Declaration of Federico J. Zablah in Support of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Strikepoint Consulting LLC's Update re: Defendants' Motion to Vacate Domesticated Judgment
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Zablah signs under penalty of perjury November 1, 2024 in Fairfax; filed November 7 as SDCA 3:24-cv-00482 document 32-2. He represents Atlan
Zablah signs under penalty of perjury November 1, 2024 in Fairfax; filed November 7 as SDCA 3:24-cv-00482 document 32-2. He represents Atlantic Wave and Secure Community in Virginia. The title instead names Atlantic Wave and Strikepoint as proponents; this caption/body difference does not substitute Strikepoint for Secure Community in the underlying case.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company, and
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
Virginia limited Liability company,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, inclusive.
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J.
ZABLAH IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
HOLDINGS, LLC AND
STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC’S UPDATE RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
VACATE DOMESTICATED
JUDGMENT
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.960 Page 1
of 32
claimallegation
Exhibit B is a signed August 9, 2024 order in CL22-3882-05 against Cyberlux with PNC garnishee. It finds $183,798.34 withheld and creditors
Exhibit B is a signed August 9, 2024 order in CL22-3882-05 against Cyberlux with PNC garnishee. It finds $183,798.34 withheld and creditors entitled, ordering the garnishee to forward that amount to Caudle and Caudle. Combined ordered recovery in A and B is $188,661.20; they concern different debtors/banks and are not duplicate payments.
Read the anchor · page 11
,, ' . .
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
and
SECURE COMMUNITY LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
V. Case No: CL22-3882-05 -:S-~
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, Defendant/Judgment Debtor,
and
PNC BANK, Co-Defendant/Garnishee.
ORDER
THIS DAY came the plaintiffs/judgment creditors, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and
Secure Community, LLC, by counsel, and the co-defendant/garnishee, PNC Bank, upon the Writ
ofFieri Facias issued on April 19, 2024, the Notice of Judgment Lien served on PNC Bank and
Cyberlux Corporation, plaintiffs Suggestion in Garnishment, the Garnishment Summons with a
return date of June 18, 2024, and the Garnishee's Answer to said Garnishment Summons that it
has withheld $183,798.34 pursuant to the garnishment.
WHEREUPON the Court finds that the co-defendant/garnishee withheld the sum of
$183,798.34 pursuant to the Writ of Fieri Facias and the garnishment and the judgment creditors
are entitled to the funds. It is
ORDERED that the plaintiff recover from the garnishee the sum of $183,798.34. The
garnishee is directed to forward a check in the amount of $183,798.34 to Caudle and Caudle,
P.C., 1910 Byrd Avenue, Suite 118, Richmond, VA 23230 with in the time required by §8.01-
516 .1 of the Code of Virginia ( 1950). In addition, the Clerk directed to forward an attested copy
of this order to all parties in this matter.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.970 Page
11 of 32
claimallegation
Exhibit D is HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s garnishee answer and plea of nonjoinder in CL22-3882-15, served October 24, 2024 by Belote. It
Exhibit D is HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s garnishee answer and plea of nonjoinder in CL22-3882-15, served October 24, 2024 by Belote. It reports September 27 service and October 28 return. HII identifies August 29, 2023 Subcontract P000043846 as firm fixed price supporting prime GS00Q14OADU109, task 47QFCA22F0039, issued by the Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, with performance through July 24, 2024.
Read the anchor · page 27
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC,
AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Judgment Creditors,
v. Case No. CL22-3882-15
CYBERLUX CORPORATION,
Judgment Debtor,
and
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Garnishee.
GARNISHEE'S ANSWER AND PLEA OF NONJOINDER
Garnishee, HII Mission Technologies Corp. ("MT"), by counsel, pursuant to Virginia
Code § 8 .01-515, states as follows for its Answer to the Garnishment Summons issued on behalf
of judgment creditors, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (collectively,
the "Judgment Creditors") and its Plea of Nonjoinder:
Background
1. On September 27, 2024, MT was served with the Garnishment Summons in this
action seeking to garnish "[a]ny monies owed to the judgment debtor," Cyberlux Corporation
("Cy berl ux").
2. The Garnishment Summons is returnable on October 28, 2024.
3. In lieu of appearing on the return date, a garnishee may file a statement. Va. Code
Ann. § 8.01-515. "Such statement shall show the amount the garnishee is indebted to the
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.986 Page
27 of 32
claimallegation
HII states the contracting officer terminated the relevant prime scope for convenience May 13, 2024 and HII terminated the subcontract May 1
HII states the contracting officer terminated the relevant prime scope for convenience May 13, 2024 and HII terminated the subcontract May 17. It quotes section 32.1 limiting recovery to work percentage plus reasonable direct termination expenses, excluding lost profits and requiring a claim within twenty days on pain of waiver. The excerpt is HII’s pleading; the full subcontract, termination notices and any timely claim are absent, so no finding of waiver or recoverable amount follows.
Read the anchor · page 28
judgment debtor, if any, or what property or effects, if any, the garnishee has or holds which
belongs to the judgment debtor, or in which he has an interest."
