Signed Tucker–Whiteley Temporary Restraining Order and Serial Receiver Appointment — 11 June 2025
Original sourcesigned_edited_serial_receiver_order
Metadata only
The original file isn’t published in this edition.
The record remains visible so the reader can see that it exists without mistaking metadata for access to the underlying document.
SHA-256 ae75bd7dc786bda89c6e…0 pages · 8 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
Source-stated plaintiff bond $100 and edited receiver bond $1,000; no posting inferred.
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
observationobservation
TRO endpoint: 19 June 2025 at 1:30 PM; no hearing result inferred.
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
observationobservation
Signed 11 June 2025; caption cause 2025-41073 conflicts with later 202448085 headers.
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The 24-page order is filed on 11 June 2025 at 4:29 PM, envelope 101911236, and signed that day by ancillary judge Beau Miller. The caption n
The 24-page order is filed on 11 June 2025 at 4:29 PM, envelope 101911236, and signed that day by ancillary judge Beau Miller. The caption names Phillip Rick Tucker, also called Rick Tucker, and Neill Whiteley against Cyberlux and Mark Schmidt in cause 2025-41073, 129th Judicial District Court. Later page headers nevertheless print cause 202448085; that template inconsistency is preserved.
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The order authorises adviser contacts without waiving attorney-client privilege, asserts jurisdiction over ownership and fraudulent-transfer
The order authorises adviser contacts without waiving attorney-client privilege, asserts jurisdiction over ownership and fraudulent-transfer disputes and requires documents and an Exhibit A response within ten days. It requires disclosure of claimed exemptions, five-day supplementation after learning of additional property, indexed responses and access information for asset accounts. Exhibit A is not attached to this 24-page supplied file.
Read the anchor · page 8
Cause No. 202448085
c. Anyone resisting Receiver's order or request, based on legal or
other advice, is ordered to give the full name, address, fax number,
e-mail address, cell phone number, and direct telephone number
for each person giving that advice and to instruct those persons to
immediately contact Receiver. Doing so waives no attorney-client
communication privilege.
15) Fraudulent Transfer. This Court shall maintain exclusive jurisdiction
over any fraudulent transfer litigations brought by the Receiver or Plaintiff. The
Court shall further maintain exclusive jurisdictiomover any litigation pertaining to
the ownership interests disputed during the Receiver's actions against a relevant
third party.
16) Defendant's Responsibilities to Receiver and the Court. Each
Defendant is ordered, within the time periods set out in this order and the attached
Exhibit A, to:
a. Deliver to Receiver, at the address of the Receiver, the items
described in Exhibit A, attached hereto as part of this Order, and
allocuments and records requested by Receiver, within ten days,
then occasionally, in the time periods, manners, and formats
requested;
b. Turnover to Receiver all non-exempt funds to the extent required
to satisfy the Judgment. No Defendant may spend non-exempt
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 8 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The order directs compliance before seeking protective relief and vests corporate management authority in the receiver, superseding officers
The order directs compliance before seeking protective relief and vests corporate management authority in the receiver, superseding officers for the described assets and functions. Paragraph 18’s “No Serial Receiverships” heading accompanies language deferring this receiver’s action until the existing receivership terminates; it does not prohibit the contemplated succession.
Read the anchor · page 10
Cause No. 202448085
h. If Defendant believes that the Receiver's demands are
inappropriate, the Defendant must first comply, then seek
protection from the Court. Defendants seeking protection must set
the matter for the earliest possible hearing date, after giving full
notice to the Receiver and attempting to resolve the issues.
17) Conduct and Disposition of Entities. If Defendant
is an individual, all
legal right, title and ownership of any limited partnership interest, partnership
interest, stock, or membership interest it has in any entity and business entity of
that Defendant is divested from the individual and placed in custodia legis with
the Receiver. If the Defendant is the sole owner of that entity or business, all
management authority is vested in the Receiver as if Receiver were the Receiver
over that entity. If the Respondent is a business entity, all authority and power of
the Defendant in the management of the entity is vested in the Receiver and no
decision may be made or carried out without the express approval of the Receiver.?
This order supersedes the authority of any officers, directors or managers of the
business entity Defendant.
18)
No Serial Receiverships. The first receivership order signed controls.
The Court, as of the date of signing this order, has knowledge of the existing
receivership, and this receivership shall not become active until the existing
8 Chitex Communication v. Kramer, 168 B.R. 587, 590 (S.D. Tex. 1994)ithe president of an
insolvent corporation had no authority to affect the corporation's property interests once a state
court had placed it into receivershipiẠại
› Id. "Texas law asserts that Receiver has the full rights that the corporation had."
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 10 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The order limits actions to satisfy multiple judgments through other proceedings without appropriate permission and restrains claims against
The order limits actions to satisfy multiple judgments through other proceedings without appropriate permission and restrains claims against the receiver or his firm outside the appointing court. These are source-specific restrictions; the document does not establish how another court treated them.
Read the anchor · page 11
Cause No. 202448085
receivership terminates. The assets are in the control of the court for the first
receivership. Thus, they are not available to the court ordering a later receivership.
The Receiver may obtain permission from this and other courts to satisfy several
judgments against the same Defendant. The Receiver may notice other
subsequent receiverships or their controlling court of this receivership and may
take legal actions necessary to quash subsequent receiverships
19) Claims against Receiver:
This Order
enjoins CYBERLOA
CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually and each and all of their
past, present, and future parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, owners, members,
partners, directors, officers, employees,
agents, attorneys, predecessors,
successors, transferees, assigns, and
other representatives from filing,
maintaining, prosecuting, or appealing any litigation against the Receiver or his
law firm outside of this Court.
REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Inofficial Copy
1° Barrera v. State, 130 S.W.3d. 253 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.)
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cybertux Corporation et al.
Pg. 11 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The enumerated powers cover non-exempt assets, intellectual property and domains, financial accounts, five years of tax information, vehicle
The enumerated powers cover non-exempt assets, intellectual property and domains, financial accounts, five years of tax information, vehicles, real estate, securities, inheritances, cash, claims, contracts and receivables. Authority to demand or control these categories is not proof that any listed asset existed or was collected.
Read the anchor · page 12
Cause No. 202448085
Powers GRANTED unto the Receiver by this Court:
20) Possession. The Receiver may take possession of Defendant's non-
exempt property in Defendant's actual or constructive possession, custody, or
control, including but not limited to the items described in Exhibit A. The
Receiver may secure control over all non-exempt property and engage in presale
activities, including appraisals, evaluations, listing and advertising agreements.
Receiver may transfer title into the receivership or place a hold on the title of
personal and intangible property, including but not limited to:
a. All patents, trademarks, service marks, copyrights, websites, and
domain names;
b. All documents or records, including financial records, related to
such property that is in actual or constructive possession of the
Defendants;
c. All financial acebunts (bank accounts), certificates of deposit,
money-market accounts, and accounts held by any third party;
d. All federal and state tax returns filed or prepared by or on behalf
of the Defendants for the past five (5) years;
Il non-exempt vehicles, to include boats, motor vehicles, cars,
trucks, utility vehicles, recreation vehicles, aircraft, trailers, or
other wheeled vehicles;
f. All real property owned or rented by any Defendant or Defendant's
agent or assigns in part or whole;
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 12 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The powers include collection accounts, access to premises and locks, reasonable destructive access and unmanned-aircraft surveillance with
The powers include collection accounts, access to premises and locks, reasonable destructive access and unmanned-aircraft surveillance with a citation to section 423.002. The document also disclaims duties to maintain, insure or pay leases except as specifically ordered. No actual surveillance, entry or destruction is established by these grants.
