Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Schmidt declares as Cyberlux president and CEO with personal transaction knowledge, supporting the SDCA sister-state-vacation motion. Visibl
Schmidt declares as Cyberlux president and CEO with personal transaction knowledge, supporting the SDCA sister-state-vacation motion. Visible DocuSign execution is April 10, 2024 at Houston, Texas, matching filing ECF 9-4; the June 3 hearing date is not execution.
Read the anchor · page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP
Gabe P. Wright (SBN 208647)
Trevor S. Locko (SBN 323313)
One America Plaza
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.810.4300
Facsiiiile: 619.810.4301
gwriglht@hahnlaw.com
tlocko@hahnlaw.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
JEFFREY N. BROWN, SBN 105520
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.corn
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: 310.282.2500 / Fax: 310.282.2501
EDWARD W. GRAY, JR. (SBN 80966)
egray@thompsoncoburn.com
1909 K Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: 20/585.6967 / Fax: 202.585.6969
ALLEN CHESSON
DOUGLAS GRIMES (pro hac vice application to be filed)
dgrimes@allenchesson.com
505 N. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: 704.755.6012
Attorneys for Defendant CYBERLUX
CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-
LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company; and SECURE
COMMUNITY, LLC, a Virginia
limited Liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION,
Nevada Corporation;
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF MARK D.
SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF
CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION TO VACATE SISTER -STATE
JUDGMENT
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
ORDERED BY THE COURT
Hearing Date: June 3, 2024
1 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.392 Page 1 of 24
claimallegation
Exhibit C includes Schmidt’s April 1 forwarding of a September 8, 2023 bank exchange. Asked whether $575,000 to Atlantic Wave and $50,000 to
Exhibit C includes Schmidt’s April 1 forwarding of a September 8, 2023 bank exchange. Asked whether $575,000 to Atlantic Wave and $50,000 to Strikepoints had executed, TowneBank officer Kerri Thebado replies Yes they have been. This is an explicit contemporaneous bank-staff execution confirmation, unlike mere initiation status, though no recipient bank ledger is shown. Routing/account numbers are visibly redacted.
Read the anchor · page 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 7:18:01 AM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Confirmation of Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires
September 2023
Mark Schmidt 1 President and r En
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
From: Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:03:28 PM
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Cc: Shellie Mellady <Shellie.Roberts@townebank.net>
Subject: RE: Confirmation of Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires
Yes they have been
Kerri Thebado
Banking Officer I Member Service Specialist
TOWNE BANK
T: 919-534-7407
Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net I TowneBank.com
5000 Valleystone Dr, Suite 110, Cary, NC 27519
Serving Others. Enriching Lives.
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Shellie Mellady <Shellie.Roberts@townebank.net>; Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Subject: Confirmation of Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires
CAUTION: External Email
Shellie/Kerri, will you please confirm that the Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires have been executed.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $575,000.00
Strikepoints Consulting, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $50,000.00
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.403 Page 12 of 24
claimallegation
For October 4 $20,000 Strikepoints, the attached banker response says Will do; for November 2 $19,000 it says Sending it now. These are prog
For October 4 $20,000 Strikepoints, the attached banker response says Will do; for November 2 $19,000 it says Sending it now. These are progressively stronger operational communications but do not independently show final beneficiary settlement. They must not all be labelled completed-wire confirmations simply because Exhibit C is described that way.
Read the anchor · page 14
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 7:17:22 AM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Wire out
October 2023
Mark Schmidt I President and r Efl
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
From: Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:47:30 PM
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Subject: RE: Wire out
Will do!
Kerri Thebado
Banking Officer I Member Service Specialist
TOWNE BANK
T: 919-534-7407
Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net I TowneBank.com
5000 Valleystone Dr, Suite 110, Cary, NC 27519
Serving Others. Enriching Lives.
Towne Family Careers
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 2:46 PM
To: Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Subject: Wire out
CAUTION: External Email
Kern, when possible, please wire from our 6642 account:
Strikepoints Consulting, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $20,000.00
TYVM!
Mark Schmidt I President and CEO
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.405 Page 14 of 24
claimallegation
For December 4 $19,000 Strikepoints, Leticia Green says she will start processing and asks whether there are invoices or a consulting agreem
For December 4 $19,000 Strikepoints, Leticia Green says she will start processing and asks whether there are invoices or a consulting agreement on file. Schmidt describes it as a monthly payment going forward. The exchange establishes instruction and processing intent, not completion or the absence of any agreement anywhere.
Read the anchor · page 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
Harnessing the Future
Visit our Website
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2023 8:10 AM
To: Leticia Green <Igreen@cvberlux.com>
Subject: Wire out of 7189
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 7:15:34 AM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Wire out of 7189
December 2023
Mark Schmidt I President and r En
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
From: Leticia Green <Igreen@cyberlux.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:29
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Subject: RE: Wire out of 7189
Good Morning Mark!
I will start processing this wire now.
Does this company send out invoices or do we have a consulting agreement on file? Would you send that to me when
its convenient please.
Thank you,
Letty Green
lgreen_@mbertuxxorn
B R L i_7(
Good morning Letty, will you please send the following wire out from 7189? This is also a monthly payment going
forward.