4. Effective August 29, 2023, MT's predecessor in interest and Cyberlux entered
into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the "Subcontract").
5. The Subcontract was a firm fixed price contract for work by Cyberlux to support
MT's work under Prime Contract No. GS00Q14OADU109; Task/Delivery Order No.
4 7QFCA22F0039 (the "Prime Contract") that had been issued by the Federal Systems
Integration and Management Center.
6. The period of performance for the Subcontract was from August 29, 2023 through
July 24, 2024.
MT's Obligations, If Any, to Cyberlux or Its Assignees or Other Creditors
7. On May 13, 2024, the contracting officer for the Prime Contract terminated for
convenience the portion of the Prime Contract scope of work relevant to the Subcontract.
8. On May 17, 2024, MT terminated for convenience the Subcontract, in accordance
with the Subcontract's applicable terms and conditions.
9. Section 32.1 of the Subcontract provides that MT's "sole obligation to [Cyberlux]
in the event of a termination for convenience shall be to pay [Cyberlux] a percentage of the
Subcontract price corresponding with the percentage of the terminated work actually performed
prior to the notice of termination, plus [Cyberlux's] reasonable expenses incurred as a direct
result of the termination. Under no circumstances shall [Cyberlux] be entitled to anticipatory or
lost profits. Within twenty (20) days from such termination, [Cyberlux] may submit to [MT] its
written claim for termination charges in the form prescribed by [MT]. Failure to submit such
2
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.987 Page
28 of 32
claimallegation
HII says termination compensation remains unresolved after communications since May and cannot state what, if anything, it owes. It reports
HII says termination compensation remains unresolved after communications since May and cannot state what, if anything, it owes. It reports no payments to Legalist because no amounts have been determined due since July 12, 2024. This is an unliquidated/contested obligation account, not a statement that the ultimate claim must be zero.
Read the anchor · page 29
claim within such time shall constitute a waiver of all claims and a release of [MT's] liability
arising out of such termination."
10. Since May of 2024, MT and Cyberlux have engaged in ongoing communications
in an attempt to agree on the amount, if any, owed to Cyberlux as a result of the termination for
convenience of the Subcontract. That matter remains umesolved as of this filing and is not
anticipated to be resolved as of the return date of October 28, 2024.
11. As a result, MT is unable to state the amount, if any, that MT is indebted to
Cyberlux.
Interests of Cyberlux's Other Creditor, Legalist
12. By letter dated April 5, 2024 from Legalist SPY III, LP ("Legalist"), MT was
informed that Cyberlux has granted a security interest in, and assigned, its accounts receivable to
Legalist pursuant to an Instrument iof Assignment.
13. As a result, Legalist directed MT to pay to Legalist all "amounts ordinarily
payable to [Cyberlux] under the [S'ubcontract]."
14. Therefore, it appears that Legalist has a superior interest in any amounts payable
to Cyberlux based on its perfected security interest in Cyberlux's receivables, which was
perfected earlier in time than the Judgment Creditors' writ of fieri facias or delivery of the same
to the sheriff for execution.
15. On or about July p, 2024, Cyberlux executed and delivered to MT a letter
I
agreement in which Cyberlux "~cknowledge[d] and expressly consent[ed] to HII Mission
Technologies Corp. ('HII') payin& to Legalist ... all amounts that otherwise become due and
owing to Cyberlux under ... Subqontract ... after the date of execution of this Exhibit. .. until
3
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.988 Page
29 of 32
claimallegation
HII reports an April 5, 2024 Legalist SPV III, LP notice of security interest and receivables assignment, plus Cyberlux’s July 12 written co
HII reports an April 5, 2024 Legalist SPV III, LP notice of security interest and receivables assignment, plus Cyberlux’s July 12 written consent to pay Legalist until contrary written notice. HII says Legalist appears earlier perfected than the creditors’ execution rights, yet expressly takes no position on ultimate recipient, says Legalist’s debt balance is unknown, and seeks protection against inconsistent obligations. Assignment and priority instruments themselves are not attached.
Read the anchor · page 29
claim within such time shall constitute a waiver of all claims and a release of [MT's] liability
arising out of such termination."
10. Since May of 2024, MT and Cyberlux have engaged in ongoing communications
in an attempt to agree on the amount, if any, owed to Cyberlux as a result of the termination for
convenience of the Subcontract. That matter remains umesolved as of this filing and is not
anticipated to be resolved as of the return date of October 28, 2024.
11. As a result, MT is unable to state the amount, if any, that MT is indebted to
Cyberlux.
Interests of Cyberlux's Other Creditor, Legalist
12. By letter dated April 5, 2024 from Legalist SPY III, LP ("Legalist"), MT was
informed that Cyberlux has granted a security interest in, and assigned, its accounts receivable to
Legalist pursuant to an Instrument iof Assignment.
13. As a result, Legalist directed MT to pay to Legalist all "amounts ordinarily
payable to [Cyberlux] under the [S'ubcontract]."
