Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
Seventeen transfer entries sum to $4,417,205.06; no $6,500 item, and April 11 entries total $100,000.
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
observationobservation
Ordered garnishments $183,798.34 corporate PNC and $4,862.86 individual Towne retain separate debtor scope.
Read the anchor · page 23
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.813 Page 49 of 164
Exhibit D
observationobservation
Physical 90-page excerpt carries original 164-page numbering with 74 original pages absent.
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
observationobservation
August 2024 component balances sum to $977,882.30 versus printed $977,882.31.
Read the anchor · page 6
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
-5- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
Would be nice to conclude these matters. Thanks" (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 55). Again,
Cyberlux did not respond.
24. On October 9, 2023, I made another request for basic information: "Can
you advise how many drones were sold?" (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 62). Once more,
Cyberlux ignored this request for information they agreed to promptly provide under
the settlement agreement.
25. On November 2, 2023, I again asked for information related to drone
sales: “Also, the initial drone transaction was mid-September. If the transaction has
proceeded and if they pay the $5k per drone, that would conclude matters (beside the
stock issues). As mentioned to you before, our goal has been to make a clean cut
between the two companies. The proposed / new SA appears to prolong that by
another 3 years. Lastly, any documents relevant to the drone transaction will be
helpful. I’ve held back on requests for same thus far, however, I think reviewing the
documents on the drone transaction will now be very helpful” (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 75).
Cyberlux ignored this request as well.
26. Finally, on December 5, 2023, I once again requested information about
drone sales: “We are still concerned about the Drone sales and the necessity to fulfill
all the terms of and under the settlement agreement ($5k per Drone) upon the sale. As
mentioned we have been dealing with this matter since fall 2021 and are ready to
conclude. To that end, I ask again can you please send documentation relevant to the
Drone sales” (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 80). Cyberlux also ignored this request.
27. The settlement agreement defines requested information as being late if
not received within ten (10) calendar days 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. 11, § 21).
28. Defendants' last regular payment was made in May 2024. Since then,
Defendants have not made any further payments. This cessation of payments, coupled
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.770 Page 6 of 164
claimallegation
This physical file contains 90 pages, while its ECF footer identifies a 164-page document filed 3 September 2024 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-V
This physical file contains 90 pages, while its ECF footer identifies a 164-page document filed 3 September 2024 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET, ECF 29-1. The supplied sequence is original pages 1–10 and 37–116: original 11–36 and 117–164 are absent. Complete reading of this excerpt does not certify the full filing or exhibits K and L. Repeated embedded copies remain one underlying source per document.
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
Welter reports an RB Capital complaint filed 12 August 2024 alleging $5,686,960 promissory-note defaults and identifies Exhibit L. The compl
Welter reports an RB Capital complaint filed 12 August 2024 alleging $5,686,960 promissory-note defaults and identifies Exhibit L. The complaint is absent from this excerpt; reported filing and amount remain distinct from a judgment, funded principal or present balance.
Read the anchor · page 9
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
-8- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
September 20, 2023: $600,000 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 26, 2023: $692,689.64 member debit memo
October 16, 2023: $850,000 transfer to Schmidt's Edward Jones account
October 16, 2023: $994,460 transfer to G2G Global LTD
October 23, 2023: $6,000 transfer to Schwab account
November 7, 2023: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
January 4, 2024: $108,555.42 transfer to Schmidt
January 29, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
February 7, 2024: $20,000 transfer to Schmidt
March 6, 2024: $290,000 transfer to Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $50,000 transfer to Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Holly Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
37. The total amount of these transfers is $4,417,205.06. These unauthorized
transfers are a clear violation of the settlement agreement, which required Defendants
to make timely payments to Plaintiffs and provided for accelerated payments upon
receipt of substantial funds from drone contracts (Dkt. No. 24-1 at pp. 5-6, §§ 4.a-
4.c).
38. Additionally, on August 12, 2024, Brett Rosen, on behalf of RB Capital
Partners, Inc., filed a case against Cyberlux Corporation for breach of contract and
declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. This complaint alleges that Cyberlux has defaulted on several promissory
notes amounting to $5,686,960. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct
copy of the complaint filed by RB Capital Partners, Inc.
///
///
///
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.773 Page 9 of 164
claimallegation
The excerpt then jumps to a Schmidt declaration originally ECF 21-1 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00196, dated and visibly DocuSigned 18 April 2024 in Vie
The excerpt then jumps to a Schmidt declaration originally ECF 21-1 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00196, dated and visibly DocuSigned 18 April 2024 in Vienna. It acknowledges the June 2023 settlement and judgment, reports payments, asserts a modified payment plan and alleges overreaching in the licence/settlement. Paragraph 8 is visibly blacked out. Missing or redacted text is not reconstructed.
Read the anchor · page 11
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
Schmidt’s payment table totals $779,616.14 through April 1, 2024: $595,616.14 to AWH and $184,000 to Strikepoint by the listed payees. His n
Schmidt’s payment table totals $779,616.14 through April 1, 2024: $595,616.14 to AWH and $184,000 to Strikepoint by the listed payees. His next paragraph instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint, a $70,000 difference requiring ledger reconciliation. He prints AWH principal $1,110,363.89 less $595,616.14 paid leaving $591,102.45; the subtraction equals $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below that stated balance. These are internal statement differences, not independently proved payment or overcharge.
Read the anchor · page 12
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 21-1 Filed 04/18/24 PagelD.535 Page 3 of 25
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: D741C8C4-A675-4EF1-BE7F-A4435D9C5383
1 Judgment provides, in part, that "the parties hereto have reached a settlement
2 agreement that resolves the current need for continuing litigation." Settlement
3 Judgment at Page 1. Further, in Plaintiffs' state court action filed in San Diego County
4 Supe1ior Court and removed to this Court, Plaintiffs alleged: "In connection with the
5 Settlement Agreement, on June 28, 2023, the Court in the Underlying Lawsuit entered
6 an Amended Final Order and Judgment .... " Complaint, at Paragraph 18 [Dckt. 1, Ex.
7 A].
8 4. As conceded by Plaintiffs in their underlying state court complaint,
9 provided that with respect to the settlement payment to be made by Cyberlux, "Under
10 the terms of the Settlement Agreement in paragraph 4(a) Defendants agreed to
11 specific payment terms." Complaint, at Paragraph 19 [Dckt. 1, Ex. A].
12
5. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
13 Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave as follows:
14 Date
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
7/3/2023
7/3/2023
7/3/2023
9/8/2023
9/8/2023
10/4/2023
11/2/2023
12/4/2023
1/2/2024
2/1/2024
3/1/2024
4/1/2024
TOTAL
Payee
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Amount
$10,737.50
$5,364.75
$4,513.89
$575,000.00
$50,000.00
$20,000.00
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
$19,000.00
$779,616.14
24 True and cmrect copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto as
25
Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of Douglas
26 Grimes, Cyberlux' s payments were either made by the deadlines provided in the
27 Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based upon
2 8 the Plaintiffs' oral modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon which Cyberlux
3 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN OPPOSITION TO ATLANTIC WA VE'S MOTION TO STRIKE
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.802 Page 38 of 164
claimallegation
Schmidt attributes a $167,402.56 credit for future payments to Welter and relies on a separate Grimes declaration for oral modification. He
Schmidt attributes a $167,402.56 credit for future payments to Welter and relies on a separate Grimes declaration for oral modification. He disputes the original licence’s procurement and says bank freezing since April 16 interferes with payroll and bills. Welter’s denial and Schmidt’s affirmative modification account are opposing sworn positions; neither becomes resolved merely by inclusion in the same compilation.