Strikepoints Consulting, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $19,000.00
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.409 Page 18 of 24
claimallegation
On April 1 Green says she created January 2 and February 1 wires and lacks consultant invoices as backup. In the same message she says, cond
On April 1 Green says she created January 2 and February 1 wires and lacks consultant invoices as backup. In the same message she says, conditionally on her records, they did not pay in February unless Schmidt paid directly from TowneBank, and recommends invoices to reduce confusion. The tension between the labelled February wire and this statement is preserved, not resolved by guessing the accounting month.
Read the anchor · page 20
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 12:29:08 PM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Strikepoints February Wire
January 2024 and February 2024.
Mark Schmidt 1 President and r Erl
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
From: Leticia Green <Igreen@cyberlux.com>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:37
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Subject: RE: Strikepoints February Wire
Hi Mark,
I created two wires for Strikepoint (attached).
The wire dated 1/2/2024 was for January and the wire dated 2/1/24 was for February. Unfortunately, I do not receive
an invoice from Strikepoint so I do not have a reference point to add to our backup. If what I am showing is correct, we
did not pay them in February unless you paid them directly from Townebank.
I would suggest we request invoices from all consultants to minimize confusion with payments in the future.
Thank you,
I .,ttx, nr....n
lgreen@cyberlux.com
Visit our Website
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2024 4:30 AM
To: Leticia Green <Igreen@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Strikepoints February Wire
Letty, I am looking for proof of the Strikepoints payment for February. Letty, do you have any email or
wire out info?
Mark Schmidt I President and CEO
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.411 Page 20 of 24
claimallegation
The two attached PNC prints each show $19,000 to Strikepoints and status Pending Approval. One has January 2 value/send date; the other was
The two attached PNC prints each show $19,000 to Strikepoints and status Pending Approval. One has January 2 value/send date; the other was initiated January 29 with February 1 value/send date and OBI JAN24. No Federal Reference Number is displayed on the latter. These prints show pending initiation, not completed remittance, and the month label differs from Green’s February description.
Read the anchor · page 21
Funds Transfer - Layout
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
https://www.treasury.pncbank.com/PWWWirel/Veb/CreatePaymentsCreationStatusPrint.ht
Initiate Payments - Initiation Status Close Print
Account Trace ID Template ID plate
me Type Value/Send
Date Beneficiary mount Status
Domestic 01/02/2024
Strikepoints Consulting, LLC
19,000.00 USD Pending
Approval
Created by: Letty Green - 01/02/2024 06:20 PM EST
1 of 2 1/2/2024, 3:20 PM
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.412 Page 21 of 24
claimallegation
The March wire exchange has Schmidt’s February 29 request for $19,000 and Thebado’s March 1 reply Just Completed. It is another explicit ban
The March wire exchange has Schmidt’s February 29 request for $19,000 and Thebado’s March 1 reply Just Completed. It is another explicit bank-staff completion representation. The April 1 date is when Schmidt forwarded it to counsel, not a separate April payment confirmation.
Read the anchor · page 23
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 7:10:30 AM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Wite out
March 2024
Mark Schmidt I President and CEO
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cvberlux.Com
From: Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 12:57
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Subject: RE: Wite out
Just Completed! 0
Kerri Thebado
Banking Officer I Member Service
Specialist
Kerri.Thebadogtownebank.net
rthlo,
• Ozm'w
~pNNIVERSAgY~
TOWNE BANK 2024
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 29, 2024 3:46 PM
Tel: 919-534-7407
5000 Valleystone Dr, S,Ca , N ,275
uite 110 ry C 19
TowneBank.com
Serving Others. Enriching Lives.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.414 Page 23 of 24
claimallegation
The supplied payment exhibits cover September through March communications and two pending PNC records. They contain no distinct evidence fo
The supplied payment exhibits cover September through March communications and two pending PNC records. They contain no distinct evidence for the table’s three July payments or April 1 $19,000 payment and do not account for the paragraph 6 extra $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure. The declaration remains testimony for those amounts.
Read the anchor · page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as follows:
Date Payee Amount
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $10,737.50
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $5,364.75
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $4,513.89
9/8/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $575,000.00
9/8/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $50,000.00
10/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $20,000.00
11/2/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
12/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
1/2/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
2/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
3/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
4/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
TOTAL $779,616.14
True and correct copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto
as Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, Cyberlux's payments were either made by the deadlines provided
in the Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based
upon the Plaintiffs' agreed-to modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon
which Cyberlux relied.
5. In fact, as more fully explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
6. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45. 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.394 Page 3 of 24
claimallegation
He identifies a June 15, 2023 settlement among Cyberlux, himself, Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint, referencing Exhibit A and
He identifies a June 15, 2023 settlement among Cyberlux, himself, Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint, referencing Exhibit A and a sealing motion. The supplied Exhibit A contains only FILED UNDER SEAL / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, not its substantive terms.
