests, no agreed settlement amendment, and threatened collection assets. These are adverse creditor testimony, not findings that every disputed obligation was breached.
Same declaration verified across all pages; support means matching representation, not independent corroboration.
June 7 signed opinion holds the underlying dismissed case final and denies declaratory relief improperly brought by motion in that case, dissolving the May 31 injunction before its scheduled expiry. It denies creditor sanctions and debtor fees, finds creditor entitlement to reasonable defence fees but reserves amount pending affidavit within seven days. It records initial April garnishments dismissed for a future June 28, 2024 judgment-date error and replacements outstanding. It does not decide all alleged settlement breaches or grant the broad injunction sought.qualifiesThe embedded Richmond CL22-3882 order is visibly signed and entered May 31, 2024. It grants temporary injunction only, lifting judgment liens, garnishments, writs and notices against accounts up to $550,000, effective immediately through June 11 at 5 PM. This is actual time-limited court relief, not permanent discharge.
June7 signed dissolution limits the earlier May31 temporary release.
Embedded April 18 Schmidt declaration claims changed payment timing, $167,402.56 overage and continuing compliance. Its twelve listed payments sum $779,616.14: $595,616.14 AWH and $184,000 Strikepoint, whereas prose claims $254,000 Strikepoint, a $70,000 gap. $1,110,363.89 less $595,616.14 = $514,747.75, not printed $591,102.45, a $76,354.70 difference. Paragraph 8 is visibly redacted and is not reconstructed; signature dated April 18 Vienna is visible. Underlying wire confirmations and Grimes declaration referenced there are not included in this embedded five-page extract.supportsParagraph 6 instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint against $650,000 principal, leaving $396,000. That subtraction reconciles, but the paid figure exceeds the displayed table’s Strikepoint subtotal by $70,000, without an identified additional row in this source.
Related April18 declaration repeats the same claimed254000 versus listed184000 issue; repetition is not independent corroboration.
Welter says discovery bank records show September 8, 2023 receipt of $38.7 million for the drone contract and a May 31, 2024 request for a $198,798.37 attorney-fee check. He explicitly withholds bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon request. The exhibit therefore supports the declarant’s account, not direct examination of those transactions.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Embedded April 18 Schmidt declaration claims changed payment timing, $167,402.56 overage and continuing compliance. Its twelve listed payments sum $779,616.14: $595,616.14 AWH and $184,000 Strikepoint, whereas prose claims $254,000 Strikepoint, a $70,000 gap. $1,110,363.89 less $595,616.14 = $514,747.75, not printed $591,102.45, a $76,354.70 difference. Paragraph 8 is visibly redacted and is not reconstructed; signature dated April 18 Vienna is visible. Underlying wire confirmations and Grimes declaration referenced there are not included in this embedded five-page extract.supportsRepeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract variants remain source-specific.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 27 nonappearance transcript records Petersen with Welter, no witness, ending 10:11 am. Petersen says his team forwarded an August 26 5:48 pm email saying witness would not appear; before that he had no response or motion to quash. This qualifies an absolute no-notice account. Reporter Tayloe signs certification. Case number on cover differs from spoken number; isolated “afternoon” contrasts with 10:11 am closure. Transcript records counsel’s proffer, not sworn designee answers or a sanctions finding.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 9 signed orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for Cyberlux and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank for Schmidt, $188,661.20 combined. Welter says those funds were credited. His August balances are AWH/SC principal $430,295.59 plus interest $95,000.62 = $525,296.21; Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Component totals equal $977,882.30, one cent below printed $977,882.31. No complete account ledger is attached.supportsWhich bank records, authorised purposes and complete payment ledger resolve the transfer allegations and creditor balances?