Read the anchor · page 13
Case 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET Document 21-1 Filed 04/18/24 PagelD.536 Page 4 of 25
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0741 C8C4-A675-4EF1-BE7F-A4435D9C5383
1 relied.
2 6. In fact, as more fully explained in the concun-ently filed Declaration of
3 Douglas G1imes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
4 Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
5 counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
6 Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
7 7. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
8 to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
9 Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
10 principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
11 leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9. Plaintiffs and I and Cyberlux also have a dispute regarding whether
22 Cyberlux continues to owe Atlantic Wave payments pursuant to a patent license
23 agreement which was procured through misrepresentations, undue influence, and
24 oven-eaching by Plaintiffs in the Virginia litigation. Cyberlux contends that this
25 patent license agreement and the resultant settlement ofthat agreement was procured
26 through misrepresentation, undue influence and oven-eaching because Mr. Welter, a
27 Florida licensed lawyer, did not advise me to obtain separate counsel in accordance
28 with Florida Rule of Professional Responsibility 4-4.3.
4 3:24-cv-00196-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN OPPOSITION TO ATLANTIC WA VE'S MOTION TO STRIKE
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.803 Page 39 of 164
claimallegation
The signed 31 May 2024 McClenney order grants only temporary relief: lifts restraints up to $550,000, permits up to $317,000 payroll and $23
The signed 31 May 2024 McClenney order grants only temporary relief: lifts restraints up to $550,000, permits up to $317,000 payroll and $230,000 settlement payments with in-camera proof, limits new garnishments and sets June 11 at 5 pm expiry. Payroll includes entitled employees and consultants. It takes the remainder under advisement. A ceiling is not evidence that funds were actually spent, and this temporary order was subsequently dissolved.
Read the anchor · page 15
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.805 Page 41 of 164
Exhibit B
claimallegation
The signed 7 June 2024 McClenney opinion denies the emergency declaratory motion as procedurally improper in the terminated underlying actio
The signed 7 June 2024 McClenney opinion denies the emergency declaratory motion as procedurally improper in the terminated underlying action, dissolves the temporary injunction, denies plaintiffs’ sanctions motion and defendants’ fees, and finds plaintiffs entitled to reasonable defence fees with amount reserved pending affidavit. It does not adjudicate every later breach or payment-modification dispute. It notes earlier garnishments were dismissed for listing a future June 28, 2024 judgment date; replacement garnishments remained outstanding.
Read the anchor · page 18
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.808 Page 44 of 164
Exhibit C
claimallegation
Signed 9 August 2024 orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for the Cyberlux garnishment and $4,862.86 already tendered by Towne for
Signed 9 August 2024 orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for the Cyberlux garnishment and $4,862.86 already tendered by Towne for the Schmidt garnishment, payable through Caudle and Caudle. Party and account scopes differ. These entered directions support the ordered recovery; actual receipt/application is separately Welter’s statement.
Read the anchor · page 23
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.813 Page 49 of 164
Exhibit D
claimallegation
The July 8 injunction complaint in CL24002919 alleges renegotiated deadlines, overpayment credits, continued performance and improper garnis
The July 8 injunction complaint in CL24002919 alleges renegotiated deadlines, overpayment credits, continued performance and improper garnishment, and requests an injunction against enforcing the June 2023 judgment across jurisdictions. It is signed /s/ Jimmy F. Robinson Jr and headed verified, but no separate claimant verification appears in its supplied five pages. The August 1 summons is not itself proof of completed service or granted relief.
Read the anchor · page 29
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.819 Page 55 of 164
Exhibit F
claimallegation
The supplied return for Secure Community at Ryan Brown’s office has personal service checked, handwritten 19 July 2024 at 4:00 pm, and a 25
The supplied return for Secure Community at Ryan Brown’s office has personal service checked, handwritten 19 July 2024 at 4:00 pm, and a 25 July filing stamp. The adjacent signed/notarised 28 June 2024 designation lists seven staff authorised to accept for the corporate registered agent. This evidences the return and designation; it does not silently establish which named employee actually received process or resolve all service objections.
Read the anchor · page 36
.. ---&arvicw,ilCHl\ff)ND CITY cc ILIPSCOMB at 2024JUL 11 09:11 CL24002919-00
SERVICE OTHER THAN BY VIRGINIA SHERIFF Case No. CL24002919-00 ............................................. ..
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
VA . .COOE §§ s.01-293, s.01-320, s.OJ-325 Service No. t ......................................... (Clerk's use only)
.RICHMOND.CITY ...................................................................... ___ ,_ ........ Circuit Court
.CYBERLUX CORPORATION.......................................................... v. ATLANTIC WA VE.HOLDINGS,_LLC .......................................... 1 .
. SECURE COMMUNITY,.LLC~RYAN BROWN, PLLC,1739CLARENDON BLVD,.ARLINGTON,.VA 22209-.................................... .
is the name and address of the person upon whom service of the following is to be made:
[ ] Summons and Complaint
[X) COMPLAINT .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... :
I, the undersigned, swear/affirm that
1. [ ] I am an official or an employee ofan official who is authorized to serve proce.~s of the type described in the
attached Proof of Service and my title and:bailiwick are as follows:
........................................................... ___ ......................................................................................................... ,_ .............................................. .
or,
am a private process server (list name, address and telephone number below) .
. A .. "'S,.f<w{t~UtJ-t.t£.J1,Ut,.:,,412(:f.z.~ .... IC4 A,1117'"-t-J,.a
or, 1 U
[ ] ram an investigator employed by an attorney for the Commonwealth or the lndigentDefense Commis~ion and
have retired or resigned from my prior position as a law-enforcement officer in good standing. l.affinn that the
sheriff for the jurisdiction· where process was served has agreed that such investigators may serve process. (Lisf
name, tide and agency below.) •
.................................................................... "' ...................... _. __ ............................ "" ..................................................................................................... 1
2. I am not a party to, or olherwise interested in, the subject matter in controversy in this case. j
3'. I am 18 years of age or older.
4. l served, as shown below, the above-named person upon whom service of process was to be made with copies desc bed
abovi,::_ Date and time of -ervice· . -:Ji/ '1/ v-:{ .. _.9,. 'l.::IC,j?M., ....... -.............................. -.......................... 1
PMlacheodof sefrvic~· •••• ../. I }i.ct~~1~.~~·c~J,, .. , .. VA--.................
1
.
et o service:
r-;;;;;;:;:::-=:~~---- Personal Service [ ] • Not Found
RECEIVED ANO FILED Being unable to make personal service, a copy was delivered in the following manner:
CIRCUIT COURT [ ] Delivery to family member (not temporary sojolllller or guest) age 16 or older at
2 : • usual place of abode of person to be served aft.er giving information of its purport.
JUL 2 5 2024 • List name, age of recipient, and relation of recipient lo party ................................... ..
EDWARD F. JEWETI: CLERK
BY D.C.
[ ] Posted on front.door or such olher door as appears to be the main entrance of usual
place of abode (other authorized recipient not found).