Read the anchor · page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Mark D. Schmidt, declare:
1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cyberlux Corporation
("Cyberlux"), the entity against which Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community LLC sought and obtained entry of a Sister-State Judgment. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained within this Declaration based upon me
being involved with the transactions that are the subject of this action and this
Declaration. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the following
facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On or about June 15, 2023, Cyberlux, myself, Atlantic Wave Holdings,
LLC ("Atlantic Wave"), Secure Community, LLC ("Secure"), and Strikepoint
Consulting, LLC ("Strikepoint") entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement
Agreement") arising from the lawsuit entitled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC; and
Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, Circuit
Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, Case No. CL22-3882 (the "Virginia
Action"). A true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, which is the subject of a concurrently filed Motion to Seal due to a
provision of the Settlement Agreement that deems the entirety of the Settlement
Agreement to he confidential.
3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, an Amended Final
Order and Judgement [sic] ("Settlement Judgement") was filed and entered in the
Virginia Action on June 28, 2023, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B. The Settlement Judgment provides, in part, that "the parties hereto have
reached a settlement agreement that resolves the current need for continuing
litigation." Settlement Judgment at Page 1.
HI
HI
11'
HI 2 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.393 Page 2 of 24
claimallegation
The twelve-row declared payment table lists three July 3, 2023 Atlantic Wave payments ($10,737.50, $5,364.75 and $4,513.89), $575,000 Atlant
The twelve-row declared payment table lists three July 3, 2023 Atlantic Wave payments ($10,737.50, $5,364.75 and $4,513.89), $575,000 Atlantic Wave and $50,000 Strikepoint on September 8, $20,000 Strikepoint October 4, and six $19,000 Strikepoint payments November 2, December 4, January 2, February 1, March 1 and April 1. Its $779,616.14 total reconciles: Atlantic Wave $595,616.14 plus Strikepoint $184,000. The second July date is visually 2023, not the extraction’s 2073.
Read the anchor · page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as follows:
Date Payee Amount
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $10,737.50
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $5,364.75
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $4,513.89
9/8/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $575,000.00
9/8/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $50,000.00
10/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $20,000.00
11/2/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
12/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
1/2/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
2/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
3/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
4/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
TOTAL $779,616.14
True and correct copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto
as Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, Cyberlux's payments were either made by the deadlines provided
in the Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based
upon the Plaintiffs' agreed-to modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon
which Cyberlux relied.
5. In fact, as more fully explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
6. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45. 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.394 Page 3 of 24
claimallegation
Paragraph 6 instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint against $650,000 principal, leaving $396,000. That subtraction reconciles, but the pai
Paragraph 6 instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint against $650,000 principal, leaving $396,000. That subtraction reconciles, but the paid figure exceeds the displayed table’s Strikepoint subtotal by $70,000, without an identified additional row in this source.
Read the anchor · page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as follows:
Date Payee Amount
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $10,737.50
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $5,364.75
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $4,513.89
9/8/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $575,000.00
9/8/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $50,000.00
10/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $20,000.00
11/2/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
12/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
1/2/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
2/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
3/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
4/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
TOTAL $779,616.14
True and correct copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto
as Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, Cyberlux's payments were either made by the deadlines provided
in the Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based
upon the Plaintiffs' agreed-to modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon
which Cyberlux relied.
5. In fact, as more fully explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
6. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45. 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.394 Page 3 of 24
claimallegation
For Atlantic Wave paragraph 6 states original principal $1,110,363.89, paid $595,616.14 and remaining $591,102.45, visually verified (origin
For Atlantic Wave paragraph 6 states original principal $1,110,363.89, paid $595,616.14 and remaining $591,102.45, visually verified (original extraction misread .41). Subtracting the stated paid amount from principal yields $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below the printed balance. Possible additional charges are not explained as such in this principal-balance statement.
Read the anchor · page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as follows:
Date Payee Amount
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $10,737.50
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $5,364.75
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $4,513.89
9/8/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $575,000.00
9/8/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $50,000.00
10/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $20,000.00
11/2/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
12/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
1/2/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
2/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
3/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
4/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
TOTAL $779,616.14
True and correct copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto
as Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, Cyberlux's payments were either made by the deadlines provided
in the Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based
upon the Plaintiffs' agreed-to modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon
which Cyberlux relied.
5. In fact, as more fully explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
6. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45. 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.394 Page 3 of 24
claimallegation
Schmidt asserts payments were timely under deadlines, a three-day cure or agreed modifications, referring to a separately filed Grimes decla
Schmidt asserts payments were timely under deadlines, a three-day cure or agreed modifications, referring to a separately filed Grimes declaration. He says Welter confirmed a $167,402.56 overage from the September $575,000 payment for future credits. Grimes’s declaration and the confirming communication are absent from this source.
Read the anchor · page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as follows:
Date Payee Amount
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $10,737.50
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $5,364.75
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $4,513.89
9/8/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $575,000.00
9/8/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $50,000.00
10/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $20,000.00
11/2/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
12/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
1/2/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
2/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
3/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
4/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
TOTAL $779,616.14
True and correct copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto
as Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, Cyberlux's payments were either made by the deadlines provided
in the Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based
upon the Plaintiffs' agreed-to modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon
which Cyberlux relied.