14. Therefore, it appears that Legalist has a superior interest in any amounts payable
to Cyberlux based on its perfected security interest in Cyberlux's receivables, which was
perfected earlier in time than the Judgment Creditors' writ of fieri facias or delivery of the same
to the sheriff for execution.
15. On or about July p, 2024, Cyberlux executed and delivered to MT a letter
I
agreement in which Cyberlux "~cknowledge[d] and expressly consent[ed] to HII Mission
Technologies Corp. ('HII') payin& to Legalist ... all amounts that otherwise become due and
owing to Cyberlux under ... Subqontract ... after the date of execution of this Exhibit. .. until
3
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.988 Page
29 of 32
claimallegation
HII says it is withholding any present or future payment pending court order/direction, and asks dismissal or alternatively Legalist joinder
HII says it is withholding any present or future payment pending court order/direction, and asks dismissal or alternatively Legalist joinder and no action against HII’s interests. This is requested relief and stated withholding posture, not an entered dismissal, priority determination or deposit order.
Read the anchor · page 30
such time HII receives written nptice from Cyberlux or Legalist to cease such payments to
i
Legalist, in lieu of payment to Cyberlux under the Subcontract."
16. To date, MT has i received vague communications from Cyberlux regarding
payment to Legalist.
17. To date, MT has rtlade no payments to Legalist because no amounts have been
determined to be due and owing to! Cyberlux since July 12, 2024.
18. MT takes no posit~on on to whom any amounts otherwise payable by MT to
Cyberlux should be directed.
19. MT submits that ~egalist is a necessary and indispensable party to this action
pursuant to Rule 3: 12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
20. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.9A-406, MT can no longer discharge any
obligations to Cyberlux by payment to Cyberlux, but only through payments to Legalist until
such time that the debt secured by Legalist's security interest is satisfied. The outstanding
balance of the debt secured by Legalist's security interest is unknown to MT.
21. As a result, any orders in in this action directing payment to the Judgment
Creditors could expose MT to a "substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise
inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest" of Legalist. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:12(a).
22. MT is withholding any payment which is or may become due and owing to
Cyberlux or Legalist pending further order and/or direction of the Court.
23. All allegations, if any, contained in the Garnishment Summons which have not
been specifically admitted or otherwise addressed are denied.
WHEREFORE, HII Mission Technologies Corp., by counsel, respectfully requests that
this Court enter an Order
4
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.989 Page
30 of 32
claimallegation
Zablah summarises HII’s May 17 termination and assignment disclosure, then alleges Cyberlux failed to tell shareholders, plaintiffs and cour
Zablah summarises HII’s May 17 termination and assignment disclosure, then alleges Cyberlux failed to tell shareholders, plaintiffs and court while maintaining the contract remained operative. The attached HII answer supports the termination report; it does not by itself establish what Cyberlux disclosed to each audience or intent to conceal.
Read the anchor · page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Requests
for Admission that Plaintiffs served on Cyberlux on September 6, 2024. As of the date
of this declaration, Cyberlux has not yet provided any response to these RFAs, even
though the response was due on September 27, 2024. Under Virginia law, RFAs are
deemed admitted if not timely responded to, pursuant to Rule 4:11 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of Virginia. Consequently, Cyberlux has admitted to, among other
things:
• Shipping approximately $15,000,000 worth of Drones prior to December
31, 2023.
• Failing to provide requested documentation relevant to Drone sales.
• Failing to make the payment due under the Settlement Agreement to
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC.
• Providing inaccurate financials to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, to induce
settlement.
• Lacking a security clearance from the U.S. Government for both Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark Schmidt.
• Attempting to sell its business or merge Cyberlux Corporation and/or part
of its assets in the last 24 months.
10. Plaintiffs served a Garnishment Summons on September 27, 2024,
seeking to garnish any monies owed to Cyberlux Corporation by HII Mission
Technologies Corp. The Garnishment Summons was returnable on October 28, 2024.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the
Garnishment Answer filed by HII Mission Technologies Corp. on October 24, 2024.
This answer informs the Court and Plaintiffs that (1) Cyberlux's contract was
terminated on May 17, 2024, and (2) Cyberlux assigned its interest in the Contract to
a factoring company, Legalist SVP III.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.963 Page 4
of 32
claimallegation
Zablah describes four Richmond proceedings: original CL22003882-00 with June 28, 2023 judgment; July 8 injunction CL24002919-00 answered Aug
Zablah describes four Richmond proceedings: original CL22003882-00 with June 28, 2023 judgment; July 8 injunction CL24002919-00 answered August 1; July 8 declaratory CL24002960-00 facing demurrer; and CL24003910-00 concerning marketable-stock obligations, for which he says a default motion was filed. No default judgment is attached. His continuation prints June 28, 2024 for the prior order, inconsistent with his preceding 2023 date.