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RB complaint filed August 12 in SDCA 3:24-cv-01434 alleges defaults on five notes and claims July 15 principal $5,168,000 plus interest $518,960 = $5,686,960, correctly summed. First-note principal $1,418,000 includes stated $250,000 December 19 credit but is not simply $1.5m minus that credit; underlying capitalisation ledger is absent. RB disputes alleged December 2023 conversion of November 22 debt and seeks declaratory relief, damages and fees; no judgment appears here.supportsBank records were expressly withheld; no underlying bank authentication, use-of-funds documentation, complete creditor ledger or conversion-performance records accompany the allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter lists alleged transfers: September 8 $250,000 phone transfer; September 11 $213,000 Fletcher Jones vehicle purchase; September 14 $187,500 phone transfer; September 19 $55,000 Schwab; September 20 $600,000 phone transfer; September 26 $692,689.64 debit memo; October 16 $850,000 Schmidt Edward Jones and $994,460 G2G Global; October 23 $6,000 Schwab; November 7 $25,000 Schmidt; January 4 $108,555.42 Schmidt; January 29 $25,000 Schmidt; February 7 $20,000 Schmidt; March 6 $290,000 Schmidt; April 11 $50,000 Schmidt, $25,000 Holly Schmidt and $25,000 Schmidt. These sum $4,417,205.06 as stated. Personal misuse and lack of authorisation remain Welter’s characterisations without underlying bank or purpose records.supportsTransfer totals can reconcile while their personal-purpose and unauthorised character remain unverified because the bank records are expressly absent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
May 31 signed order temporarily lifts enforcement up to $550,000 until June 11 at 5 pm, authorising up to $317,000 payroll including consultants and $230,000 settlement payments, requiring payment records in camera and payroll proof within 48 hours. It restrains new garnishments temporarily and takes other relief under advisement. Permission to use funds is not proof they were paid.supportsThe actual June7 ruling defeats a continuing May31-stay account, but its procedural basis does not itself adjudicate every settlement breach.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Four attached notes dated October 22, November 8, November 22, 2021 ($1.5m each) and May 23, 2022 ($500,000) provide 5% annual interest, 24-month terms, no conversion for six months and $0.25 conversion, with 4.99% beneficial ownership cap. Holder elects conversion in writing with note delivery; issuer must deliver shares within twenty business days and give five-business-day prepayment notice after repayment demand. Split provisions say conversion price is affected. Signatures of both sides appear on three; November 22 copy has issuer signature but blank holder line.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says discovery bank records show September 8, 2023 receipt of $38.7 million for the drone contract and a May 31, 2024 request for a $198,798.37 attorney-fee check. He explicitly withholds bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon request. The exhibit therefore supports the declarant’s account, not direct examination of those transactions.supportsWhich bank records, authorised purposes and complete payment ledger resolve the transfer allegations and creditor balances?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RB complaint filed August 12 in SDCA 3:24-cv-01434 alleges defaults on five notes and claims July 15 principal $5,168,000 plus interest $518,960 = $5,686,960, correctly summed. First-note principal $1,418,000 includes stated $250,000 December 19 credit but is not simply $1.5m minus that credit; underlying capitalisation ledger is absent. RB disputes alleged December 2023 conversion of November 22 debt and seeks declaratory relief, damages and fees; no judgment appears here.supportsWhat conversion election, certificate delivery, amendment and debt ledger resolve RB’s disputed November22 conversion and first-note balance?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says discovery bank records show September 8, 2023 receipt of $38.7 million for the drone contract and a May 31, 2024 request for a $198,798.37 attorney-fee check. He explicitly withholds bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon request. The exhibit therefore supports the declarant’s account, not direct examination of those transactions.supportsTransfer totals can reconcile while their personal-purpose and unauthorised character remain unverified because the bank records are expressly absent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Four attached notes dated October 22, November 8, November 22, 2021 ($1.5m each) and May 23, 2022 ($500,000) provide 5% annual interest, 24-month terms, no conversion for six months and $0.25 conversion, with 4.99% beneficial ownership cap. Holder elects conversion in writing with note delivery; issuer must deliver shares within twenty business days and give five-business-day prepayment notice after repayment demand. Split provisions say conversion price is affected. Signatures of both sides appear on three; November 22 copy has issuer signature but blank holder line.supportsRepeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract variants remain source-specific.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