5. In fact, as more fully explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
6. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45. 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.394 Page 3 of 24
claimallegation
Exhibit B is the visibly signed amended final order and judgment entered June 28, 2023 in Richmond CL22-3882, with consent signatures by Sch
Exhibit B is the visibly signed amended final order and judgment entered June 28, 2023 in Richmond CL22-3882, with consent signatures by Schmidt individually/as Cyberlux president and Watts as special counsel. It awards $1,572,500 compensatory damages jointly and severally against Cyberlux and Schmidt to resolve complaint and agreed other claims.
Read the anchor · page 8
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT Or THE CITY OF RICHMOND
)
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC )
AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and )
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually )
)
Defendants. )
)
Case No: CL22-3882 - q
AMENDED FINAL ORDER AND JUDGEMENT
BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion for Oitry of an Amended Final Order and Judgment
by Plaintiffs ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, and
agreed to by Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,
and as the authorized representative for CYBERLUX CORPORATION, and
IT APPEARING to the Court that the parties hereto have reached a settlement agreement
that resolves the current need for continuing litigation.
UPON CONSIDERATION of the pleadings, the evidence, argument of counsel, the
consent of the parties, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that judgement is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS,
LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, and against Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION
and MARK D. SCHMIDT, jointly and severally, as follows:
a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the sum of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,572,500) in
compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.399 Page 8 of 24
claimallegation
The entered order adds $177,126.19 reasonable fees, $3,895 and $6,842.50 sanctions, costs and twelve-percent annual post-judgment interest.
The entered order adds $177,126.19 reasonable fees, $3,895 and $6,842.50 sanctions, costs and twelve-percent annual post-judgment interest. Specified damages, fees and sanctions total $1,760,363.69 before unquantified costs and interest; the order itself is not a later payoff statement.
Read the anchor · page 9
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
and MARK D. SCHMIDT, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint and certain other
claims as agreed to by the parties pursuant to the parties' separate agreement.
b. The parties agree that this Final Judgement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy
to the fullest extent pernissible at law, and Defendants hereby waive all rights of reconsideration
or appeal. Nor shall it be subject to any contribution or reduced through the payment(s) of any
other parties in this matter. Rather it shall be the sole obligation of Defendants.
c. That the Plaintiffs be awarded all of their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees
of $177,126.19 per the parties' settlement agreement, evidenced by affidavits, and consented to by
defendants, plus sanctions of $3,895.00 and $6,842.50, as provided by the Court's previous Orders,
and post judgment interest at the rate of 12% por annum, as provided in the parties' agreement,
from the date of entry of this order on the damages incurred in this matter.
d. That the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest in all property of
Defendants in favor of Plaintiffs until all sums are paid, and such security interest may be further
memorialized through the filing of appropriate UCC-1 forms and the filing of appropriate Liens.
e. Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. THIS CAUSE IS
ENDED.
ENTERED this() ,) day of , 2023.
on Jacquei e McClenney, esid g Judge
uit Court for the City of Ri on•
A Copy
Teste: WARD F
BY:
E , CLERK
6/1‘46,
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.400 Page 9 of 24
claimallegation
The order records parties’ agreement to nondischargeability to the fullest legally permissible extent, waiver of reconsideration/appeal, no
The order records parties’ agreement to nondischargeability to the fullest legally permissible extent, waiver of reconsideration/appeal, no reduction by other parties’ payments, and security/lien interests in defendants’ property until paid, with further UCC/lien filings contemplated. It dismisses the complaint without prejudice and ends the cause. These recorded terms do not prove UCC perfection or decide bankruptcy dischargeability beyond applicable law.
Read the anchor · page 9
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
and MARK D. SCHMIDT, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint and certain other
claims as agreed to by the parties pursuant to the parties' separate agreement.
b. The parties agree that this Final Judgement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy
to the fullest extent pernissible at law, and Defendants hereby waive all rights of reconsideration
or appeal. Nor shall it be subject to any contribution or reduced through the payment(s) of any
other parties in this matter. Rather it shall be the sole obligation of Defendants.
c. That the Plaintiffs be awarded all of their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees
of $177,126.19 per the parties' settlement agreement, evidenced by affidavits, and consented to by
defendants, plus sanctions of $3,895.00 and $6,842.50, as provided by the Court's previous Orders,
and post judgment interest at the rate of 12% por annum, as provided in the parties' agreement,
from the date of entry of this order on the damages incurred in this matter.
d. That the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest in all property of
Defendants in favor of Plaintiffs until all sums are paid, and such security interest may be further
memorialized through the filing of appropriate UCC-1 forms and the filing of appropriate Liens.
e. Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. THIS CAUSE IS
ENDED.