[ ] (Garnishment_ Summons Only, § 8.01-SI 1) Copy mailed to judgment debtor after
serving the garnishee on date of service below unless a different date of mailing is
shown.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.826 Page 62 of 164
claimallegation
The July declaratory complaint in CL24002960 repeats the oral-modification/performance theory and requests findings of valid modified terms,
The July declaratory complaint in CL24002960 repeats the oral-modification/performance theory and requests findings of valid modified terms, wrongful garnishment, release and fees. It appears twice with related summons material. A return form at physical 44 is blank; the July 11 and August 1 summonses are issued process, not completed service. Repeated copies are not separate suits or independent corroboration.
Read the anchor · page 38
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
RICHMOND CITY CIRCUIT COURT
Civil Division
400 NORTH 9TH STREET
RICHMOND VA 23219
(804) 646-6506
Summons
To: ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS LLC
RYANBROWN,PLLC
1739 CLARENDON BL VD
ARLINGTON VA 22209
Case No. 760CL24002960-00
The party upon whom this summons and the attached complaint are served is hereby notified
that unless within 21 days after such service, response is made by filing in the clerk'sJoffice
of this court a pleading in writing, in proper legal form, the allegations and charges rn:ay be
taken as admitted and the court may enter an order, judgment, or decree against such arty
either by default or after hearing evidence.
Appearance in person is not required by this summons.
Done in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia on,Th sday, 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.828 Page 64 of 164
claimallegation
Welter identifies himself as managing director of Atlantic Wave Holdings, Secure Community and Strikepoint, declares personal knowledge and
Welter identifies himself as managing director of Atlantic Wave Holdings, Secure Community and Strikepoint, declares personal knowledge and signs /s/ under penalty of perjury on 3 September 2024 in Tappahannock. He supports plaintiffs’ update concerning Cyberlux’s motion to vacate a domesticated Virginia judgment. The declaration is witness evidence of his attributed account, not a judicial finding on all asserted facts.
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
Petersen’s August 6 letter proposes an August 23 Fairfax deposition and invites alternative arrangements. The draft notice covers twenty top
Petersen’s August 6 letter proposes an August 23 Fairfax deposition and invites alternative arrangements. The draft notice covers twenty topics including operations, ownership, financial accounts, acquisitions, drone sales, settlement, governance, CE and financing; its service certificate is blank. Dates and acquisition names in a discovery request are requested subjects, not proof those events occurred as described.
Read the anchor · page 51
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.841 Page 77 of 164
Exhibit G
claimallegation
The August 9 letter reports no reply and sets August 27 at Spotts Fain in Richmond while inviting alternatives; it also proposes counsel sub
The August 9 letter reports no reply and sets August 27 at Spotts Fain in Richmond while inviting alternatives; it also proposes counsel substitution and withdrawal of a predecessor motion. August 23 follows up. Supplied August 27 notice copies have signed service certificates visibly dated August 24, despite a copy’s upload/file processing stamps of August 9/12 and the letter’s August 9 service account. These date roles conflict or require explanation; exact service timing is not silently normalised.
Read the anchor · page 57
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.847 Page 83 of 164
Exhibit H
claimallegation
The reporter-certified August 27 nonappearance record lists Petersen and Welter present, no witness, and counsel’s marking of three letters.
The reporter-certified August 27 nonappearance record lists Petersen and Welter present, no witness, and counsel’s marking of three letters. Petersen says his team forwarded an email sent 5:48 pm the previous evening saying the witness would not appear; before that he says no response, objection or motion to quash arrived. He proposes a motion to compel, then closes at 10:11 am. It is a counsel statement on the record, not witness testimony on the corporate topics or a court finding of sanctionable conduct.
Read the anchor · page 78
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.868 Page 104 of 164
Exhibit J
claimallegation
The transcript caption prints CL24002019-00 while counsel states CL24002919. It says 10:09 Tuesday afternoon but opens at 10 am and closes 1
The transcript caption prints CL24002019-00 while counsel states CL24002919. It says 10:09 Tuesday afternoon but opens at 10 am and closes 10:11 am. Those apparent transcription differences are preserved. The three final concordance pages repeat transcript terms; they add no testimony, and the original filing’s later pages and exhibits remain absent.
Read the anchor · page 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
CYBERLUX CORPORATION )
and MARK D. SCHMIDT, )
Individually, )Case No.CL24002019-00
Plaintiffs, )
V )
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,)
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LCC, )
Defendants. )
STATEMENT OF NONAPPEARANCE
Richmond, Virginia
August 27, 2024
10:00 a.m.
Job No. 549531
Pages 1-8
Reported by: Carol M. Tayloe, RMR, CMRS, CRR
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.870 Page 106 of 164
claimallegation
Welter describes collection against Datron in California, an emergency Virginia request after garnishment, temporary payroll/settlement acce
Welter describes collection against Datron in California, an emergency Virginia request after garnishment, temporary payroll/settlement access, and a same-day $198,798.37 attorney-fee cheque request. He reports later dissolution and garnishment releases. The cheque request and its purpose are his bank-record account; the actual request or completed disbursement is not supplied here.
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
claimallegation
Welter reports July Virginia emergency filings left unscheduled, unanswered August letters and an August 27 Virginia nonappearance. Separate
Welter reports July Virginia emergency filings left unscheduled, unanswered August letters and an August 27 Virginia nonappearance. Separately he describes a Texas motion to vacate staying proceedings and preventing Texas depositions, plus a process server’s report of an empty office and lease negotiations. Different jurisdictions and reasons must remain separate; the leasing statements are attributed reports, not direct proof of abandonment.
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 invokes thirty-six monthly $21,459 payments from July 2023, first-of-month timing, three-day cure, ten-day information provision and
Welter invokes thirty-six monthly $21,459 payments from July 2023, first-of-month timing, three-day cure, ten-day information provision and twenty-one-day acceleration after drone-contract payment. He categorically denies written or oral modification and reports repeated unanswered drone-sale requests from July through December 2023. The actual settlement is incorporated by docket reference, not fully appended to this excerpt.
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
Welter says May 2024 was the last regular payment, distinguishes later garnished funds, and reports $183,798.34 PNC plus $4,862.86 Towne cre
Welter says May 2024 was the last regular payment, distinguishes later garnished funds, and reports $183,798.34 PNC plus $4,862.86 Towne credited in August. His balances are AWH/Secure principal $430,295.59 plus $95,000.62 interest = $525,296.21 and Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Those subtotals sum to $977,882.30, one cent below his printed $977,882.31 grand total. No complete ledger is appended.
Read the anchor · page 6
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
-5- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
Would be nice to conclude these matters. Thanks" (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 55). Again,
Cyberlux did not respond.
24. On October 9, 2023, I made another request for basic information: "Can
you advise how many drones were sold?" (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 62). Once more,
Cyberlux ignored this request for information they agreed to promptly provide under
the settlement agreement.
25. On November 2, 2023, I again asked for information related to drone
sales: “Also, the initial drone transaction was mid-September. If the transaction has
proceeded and if they pay the $5k per drone, that would conclude matters (beside the
stock issues). As mentioned to you before, our goal has been to make a clean cut
between the two companies. The proposed / new SA appears to prolong that by
another 3 years. Lastly, any documents relevant to the drone transaction will be
helpful. I’ve held back on requests for same thus far, however, I think reviewing the
documents on the drone transaction will now be very helpful” (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 75).
Cyberlux ignored this request as well.