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
I, Federico J. Zablah, declare as follows:
1. My name is Federico Zablah, and I am a Virginia -Licensed Attorney
working as a senior associate attorney at Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC, located
at 3970 Chain Bridge Rd, Fairfax, VA 22030. I represent the plaintiffs, Atlantic Wave
Holdings, LLC, and Se cure Community, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), in
connection with the actions filed in Virginia by or against Cyberlux Corporation. I am
submitting this declaration in support of the Plaintiffs' update regarding Cyberlux’ s
motion to vacate Plaintiffs’ domesticated judgment.
2. The purpose of this affidavit is to provide the requested updates as to the
current status of the various Virginia litigation, as per the Court's previous Order.
3. Currently, there are four active cases pending in Virginia in the Circuit
Court for the City of Richmond:
• CL22003882-00: This is a contract action where Atlantic Wave Holdings
LLC and Secure Community LLC were plaintiffs against Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt. On June 28, 2023, the Court entered its
Amended Final Judgment and Order that is the subject of Defendants’
Motion to Vacate.
• CL24002919-00: Filed on July 8, 2024, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D.
Schmidt filed an injunction against Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC and
Secure Community LLC. An answer was filed on August 1, 2024.
• CL24002960-00: Also filed on July 8, 2024, this is an action for declaratory
judgment for breach of contract on the Settlement Agreement by Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt against Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC and
Secure Community LLC. A timely demurrer was filed.
• CL24003910-00: This case involves Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and
Secure Community, LLC as plaintiffs against Cyberlux Corporation for
breach of provisions of the parties' Settlement Agreement that were not
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.961 Page 2
of 32
claimallegation
Zablah says he was advised October 29 that Texas counsel represented at the October 28 hearing that Virginia had stayed proceedings. He stat
Zablah says he was advised October 29 that Texas counsel represented at the October 28 hearing that Virginia had stayed proceedings. He states no Virginia stay exists and cites August garnishment disbursements. The Texas-hearing account is second-hand here, and the inference that disbursement proves the court was not contemplating a stay exceeds what the attached orders decide.
Read the anchor · page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
included in the June 28, 2024 Order, specifically the failure to make the
stock marketable. Cyberlux has failed to respond timely and a motion for
default judgment has been filed.
4. Significantly, I was advised on Tuesday October 29, 2024 that on
Monday, October 28, 2024, at the hearing in Texas on Cyberlux's Motion to Vacate
Plaintiff's domesticated judgment, Counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) represented to the Court that a stay had been entered in the Virginia
litigation.
5. This is incorrect. No order staying any litigation or collection has been
entered in any proceeding in Virginia.
6. As a matter of fact, the Virginia Court ordered garnished funds to be
turned over to my clients in August 2024. Attached hereto as Exhibits A and B are
true and correct copies of two orders entered by the court on August 9, 2024,
disbursing funds garnished by plaintiffs to satisfy Plaintiffs' June 28, 2023, Virginia
Judgment against defendants as well as garnishment actions continue.
7. The Virginia Court would not release garnished funds or allow
gaanishment actions to proceed if that Court were contemplating a stay, or such an
order was pending.
8. The Counsel for Defendant Cyberlux also misrepresented that the
Virginia litigation regards the validity of the Virginia Judgment. This is also incorrect.
The cases filed by Cyberlux (CL24002919-00 and CL24002960-00) are premised on
Cyberlux’s compliance with the judgment order and settlement agreement. The
validity of the judgment is not challenged but rather seeks a declaration and injunction
to stay the collection on the judgment. Since these cases were filed, Cyberlux has
taken no action to litigate either matter, failed to respond to discovery or appear for
deposition in the injunction case and Atlantic Wave has moved for summary
judgment.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.962 Page 3
of 32
claimallegation
Zablah characterises Cyberlux’s cases as compliance/enforcement challenges rather than attacks on judgment validity and alleges no affirmati
Zablah characterises Cyberlux’s cases as compliance/enforcement challenges rather than attacks on judgment validity and alleges no affirmative prosecution, ignored discovery, missed deposition, refusal to confer and dilatory tactics. He reports opposing counsel’s March unavailability and later April dates without reproducing the scheduling chain. Printed March 27, 2024 and July 9 filing date differ from the surrounding future-2025 context and earlier July 8 date; retain them as source inconsistencies.
Read the anchor · page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
included in the June 28, 2024 Order, specifically the failure to make the
stock marketable. Cyberlux has failed to respond timely and a motion for
default judgment has been filed.
4. Significantly, I was advised on Tuesday October 29, 2024 that on
Monday, October 28, 2024, at the hearing in Texas on Cyberlux's Motion to Vacate
Plaintiff's domesticated judgment, Counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) represented to the Court that a stay had been entered in the Virginia
litigation.
5. This is incorrect. No order staying any litigation or collection has been
entered in any proceeding in Virginia.
6. As a matter of fact, the Virginia Court ordered garnished funds to be
turned over to my clients in August 2024. Attached hereto as Exhibits A and B are
true and correct copies of two orders entered by the court on August 9, 2024,
disbursing funds garnished by plaintiffs to satisfy Plaintiffs' June 28, 2023, Virginia
Judgment against defendants as well as garnishment actions continue.