July 12, 2022 $250,000 note likewise has 5% annual interest, 24-month term, six-month conversion bar and 4.99% cap, but $0.10 conversion and price expressly unaffected by forward/reverse splits. Both issuer and holder signatures appear. These distinct economics must not be overwritten with earlier-note boilerplate.supportsRepeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract variants remain source-specific.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Four attached notes dated October 22, November 8, November 22, 2021 ($1.5m each) and May 23, 2022 ($500,000) provide 5% annual interest, 24-month terms, no conversion for six months and $0.25 conversion, with 4.99% beneficial ownership cap. Holder elects conversion in writing with note delivery; issuer must deliver shares within twenty business days and give five-business-day prepayment notice after repayment demand. Split provisions say conversion price is affected. Signatures of both sides appear on three; November 22 copy has issuer signature but blank holder line.supportsWhat conversion election, certificate delivery, amendment and debt ledger resolve RB’s disputed November22 conversion and first-note balance?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 27 nonappearance transcript records Petersen with Welter, no witness, ending 10:11 am. Petersen says his team forwarded an August 26 5:48 pm email saying witness would not appear; before that he had no response or motion to quash. This qualifies an absolute no-notice account. Reporter Tayloe signs certification. Case number on cover differs from spoken number; isolated “afternoon” contrasts with 10:11 am closure. Transcript records counsel’s proffer, not sworn designee answers or a sanctions finding.supportsWhat August26 email and proof of actual notice/service explain the August9/August24 certificate tension and failure to appear?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RB complaint filed August 12 in SDCA 3:24-cv-01434 alleges defaults on five notes and claims July 15 principal $5,168,000 plus interest $518,960 = $5,686,960, correctly summed. First-note principal $1,418,000 includes stated $250,000 December 19 credit but is not simply $1.5m minus that credit; underlying capitalisation ledger is absent. RB disputes alleged December 2023 conversion of November 22 debt and seeks declaratory relief, damages and fees; no judgment appears here.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter lists alleged transfers: September 8 $250,000 phone transfer; September 11 $213,000 Fletcher Jones vehicle purchase; September 14 $187,500 phone transfer; September 19 $55,000 Schwab; September 20 $600,000 phone transfer; September 26 $692,689.64 debit memo; October 16 $850,000 Schmidt Edward Jones and $994,460 G2G Global; October 23 $6,000 Schwab; November 7 $25,000 Schmidt; January 4 $108,555.42 Schmidt; January 29 $25,000 Schmidt; February 7 $20,000 Schmidt; March 6 $290,000 Schmidt; April 11 $50,000 Schmidt, $25,000 Holly Schmidt and $25,000 Schmidt. These sum $4,417,205.06 as stated. Personal misuse and lack of authorisation remain Welter’s characterisations without underlying bank or purpose records.supportsBank records were expressly withheld; no underlying bank authentication, use-of-funds documentation, complete creditor ledger or conversion-performance records accompany the allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
July 8 separate injunction action CL24002919 and declaratory action CL24002960 repeat oral-modification/overpayment theories and seek to halt enforcement across states. Declaratory complaint appears twice as service copies, not two independent claims. Secure Community return shows July 19 personal service at 4 pm and July 25 filing; AWH return page70 is blank. Issued summonses and registered-agent designation do not establish service wherever return fields are uncompleted.supportsRepeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract variants remain source-specific.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 27 notice covers twenty topics: operations, ownership, sale efforts, valuations, assets, governance, buyers, payments, drones, settlement, judgment, conflicts, elections, subsidiaries, OTC status, related loans and finance. Filed copy bears August 9 upload/August 12 clerk processing. Both visible notice service certificates have handwritten August 24, whereas letters and later transcript say August 9 service. Preserve the distinction; questions about acquisitions/assets are discovery topics, not proof those facts occurred.