26. Finally, on December 5, 2023, I once again requested information about
drone sales: “We are still concerned about the Drone sales and the necessity to fulfill
all the terms of and under the settlement agreement ($5k per Drone) upon the sale. As
mentioned we have been dealing with this matter since fall 2021 and are ready to
conclude. To that end, I ask again can you please send documentation relevant to the
Drone sales” (Dkt. No. 9-3 at p. 80). Cyberlux also ignored this request.
27. The settlement agreement defines requested information as being late if
not received within ten (10) calendar days 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. 11, § 21).
28. Defendants' last regular payment was made in May 2024. Since then,
Defendants have not made any further payments. This cessation of payments, coupled
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.770 Page 6 of 164
claimallegation
Welter says the Caveat Emptor dispute remains unresolved after a 1 September 2024 OTC check, but expressly excludes that stock issue from th
Welter says the Caveat Emptor dispute remains unresolved after a 1 September 2024 OTC check, but expressly excludes that stock issue from this collection action, which concerns the amended final judgment. His reference to attached Exhibit K is not supplied in this 90-page excerpt. Historical CE status is not a current market-status finding.
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
Welter says discovery bank records show $38.7 million received on 8 September 2023 for a US government drone contract. He explicitly withhol
Welter says discovery bank records show $38.7 million received on 8 September 2023 for a US government drone contract. He explicitly withholds the bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon the court’s request. The declaration’s reported receipts and interpretations are not a substitute for the omitted bank statements or the underlying contract.
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
Welter lists seventeen transfers: $250,000; $213,000; $187,500; $55,000; $600,000; $692,689.64; $850,000; $994,460; $6,000; $25,000; $108,555.42; $25,000; $20,000; $290,000; $50,000; $25,000 to Holly Schmidt; and $25,000 to Schmidt. These sum exactly to his $4,417,205.06 total. This list has no $6,500 item and has three April 11 items totalling $100,000. Recipient/purpose and unauthorised-use assertions are his testimony based on withheld bank records, not adjudicated criminal predicates.
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
otherattribution
Welter offers to submit the withheld bank records in camera upon the court’s request.
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
otherattribution
Petersen states he will seek to compel attendance and other remedies after nonappearance.
Read the anchor · page 78
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PagelD.868 Page 104 of 164
Exhibit J
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
Holly Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 9
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
-8- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
September 20, 2023: $600,000 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 26, 2023: $692,689.64 member debit memo
October 16, 2023: $850,000 transfer to Schmidt's Edward Jones account
October 16, 2023: $994,460 transfer to G2G Global LTD
October 23, 2023: $6,000 transfer to Schwab account
November 7, 2023: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
January 4, 2024: $108,555.42 transfer to Schmidt
January 29, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
February 7, 2024: $20,000 transfer to Schmidt
March 6, 2024: $290,000 transfer to Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $50,000 transfer to Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Holly Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
37. The total amount of these transfers is $4,417,205.06. These unauthorized
transfers are a clear violation of the settlement agreement, which required Defendants
to make timely payments to Plaintiffs and provided for accelerated payments upon
receipt of substantial funds from drone contracts (Dkt. No. 24-1 at pp. 5-6, §§ 4.a-
4.c).
38. Additionally, on August 12, 2024, Brett Rosen, on behalf of RB Capital
Partners, Inc., filed a case against Cyberlux Corporation for breach of contract and
declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. This complaint alleges that Cyberlux has defaulted on several promissory
notes amounting to $5,686,960. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct
copy of the complaint filed by RB Capital Partners, Inc.
///
///
///
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.773 Page 9 of 164
entityobservation
Robert Keith Caudle, III
Read the anchor · page 25
Endorsement of the defendant and garnishee are waived pursuant to Rule 1: 13 of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
I ask for this:
(
Robert Keith Caudle, III, (VSB No. 43450)
Counsel for Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
Caudle and Caudle, P.C.
1910 Byrd A venue, Suite 118
Richmond, Virginia 23230
P: 804-358-4961
F: 804-353-1036
robcaudle@caudleandcaudle.com
ENTER: , 1 9 1 :;v J-,'--' /
~···
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.815 Page 51 of 164
entityobservation
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Read the anchor · page 35
Dated July 8, 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 Plaintiffs
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEW ART, P .C.
901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300
Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel.: (804) 663-2336
Fax: (855) 843-1809
5
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.825 Page 61 of 164
entityobservation
J. Chapman Petersen
Read the anchor · page 52
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.
I look 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
Ryan
Read the anchor · page 37
... ..
RYAN A. BROWN, PLLC <lib/rt ARLJNGTON LAW GROUP
DESIGNATION OF NATURAL PERSONS TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS
In accordance with Virginia Code §13.1-1015 (2)(b)(ii), Ryan A. Brown, Esq., the sole
member of Ryan A. Brown, PLLC dlb/a Arlington Law Group, a Virginia professional limited
liability company (the "Corporate Registered Agent"), executes the following written instrument to
designate natural persons at the office or the Corporate Registered Agent upon whom any process,
notice, or demand directed to the Corporate Registered Agent may be served and in support thereof
states:
I. I, Ryan /\. Brown. Esq .. am the sole member or the Corporate Registered Agent.
2. The Corpornte Registered Agent maintains an office in the Commonwealth of Virginia
located at 1739 Clarendon Blvd .. Arlington, Virginia, 22209.
3. The Corporate Registered Agent provides a n.:gistercd agent service for customers in the
Commonwealth or Virginia.
4. The Corporate Registered Agent therefore will from time to time accept service of
process, notice, or demand for entities and individuals in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
5. The Corporate Registered Agent has seven (7) staff members who may be potentially on
site whose names are: Ryan A. Brown, Esq., Eric M. Lemmer, Esq., James F. Anderson,
Esq., Bridget A. Alzheimer, Esq., Anthony N. Hernandez-Villanueva, Anna S. Goldberg
and Marissa N. Whitaker.
6. All employees of the Corporate Registered Agent are considered agents of the Corporate
Registered Agent for the purposes of performing the duties required of the Corporate
Registered Agent as a registered agent in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
7. As such. any service of process, notice, or demand din::cted lo the Corporate Registered
Agent may be accepted by: Ryan A. Brown, Esq .. Eric M. Lemmer, Esq., James F.
Anderson, Esq., Bridget A. Alzheimer, Esq .. Anthony N. Hernandez-Villanueva, Artna S.
Goldberg and Marissa N. Whitaker.
8. In accordance with Virginia Code §13.1-1015 (2)(b)(ii) presentation of this wrillen
instrument or a copy thereof to the individual attempting service of process shall
constitute surficient proof that any or the above-named individuals may accept service as
an agent of the Corporate Re.gistcred Agent.
Rynn A. Brown, PLLC dlb/a Arlington Law Group
By:
Title:
Ryan A. Brown, Esq.
Member
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COlJNTY OF ARLINGTON
Dale
TO-WIT:
ANTHONY NICHOLAS I-IERNANDE7.., REG. No. 00273939, NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: JUNE 30, 2028
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.827 Page 63 of 164
entityobservation
Carol M. Tayloe
Read the anchor · page 87
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
Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
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
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
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
Strikepoint
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
David M. Keithly
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
entityobservation
Sara K. Ross
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
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
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
entityobservation
MARK D.