Read the anchor · page 14
Cause No. 202448085
v. All bank accounts owned, possessed, controlled by, or in the name
of and Defendant by corporate affiliation;
w. All diamonds, gems, and other precious stones, gold, silver,
platinum, and all other precious metals, watches, and jewelry;
21)
Access to Property. The Receiver may take all action
to gain access
to and enter all real property, leased premises, storage facilities, and safe deposit
boxes where non-exempt property, or records of a Defendant may be situated, and
to seize the contents. The Receiver may employ reasonable destructive means to
bypass or gain access to lockboxes, sates, security systems, or any other area he
reasonably believes contains non-exempt assets within any real property or
associated curtilage owned or controlled by any Defendant. The Receiver may
change locks to all premises at which any property is situated. The Receiver may
operate an unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of the Defendant's property
held in custodia legis, and such operations are deemed essential for the safety of
the Receiver in his official duties under Tex. Gov. Code § 423.002(a);
22) Disable or remove non-exempt property. The Receiver may disable or
remove non-exempt property belonging to a Defendant or place the property into
storage; insufę any property taken into his possession; obtain such writs as
Receiver deems necessary to obtain possession; and change the locks to premises
belonging to the Defendant. Receiver has no duty to take these actions, or to
maintain, guard, or insure property taken into custodia legis, or to maintain or pay
any lease, nor shall Receiver be required to pay any mortgage, lien or assessment,
rucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 14 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
Paragraph 23 allows a non-exemption assumption until a specified claim and calls for objections within 21 days of collection. Paragraphs 24–
Paragraph 23 allows a non-exemption assumption until a specified claim and calls for objections within 21 days of collection. Paragraphs 24–25 require compliance with Texas Rule 679b and prohibit disbursement or sale for 14 days after protected-property notices, or 17 days if served by mail. A claimed exemption requires written consent or a court order before disbursement or sale.
Read the anchor · page 15
Cause No. 202448085
defend against any lawsuit, pay any tax or fee, file tax returns, maintain any
insurance coverage, or have any obligation except as specifically ordered.
23) Assume property is not exempt. A Receiver may assume Defendant's
property is not exempt, until the person claiming the exemption files a statement
that claims the exemption, cites the legal and factual grounds for the exemption,
and describes the property with sufficient specificity that a constable can levy upon
it. If there be any dispute whether an asset is exempt or belongs to a Defendant,
Receiver may take custody of the asset until the Court determines the rights of
those claiming an interest in the asset. Objections to the Receiver's assumption
must be made to this Court within 21 days of collection;
24) Personal Property Rights of Judgment Defendant. Receiver
must comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 679b.
25) Receiver to Hold Property. Receiver must not disburse
funds to Judgment Plaintiff or sell property within 14 days after
serving Judgment Defendant with the Notice of Protected Property
Rights, the Instructions for Protected Property Claim Form, and the
Protected Property Claim Form approved by the Supreme Court, or
within 17 days if service was by mail. If the Judgment Defendant asserts
an exemption, Receiver may only disburse funds to Judgment Plaintiff
or sell property with Judgment Defendant's written consent or a court
order.
rucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 15 0t 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
Disputed property may be held pending the court’s determination. Real-property sales must be individually ordered after notice and hearing.
Disputed property may be held pending the court’s determination. Real-property sales must be individually ordered after notice and hearing. Paragraph 28 treats specified objections as waived unless filed within twenty days of service or notice. The order also authorises redirecting and copying mail and obtaining credit reports; it does not establish actual notice or a completed sale.
Read the anchor · page 16
Cause No. 202448085
26)
Disputes. If there be any dispute whether an asset is non-exempt, or
property of a Defendant, the Receiver is authorized to take custody of the asset
until the Court can determine the rights of those claiming interests in the asset.
The Court may require a disputing party to post a bond to cover the Receiver's
efforts in the dispute.
27) Real Property Sale. All real property sales must be individually
ordered, after notice and hearing.
28) Objections. All objections to (i) this order, (ii) the bond amount,
including its sufficiency, (iii) all affidavits that support or relate to this order, (iv)
Receiver's qualifications, and (v) every issue relating to this order, are waived if
they are not filed within twenty days of the service on or notice of this order to
Defendant or his counsel.
29) Redirect Postal Mail. The Receiver may redirect, read, and copy
Defendant's mail, whether electronic, paper, or facsimile, or otherwise, and
whether sent to a street address, telephone line, post office box, or via the internet,
before and exclusive pfreceipt. The Receiver may establish procedures for allowing
Defendants to retrieve the mail, or copies, which includes making copies available
to the Defendant electronically.
3Q))
Obtain credit reports. The Receiver may obtain credit reports,
financial institution statements, and other reports to aid in locating assets.
Receiver may order Consumer Reporting Agencies, as defined by the Fair Credit
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 16 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The credit-report provision prints “16 USC” in its FCRA citations; this is retained as printed rather than silently repaired. The order auth
The credit-report provision prints “16 USC” in its FCRA citations; this is retained as printed rather than silently repaired. The order authorises third-party attendance, subpoenas and records, including a suggested request not to notify the user, and permits support personnel. Source authority language does not prove lawful execution of a particular subpoena or independently establish its general legal validity.
Read the anchor · page 17
Cause No. 202448085
Reporting Act ('FCRA") 16 USC §1681b(f) to provide consumer reports on
Defendants and witnesses as allowed under FCRA 16 USC §1681b(a)(1).
31) Compel Third Parties. The Receiver may require the attendance of
third parties, issue and serve subpoenas and notices to appear to third parties and
those who may possess knowledge or information about a Defendant's non-exempt
assets. A subpoena does not have to compel attendance. Receiver may require the
attendance of and issue subpoenas to any Defendant, third party, or witness, to
deliver receivership assets and information about receivership assets, including
employment records from the Texas Workforce Commission, " for the production
of documents, things, and information, including matters about the employment
or location of any Defendant or witness, the existence, location, or value of
Defendant's assets. Receiver may schedule and issue notices for stenographic or
non-stenographic examinations of anyone who may know of facts about a
Defendant's exempt assets. The Receiver may issue subpoenas with the following
language to third parties; Please do not disclose or notify the user of the issuance
of this subpoena. Disclosure to the user could impede an investigation or obstruct
justice." The Receiyer may not be charged fees for subpoena fulfillment expenses.
32)
Support and Assistance. The Receiver may hire any person, firm or
company to further remedies available to Receiver, including hiring persons to:
change locks to premises belonging to Defendant; exclude persons from interfering
" The Receiver is considered a public employee in the performance of public duties, pursuant toś
301.081 of the Texas Labor Code, and may subpoena employment records from the Texas
Workforce Commission.