ENTERED this() ,) day of , 2023.
on Jacquei e McClenney, esid g Judge
uit Court for the City of Ri on•
A Copy
Teste: WARD F
BY:
E , CLERK
6/1‘46,
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.400 Page 9 of 24
entityobservation
Mark D. Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Mark D. Schmidt, declare:
1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cyberlux Corporation
("Cyberlux"), the entity against which Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community LLC sought and obtained entry of a Sister-State Judgment. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained within this Declaration based upon me
being involved with the transactions that are the subject of this action and this
Declaration. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the following
facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On or about June 15, 2023, Cyberlux, myself, Atlantic Wave Holdings,
LLC ("Atlantic Wave"), Secure Community, LLC ("Secure"), and Strikepoint
Consulting, LLC ("Strikepoint") entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement
Agreement") arising from the lawsuit entitled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC; and
Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, Circuit
Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, Case No. CL22-3882 (the "Virginia
Action"). A true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, which is the subject of a concurrently filed Motion to Seal due to a
provision of the Settlement Agreement that deems the entirety of the Settlement
Agreement to he confidential.
3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, an Amended Final
Order and Judgement [sic] ("Settlement Judgement") was filed and entered in the
Virginia Action on June 28, 2023, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B. The Settlement Judgment provides, in part, that "the parties hereto have
reached a settlement agreement that resolves the current need for continuing
litigation." Settlement Judgment at Page 1.
HI
HI
11'
HI 2 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.393 Page 2 of 24
entityobservation
Strikepoint Consulting, LLC
Read the anchor · page 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Following the Settlement Agreement reached in the Virginia Action,
Cyberlux made payments to Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as follows:
Date Payee Amount
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $10,737.50
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $5,364.75
7/3/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $4,513.89
9/8/2023 Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC $575,000.00
9/8/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $50,000.00
10/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $20,000.00
11/2/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
12/4/2023 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
1/2/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
2/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
3/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
4/1/2024 Strikepoint Consulting, LLC $19,000.00
TOTAL $779,616.14
True and correct copies of the wire payment confirmations are attached hereto
as Exhibit C. As more fully set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, Cyberlux's payments were either made by the deadlines provided
in the Settlement Agreement (including the 3-day cure period), or were timely based
upon the Plaintiffs' agreed-to modification of the Settlement Agreement, upon
which Cyberlux relied.
5. In fact, as more fully explained in the concurrently filed Declaration of
Douglas Grimes, the parties agreed to a different payment plan post-settlement.
Further, as confirmed by William Welter, Atlantic Wave's principal and legal
counsel, following Cyberlux's overpayment of September 8, 2023, equal to $575,000,
Cyberlux had an "overage" of $167,402.56 to apply to future payments.
6. Under the Settlement Agreement, the combined principal amount owed
to Strikepoint was $650,000, and the combined principal amount owed to Atlantic
Wave was $1,110,363.89. To date, $254,000 has been paid to Strikepoint, leaving a
principal balance of $396,000, and $595,616.14 has been paid to Atlantic Wave,
leaving a principal balance of $591,102.45. 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.394 Page 3 of 24
entityobservation
Kerri Thebado
Read the anchor · page 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 7:18:01 AM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Confirmation of Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires
September 2023
Mark Schmidt 1 President and r En
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
From: Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:03:28 PM
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Cc: Shellie Mellady <Shellie.Roberts@townebank.net>
Subject: RE: Confirmation of Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires
Yes they have been
Kerri Thebado
Banking Officer I Member Service Specialist
TOWNE BANK
T: 919-534-7407
Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net I TowneBank.com
5000 Valleystone Dr, Suite 110, Cary, NC 27519
Serving Others. Enriching Lives.
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Shellie Mellady <Shellie.Roberts@townebank.net>; Kerri Thebado <Kerri.Thebado@townebank.net>
Subject: Confirmation of Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires
CAUTION: External Email
Shellie/Kerri, will you please confirm that the Atlantic Wave and Strikepoints wires have been executed.
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $575,000.00
Strikepoints Consulting, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $50,000.00
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.403 Page 12 of 24
entityobservation
Leticia Green
Read the anchor · page 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
Harnessing the Future
Visit our Website
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2023 8:10 AM
To: Leticia Green <Igreen@cvberlux.com>
Subject: Wire out of 7189
From: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cyberlux.com>
Date: April 1, 2024 at 7:15:34 AM EDT
To: Charles Watts <legal cybl@cyberlux.com>
Subject: Fwd: Wire out of 7189
December 2023
Mark Schmidt I President and r En
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
mschmidt@cyberlux.com
919-434-6608
www.Cyberlux.Com
From: Leticia Green <Igreen@cyberlux.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 11:29
To: Mark Schmidt <mschmidt@cvberlux.com>
Subject: RE: Wire out of 7189
Good Morning Mark!
I will start processing this wire now.
Does this company send out invoices or do we have a consulting agreement on file? Would you send that to me when
its convenient please.
Thank you,
Letty Green
lgreen_@mbertuxxorn
B R L i_7(
Good morning Letty, will you please send the following wire out from 7189? This is also a monthly payment going
forward.