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
entityobservation
G2G Global LTD
Read the anchor · page 9
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
-8- Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
DECLARATION OF W. WELTER
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
September 20, 2023: $600,000 phone transfer authorized by Mark
Schmidt
September 26, 2023: $692,689.64 member debit memo
October 16, 2023: $850,000 transfer to Schmidt's Edward Jones account
October 16, 2023: $994,460 transfer to G2G Global LTD
October 23, 2023: $6,000 transfer to Schwab account
November 7, 2023: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
January 4, 2024: $108,555.42 transfer to Schmidt
January 29, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
February 7, 2024: $20,000 transfer to Schmidt
March 6, 2024: $290,000 transfer to Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $50,000 transfer to Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Holly Schmidt
April 11, 2024: $25,000 transfer to Schmidt
37. The total amount of these transfers is $4,417,205.06. These unauthorized
transfers are a clear violation of the settlement agreement, which required Defendants
to make timely payments to Plaintiffs and provided for accelerated payments upon
receipt of substantial funds from drone contracts (Dkt. No. 24-1 at pp. 5-6, §§ 4.a-
4.c).
38. Additionally, on August 12, 2024, Brett Rosen, on behalf of RB Capital
Partners, Inc., filed a case against Cyberlux Corporation for breach of contract and
declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California. This complaint alleges that Cyberlux has defaulted on several promissory
notes amounting to $5,686,960. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct
copy of the complaint filed by RB Capital Partners, Inc.
///
///
///
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.773 Page 9 of 164
eventattribution
Welter declaration carries filing and execution date September 3.
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
eventattribution
Temporary access order signed by McClenney.
Read the anchor · page 16
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
eventattribution
McClenney denies motion procedurally and dissolves temporary relief.
Read the anchor · page 19
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
eventattribution
Two garnishment orders direct recovery from different debtor accounts.
Read the anchor · page 24
,, ' . .
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
and
SECURE COMMUNITY LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
V. Case No: CL22-3882-05 -:S-~
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, Defendant/Judgment Debtor,
and
PNC BANK, Co-Defendant/Garnishee.
ORDER
THIS DAY came the plaintiffs/judgment creditors, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and
Secure Community, LLC, by counsel, and the co-defendant/garnishee, PNC Bank, upon the Writ
ofFieri Facias issued on April 19, 2024, the Notice of Judgment Lien served on PNC Bank and
Cyberlux Corporation, plaintiffs Suggestion in Garnishment, the Garnishment Summons with a
return date of June 18, 2024, and the Garnishee's Answer to said Garnishment Summons that it
has withheld $183,798.34 pursuant to the garnishment.
WHEREUPON the Court finds that the co-defendant/garnishee withheld the sum of
$183,798.34 pursuant to the Writ of Fieri Facias and the garnishment and the judgment creditors
are entitled to the funds. It is
ORDERED that the plaintiff recover from the garnishee the sum of $183,798.34. The
garnishee is directed to forward a check in the amount of $183,798.34 to Caudle and Caudle,
P.C., 1910 Byrd Avenue, Suite 118, Richmond, VA 23230 with in the time required by §8.01-
516 .1 of the Code of Virginia ( 1950). In addition, the Clerk directed to forward an attested copy
of this order to all parties in this matter.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.814 Page 50 of 164
eventattribution
Counsel records no witness and a prior-evening refusal email, with reporter certification.
Read the anchor · page 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
CYBERLUX CORPORATION )
and MARK D. SCHMIDT, )
Individually, )Case No.CL24002019-00
Plaintiffs, )
V )
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,)
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LCC, )
Defendants. )
STATEMENT OF NONAPPEARANCE
Richmond, Virginia
August 27, 2024
10:00 a.m.
Job No. 549531
Pages 1-8
Reported by: Carol M. Tayloe, RMR, CMRS, CRR
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 29-1 Filed 09/03/24 PageID.870 Page 106 of 164
inferenceinference
The excerpt preserves competing declarants, entered orders and counsel accounts, but omits 74 of the filed document’s original pages. It can
The excerpt preserves competing declarants, entered orders and counsel accounts, but omits 74 of the filed document’s original pages. It cannot support a claim that all exhibits or bank records were examined within this source.
inferenceinference
Welter’s listed transfers reconcile exactly, whereas his outstanding-balance grand total differs by one cent. Schmidt’s table and later paym
Welter’s listed transfers reconcile exactly, whereas his outstanding-balance grand total differs by one cent. Schmidt’s table and later payment assertion differ by $70,000 and his AWH subtraction by $76,354.70. Keep these distinct calculations and require the ledger before drawing a misconduct conclusion.
inferenceinference
A procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Pres
A procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Preserve the order’s actual grounds and both parties’ sworn positions.
inferenceinference
The nonappearance record narrows absolute no-response language: counsel reports a last-evening email declining attendance. Missing prior rep
The nonappearance record narrows absolute no-response language: counsel reports a last-evening email declining attendance. Missing prior replies and late notice do not establish why the witness did not attend or a subsequent sanctions ruling.
inferenceinference
Court-ordered garnishment recovery, claimed receipt/application, ordinary monthly payments and disputed stock obligations are different even
Court-ordered garnishment recovery, claimed receipt/application, ordinary monthly payments and disputed stock obligations are different events and balances. They should not be added or described as one unpaid liability.
inferenceinference
The signed August 24 service-certificate date, earlier upload/processing stamps and August 9 service narrative require the original served n
The signed August 24 service-certificate date, earlier upload/processing stamps and August 9 service narrative require the original served notice and email chain. Repeated scan copies do not settle the discrepancy.
otherattribution
All 90 supplied physical pages read at SHA-256 a24dfd8393cdbfcac9394cfe7052345d9d19dad5b5c215135d334a9bebbb866e. Original ECF page sequence
All 90 supplied physical pages read at SHA-256 a24dfd8393cdbfcac9394cfe7052345d9d19dad5b5c215135d334a9bebbb866e. Original ECF page sequence is 1–10 and 37–116 of 164; 74 original pages absent. Component speakers, signed orders, declaration redaction, repeated notices and reporter record retain distinct roles. Material handwritten dates and signatures visually checked; no missing bank records reconstructed.
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
Where is the complete 164-page filing, including original pages 11–36 and 117–164 and the referenced OTC/RB exhibits?
questionquestion
Which bank records, transaction purposes and recipient records substantiate or rebut Welter’s transfer descriptions and distinguish actual c
Which bank records, transaction purposes and recipient records substantiate or rebut Welter’s transfer descriptions and distinguish actual contract restrictions from settlement acceleration?
questionquestion
What complete ledger reconciles the declarants’ payment totals, credits, principal and interest at each date?
questionquestion
What signed amendments, original emails and Grimes evidence resolve the opposed payment-modification accounts?
questionquestion
Which served notice and transmission records explain the August 9/12/24 dates and the last-evening refusal?
questionquestion
What later order, if any, ruled on the July actions, compelled deposition or imposed sanctions, and what did it actually decide?
questionquestion
What bank/custodian records show the ordered garnishment payments were received and credited exactly as claimed?
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.
Welter says the Caveat Emptor dispute remains unresolved after a 1 September 2024 OTC check, but expressly excludes that stock issue from this collection action, which concerns the amended final judgment. His reference to attached Exhibit K is not supplied in this 90-page excerpt. Historical CE status is not a current market-status finding.referencesAWH states its CL22-3882 judgment has been paid and satisfied and its Texas enforcement action dismissed; it separates unresolved receiver fees from its completed enforcement and says roughly $2.2 million remains in the receivership. It argues Texas should decide receiver compensation. The earlier satisfied judgment and the separate $6 million stock judgment must not be added as both presently unpaid on this source’s account.