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 17 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The receiver may endorse instruments except current-wage paychecks, request turnover writs without expiration limits, collect unclaimed prop
The receiver may endorse instruments except current-wage paychecks, request turnover writs without expiration limits, collect unclaimed property and rewards and certify copies. Parties must serve the receiver with their communications. These are powers and directions, not evidence that the receiver collected a particular item.
Read the anchor · page 18
Cause No. 202448085
with Receiver's custody of the premises; moving or storing Defendant's property;
collect accounts receivable; or sell Defendant's non-exempt property;
33) Checks and Transactional Instruments. The Receiver may endorse
and cash checks and negotiable instruments payable to Defendant, except
paychecks tor current wages;
34) Receiver's Writs. Writs of turnover issued under this order, must not
be limited in time or have an expiration date. Those serving the writs must return
them to Receiver, not the clerk, unless otherwise instructed. More than one writ of
turnover may be issued and outstanding at the same time. The clerk is ordered to
issue writs on an expedited basis, upon reques
35) Texas Unclaimed Property. Receiver may collect all unclaimed funds
belonging to Defendant, including from the Texas Comptroller's Office, and may
collect, sell, or assign Defendant's rights to air miles and rewards programs.
36) Certify copies. The Receiver may certify copies of this order as would
a clerk of this Court, including but not limited to certifying copies for service upon
a financial institution in the manner specified by Section 59.008, Finance Code,
and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 31.002(g).
37) Service to Receiver. All parties must serve Receiver with copies of all
motions,
notices, discovery responses, correspondence, and communications
between them at the Receiver's address provided above, unless the Receiver
provides alternative instructions.
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 18 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The order describes alternative service by the receiver, access to driver-licence records and discovery powers including shortened response
The order describes alternative service by the receiver, access to driver-licence records and discovery powers including shortened response periods. It states defendants are not entitled to serve discovery on receiver or plaintiff under this cause number. The language does not establish actual service or compliance.
Read the anchor · page 19
Cause No. 202448085
38) Service by Receiver. The Receiver may serve Defendants by placing
the documents to be served in the Defendant's mailbox, taping them to the
Defendant's door, or delivering them to any adult person at the Defendant's
residence or place of business. The Receiver may serve non-natural entities by
placing the documents to be served in the registered agents fo
• the entities'
mailbox, taping them to the registered agent for the entities' door, or delivering
them to the receptionist of the registered agent for an entity's place of business.
39) Texas Driver's License. The Receiver may obtain Defendant's and
witness' driver's license records from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and
all similarly named entities. Those entities are ordered to release Defendant's
records to Receiver, including Defendant's photograph.
40) Discovery. The Receiver may propound discovery to any party to this
suit, under the rules of civil procedure. Receiver may shorten the time periods as
required. He is not required to employ does not have to employ the discovery rules,
and may obtain discovery by requesting the information or documents from
Defendant and third parties. Upon request, Defendant must provide documents in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Rich Text Format, JPEG, Adobe,
or other format acceptable to Receiver, with indices. The Defendant is not entitled
to serve the Receiver or Plaintiff with any type of discovery under this cause
number.
41) File reports. The Receiver may occasionally file reports with this
Court. Any party to this suit or subject to the Receiver's actions may file an
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 19 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The court recognises the existing Atlantic Wave receivership in cause 2024-48085 and says it was advised that payment to Atlantic Wave would
The court recognises the existing Atlantic Wave receivership in cause 2024-48085 and says it was advised that payment to Atlantic Wave would cause its termination. It states a need to maintain receivership in series through a prejudgment receivership to prevent asset pilfering and protect the new plaintiffs. This is the court’s stated rationale, not independent proof of a completed transfer or concealment.
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
Receiver reports may be filed from time to time. The order describes unopposed facts as conclusively admitted, preserves the court’s power t
Receiver reports may be filed from time to time. The order describes unopposed facts as conclusively admitted, preserves the court’s power to confirm or reject a report and requires objections within twenty days with disputed grounds, reasons and supporting documents. Whether a later report was opposed is an external factual dependency.
Read the anchor · page 19
Cause No. 202448085
38) Service by Receiver. The Receiver may serve Defendants by placing
the documents to be served in the Defendant's mailbox, taping them to the
Defendant's door, or delivering them to any adult person at the Defendant's
residence or place of business. The Receiver may serve non-natural entities by
placing the documents to be served in the registered agents fo
• the entities'
mailbox, taping them to the registered agent for the entities' door, or delivering
them to the receptionist of the registered agent for an entity's place of business.
39) Texas Driver's License. The Receiver may obtain Defendant's and
witness' driver's license records from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and
all similarly named entities. Those entities are ordered to release Defendant's
records to Receiver, including Defendant's photograph.
40) Discovery. The Receiver may propound discovery to any party to this
suit, under the rules of civil procedure. Receiver may shorten the time periods as
required. He is not required to employ does not have to employ the discovery rules,
and may obtain discovery by requesting the information or documents from
Defendant and third parties. Upon request, Defendant must provide documents in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Rich Text Format, JPEG, Adobe,
or other format acceptable to Receiver, with indices. The Defendant is not entitled
to serve the Receiver or Plaintiff with any type of discovery under this cause
number.
41) File reports. The Receiver may occasionally file reports with this
Court. Any party to this suit or subject to the Receiver's actions may file an
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 19 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
Paragraph 42 permits whistleblower complaints concerning suspected government fraud and says rewards may be accepted by the receiver in addi
Paragraph 42 permits whistleblower complaints concerning suspected government fraud and says rewards may be accepted by the receiver in addition to fees, even after receivership termination. This provision does not show any complaint, reward, government finding or recovery.
Read the anchor · page 20
Cause No. 202448085
objection to the Receiver's report. Should no objections be timely received, reports
by the Receiver will be considered facts and conclusions of law. Unopposed facts
will be conclusively admitted. The Court, su sponte, may confirm, modify, correct,
reject, reverse or recommit the report, after it is filed, as the court may deem proper
and necessary. Objections must be filed within 20 days, state each disputed
ground, the reasons for each dispute, and attach the documents supporting each
objection.
42)
Whistleblower Claims.
Should suspected taxation or other fraud
against the government be discovered, the Receiver may file whistleblower
complaints with the appropriate local, state, or tederal authorities. Any
whistleblower rewards to the Receiver may be accepted by the Receiver in addition
to his fees, even after termination of the receivership.
43)
Duty to maintain. The Receiver has no duty to maintain, guard, or
insure property taken into custødia legis, or to maintain or pay any lease, nor shall
Receiver be required to pay any mortgage, lien or assessment, defend against any
lawsuit, pay any tax or fee, maintain any insurance coverage, or have obligation to
preserve assets except as specifically ordered.
44)
Notice of Intended Abandonment or Sale. Notice of abandonment of
receivership assets must be provided:
a. At least ten days before any abandonment, Receiver must file a
notice of the intended sale or abandonment that describes the
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 20 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The order repeats the absence of asset-maintenance and preservation duties except as ordered. Intended abandonment or sale requires at least
The order repeats the absence of asset-maintenance and preservation duties except as ordered. Intended abandonment or sale requires at least ten days’ notice, including notice by first-class mail; objections are due within five days after service. A timely objection prevents completion until the court decides it.