Strikepoints Consulting, LLC
Bank of America Routing Number:
Account number:
Amount: $19,000.00
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.409 Page 18 of 24
inferenceinference
The packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval print
The packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
inferenceinference
The table totals correctly but paragraph 6 cannot be reconciled from its own inputs. The unexplained Strikepoint increment and Atlantic Wave
The table totals correctly but paragraph 6 cannot be reconciled from its own inputs. The unexplained Strikepoint increment and Atlantic Wave principal subtraction need a separate transaction-and-charge bridge before adopting either balance.
omissiongap
The settlement is replaced by a sealed placeholder, and complete completion evidence for all table rows and the separate Grimes/overage supp
The settlement is replaced by a sealed placeholder, and complete completion evidence for all table rows and the separate Grimes/overage support is absent.
Read the anchor · page 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Mark D. Schmidt, declare:
1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cyberlux Corporation
("Cyberlux"), the entity against which Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community LLC sought and obtained entry of a Sister-State Judgment. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained within this Declaration based upon me
being involved with the transactions that are the subject of this action and this
Declaration. If called as a witness, I would competently testify as to the following
facts based on my personal knowledge.
2. On or about June 15, 2023, Cyberlux, myself, Atlantic Wave Holdings,
LLC ("Atlantic Wave"), Secure Community, LLC ("Secure"), and Strikepoint
Consulting, LLC ("Strikepoint") entered into a settlement agreement ("Settlement
Agreement") arising from the lawsuit entitled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC; and
Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, Circuit
Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, Case No. CL22-3882 (the "Virginia
Action"). A true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as
Exhibit A, which is the subject of a concurrently filed Motion to Seal due to a
provision of the Settlement Agreement that deems the entirety of the Settlement
Agreement to he confidential.
3. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, an Amended Final
Order and Judgement [sic] ("Settlement Judgement") was filed and entered in the
Virginia Action on June 28, 2023, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit B. The Settlement Judgment provides, in part, that "the parties hereto have
reached a settlement agreement that resolves the current need for continuing
litigation." Settlement Judgment at Page 1.
HI
HI
11'
HI 2 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.393 Page 2 of 24
otherattribution
Complete supplied 24-page source reviewed at SHA-256 6cbd94fce613cfe23518a544595dad5d1d2cc52f22f10dcc615c3fdc4feea0fa. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 24-page source reviewed at SHA-256 6cbd94fce613cfe23518a544595dad5d1d2cc52f22f10dcc615c3fdc4feea0fa. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Complete twenty-four-page reading with financial table, transfer-status and signature image QA. Version version_8015bb4715644efeaa93ef0cf290c9c1, SHA256 6cbd94fce613cfe23518a544595dad5d1d2cc52f22f10dcc615c3fdc4feea0fa; original bytes and extraction preserved, image-based readable correction of page 3 supplied separately.
Read the anchor · page 1
DocuSign Envelope ID: B8D1316B-4D48-4876-915F-1CF2CBB56C3F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP
Gabe P. Wright (SBN 208647)
Trevor S. Locko (SBN 323313)
One America Plaza
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.810.4300
Facsiiiile: 619.810.4301
gwriglht@hahnlaw.com
tlocko@hahnlaw.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
JEFFREY N. BROWN, SBN 105520
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.corn
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: 310.282.2500 / Fax: 310.282.2501
EDWARD W. GRAY, JR. (SBN 80966)
egray@thompsoncoburn.com
1909 K Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: 20/585.6967 / Fax: 202.585.6969
ALLEN CHESSON
DOUGLAS GRIMES (pro hac vice application to be filed)
dgrimes@allenchesson.com
505 N. Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: 704.755.6012
Attorneys for Defendant CYBERLUX
CORPORATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-
LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company; and SECURE
COMMUNITY, LLC, a Virginia
limited Liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION,
Nevada Corporation;
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF MARK D.
SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF
CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION TO VACATE SISTER -STATE
JUDGMENT
NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
ORDERED BY THE COURT
Hearing Date: June 3, 2024
1 3 :24-cv-00482-RBM-
DECLARATION OF MARK D. SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE SISTER-STATE
JUDGMENT
VET
VET
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 9-4 Filed 04/10/24 PageID.392 Page 1 of 24
questionquestion
Which bank completion and beneficiary records prove each declared payment, particularly July, January/February pending items and April?
questionquestion
What transactions explain the additional $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure and $76,354.70 Atlantic Wave principal-balance difference?
questionquestion
Do the sealed settlement, Grimes declaration and Welter communications establish the modification, cure and overage terms?