Welter excludes the stock dispute from this collection action. The later memorandum likewise distinguishes satisfaction of the original judgment from separate stock litigation; preserve dates and liability identity.
Welter says discovery bank records show $38.7 million received on 8 September 2023 for a US government drone contract. He explicitly withholds the bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon the court’s request. The declaration’s reported receipts and interpretations are not a substitute for the omitted bank statements or the underlying contract.referencesThe visible 8 September entry is ACH DEPOSIT, HII TECHNICAL SO followed by redaction, for $38,700,600.00. It is evidence of the bank-recorded account credit, not by itself identification of contract terms, units accepted, earned revenue, restricted use or judgment-payoff entitlement. The visible originator fragment is not expanded beyond what is shown.
The separately reviewed bank extract records $38,700,600 credit. It supports the receipt component, not every asserted purpose, restriction or wrongful transfer.
The July 8 injunction complaint in CL24002919 alleges renegotiated deadlines, overpayment credits, continued performance and improper garnishment, and requests an injunction against enforcing the June 2023 judgment across jurisdictions. It is signed /s/ Jimmy F. Robinson Jr and headed verified, but no separate claimant verification appears in its supplied five pages. The August 1 summons is not itself proof of completed service or granted relief.supportsA procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Preserve the order’s actual grounds and both parties’ sworn positions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter’s listed transfers reconcile exactly, whereas his outstanding-balance grand total differs by one cent. Schmidt’s table and later payment assertion differ by $70,000 and his AWH subtraction by $76,354.70. Keep these distinct calculations and require the ledger before drawing a misconduct conclusion.supportsWhat complete ledger reconciles the declarants’ payment totals, credits, principal and interest at each date?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
This physical file contains 90 pages, while its ECF footer identifies a 164-page document filed 3 September 2024 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET, ECF 29-1. The supplied sequence is original pages 1–10 and 37–116: original 11–36 and 117–164 are absent. Complete reading of this excerpt does not certify the full filing or exhibits K and L. Repeated embedded copies remain one underlying source per document.supportsAre all 164 filed pages and the underlying transfer bank records present in this file?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter lists seventeen transfers: $250,000; $213,000; $187,500; $55,000; $600,000; $692,689.64; $850,000; $994,460; $6,000; $25,000; $108,555.42; $25,000; $20,000; $290,000; $50,000; $25,000 to Holly Schmidt; and $25,000 to Schmidt. These sum exactly to his $4,417,205.06 total. This list has no $6,500 item and has three April 11 items totalling $100,000. Recipient/purpose and unauthorised-use assertions are his testimony based on withheld bank records, not adjudicated criminal predicates.supportsWhich bank records, transaction purposes and recipient records substantiate or rebut Welter’s transfer descriptions and distinguish actual contract restrictions from settlement acceleration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Signed 9 August 2024 orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for the Cyberlux garnishment and $4,862.86 already tendered by Towne for the Schmidt garnishment, payable through Caudle and Caudle. Party and account scopes differ. These entered directions support the ordered recovery; actual receipt/application is separately Welter’s statement.supportsCourt-ordered garnishment recovery, claimed receipt/application, ordinary monthly payments and disputed stock obligations are different events and balances. They should not be added or described as one unpaid liability.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter reports an RB Capital complaint filed 12 August 2024 alleging $5,686,960 promissory-note defaults and identifies Exhibit L. The complaint is absent from this excerpt; reported filing and amount remain distinct from a judgment, funded principal or present balance.supportsWhere is the complete 164-page filing, including original pages 11–36 and 117–164 and the referenced OTC/RB exhibits?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The July declaratory complaint in CL24002960 repeats the oral-modification/performance theory and requests findings of valid modified terms, wrongful garnishment, release and fees. It appears twice with related summons material. A return form at physical 44 is blank; the July 11 and August 1 summonses are issued process, not completed service. Repeated copies are not separate suits or independent corroboration.supportsWhat later order, if any, ruled on the July actions, compelled deposition or imposed sanctions, and what did it actually decide?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The reporter-certified August 27 nonappearance record lists Petersen and Welter present, no witness, and counsel’s marking of three letters. Petersen says his team forwarded an email sent 5:48 pm the previous evening saying the witness would not appear; before that he says no response, objection or motion to quash arrived. He proposes a motion to compel, then closes at 10:11 am. It is a counsel statement on the record, not witness testimony on the corporate topics or a court finding of sanctionable conduct.supportsWhich served notice and transmission records explain the August 9/12/24 dates and the last-evening refusal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The excerpt then jumps to a Schmidt declaration originally ECF 21-1 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00196, dated and visibly DocuSigned 18 April 2024 in Vienna. It acknowledges the June 2023 settlement and judgment, reports payments, asserts a modified payment plan and alleges overreaching in the licence/settlement. Paragraph 8 is visibly blacked out. Missing or redacted text is not reconstructed.supportsThe excerpt preserves competing declarants, entered orders and counsel accounts, but omits 74 of the filed document’s original pages. It cannot support a claim that all exhibits or bank records were examined within this source.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The July declaratory complaint in CL24002960 repeats the oral-modification/performance theory and requests findings of valid modified terms, wrongful garnishment, release and fees. It appears twice with related summons material. A return form at physical 44 is blank; the July 11 and August 1 summonses are issued process, not completed service. Repeated copies are not separate suits or independent corroboration.supportsWhat signed amendments, original emails and Grimes evidence resolve the opposed payment-modification accounts?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt’s payment table totals $779,616.14 through April 1, 2024: $595,616.14 to AWH and $184,000 to Strikepoint by the listed payees. His next paragraph instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint, a $70,000 difference requiring ledger reconciliation. He prints AWH principal $1,110,363.89 less $595,616.14 paid leaving $591,102.45; the subtraction equals $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below that stated balance. These are internal statement differences, not independently proved payment or overcharge.supportsWhat complete ledger reconciles the declarants’ payment totals, credits, principal and interest at each date?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter lists seventeen transfers: $250,000; $213,000; $187,500; $55,000; $600,000; $692,689.64; $850,000; $994,460; $6,000; $25,000; $108,555.42; $25,000; $20,000; $290,000; $50,000; $25,000 to Holly Schmidt; and $25,000 to Schmidt. These sum exactly to his $4,417,205.06 total. This list has no $6,500 item and has three April 11 items totalling $100,000. Recipient/purpose and unauthorised-use assertions are his testimony based on withheld bank records, not adjudicated criminal predicates.supportsWelter’s listed transfers reconcile exactly, whereas his outstanding-balance grand total differs by one cent. Schmidt’s table and later payment assertion differ by $70,000 and his AWH subtraction by $76,354.70. Keep these distinct calculations and require the ledger before drawing a misconduct conclusion.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt’s payment table totals $779,616.14 through April 1, 2024: $595,616.14 to AWH and $184,000 to Strikepoint by the listed payees. His next paragraph instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint, a $70,000 difference requiring ledger reconciliation. He prints AWH principal $1,110,363.89 less $595,616.14 paid leaving $591,102.45; the subtraction equals $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below that stated balance. These are internal statement differences, not independently proved payment or overcharge.supportsWelter’s listed transfers reconcile exactly, whereas his outstanding-balance grand total differs by one cent. Schmidt’s table and later payment assertion differ by $70,000 and his AWH subtraction by $76,354.70. Keep these distinct calculations and require the ledger before drawing a misconduct conclusion.