Read the anchor · page 20
Cause No. 202448085
objection to the Receiver's report. Should no objections be timely received, reports
by the Receiver will be considered facts and conclusions of law. Unopposed facts
will be conclusively admitted. The Court, su sponte, may confirm, modify, correct,
reject, reverse or recommit the report, after it is filed, as the court may deem proper
and necessary. Objections must be filed within 20 days, state each disputed
ground, the reasons for each dispute, and attach the documents supporting each
objection.
42)
Whistleblower Claims.
Should suspected taxation or other fraud
against the government be discovered, the Receiver may file whistleblower
complaints with the appropriate local, state, or tederal authorities. Any
whistleblower rewards to the Receiver may be accepted by the Receiver in addition
to his fees, even after termination of the receivership.
43)
Duty to maintain. The Receiver has no duty to maintain, guard, or
insure property taken into custødia legis, or to maintain or pay any lease, nor shall
Receiver be required to pay any mortgage, lien or assessment, defend against any
lawsuit, pay any tax or fee, maintain any insurance coverage, or have obligation to
preserve assets except as specifically ordered.
44)
Notice of Intended Abandonment or Sale. Notice of abandonment of
receivership assets must be provided:
a. At least ten days before any abandonment, Receiver must file a
notice of the intended sale or abandonment that describes the
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 20 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
Counsel may be retained at no more than $300 per hour. The receiver need not prosecute or defend ancillary litigation but may intervene. The
Counsel may be retained at no more than $300 per hour. The receiver need not prosecute or defend ancillary litigation but may intervene. The fee discussion explains the court’s stated preference for contingency compensation.
Read the anchor · page 21
Cause No. 202448085
property to be abandoned, its sale price, and how it will be sold or
abandoned;
b. By first class mail to Defendant and every person who has filed a
request for notice;
45) Objection to Abandonment or Sale. Objections to
the proposed
abandonment or sale must state the grounds and be filed within five days after
Receiver's service of the notice.
a. If no objection is timely filed, Receiver may abandon the property
as described in the notice, without further order.
b. If an objection is timely filed,
the proposed abandonment or sale
must not be completed until the Court has decided the objection.
46)
Retention of counsel. Recerver may employ counsel, at not more than
$300.00 per hour, for representation and assistance in the prosecution of this
order.
47)
Ancillary Litigations. Receiver does not have to defend or prosecute
any litigation regardin the Defendant, but may intervene in any litigation for any
party to this litigation.
48)
Receivers Fees. The Receiver's fees and expenses are considered costs
of court.
Competent and experienced receivers are rare and the time and effort
required by a receiver to keep time, apply for fees and the lag between filing for
fees and being paid and that the fees earned would be at an ordinary rate. Not
being paid at the time of or shortly after rendering of services would inhibit the
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 21 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The fee provision describes 25% of asset sales, recoveries and credits; after notice and hearing it permits a fee exceeding 25%, specificall
The fee provision describes 25% of asset sales, recoveries and credits; after notice and hearing it permits a fee exceeding 25%, specifically 33% for full judgment collection. It also states a bankruptcy fee of 25% of the debt, with a secured-claim condition referring to a valid abstract of judgment. These conditional provisions are not proof of a bankruptcy allowance or an actual 33% award in this case.
Read the anchor · page 22
Cause No. 202448085
recruitment of experienced receivers. Given the chances of no recovery, contingent
fees are the most economical fee schedule. The costs of proving an hourly fee could
easily exceed the original judgment. A contingency fee is the only way that plaintiff
can afford a receiver. Defendant has not tried to pay the judgment. The costs of
proving an hourly fee are prohibitive. Therefore, the Receiver is
entitled to a fee
equal to 25% of all sales of assets that come into his actual, constructive, or legal
possession, and all recoveries and credits against the judgment. Upon hearing,
and once the Rohrmoos Ventures elements have been proven, the Court finds
25% is a fair, reasonable, customary, and necessary fee for Receiver. A Receiver's
fee exceeding 25% of all funds coming into Receiver's possession may be awarded
after notice and opportunity for hearing to all parties. Specifically, the Court may
award the Receiver 33% of collected funds should the Receiver collect the full
amount of the judgment. If the Defendant files bankruptcy, Receiver's fee shall be
equal to 25 percent of the debt owed when the bankruptcy is filed, and may be filed
as a secured claim should a valid abstract of judgment be on file at the time of
bankruptcy filing. Receiver is directed to pay plaintiff's attorney, as plaintiff's
trustee, the remander of all funds coming into Receiver's possession, after
deducting Receiver's costs and payment of liens or set offs as Receiver deems
reasonable within a reasonable time.
12 Kohrmoos Venture v. U1SW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469, 490 (Tex. 2019)iTo assist
district courts in awarding attorney's fees, the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), set out twelve factors that a court should consider in
determining a reasonable feeạẠạ
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 22 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
For challenges to the receiver, paragraph 49 provides additional fees upon proof and notice, a presumptive $5,000 subject to the stated proo
For challenges to the receiver, paragraph 49 provides additional fees upon proof and notice, a presumptive $5,000 subject to the stated proof framework, and appeal bonds of $15,000 for an intermediate appeal plus $25,000 for the Texas Supreme Court. Paragraph 50 orders $1,750 plaintiff attorney fees and makes further fees conditional on notice and hearing.
Read the anchor · page 23
Cause No. 202448085
49) Appeals. If Receiver has to defend against a motion to vacate, a motion
to replace receiver, or any similar motion to this Court, upon proof and notice of
the same, the Receiver shall be entitled to additional attorney's fees from
Defendant or Defendant's counsel by fees or sanction. The Receiver will
presumptively be awarded $5,000.00 or attorney's fees as proven at the time
under Rohrmoos Ventures'. If Receiver or Judgment Plaintiff has to defend
against an appeal to this Order Appointing Receiver, the Defendant is required to
post a bond in the amount of $15,000 for an appeal to the intermediate Court of
Appeals. If the Receiver or Judgment Plaintiff has to defend against an appeal to
the Texas Supreme Court, the Detendant is ordered to post an additional $25,000.
These bonds will be held in the registry of the court pending the appellate ruling
and awarded to the prevailing party as attorney's fees as proven at the time.»
50)
Attorney's fees. The
Court takes judicial notice of the time that is
reasonable and necessary for obtaining this order, and Defendant is ordered to pay
Plaintiff $1,750 in attorney's fees for obtaining this order. Additional fees may be
awarded, after notice and hearing.
51) Receiver's Final Accounting. The Receiver shall promptly file a final
accounting with a motion to close the receivership. Should no collection be made
against the Defendant after reasonable attempts by the Receiver, the Plaintiff shall
reimburse the Receiver a sum of $1,500 plus reasonable and necessary expenses
upon the Court granting the Receiver's motion to close the receivership.
13 Id.
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 23 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The receiver is directed to file a final accounting and closure motion. If reasonable attempts produce no collection, plaintiffs must reimbu
The receiver is directed to file a final accounting and closure motion. If reasonable attempts produce no collection, plaintiffs must reimburse $1,500 plus necessary expenses when the court grants closure. The signed final page denies ungranted relief and ends the order; no referenced Exhibit A follows.