7. The Virginia Court would not release garnished funds or allow
gaanishment actions to proceed if that Court were contemplating a stay, or such an
order was pending.
8. The Counsel for Defendant Cyberlux also misrepresented that the
Virginia litigation regards the validity of the Virginia Judgment. This is also incorrect.
The cases filed by Cyberlux (CL24002919-00 and CL24002960-00) are premised on
Cyberlux’s compliance with the judgment order and settlement agreement. The
validity of the judgment is not challenged but rather seeks a declaration and injunction
to stay the collection on the judgment. Since these cases were filed, Cyberlux has
taken no action to litigate either matter, failed to respond to discovery or appear for
deposition in the injunction case and Atlantic Wave has moved for summary
judgment.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.962 Page 3
of 32
claimallegation
Zablah says requests for admission were served September 6, due September 27 and unanswered as of execution, and therefore deemed admitted u
Zablah says requests for admission were served September 6, due September 27 and unanswered as of execution, and therefore deemed admitted under Virginia Rule 4:11. Exhibit C contains the thirty-two requests and a September 6 certificate of Federal Express/email service to Robinson, with blank ANSWER spaces. It contains neither responses nor an order determining the consequence of nonresponse. The claimed deemed-admission status is counsel’s procedural assertion, not an affirmative signed admission by Cyberlux.
Read the anchor · page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Requests
for Admission that Plaintiffs served on Cyberlux on September 6, 2024. As of the date
of this declaration, Cyberlux has not yet provided any response to these RFAs, even
though the response was due on September 27, 2024. Under Virginia law, RFAs are
deemed admitted if not timely responded to, pursuant to Rule 4:11 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of Virginia. Consequently, Cyberlux has admitted to, among other
things:
• Shipping approximately $15,000,000 worth of Drones prior to December
31, 2023.
• Failing to provide requested documentation relevant to Drone sales.
• Failing to make the payment due under the Settlement Agreement to
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC.
• Providing inaccurate financials to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, to induce
settlement.
• Lacking a security clearance from the U.S. Government for both Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark Schmidt.
• Attempting to sell its business or merge Cyberlux Corporation and/or part
of its assets in the last 24 months.
10. Plaintiffs served a Garnishment Summons on September 27, 2024,
seeking to garnish any monies owed to Cyberlux Corporation by HII Mission
Technologies Corp. The Garnishment Summons was returnable on October 28, 2024.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the
Garnishment Answer filed by HII Mission Technologies Corp. on October 24, 2024.
This answer informs the Court and Plaintiffs that (1) Cyberlux's contract was
terminated on May 17, 2024, and (2) Cyberlux assigned its interest in the Contract to
a factoring company, Legalist SVP III.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.963 Page 4
of 32
claimallegation
RFAs 1–18 seek concessions about corporate/Schmidt clearance, Watts advising and OTC exclusion, HII subcontract/FM financing, ADS agreement,
RFAs 1–18 seek concessions about corporate/Schmidt clearance, Watts advising and OTC exclusion, HII subcontract/FM financing, ADS agreement, no direct awards since 2015, November 2, 2020 GSA cancellation, public/private debts, Miami address, CMTC/Catalyst registration and ownership, firearms licensing and SCIF absence. These are questions framed by opposing counsel; the blank answers are not stand-alone proof of those propositions or legal noncompliance.
Read the anchor · page 18
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.977 Page
18 of 32
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Admit that Cyberlux Corporation was not issued a security clearance from the U.S.
Government.
ANSWER:
Admit that Mark Schmidt was not issued a security clearance from the U.S.
Government.
ANSWER:
Admit that Chuck Watts is still advising Cyberlux Corporation.
ANSWER:
Admit that Chuck Watts was placed on the OTC Markets Prohibited Providers List.
ANSWER:
5.
Admit that the drone contract referenced by Cyberlux is a subcontract with HII
Defense (Huntington Ingall Industries).
ANSWER:
6. Admit that the drone contract referenced by Cyberlux is part of a Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) case for Ukraine.
ANSWER:
Page 5 of 12
claimallegation
RFAs 19–27 seek concessions about Rosen’s 125 million, 125 million and 200 million share transfers, subsequent loans, Kalenja insider status
RFAs 19–27 seek concessions about Rosen’s 125 million, 125 million and 200 million share transfers, subsequent loans, Kalenja insider status and roughly six billion common/300 million Series B shares for $30,000, proposed sale/merger, approximately $15 million drone shipments before December 31, 2023, requested sales documents and unpaid settlement instalment. Those precise amounts and events appear as requested admissions, not verified transaction records.
Read the anchor · page 21
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.980 Page
21 0f 32
19.
Admit that Cyberlux transferred without payment the following shares of stock to
Brett Rosen:
On or about October 21, 2021 - 125 million shares for "Debt Purchase
Agreement."
On or about November 10, 2021 - 125 million shares for "Debt Purchase
AgreementạẠại
c. On or about August 15, 2022 - 200 million shares for "Debt Purchase
Agreementiại
ANSWER:
20. Admit that Brett Rosen liquidated the gifted stock and then lent Cyberlux an amount
substantially less than the market value of the stock back to Cyberlux.