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 9 signed orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for Cyberlux and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank for Schmidt, $188,661.20 combined. Welter says those funds were credited. His August balances are AWH/SC principal $430,295.59 plus interest $95,000.62 = $525,296.21; Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Component totals equal $977,882.30, one cent below printed $977,882.31. No complete account ledger is attached.supportsBank records were expressly withheld; no underlying bank authentication, use-of-funds documentation, complete creditor ledger or conversion-performance records accompany the allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 27 notice covers twenty topics: operations, ownership, sale efforts, valuations, assets, governance, buyers, payments, drones, settlement, judgment, conflicts, elections, subsidiaries, OTC status, related loans and finance. Filed copy bears August 9 upload/August 12 clerk processing. Both visible notice service certificates have handwritten August 24, whereas letters and later transcript say August 9 service. Preserve the distinction; questions about acquisitions/assets are discovery topics, not proof those facts occurred.supportsRepeated complaints/notices and near-identical PDF copies must not multiply evidentiary independence; service dates, redactions and contract variants remain source-specific.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter lists alleged transfers: September 8 $250,000 phone transfer; September 11 $213,000 Fletcher Jones vehicle purchase; September 14 $187,500 phone transfer; September 19 $55,000 Schwab; September 20 $600,000 phone transfer; September 26 $692,689.64 debit memo; October 16 $850,000 Schmidt Edward Jones and $994,460 G2G Global; October 23 $6,000 Schwab; November 7 $25,000 Schmidt; January 4 $108,555.42 Schmidt; January 29 $25,000 Schmidt; February 7 $20,000 Schmidt; March 6 $290,000 Schmidt; April 11 $50,000 Schmidt, $25,000 Holly Schmidt and $25,000 Schmidt. These sum $4,417,205.06 as stated. Personal misuse and lack of authorisation remain Welter’s characterisations without underlying bank or purpose records.supportsWhich bank records, authorised purposes and complete payment ledger resolve the transfer allegations and creditor balances?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
June 7 signed opinion holds the underlying dismissed case final and denies declaratory relief improperly brought by motion in that case, dissolving the May 31 injunction before its scheduled expiry. It denies creditor sanctions and debtor fees, finds creditor entitlement to reasonable defence fees but reserves amount pending affidavit within seven days. It records initial April garnishments dismissed for a future June 28, 2024 judgment-date error and replacements outstanding. It does not decide all alleged settlement breaches or grant the broad injunction sought.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 9 signed orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for Cyberlux and $4,862.86 from Towne Bank for Schmidt, $188,661.20 combined. Welter says those funds were credited. His August balances are AWH/SC principal $430,295.59 plus interest $95,000.62 = $525,296.21; Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Component totals equal $977,882.30, one cent below printed $977,882.31. No complete account ledger is attached.supportsWhat does this update establish independently of Welter’s allegations?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
August 27 notice covers twenty topics: operations, ownership, sale efforts, valuations, assets, governance, buyers, payments, drones, settlement, judgment, conflicts, elections, subsidiaries, OTC status, related loans and finance. Filed copy bears August 9 upload/August 12 clerk processing. Both visible notice service certificates have handwritten August 24, whereas letters and later transcript say August 9 service. Preserve the distinction; questions about acquisitions/assets are discovery topics, not proof those facts occurred.supportsWhat August26 email and proof of actual notice/service explain the August9/August24 certificate tension and failure to appear?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says discovery bank records show September 8, 2023 receipt of $38.7 million for the drone contract and a May 31, 2024 request for a $198,798.37 attorney-fee check. He explicitly withholds bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon request. The exhibit therefore supports the declarant’s account, not direct examination of those transactions.supportsBank records were expressly withheld; no underlying bank authentication, use-of-funds documentation, complete creditor ledger or conversion-performance records accompany the allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
June 7 signed opinion holds the underlying dismissed case final and denies declaratory relief improperly brought by motion in that case, dissolving the May 31 injunction before its scheduled expiry. It denies creditor sanctions and debtor fees, finds creditor entitlement to reasonable defence fees but reserves amount pending affidavit within seven days. It records initial April garnishments dismissed for a future June 28, 2024 judgment-date error and replacements outstanding. It does not decide all alleged settlement breaches or grant the broad injunction sought.supportsThe actual June7 ruling defeats a continuing May31-stay account, but its procedural basis does not itself adjudicate every settlement breach.
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.