Read the anchor · page 23
Cause No. 202448085
49) Appeals. If Receiver has to defend against a motion to vacate, a motion
to replace receiver, or any similar motion to this Court, upon proof and notice of
the same, the Receiver shall be entitled to additional attorney's fees from
Defendant or Defendant's counsel by fees or sanction. The Receiver will
presumptively be awarded $5,000.00 or attorney's fees as proven at the time
under Rohrmoos Ventures'. If Receiver or Judgment Plaintiff has to defend
against an appeal to this Order Appointing Receiver, the Defendant is required to
post a bond in the amount of $15,000 for an appeal to the intermediate Court of
Appeals. If the Receiver or Judgment Plaintiff has to defend against an appeal to
the Texas Supreme Court, the Detendant is ordered to post an additional $25,000.
These bonds will be held in the registry of the court pending the appellate ruling
and awarded to the prevailing party as attorney's fees as proven at the time.»
50)
Attorney's fees. The
Court takes judicial notice of the time that is
reasonable and necessary for obtaining this order, and Defendant is ordered to pay
Plaintiff $1,750 in attorney's fees for obtaining this order. Additional fees may be
awarded, after notice and hearing.
51) Receiver's Final Accounting. The Receiver shall promptly file a final
accounting with a motion to close the receivership. Should no collection be made
against the Defendant after reasonable attempts by the Receiver, the Plaintiff shall
reimburse the Receiver a sum of $1,500 plus reasonable and necessary expenses
upon the Court granting the Receiver's motion to close the receivership.
13 Id.
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 23 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
The court finds equitable relief preferable and directs issuance of a TRO for service. The source requires plaintiffs to post $100 and, in a
The court finds equitable relief preferable and directs issuance of a TRO for service. The source requires plaintiffs to post $100 and, in a second paragraph, visibly substitutes “Receiver” for the struck word “Plaintiffs” for a $1,000 bond. The edited receiver requirement must not be lost in plain OCR.
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
claimallegation
The TRO continues until 1:30 PM on 19 June 2025, when the temporary-injunction application is to be considered. The supplied order does not
The TRO continues until 1:30 PM on 19 June 2025, when the temporary-injunction application is to be considered. The supplied order does not establish that hearing’s outcome or an extension of the TRO.
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
claimallegation
Daniel Ardmore is identified as plaintiffs’ counsel. Robert W. Berleth is defined as receiver and an agent of the court, not an attorney for
Daniel Ardmore is identified as plaintiffs’ counsel. Robert W. Berleth is defined as receiver and an agent of the court, not an attorney for any party. The definitions also contain personal identifiers; these remain in the internal source, not repeated as analytical findings.
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
claimallegation
The order recites Chapter 64/equitable predicates, concern that property may be concealed or transferred and a necessity to protect assets.
The order recites Chapter 64/equitable predicates, concern that property may be concealed or transferred and a necessity to protect assets. It asserts custody of non-exempt assets, judicial-lien effects and restrictions on transfers. These propositions retain their status as language and findings of this particular order, not a separately researched statement of general law.
Read the anchor · page 4
Cause No. 202448085
The Court FINDS that:
4) Upon evidence admitted to this court, during the hearing for
Temporary Restraining Order and Application for Appointment of Receiver the
court finds the requirements for chapter 64 pre-judgment receiver has been met.
The court takes judicial notice of the evidence and testimony presented during the
TRO hearing.
5) Plaintiff have good faith reasons to believe that Befendant owns non-
exempt rights to present or future property that cannot be readily attached or
levied on by ordinary legal process as required by the standard set forth in
Tanner?. Such property includes, but is not himited to, real property, tangible
and intangible assets, other property, professional corporations which have
accounts receivable, bank accounts
that are easily moved and constantly
changing in balance, and community property held jointly. The appointment of
a Receiver to locate, marshal and administer assets is justified because the
Court believes that nom-exempt assets exist which Judgment Plaintiffs are
justified in believing Defendant will hide.
6) A Receiver is necessary to preserve corporate assets, and that the
Receivership is necessary not to harass, but to serve justice. A Receiver is
necessary in this case pursuant to, TEX. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 64.001-107, with
the power and authority to take possession of all leviable property of
Defendants.
≥ Tanner v. McCarthy, 274 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.)
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg 4 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
claimallegation
Paragraph 9 enjoins sale of non-exempt property and requires reporting sales and transfers of exempt property within five days. Paragraph 10
Paragraph 9 enjoins sale of non-exempt property and requires reporting sales and transfers of exempt property within five days. Paragraph 10 appoints Robert W. Berleth over non-exempt assets under Chapter 64 to serve after taking the oath. The source’s distinctions between exempt reporting and non-exempt control are retained.
Read the anchor · page 6
Cause No. 202448085
THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS the relief as set out below:
9) The Court assumes jurisdiction over and takes possession of Defendant’s non-exempt property (collectively, the “Receivership assets”). Defendant is enjoined from selling non-exempt property, and must report to Receiver all sales and transfers of exempt property, within 5 days. The Receivership owns all non-exempt assets of all Defendants, regardless of whether Receiver takes actual possession. This includes accounts in financial institutions and banks.
10) Appointment. After considering the propriety of receivers whom the Court has appointed in other cases and the plaintiff’s recommendations, the Court appoints Robert W. Berleth as Receiver over each Defendant’s non-exempt assets, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 64, to serve as Receiver after taking the oath of office.
[Entire paragraph 11 visibly struck through in blue; retained below as struck text, not operative text:
11) No Bond. No bond is required of the Receiver. After taking the oath of office, the Receiver shall be authorized, subject to the control of this Court, to do any and all acts necessary to the proper and lawful conduct of said Receivership.
End struck paragraph.]
12) Immunity. Except for acts of intentional misconduct, Receiver and persons engaged or employed by him are not liable for loss or damage incurred by any person or entity by reason of any for any act performed or omitted to be performed by Receiver or those engaged or employed by Receiver for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities for the Receivership, including exercising control over Receivership assets.
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 6 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
claimallegation
The entire paragraph 11, headed “No Bond”, is visibly crossed out. It is preserved as struck text in the readable transcription and is not r
The entire paragraph 11, headed “No Bond”, is visibly crossed out. It is preserved as struck text in the readable transcription and is not represented as an operative waiver of the receiver bond. Paragraph 12 provides immunity language except for intentional misconduct.
Read the anchor · page 6
Cause No. 202448085
THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS the relief as set out below:
9) The Court assumes jurisdiction over and takes possession of Defendant’s non-exempt property (collectively, the “Receivership assets”). Defendant is enjoined from selling non-exempt property, and must report to Receiver all sales and transfers of exempt property, within 5 days. The Receivership owns all non-exempt assets of all Defendants, regardless of whether Receiver takes actual possession. This includes accounts in financial institutions and banks.
10) Appointment. After considering the propriety of receivers whom the Court has appointed in other cases and the plaintiff’s recommendations, the Court appoints Robert W. Berleth as Receiver over each Defendant’s non-exempt assets, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 64, to serve as Receiver after taking the oath of office.
[Entire paragraph 11 visibly struck through in blue; retained below as struck text, not operative text:
11) No Bond. No bond is required of the Receiver. After taking the oath of office, the Receiver shall be authorized, subject to the control of this Court, to do any and all acts necessary to the proper and lawful conduct of said Receivership.