ANSWER:
21. Admit that the loans from Brett Rosen occurred days after he was gifted stock.
ANSWER:
22. Admit that Denis Kalenja is a Cyberlux insider.
ANSWER:
Page 8 of 12
claimallegation
RFAs 28–32 seek concessions that sales information was never provided, Caveat Emptor designation and reasons were known, approximately $317,
RFAs 28–32 seek concessions that sales information was never provided, Caveat Emptor designation and reasons were known, approximately $317,000 released after the May 31 hearing was used for legal expenses, and inaccurate financials induced settlement. The last two are particularly consequential allegations, but this blank request form supplies no payment ledger or original financial statements.
Read the anchor · page 23
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.982 Page
23 of 32
28.
Admit that Cyberlux Corporation never provided any information relevant to Drone
sales to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC.
ANSWER:
29.
Admit that Cyberlux Corporation stock remains designated "Caveat Emptor" by
OTC Markets.
ANSWER:
30. Admit that Cyberlux was informed by OTC Markets the reason(s) OTC Markets
designated Cyberlux stock "Caveat Emptor."
ANSWER:
31.
Admit that Cyberlux through its officers, employees, representatives and/or legal
counsel, used approximately $317,000.00 of the funds released from PNC Bank, upon entry of an
Order by the Richmond City Circuit Court of Virginia after the hearing held on May 31, 2024, to
pay legal expenses.
ANSWER:
32. Admit that the financials you provided to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, to induce
settlement, were not accurate at the time.
ANSWER:
Page 10 of 12
claimallegation
Exhibit A is a signed Richmond order entered August 9, 2024 in CL22-3882-04 against Mark D. Schmidt with Towne Bank garnishee. It recites $4
Exhibit A is a signed Richmond order entered August 9, 2024 in CL22-3882-04 against Mark D. Schmidt with Towne Bank garnishee. It recites $4,862.86 already tendered to court, finds creditors entitled, orders recovery and directs the clerk to forward funds to Caudle and Caudle. It does not itself document ultimate beneficiary receipt.
Read the anchor · page 8
Çase 3:24-CV-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.967 Page 8
of 32
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND CIRCUIT COURT
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
and
SECURE COMMUNITY LLC,
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
V.
Case No: CL22-3882-04 JSm
MARK D. SCHMIDT,
Defendant/Judgment Debtor,
and
TOWNE BANK,
Co-Defendant/Garnishee.
ORDER
THIS DAY came the plaintiffs/judgment creditors, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and
Secure Community, LLC, by counsel, and the co-defendant/garnishee, Towne Bank, upon the
Writ of Fieri Facias issued on April 19, 2024, the Notice of Judgment Lien served on Towne
Bank and Mark D. Schmidt, plaintiff's Suggestion in Garnishment, the Garnishment Summons
with a return date of June 18, 2024, and the Garnishee's Answer to said Garnishment Summons
that it has tendered a check to the Court in the amount of $4,862.86 pursuant to the garnishment.
WHEREUPON the Court finds that the co-defendant/garnishee withheld the sum of
$4862.86 and tendered the funds to the Court pursuant to the Writ of Fieri Facias and the
garnishment and the judgment creditors are entitled to the funds, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff recover from the garnishee the sum of $4,862.86. The Clerk
is directed to forward the funds paid into the Court to Caudle and Caudle, P.C., 1910 Byrd
Avenue, Suite 118, Richmond, VA 23230. In addition, the Clerk directed to forward an attested
copy of this order to all parties in this matter.
entityobservation
Federico J. Zablah
Read the anchor · page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
I, Federico J. Zablah, declare as follows:
1. My name is Federico Zablah, and I am a Virginia -Licensed Attorney
working as a senior associate attorney at Chap Petersen & Associates, PLC, located
at 3970 Chain Bridge Rd, Fairfax, VA 22030. I represent the plaintiffs, Atlantic Wave
Holdings, LLC, and Se cure Community, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), in
connection with the actions filed in Virginia by or against Cyberlux Corporation. I am
submitting this declaration in support of the Plaintiffs' update regarding Cyberlux’ s
motion to vacate Plaintiffs’ domesticated judgment.
2. The purpose of this affidavit is to provide the requested updates as to the
current status of the various Virginia litigation, as per the Court's previous Order.
3. Currently, there are four active cases pending in Virginia in the Circuit
Court for the City of Richmond:
• CL22003882-00: This is a contract action where Atlantic Wave Holdings
LLC and Secure Community LLC were plaintiffs against Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt. On June 28, 2023, the Court entered its
Amended Final Judgment and Order that is the subject of Defendants’
Motion to Vacate.
• CL24002919-00: Filed on July 8, 2024, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D.
Schmidt filed an injunction against Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC and
Secure Community LLC. An answer was filed on August 1, 2024.