attribution
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Exhibit C includes Schmidt’s April 1 forwarding of a September 8, 2023 bank exchange. Asked whether $575,000 to Atlantic Wave and $50,000 to Strikepoints had executed, TowneBank officer Kerri Thebado replies Yes they have been. This is an explicit contemporaneous bank-staff execution confirmation, unlike mere initiation status, though no recipient bank ledger is shown. Routing/account numbers are visibly redacted.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He identifies a June 15, 2023 settlement among Cyberlux, himself, Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint, referencing Exhibit A and a sealing motion. The supplied Exhibit A contains only FILED UNDER SEAL / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, not its substantive terms.supportsDo the sealed settlement, Grimes declaration and Welter communications establish the modification, cure and overage terms?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt asserts payments were timely under deadlines, a three-day cure or agreed modifications, referring to a separately filed Grimes declaration. He says Welter confirmed a $167,402.56 overage from the September $575,000 payment for future credits. Grimes’s declaration and the confirming communication are absent from this source.supportsThe settlement is replaced by a sealed placeholder, and complete completion evidence for all table rows and the separate Grimes/overage support is absent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied payment exhibits cover September through March communications and two pending PNC records. They contain no distinct evidence for the table’s three July payments or April 1 $19,000 payment and do not account for the paragraph 6 extra $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure. The declaration remains testimony for those amounts.supportsThe settlement is replaced by a sealed placeholder, and complete completion evidence for all table rows and the separate Grimes/overage support is absent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For December 4 $19,000 Strikepoints, Leticia Green says she will start processing and asks whether there are invoices or a consulting agreement on file. Schmidt describes it as a monthly payment going forward. The exchange establishes instruction and processing intent, not completion or the absence of any agreement anywhere.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For October 4 $20,000 Strikepoints, the attached banker response says Will do; for November 2 $19,000 it says Sending it now. These are progressively stronger operational communications but do not independently show final beneficiary settlement. They must not all be labelled completed-wire confirmations simply because Exhibit C is described that way.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For Atlantic Wave paragraph 6 states original principal $1,110,363.89, paid $595,616.14 and remaining $591,102.45, visually verified (original extraction misread .41). Subtracting the stated paid amount from principal yields $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below the printed balance. Possible additional charges are not explained as such in this principal-balance statement.supportsWhat transactions explain the additional $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure and $76,354.70 Atlantic Wave principal-balance difference?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 6 instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint against $650,000 principal, leaving $396,000. That subtraction reconciles, but the paid figure exceeds the displayed table’s Strikepoint subtotal by $70,000, without an identified additional row in this source.supportsThe table totals correctly but paragraph 6 cannot be reconciled from its own inputs. The unexplained Strikepoint increment and Atlantic Wave principal subtraction need a separate transaction-and-charge bridge before adopting either balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt asserts payments were timely under deadlines, a three-day cure or agreed modifications, referring to a separately filed Grimes declaration. He says Welter confirmed a $167,402.56 overage from the September $575,000 payment for future credits. Grimes’s declaration and the confirming communication are absent from this source.supportsThe table totals correctly but paragraph 6 cannot be reconciled from its own inputs. The unexplained Strikepoint increment and Atlantic Wave principal subtraction need a separate transaction-and-charge bridge before adopting either balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The twelve-row declared payment table lists three July 3, 2023 Atlantic Wave payments ($10,737.50, $5,364.75 and $4,513.89), $575,000 Atlantic Wave and $50,000 Strikepoint on September 8, $20,000 Strikepoint October 4, and six $19,000 Strikepoint payments November 2, December 4, January 2, February 1, March 1 and April 1. Its $779,616.14 total reconciles: Atlantic Wave $595,616.14 plus Strikepoint $184,000. The second July date is visually 2023, not the extraction’s 2073.supportsWhich bank completion and beneficiary records prove each declared payment, particularly July, January/February pending items and April?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For Atlantic Wave paragraph 6 states original principal $1,110,363.89, paid $595,616.14 and remaining $591,102.45, visually verified (original extraction misread .41). Subtracting the stated paid amount from principal yields $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below the printed balance. Possible additional charges are not explained as such in this principal-balance statement.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The twelve-row declared payment table lists three July 3, 2023 Atlantic Wave payments ($10,737.50, $5,364.75 and $4,513.89), $575,000 Atlantic Wave and $50,000 Strikepoint on September 8, $20,000 Strikepoint October 4, and six $19,000 Strikepoint payments November 2, December 4, January 2, February 1, March 1 and April 1. Its $779,616.14 total reconciles: Atlantic Wave $595,616.14 plus Strikepoint $184,000. The second July date is visually 2023, not the extraction’s 2073.supportsThe table totals correctly but paragraph 6 cannot be reconciled from its own inputs. The unexplained Strikepoint increment and Atlantic Wave principal subtraction need a separate transaction-and-charge bridge before adopting either balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied payment exhibits cover September through March communications and two pending PNC records. They contain no distinct evidence for the table’s three July payments or April 1 $19,000 payment and do not account for the paragraph 6 extra $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure. The declaration remains testimony for those amounts.supportsWhich bank completion and beneficiary records prove each declared payment, particularly July, January/February pending items and April?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The two attached PNC prints each show $19,000 to Strikepoints and status Pending Approval. One has January 2 value/send date; the other was initiated January 29 with February 1 value/send date and OBI JAN24. No Federal Reference Number is displayed on the latter. These prints show pending initiation, not completed remittance, and the month label differs from Green’s February description.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