End struck paragraph.]
12) Immunity. Except for acts of intentional misconduct, Receiver and persons engaged or employed by him are not liable for loss or damage incurred by any person or entity by reason of any for any act performed or omitted to be performed by Receiver or those engaged or employed by Receiver for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities for the Receivership, including exercising control over Receivership assets.
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 6 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
claimallegation
The order permits peace officers to accompany the receiver and restricts interference by parties and third parties with actual notice. It re
The order permits peace officers to accompany the receiver and restricts interference by parties and third parties with actual notice. It requires notified third parties to identify and deliver receivership property within ten working days of demand, subject to the order’s terms. This does not prove any particular demand or compliance.
Read the anchor · page 7
Cause No. 202448085
13) Peace Officers Responsibilities to Receiver and the Court. Every
constable, deputy constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, and other peace officer may
accompany Receiver to locations designated by Receiver where Receiver believes
that a Defendant's assets or records may be located. The peace officers are ordered
to prevent interference with Receiver's carrying out any duty under this order or
interference with property in Receiver's control or subject to this order.
14) Third Parties Responsibilities to Receiver and the Court. Every
person with actual notice of this order is ordered not to interfere with property in
Receiver's control or subject to this order, and is ordered not to interfere with
Receiver in the performance of Receiver's duties. Third parties are notified that
Receiver, not Defendant, is the party entitled to possess, sell, liquidate, and
otherwise deal with Defendant's non-exempt property and once any third party
receives notice of this order, the third party may be subject to liability if the third
party releases property, unless
directed by Receiver or the Court.
a. All third parties who hold a Defendant's property or records are
orderedto immediately notify Receiver and to deliver the property
within ten working days of Receiver's demand.
All third parties knowing of this order are ordered to immediately
notify Receiver if they discover the existence of a Defendant's
property, or of facts that might lead to the discovery of property in
which any Defendant has any interest.
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 7 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
entityobservation
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
entityobservation
NEILL WHITELEY
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
entityobservation
MARK D. SCHMIDT
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
entityobservation
Daniel Ardmore
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
entityobservation
Robert W. Berleth
Read the anchor · page 6
Cause No. 202448085
THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS the relief as set out below:
9) The Court assumes jurisdiction over and takes possession of Defendant’s non-exempt property (collectively, the “Receivership assets”). Defendant is enjoined from selling non-exempt property, and must report to Receiver all sales and transfers of exempt property, within 5 days. The Receivership owns all non-exempt assets of all Defendants, regardless of whether Receiver takes actual possession. This includes accounts in financial institutions and banks.
10) Appointment. After considering the propriety of receivers whom the Court has appointed in other cases and the plaintiff’s recommendations, the Court appoints Robert W. Berleth as Receiver over each Defendant’s non-exempt assets, under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 64, to serve as Receiver after taking the oath of office.
[Entire paragraph 11 visibly struck through in blue; retained below as struck text, not operative text:
11) No Bond. No bond is required of the Receiver. After taking the oath of office, the Receiver shall be authorized, subject to the control of this Court, to do any and all acts necessary to the proper and lawful conduct of said Receivership.
End struck paragraph.]
12) Immunity. Except for acts of intentional misconduct, Receiver and persons engaged or employed by him are not liable for loss or damage incurred by any person or entity by reason of any for any act performed or omitted to be performed by Receiver or those engaged or employed by Receiver for the discharge of their duties and responsibilities for the Receivership, including exercising control over Receivership assets.
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 6 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
entityobservation
Hon. Beau Miller
Read the anchor · page 24
Cause No. 202448085
BE IT SO ORDERED. Any and all further relief not expressly stated herein
is denied.
Signed and Dated:
6/11/2025
Hon. Beau Miller •
ANCILIARY JUDOR PRESIDING
###END OF ORDER###
Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess
Tucker, et. al.
TRO and
v. Cybertux Corporation et al.
Pg. 24 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
eventattribution
The clerk files and Judge Beau Miller signs the TRO and serial appointment on 11 June 2025.
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
eventattribution
The order schedules the injunction application for 1:30 PM on 19 June 2025; occurrence and result are not established.
Read the anchor · page 2
Cause No. 202448085
The Court finds the relief granted herein is not adverse to the public or Cyberlux’s interest and the harm the Plaintiff’s and other Plaintiffs may suffer without equitable relief greatly outweighs any hardship that may result to Cyberlux. Without this Temporary Restraining Order, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the relief requested. There is no prejudice to Cyberlux by having a Receiver in place.
The Clerk of this Court shall issue this Temporary Restraining Order immediately for service upon Defendant.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, Plaintiffs shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $100.
For this Temporary Restraining Order to issue, [Plaintiffs — struck out; Receiver — inserted in blue] shall be required to post a bond in the amount of $1000.
This Temporary Restraining Order shall continue in full force and effect until 1:30 p.m. on the 19th day of June 2025, at which time the Court will consider Plaintiff’s Application for a Temporary Injunction, enjoining Defendant and their respective agents, employees, representatives, and attorneys from the same conduct until final hearing in this cause.
The Court DEFINES that:
1) “Plaintiff(s)” or “Judgment Plaintiff” refers to PHILLIP RICK TUCKER and NEILL WHITELEY, and may be reached at the counsel of record:
Daniel Ardmore
Tucker, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. — Pg. 2 of 24 — TRO and Order Appointing Receiver
[Bracketed descriptions record visible judicial edits. Source watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk.]
inferenceinference
The operative bond reading requires both the edited $1,000 receiver paragraph and the crossed-out No Bond paragraph. Treating unmarked OCR a
The operative bond reading requires both the edited $1,000 receiver paragraph and the crossed-out No Bond paragraph. Treating unmarked OCR as controlling would invert a visible judicial edit.
inferenceinference
The existence of a signed serial appointment does not establish when the predecessor terminated or whether the oath and other activation req
The existence of a signed serial appointment does not establish when the predecessor terminated or whether the oath and other activation requirements were met. The temporary restraint’s stated endpoint is also distinct from the deferred receiver provision.
inferenceinference
The source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative tha
The source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative that retains only the broad powers would omit express restraints on their exercise.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 24-page source reviewed at SHA-256 ae75bd7dc786bda89c6e98512297ea2fd1acc1c3c4a80632ac47294814d6b054. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 24-page source reviewed at SHA-256 ae75bd7dc786bda89c6e98512297ea2fd1acc1c3c4a80632ac47294814d6b054. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. No unexamined later court outcome is inferred.
Read the anchor · page 1
6/11/2025 4:29 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 101911236
By: Sasha Prince
Filed: 6/11/2025 4:29 PM
CAUSE NO. 2025-41073
PHILLIP RICK TUCKER, a/k/a RICK
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TUCKER, and NEILL WHITELEY,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL COURT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
IN AND FOR
Defendants.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
APPOINTING RECEIVER
On the date of entry below, this Court considered Plaintiff's Original Petition
and Emergency TRO/Injunction to Extend Receivership, reviewed the documents
on file, relevant statutory and case Law, admissible evidence, all arguments of the
parties and counsel, and finds the Plaintiff's may aid from this action.
Specifically, the Court recognizes there is a current receivership in cause no.