• CL24002960-00: Also filed on July 8, 2024, this is an action for declaratory
judgment for breach of contract on the Settlement Agreement by Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt against Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC and
Secure Community LLC. A timely demurrer was filed.
• CL24003910-00: This case involves Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and
Secure Community, LLC as plaintiffs against Cyberlux Corporation for
breach of provisions of the parties' Settlement Agreement that were not
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.961 Page 2
of 32
entityobservation
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Read the anchor · page 27
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC,
AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
Judgment Creditors,
v. Case No. CL22-3882-15
CYBERLUX CORPORATION,
Judgment Debtor,
and
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Garnishee.
GARNISHEE'S ANSWER AND PLEA OF NONJOINDER
Garnishee, HII Mission Technologies Corp. ("MT"), by counsel, pursuant to Virginia
Code § 8 .01-515, states as follows for its Answer to the Garnishment Summons issued on behalf
of judgment creditors, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC (collectively,
the "Judgment Creditors") and its Plea of Nonjoinder:
Background
1. On September 27, 2024, MT was served with the Garnishment Summons in this
action seeking to garnish "[a]ny monies owed to the judgment debtor," Cyberlux Corporation
("Cy berl ux").
2. The Garnishment Summons is returnable on October 28, 2024.
3. In lieu of appearing on the return date, a garnishee may file a statement. Va. Code
Ann. § 8.01-515. "Such statement shall show the amount the garnishee is indebted to the
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.986 Page
27 of 32
entityobservation
Clark J. Belote
Read the anchor · page 31
(I)
(2)
(2)
dismissing t I e Garnishment Summons ; or in the alternative
joining Leg list SPY III, LP as a party; and
taking no Jion against the interests ofHII Mission Technologies Corp.
Dennis T. Lewandowski (VSB No 22232)
Clark J. Belote (VSB No. 87310)
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
T: (757) 624-3000
F: (888) 360-9092
dtlewand@kaufcan.com
cjbelote@kaufcan.com
Catrina C. Waltz (VSB No. 98446)
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
1021 East Cary Street, Suite 1400
Richmond, VA 23 219
T: (804) 771-5700
F: (888) 360-9092
ccwaltz@kaufcan.com
Counsel for HI! Mission Technolo ies Corp.
I
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
5
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.990 Page
31 of 32
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 14
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2
Filed 11/07/24 PagelD.973 Page
14 of 32
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: CL24002919-00
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
TO PLAINTIFF CYBERLUX CORPORATION
COMES NOW, Defendants, ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC (AWHI) and
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC ("SC") (or collectively, "Defendants"), hereby serve upon
Defendant CYBERLUX CORPORATION ("Plaintiff) the following Requests for Admission,
each of which must be answered fully, separately, and pursuant to Rule 4:11.
INSTRUCTIONS
Each request for admission must be answered separately and fully in writing under oath,
unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection must be stated. If you deny any
request, please set forth in detail the reason for the denial. These requests are continuing in nature,
and if additional information comes into your possession, custody, or control after the date of your
response, you are required to supplement your response promptly.
inferenceinference
The packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential
The packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
inferenceinference
HII’s answer establishes a documented October 2024 position of unresolved termination compensation and competing payment demands. Its priori
HII’s answer establishes a documented October 2024 position of unresolved termination compensation and competing payment demands. Its priority argument, joinder request and refusal to choose a recipient do not resolve the debt or entitlement.
omissiongap
No admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure histo
No admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Read the anchor · page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
included in the June 28, 2024 Order, specifically the failure to make the
stock marketable. Cyberlux has failed to respond timely and a motion for
default judgment has been filed.
4. Significantly, I was advised on Tuesday October 29, 2024 that on
Monday, October 28, 2024, at the hearing in Texas on Cyberlux's Motion to Vacate
Plaintiff's domesticated judgment, Counsel for Defendant Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) represented to the Court that a stay had been entered in the Virginia
litigation.
5. This is incorrect. No order staying any litigation or collection has been
entered in any proceeding in Virginia.
6. As a matter of fact, the Virginia Court ordered garnished funds to be
turned over to my clients in August 2024. Attached hereto as Exhibits A and B are
true and correct copies of two orders entered by the court on August 9, 2024,
disbursing funds garnished by plaintiffs to satisfy Plaintiffs' June 28, 2023, Virginia
Judgment against defendants as well as garnishment actions continue.
7. The Virginia Court would not release garnished funds or allow
gaanishment actions to proceed if that Court were contemplating a stay, or such an
order was pending.
8. The Counsel for Defendant Cyberlux also misrepresented that the
Virginia litigation regards the validity of the Virginia Judgment. This is also incorrect.
The cases filed by Cyberlux (CL24002919-00 and CL24002960-00) are premised on
Cyberlux’s compliance with the judgment order and settlement agreement. The
validity of the judgment is not challenged but rather seeks a declaration and injunction
to stay the collection on the judgment. Since these cases were filed, Cyberlux has
taken no action to litigate either matter, failed to respond to discovery or appear for
deposition in the injunction case and Atlantic Wave has moved for summary
judgment.