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says discovery bank records show $38.7 million received on 8 September 2023 for a US government drone contract. He explicitly withholds the bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon the court’s request. The declaration’s reported receipts and interpretations are not a substitute for the omitted bank statements or the underlying contract.supportsThe excerpt preserves competing declarants, entered orders and counsel accounts, but omits 74 of the filed document’s original pages. It cannot support a claim that all exhibits or bank records were examined within this source.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed 7 June 2024 McClenney opinion denies the emergency declaratory motion as procedurally improper in the terminated underlying action, dissolves the temporary injunction, denies plaintiffs’ sanctions motion and defendants’ fees, and finds plaintiffs entitled to reasonable defence fees with amount reserved pending affidavit. It does not adjudicate every later breach or payment-modification dispute. It notes earlier garnishments were dismissed for listing a future June 28, 2024 judgment date; replacement garnishments remained outstanding.supportsWhat later order, if any, ruled on the July actions, compelled deposition or imposed sanctions, and what did it actually decide?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter reports July Virginia emergency filings left unscheduled, unanswered August letters and an August 27 Virginia nonappearance. Separately he describes a Texas motion to vacate staying proceedings and preventing Texas depositions, plus a process server’s report of an empty office and lease negotiations. Different jurisdictions and reasons must remain separate; the leasing statements are attributed reports, not direct proof of abandonment.supportsThe nonappearance record narrows absolute no-response language: counsel reports a last-evening email declining attendance. Missing prior replies and late notice do not establish why the witness did not attend or a subsequent sanctions ruling.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed 7 June 2024 McClenney opinion denies the emergency declaratory motion as procedurally improper in the terminated underlying action, dissolves the temporary injunction, denies plaintiffs’ sanctions motion and defendants’ fees, and finds plaintiffs entitled to reasonable defence fees with amount reserved pending affidavit. It does not adjudicate every later breach or payment-modification dispute. It notes earlier garnishments were dismissed for listing a future June 28, 2024 judgment date; replacement garnishments remained outstanding.supportsA procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Preserve the order’s actual grounds and both parties’ sworn positions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says the Caveat Emptor dispute remains unresolved after a 1 September 2024 OTC check, but expressly excludes that stock issue from this collection action, which concerns the amended final judgment. His reference to attached Exhibit K is not supplied in this 90-page excerpt. Historical CE status is not a current market-status finding.supportsCourt-ordered garnishment recovery, claimed receipt/application, ordinary monthly payments and disputed stock obligations are different events and balances. They should not be added or described as one unpaid liability.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed August 24 service-certificate date, earlier upload/processing stamps and August 9 service narrative require the original served notice and email chain. Repeated scan copies do not settle the discrepancy.supportsWhich served notice and transmission records explain the August 9/12/24 dates and the last-evening refusal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says May 2024 was the last regular payment, distinguishes later garnished funds, and reports $183,798.34 PNC plus $4,862.86 Towne credited in August. His balances are AWH/Secure principal $430,295.59 plus $95,000.62 interest = $525,296.21 and Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Those subtotals sum to $977,882.30, one cent below his printed $977,882.31 grand total. No complete ledger is appended.supportsWhat complete ledger reconciles the declarants’ payment totals, credits, principal and interest at each date?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Signed 9 August 2024 orders direct recovery of $183,798.34 from PNC for the Cyberlux garnishment and $4,862.86 already tendered by Towne for the Schmidt garnishment, payable through Caudle and Caudle. Party and account scopes differ. These entered directions support the ordered recovery; actual receipt/application is separately Welter’s statement.supportsWhat bank/custodian records show the ordered garnishment payments were received and credited exactly as claimed?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The July 8 injunction complaint in CL24002919 alleges renegotiated deadlines, overpayment credits, continued performance and improper garnishment, and requests an injunction against enforcing the June 2023 judgment across jurisdictions. It is signed /s/ Jimmy F. Robinson Jr and headed verified, but no separate claimant verification appears in its supplied five pages. The August 1 summons is not itself proof of completed service or granted relief.supportsWhat later order, if any, ruled on the July actions, compelled deposition or imposed sanctions, and what did it actually decide?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says discovery bank records show $38.7 million received on 8 September 2023 for a US government drone contract. He explicitly withholds the bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon the court’s request. The declaration’s reported receipts and interpretations are not a substitute for the omitted bank statements or the underlying contract.supportsWhich bank records, transaction purposes and recipient records substantiate or rebut Welter’s transfer descriptions and distinguish actual contract restrictions from settlement acceleration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt attributes a $167,402.56 credit for future payments to Welter and relies on a separate Grimes declaration for oral modification. He disputes the original licence’s procurement and says bank freezing since April 16 interferes with payroll and bills. Welter’s denial and Schmidt’s affirmative modification account are opposing sworn positions; neither becomes resolved merely by inclusion in the same compilation.supportsA procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Preserve the order’s actual grounds and both parties’ sworn positions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The reporter-certified August 27 nonappearance record lists Petersen and Welter present, no witness, and counsel’s marking of three letters. Petersen says his team forwarded an email sent 5:48 pm the previous evening saying the witness would not appear; before that he says no response, objection or motion to quash arrived. He proposes a motion to compel, then closes at 10:11 am. It is a counsel statement on the record, not witness testimony on the corporate topics or a court finding of sanctionable conduct.supportsThe nonappearance record narrows absolute no-response language: counsel reports a last-evening email declining attendance. Missing prior replies and late notice do not establish why the witness did not attend or a subsequent sanctions ruling.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
This physical file contains 90 pages, while its ECF footer identifies a 164-page document filed 3 September 2024 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET, ECF 29-1. The supplied sequence is original pages 1–10 and 37–116: original 11–36 and 117–164 are absent. Complete reading of this excerpt does not certify the full filing or exhibits K and L. Repeated embedded copies remain one underlying source per document.supportsThe excerpt preserves competing declarants, entered orders and counsel accounts, but omits 74 of the filed document’s original pages. It cannot support a claim that all exhibits or bank records were examined within this source.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 9 letter reports no reply and sets August 27 at Spotts Fain in Richmond while inviting alternatives; it also proposes counsel substitution and withdrawal of a predecessor motion. August 23 follows up. Supplied August 27 notice copies have signed service certificates visibly dated August 24, despite a copy’s upload/file processing stamps of August 9/12 and the letter’s August 9 service account. These date roles conflict or require explanation; exact service timing is not silently normalised.supportsWhich served notice and transmission records explain the August 9/12/24 dates and the last-evening refusal?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter invokes thirty-six monthly $21,459 payments from July 2023, first-of-month timing, three-day cure, ten-day information provision and twenty-one-day acceleration after drone-contract payment. He categorically denies written or oral modification and reports repeated unanswered drone-sale requests from July through December 2023. The actual settlement is incorporated by docket reference, not fully appended to this excerpt.supportsA procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Preserve the order’s actual grounds and both parties’ sworn positions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says May 2024 was the last regular payment, distinguishes later garnished funds, and reports $183,798.34 PNC plus $4,862.86 Towne credited in August. His balances are AWH/Secure principal $430,295.59 plus $95,000.62 interest = $525,296.21 and Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Those subtotals sum to $977,882.30, one cent below his printed $977,882.31 grand total. No complete ledger is appended.supportsWhat bank/custodian records show the ordered garnishment payments were received and credited exactly as claimed?