The evidence/GT-S-A24DFD8393CD

Context source · GT-S-A24DFD8393CD

Declaration of William Welter — documented Cyberlux transfers, ECF No. 29-1

Original sourceCourt filing
Open full document ↗
SHA-256 a24dfd8393cdbfcac939…90 pages · 6 MB

DISTILLATES

What the source contains

Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.

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
claimallegation

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; $108,55

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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
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.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%

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.