2024-48085, styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et. al. v. Cyberlux Corporation,
et. al. The Court was advised during the Temporary Restraining Order hearing
that due to payment of the single Plaintiff, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, the
existing receivership will terminate. To prevent the pilfering of assets, allow the
other Plaintiffs to bring their claims to this court, and specifically to ensure the
Plaintiff's in this case are protected from Cyberlux absconding with corporate
assets, the Court finds it necessary to maintain the existing receivership in series
with a pre-judgment receivership in the above-styled cause.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al.
Pg. 1 of 24
Order Appointing Receiver
questionquestion
Were the $100 plaintiff and $1,000 receiver bonds posted and the oath taken, and what record establishes activation after the predecessor en
Were the $100 plaintiff and $1,000 receiver bonds posted and the oath taken, and what record establishes activation after the predecessor ended?
questionquestion
What occurred at the 19 June 2025 injunction hearing, and what subsequent orders modified the restraint or receiver authority?
questionquestion
Where is the referenced Exhibit A, and what returns establish actual service, demands and protected-property notices?
questionquestion
Which report objections, real-property sale approvals, fee hearings or appeal-bond filings actually occurred under these provisions?
questionquestion
Was any whistleblower complaint or reward actually made under paragraph 42, and how was a potential fee or reward interest disclosed?
questionquestion
Was the mismatch between caption cause 2025-41073 and the continuing 202448085 headers corrected or addressed in the docket?
distillatequestion
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Daniel Ardmore is identified as plaintiffs’ counsel. Robert W. Berleth is defined as receiver and an agent of the court, not an attorney for any party. The definitions also contain personal identifiers; these remain in the internal source, not repeated as analytical findings.referencesRobert Berleth reports appointment on 22 May 2025 and recovery of $3,083,639.75, described as full collection of the judgment calculation. The source does not include the underlying bank statements or judgment calculation.
Same receiver appears in different proceedings; capacities and activation dates remain separate.
The order directs compliance before seeking protective relief and vests corporate management authority in the receiver, superseding officers for the described assets and functions. Paragraph 18’s “No Serial Receiverships” heading accompanies language deferring this receiver’s action until the existing receivership terminates; it does not prohibit the contemplated succession.referencesParagraph 8 takes judicial notice that terminating this receivership will animate the next serial receivership and that Cyberlux will remain under receivership without interruption pending further orders in that case. Paragraph 10 terminates this receivership effective the entry date and releases the receiver in this proceeding.
Earlier Tucker–Whiteley signed order supplies a deferred serial appointment; later termination order refers generically to a next receivership. These sources alone do not identify actual transfer or prove this was the operative successor.
Disputed property may be held pending the court’s determination. Real-property sales must be individually ordered after notice and hearing. Paragraph 28 treats specified objections as waived unless filed within twenty days of service or notice. The order also authorises redirecting and copying mail and obtaining credit reports; it does not establish actual notice or a completed sale.supportsThe source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative that retains only the broad powers would omit express restraints on their exercise.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 9 enjoins sale of non-exempt property and requires reporting sales and transfers of exempt property within five days. Paragraph 10 appoints Robert W. Berleth over non-exempt assets under Chapter 64 to serve after taking the oath. The source’s distinctions between exempt reporting and non-exempt control are retained.supportsDoes the signed order waive a receiver bond and establish immediate parallel receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order authorises adviser contacts without waiving attorney-client privilege, asserts jurisdiction over ownership and fraudulent-transfer disputes and requires documents and an Exhibit A response within ten days. It requires disclosure of claimed exemptions, five-day supplementation after learning of additional property, indexed responses and access information for asset accounts. Exhibit A is not attached to this 24-page supplied file.supportsWhere is the referenced Exhibit A, and what returns establish actual service, demands and protected-property notices?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order directs compliance before seeking protective relief and vests corporate management authority in the receiver, superseding officers for the described assets and functions. Paragraph 18’s “No Serial Receiverships” heading accompanies language deferring this receiver’s action until the existing receivership terminates; it does not prohibit the contemplated succession.supportsThe existence of a signed serial appointment does not establish when the predecessor terminated or whether the oath and other activation requirements were met. The temporary restraint’s stated endpoint is also distinct from the deferred receiver provision.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order repeats the absence of asset-maintenance and preservation duties except as ordered. Intended abandonment or sale requires at least ten days’ notice, including notice by first-class mail; objections are due within five days after service. A timely objection prevents completion until the court decides it.supportsThe source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative that retains only the broad powers would omit express restraints on their exercise.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The enumerated powers cover non-exempt assets, intellectual property and domains, financial accounts, five years of tax information, vehicles, real estate, securities, inheritances, cash, claims, contracts and receivables. Authority to demand or control these categories is not proof that any listed asset existed or was collected.supportsThe source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative that retains only the broad powers would omit express restraints on their exercise.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Disputed property may be held pending the court’s determination. Real-property sales must be individually ordered after notice and hearing. Paragraph 28 treats specified objections as waived unless filed within twenty days of service or notice. The order also authorises redirecting and copying mail and obtaining credit reports; it does not establish actual notice or a completed sale.supportsWhich report objections, real-property sale approvals, fee hearings or appeal-bond filings actually occurred under these provisions?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order describes alternative service by the receiver, access to driver-licence records and discovery powers including shortened response periods. It states defendants are not entitled to serve discovery on receiver or plaintiff under this cause number. The language does not establish actual service or compliance.supportsWhere is the referenced Exhibit A, and what returns establish actual service, demands and protected-property notices?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order directs compliance before seeking protective relief and vests corporate management authority in the receiver, superseding officers for the described assets and functions. Paragraph 18’s “No Serial Receiverships” heading accompanies language deferring this receiver’s action until the existing receivership terminates; it does not prohibit the contemplated succession.supportsDoes the signed order waive a receiver bond and establish immediate parallel receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The 24-page order is filed on 11 June 2025 at 4:29 PM, envelope 101911236, and signed that day by ancillary judge Beau Miller. The caption names Phillip Rick Tucker, also called Rick Tucker, and Neill Whiteley against Cyberlux and Mark Schmidt in cause 2025-41073, 129th Judicial District Court. Later page headers nevertheless print cause 202448085; that template inconsistency is preserved.supportsWas the mismatch between caption cause 2025-41073 and the continuing 202448085 headers corrected or addressed in the docket?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 9 enjoins sale of non-exempt property and requires reporting sales and transfers of exempt property within five days. Paragraph 10 appoints Robert W. Berleth over non-exempt assets under Chapter 64 to serve after taking the oath. The source’s distinctions between exempt reporting and non-exempt control are retained.supportsWere the $100 plaintiff and $1,000 receiver bonds posted and the oath taken, and what record establishes activation after the predecessor ended?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court recognises the existing Atlantic Wave receivership in cause 2024-48085 and says it was advised that payment to Atlantic Wave would cause its termination. It states a need to maintain receivership in series through a prejudgment receivership to prevent asset pilfering and protect the new plaintiffs. This is the court’s stated rationale, not independent proof of a completed transfer or concealment.supportsThe existence of a signed serial appointment does not establish when the predecessor terminated or whether the oath and other activation requirements were met. The temporary restraint’s stated endpoint is also distinct from the deferred receiver provision.