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter lists seventeen transfers: $250,000; $213,000; $187,500; $55,000; $600,000; $692,689.64; $850,000; $994,460; $6,000; $25,000; $108,555.42; $25,000; $20,000; $290,000; $50,000; $25,000 to Holly Schmidt; and $25,000 to Schmidt. These sum exactly to his $4,417,205.06 total. This list has no $6,500 item and has three April 11 items totalling $100,000. Recipient/purpose and unauthorised-use assertions are his testimony based on withheld bank records, not adjudicated criminal predicates.supportsAre all 164 filed pages and the underlying transfer bank records present in this file?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter invokes thirty-six monthly $21,459 payments from July 2023, first-of-month timing, three-day cure, ten-day information provision and twenty-one-day acceleration after drone-contract payment. He categorically denies written or oral modification and reports repeated unanswered drone-sale requests from July through December 2023. The actual settlement is incorporated by docket reference, not fully appended to this excerpt.supportsWhat signed amendments, original emails and Grimes evidence resolve the opposed payment-modification accounts?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 9 letter reports no reply and sets August 27 at Spotts Fain in Richmond while inviting alternatives; it also proposes counsel substitution and withdrawal of a predecessor motion. August 23 follows up. Supplied August 27 notice copies have signed service certificates visibly dated August 24, despite a copy’s upload/file processing stamps of August 9/12 and the letter’s August 9 service account. These date roles conflict or require explanation; exact service timing is not silently normalised.supportsThe signed August 24 service-certificate date, earlier upload/processing stamps and August 9 service narrative require the original served notice and email chain. Repeated scan copies do not settle the discrepancy.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 9 letter reports no reply and sets August 27 at Spotts Fain in Richmond while inviting alternatives; it also proposes counsel substitution and withdrawal of a predecessor motion. August 23 follows up. Supplied August 27 notice copies have signed service certificates visibly dated August 24, despite a copy’s upload/file processing stamps of August 9/12 and the letter’s August 9 service account. These date roles conflict or require explanation; exact service timing is not silently normalised.supportsThe nonappearance record narrows absolute no-response language: counsel reports a last-evening email declining attendance. Missing prior replies and late notice do not establish why the witness did not attend or a subsequent sanctions ruling.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The July 8 injunction complaint in CL24002919 alleges renegotiated deadlines, overpayment credits, continued performance and improper garnishment, and requests an injunction against enforcing the June 2023 judgment across jurisdictions. It is signed /s/ Jimmy F. Robinson Jr and headed verified, but no separate claimant verification appears in its supplied five pages. The August 1 summons is not itself proof of completed service or granted relief.supportsWhat signed amendments, original emails and Grimes evidence resolve the opposed payment-modification accounts?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt attributes a $167,402.56 credit for future payments to Welter and relies on a separate Grimes declaration for oral modification. He disputes the original licence’s procurement and says bank freezing since April 16 interferes with payroll and bills. Welter’s denial and Schmidt’s affirmative modification account are opposing sworn positions; neither becomes resolved merely by inclusion in the same compilation.supportsWhat signed amendments, original emails and Grimes evidence resolve the opposed payment-modification accounts?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter reports an RB Capital complaint filed 12 August 2024 alleging $5,686,960 promissory-note defaults and identifies Exhibit L. The complaint is absent from this excerpt; reported filing and amount remain distinct from a judgment, funded principal or present balance.supportsThe excerpt preserves competing declarants, entered orders and counsel accounts, but omits 74 of the filed document’s original pages. It cannot support a claim that all exhibits or bank records were examined within this source.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The reporter-certified August 27 nonappearance record lists Petersen and Welter present, no witness, and counsel’s marking of three letters. Petersen says his team forwarded an email sent 5:48 pm the previous evening saying the witness would not appear; before that he says no response, objection or motion to quash arrived. He proposes a motion to compel, then closes at 10:11 am. It is a counsel statement on the record, not witness testimony on the corporate topics or a court finding of sanctionable conduct.supportsThe signed August 24 service-certificate date, earlier upload/processing stamps and August 9 service narrative require the original served notice and email chain. Repeated scan copies do not settle the discrepancy.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The reporter-certified August 27 nonappearance record lists Petersen and Welter present, no witness, and counsel’s marking of three letters. Petersen says his team forwarded an email sent 5:48 pm the previous evening saying the witness would not appear; before that he says no response, objection or motion to quash arrived. He proposes a motion to compel, then closes at 10:11 am. It is a counsel statement on the record, not witness testimony on the corporate topics or a court finding of sanctionable conduct.supportsWhat later order, if any, ruled on the July actions, compelled deposition or imposed sanctions, and what did it actually decide?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The July declaratory complaint in CL24002960 repeats the oral-modification/performance theory and requests findings of valid modified terms, wrongful garnishment, release and fees. It appears twice with related summons material. A return form at physical 44 is blank; the July 11 and August 1 summonses are issued process, not completed service. Repeated copies are not separate suits or independent corroboration.supportsA procedurally denied emergency motion and dissolved temporary injunction do not resolve the separately filed July modification claims. Preserve the order’s actual grounds and both parties’ sworn positions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says May 2024 was the last regular payment, distinguishes later garnished funds, and reports $183,798.34 PNC plus $4,862.86 Towne credited in August. His balances are AWH/Secure principal $430,295.59 plus $95,000.62 interest = $525,296.21 and Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Those subtotals sum to $977,882.30, one cent below his printed $977,882.31 grand total. No complete ledger is appended.supportsWelter’s listed transfers reconcile exactly, whereas his outstanding-balance grand total differs by one cent. Schmidt’s table and later payment assertion differ by $70,000 and his AWH subtraction by $76,354.70. Keep these distinct calculations and require the ledger before drawing a misconduct conclusion.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
This physical file contains 90 pages, while its ECF footer identifies a 164-page document filed 3 September 2024 in SDCA 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET, ECF 29-1. The supplied sequence is original pages 1–10 and 37–116: original 11–36 and 117–164 are absent. Complete reading of this excerpt does not certify the full filing or exhibits K and L. Repeated embedded copies remain one underlying source per document.supportsWhere is the complete 164-page filing, including original pages 11–36 and 117–164 and the referenced OTC/RB exhibits?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says May 2024 was the last regular payment, distinguishes later garnished funds, and reports $183,798.34 PNC plus $4,862.86 Towne credited in August. His balances are AWH/Secure principal $430,295.59 plus $95,000.62 interest = $525,296.21 and Strikepoint $372,669.40 plus $79,916.69 = $452,586.09. Those subtotals sum to $977,882.30, one cent below his printed $977,882.31 grand total. No complete ledger is appended.supportsCourt-ordered garnishment recovery, claimed receipt/application, ordinary monthly payments and disputed stock obligations are different events and balances. They should not be added or described as one unpaid liability.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Welter says discovery bank records show $38.7 million received on 8 September 2023 for a US government drone contract. He explicitly withholds the bank records from public filing because of third-party financial information and offers them in camera upon the court’s request. The declaration’s reported receipts and interpretations are not a substitute for the omitted bank statements or the underlying contract.supportsAre all 164 filed pages and the underlying transfer bank records present in this file?
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.