He identifies a June 15, 2023 settlement among Cyberlux, himself, Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and Strikepoint, referencing Exhibit A and a sealing motion. The supplied Exhibit A contains only FILED UNDER SEAL / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, not its substantive terms.supportsThe settlement is replaced by a sealed placeholder, and complete completion evidence for all table rows and the separate Grimes/overage support is absent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For October 4 $20,000 Strikepoints, the attached banker response says Will do; for November 2 $19,000 it says Sending it now. These are progressively stronger operational communications but do not independently show final beneficiary settlement. They must not all be labelled completed-wire confirmations simply because Exhibit C is described that way.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On April 1 Green says she created January 2 and February 1 wires and lacks consultant invoices as backup. In the same message she says, conditionally on her records, they did not pay in February unless Schmidt paid directly from TowneBank, and recommends invoices to reduce confusion. The tension between the labelled February wire and this statement is preserved, not resolved by guessing the accounting month.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 6 instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint against $650,000 principal, leaving $396,000. That subtraction reconciles, but the paid figure exceeds the displayed table’s Strikepoint subtotal by $70,000, without an identified additional row in this source.supportsWhat transactions explain the additional $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure and $76,354.70 Atlantic Wave principal-balance difference?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph 6 instead says $254,000 paid to Strikepoint against $650,000 principal, leaving $396,000. That subtraction reconciles, but the paid figure exceeds the displayed table’s Strikepoint subtotal by $70,000, without an identified additional row in this source.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit C includes Schmidt’s April 1 forwarding of a September 8, 2023 bank exchange. Asked whether $575,000 to Atlantic Wave and $50,000 to Strikepoints had executed, TowneBank officer Kerri Thebado replies Yes they have been. This is an explicit contemporaneous bank-staff execution confirmation, unlike mere initiation status, though no recipient bank ledger is shown. Routing/account numbers are visibly redacted.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For Atlantic Wave paragraph 6 states original principal $1,110,363.89, paid $595,616.14 and remaining $591,102.45, visually verified (original extraction misread .41). Subtracting the stated paid amount from principal yields $514,747.75, $76,354.70 below the printed balance. Possible additional charges are not explained as such in this principal-balance statement.supportsThe table totals correctly but paragraph 6 cannot be reconciled from its own inputs. The unexplained Strikepoint increment and Atlantic Wave principal subtraction need a separate transaction-and-charge bridge before adopting either balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The two attached PNC prints each show $19,000 to Strikepoints and status Pending Approval. One has January 2 value/send date; the other was initiated January 29 with February 1 value/send date and OBI JAN24. No Federal Reference Number is displayed on the latter. These prints show pending initiation, not completed remittance, and the month label differs from Green’s February description.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
For December 4 $19,000 Strikepoints, Leticia Green says she will start processing and asks whether there are invoices or a consulting agreement on file. Schmidt describes it as a monthly payment going forward. The exchange establishes instruction and processing intent, not completion or the absence of any agreement anywhere.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Schmidt asserts payments were timely under deadlines, a three-day cure or agreed modifications, referring to a separately filed Grimes declaration. He says Welter confirmed a $167,402.56 overage from the September $575,000 payment for future credits. Grimes’s declaration and the confirming communication are absent from this source.supportsDo the sealed settlement, Grimes declaration and Welter communications establish the modification, cure and overage terms?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The March wire exchange has Schmidt’s February 29 request for $19,000 and Thebado’s March 1 reply Just Completed. It is another explicit bank-staff completion representation. The April 1 date is when Schmidt forwarded it to counsel, not a separate April payment confirmation.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied payment exhibits cover September through March communications and two pending PNC records. They contain no distinct evidence for the table’s three July payments or April 1 $19,000 payment and do not account for the paragraph 6 extra $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure. The declaration remains testimony for those amounts.supportsDoes Exhibit C verify every payment and balance in the declaration?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The two attached PNC prints each show $19,000 to Strikepoints and status Pending Approval. One has January 2 value/send date; the other was initiated January 29 with February 1 value/send date and OBI JAN24. No Federal Reference Number is displayed on the latter. These prints show pending initiation, not completed remittance, and the month label differs from Green’s February description.supportsThe settlement is replaced by a sealed placeholder, and complete completion evidence for all table rows and the separate Grimes/overage support is absent.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The two attached PNC prints each show $19,000 to Strikepoints and status Pending Approval. One has January 2 value/send date; the other was initiated January 29 with February 1 value/send date and OBI JAN24. No Federal Reference Number is displayed on the latter. These prints show pending initiation, not completed remittance, and the month label differs from Green’s February description.supportsWhich bank completion and beneficiary records prove each declared payment, particularly July, January/February pending items and April?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The supplied payment exhibits cover September through March communications and two pending PNC records. They contain no distinct evidence for the table’s three July payments or April 1 $19,000 payment and do not account for the paragraph 6 extra $70,000 Strikepoint paid figure. The declaration remains testimony for those amounts.supportsThe packet’s payment proof is heterogeneous: express banker completion replies, prospective processing statements and Pending Approval prints support different propositions. A validated payment ledger must establish actual settlement of each row and avoid counting April forwards as new payments.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On April 1 Green says she created January 2 and February 1 wires and lacks consultant invoices as backup. In the same message she says, conditionally on her records, they did not pay in February unless Schmidt paid directly from TowneBank, and recommends invoices to reduce confusion. The tension between the labelled February wire and this statement is preserved, not resolved by guessing the accounting month.supportsWhich bank completion and beneficiary records prove each declared payment, particularly July, January/February pending items and April?
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.