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The entire paragraph 11, headed “No Bond”, is visibly crossed out. It is preserved as struck text in the readable transcription and is not represented as an operative waiver of the receiver bond. Paragraph 12 provides immunity language except for intentional misconduct.supportsWere the $100 plaintiff and $1,000 receiver bonds posted and the oath taken, and what record establishes activation after the predecessor ended?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order directs compliance before seeking protective relief and vests corporate management authority in the receiver, superseding officers for the described assets and functions. Paragraph 18’s “No Serial Receiverships” heading accompanies language deferring this receiver’s action until the existing receivership terminates; it does not prohibit the contemplated succession.supportsWere the $100 plaintiff and $1,000 receiver bonds posted and the oath taken, and what record establishes activation after the predecessor ended?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The entire paragraph 11, headed “No Bond”, is visibly crossed out. It is preserved as struck text in the readable transcription and is not represented as an operative waiver of the receiver bond. Paragraph 12 provides immunity language except for intentional misconduct.supportsDoes the signed order waive a receiver bond and establish immediate parallel receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 23 allows a non-exemption assumption until a specified claim and calls for objections within 21 days of collection. Paragraphs 24–25 require compliance with Texas Rule 679b and prohibit disbursement or sale for 14 days after protected-property notices, or 17 days if served by mail. A claimed exemption requires written consent or a court order before disbursement or sale.supportsWhere is the referenced Exhibit A, and what returns establish actual service, demands and protected-property notices?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 23 allows a non-exemption assumption until a specified claim and calls for objections within 21 days of collection. Paragraphs 24–25 require compliance with Texas Rule 679b and prohibit disbursement or sale for 14 days after protected-property notices, or 17 days if served by mail. A claimed exemption requires written consent or a court order before disbursement or sale.supportsThe source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative that retains only the broad powers would omit express restraints on their exercise.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The TRO continues until 1:30 PM on 19 June 2025, when the temporary-injunction application is to be considered. The supplied order does not establish that hearing’s outcome or an extension of the TRO.supportsThe existence of a signed serial appointment does not establish when the predecessor terminated or whether the oath and other activation requirements were met. The temporary restraint’s stated endpoint is also distinct from the deferred receiver provision.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 42 permits whistleblower complaints concerning suspected government fraud and says rewards may be accepted by the receiver in addition to fees, even after receivership termination. This provision does not show any complaint, reward, government finding or recovery.supportsWas any whistleblower complaint or reward actually made under paragraph 42, and how was a potential fee or reward interest disclosed?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver is directed to file a final accounting and closure motion. If reasonable attempts produce no collection, plaintiffs must reimburse $1,500 plus necessary expenses when the court grants closure. The signed final page denies ungranted relief and ends the order; no referenced Exhibit A follows.supportsWhere is the referenced Exhibit A, and what returns establish actual service, demands and protected-property notices?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order recites Chapter 64/equitable predicates, concern that property may be concealed or transferred and a necessity to protect assets. It asserts custody of non-exempt assets, judicial-lien effects and restrictions on transfers. These propositions retain their status as language and findings of this particular order, not a separately researched statement of general law.supportsThe source combines broad asset-control language with specific protected-property waiting periods and objection conditions. A derivative that retains only the broad powers would omit express restraints on their exercise.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The fee provision describes 25% of asset sales, recoveries and credits; after notice and hearing it permits a fee exceeding 25%, specifically 33% for full judgment collection. It also states a bankruptcy fee of 25% of the debt, with a secured-claim condition referring to a valid abstract of judgment. These conditional provisions are not proof of a bankruptcy allowance or an actual 33% award in this case.supportsWhich report objections, real-property sale approvals, fee hearings or appeal-bond filings actually occurred under these provisions?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order permits peace officers to accompany the receiver and restricts interference by parties and third parties with actual notice. It requires notified third parties to identify and deliver receivership property within ten working days of demand, subject to the order’s terms. This does not prove any particular demand or compliance.supportsWhere is the referenced Exhibit A, and what returns establish actual service, demands and protected-property notices?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court finds equitable relief preferable and directs issuance of a TRO for service. The source requires plaintiffs to post $100 and, in a second paragraph, visibly substitutes “Receiver” for the struck word “Plaintiffs” for a $1,000 bond. The edited receiver requirement must not be lost in plain OCR.supportsDoes the signed order waive a receiver bond and establish immediate parallel receivership?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The TRO continues until 1:30 PM on 19 June 2025, when the temporary-injunction application is to be considered. The supplied order does not establish that hearing’s outcome or an extension of the TRO.supportsWhat occurred at the 19 June 2025 injunction hearing, and what subsequent orders modified the restraint or receiver authority?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 9 enjoins sale of non-exempt property and requires reporting sales and transfers of exempt property within five days. Paragraph 10 appoints Robert W. Berleth over non-exempt assets under Chapter 64 to serve after taking the oath. The source’s distinctions between exempt reporting and non-exempt control are retained.supportsThe existence of a signed serial appointment does not establish when the predecessor terminated or whether the oath and other activation requirements were met. The temporary restraint’s stated endpoint is also distinct from the deferred receiver provision.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Receiver reports may be filed from time to time. The order describes unopposed facts as conclusively admitted, preserves the court’s power to confirm or reject a report and requires objections within twenty days with disputed grounds, reasons and supporting documents. Whether a later report was opposed is an external factual dependency.supportsWhich report objections, real-property sale approvals, fee hearings or appeal-bond filings actually occurred under these provisions?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The entire paragraph 11, headed “No Bond”, is visibly crossed out. It is preserved as struck text in the readable transcription and is not represented as an operative waiver of the receiver bond. Paragraph 12 provides immunity language except for intentional misconduct.supportsThe operative bond reading requires both the edited $1,000 receiver paragraph and the crossed-out No Bond paragraph. Treating unmarked OCR as controlling would invert a visible judicial edit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For challenges to the receiver, paragraph 49 provides additional fees upon proof and notice, a presumptive $5,000 subject to the stated proof framework, and appeal bonds of $15,000 for an intermediate appeal plus $25,000 for the Texas Supreme Court. Paragraph 50 orders $1,750 plaintiff attorney fees and makes further fees conditional on notice and hearing.supportsWhich report objections, real-property sale approvals, fee hearings or appeal-bond filings actually occurred under these provisions?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court finds equitable relief preferable and directs issuance of a TRO for service. The source requires plaintiffs to post $100 and, in a second paragraph, visibly substitutes “Receiver” for the struck word “Plaintiffs” for a $1,000 bond. The edited receiver requirement must not be lost in plain OCR.supportsThe operative bond reading requires both the edited $1,000 receiver paragraph and the crossed-out No Bond paragraph. Treating unmarked OCR as controlling would invert a visible judicial edit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The court finds equitable relief preferable and directs issuance of a TRO for service. The source requires plaintiffs to post $100 and, in a second paragraph, visibly substitutes “Receiver” for the struck word “Plaintiffs” for a $1,000 bond. The edited receiver requirement must not be lost in plain OCR.supportsWere the $100 plaintiff and $1,000 receiver bonds posted and the oath taken, and what record establishes activation after the predecessor ended?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
Explained weighting
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
No published WEIGH run
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.