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.962 Page 3
of 32
otherattribution
Complete supplied 32-page source reviewed at SHA-256 760624e1e2656de2e987c68ae24bfb29e0f3a9041e1db92dd8aa2c3856ecab9e. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 32-page source reviewed at SHA-256 760624e1e2656de2e987c68ae24bfb29e0f3a9041e1db92dd8aa2c3856ecab9e. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. All32 supplied pages fully read, with10 material images inspected. Version version_8d43cf1407ad46d3be55407d02de97be; SHA256 760624e1e2656de2e987c68ae24bfb29e0f3a9041e1db92dd8aa2c3856ecab9e. Native OCR artefacts include Legalist SPY instead of visually clear SPV and obscured July12 consent date; claims follow inspected image, original extraction retained.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J. ZABLAH
MORTENSON
TAGGART
ADAMS LLP
David M. Keithly, State Bar No. 292101
dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com
Sara K. Ross, State Bar No. 346153
sross@mortensontaggart.com
MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP
300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92618
Telephone: (949) 774-2224
Facsimile: (949) 774-2545
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC,
a Virginia limited liability company, and
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, a
Virginia limited Liability company,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; MARK D.
SCHMIDT, an individual; and DOES 1
to 50, inclusive.
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET
Honorable Ruth Bermudez Montenegro
DECLARATION OF FEDERICO J.
ZABLAH IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS ATLANTIC WAVE
HOLDINGS, LLC AND
STRIKEPOINT CONSULTING,
LLC’S UPDATE RE:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
VACATE DOMESTICATED
JUDGMENT
Case 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET Document 32-2 Filed 11/07/24 PageID.960 Page 1
of 32
questionquestion
What response history and orders, including any withdrawal or amendment of admissions, determine the procedural effect of the September requ
What response history and orders, including any withdrawal or amendment of admissions, determine the procedural effect of the September requests?
questionquestion
What actual notice, termination claim and later resolution determine amount, timing and recipient of HII’s payment obligation?
questionquestion
What shareholder releases, court representations and recipient correspondence test the nondisclosure allegation?
allegation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Zablah says requests for admission were served September 6, due September 27 and unanswered as of execution, and therefore deemed admitted under Virginia Rule 4:11. Exhibit C contains the thirty-two requests and a September 6 certificate of Federal Express/email service to Robinson, with blank ANSWER spaces. It contains neither responses nor an order determining the consequence of nonresponse. The claimed deemed-admission status is counsel’s procedural assertion, not an affirmative signed admission by Cyberlux.supportsNo admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit B is a signed August 9, 2024 order in CL22-3882-05 against Cyberlux with PNC garnishee. It finds $183,798.34 withheld and creditors entitled, ordering the garnishee to forward that amount to Caudle and Caudle. Combined ordered recovery in A and B is $188,661.20; they concern different debtors/banks and are not duplicate payments.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 28–32 seek concessions that sales information was never provided, Caveat Emptor designation and reasons were known, approximately $317,000 released after the May 31 hearing was used for legal expenses, and inaccurate financials induced settlement. The last two are particularly consequential allegations, but this blank request form supplies no payment ledger or original financial statements.supportsNo admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 1–18 seek concessions about corporate/Schmidt clearance, Watts advising and OTC exclusion, HII subcontract/FM financing, ADS agreement, no direct awards since 2015, November 2, 2020 GSA cancellation, public/private debts, Miami address, CMTC/Catalyst registration and ownership, firearms licensing and SCIF absence. These are questions framed by opposing counsel; the blank answers are not stand-alone proof of those propositions or legal noncompliance.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 28–32 seek concessions that sales information was never provided, Caveat Emptor designation and reasons were known, approximately $317,000 released after the May 31 hearing was used for legal expenses, and inaccurate financials induced settlement. The last two are particularly consequential allegations, but this blank request form supplies no payment ledger or original financial statements.supportsWhat response history and orders, including any withdrawal or amendment of admissions, determine the procedural effect of the September requests?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 1–18 seek concessions about corporate/Schmidt clearance, Watts advising and OTC exclusion, HII subcontract/FM financing, ADS agreement, no direct awards since 2015, November 2, 2020 GSA cancellation, public/private debts, Miami address, CMTC/Catalyst registration and ownership, firearms licensing and SCIF absence. These are questions framed by opposing counsel; the blank answers are not stand-alone proof of those propositions or legal noncompliance.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII reports an April 5, 2024 Legalist SPV III, LP notice of security interest and receivables assignment, plus Cyberlux’s July 12 written consent to pay Legalist until contrary written notice. HII says Legalist appears earlier perfected than the creditors’ execution rights, yet expressly takes no position on ultimate recipient, says Legalist’s debt balance is unknown, and seeks protection against inconsistent obligations. Assignment and priority instruments themselves are not attached.supportsWhat actual notice, termination claim and later resolution determine amount, timing and recipient of HII’s payment obligation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII says it is withholding any present or future payment pending court order/direction, and asks dismissal or alternatively Legalist joinder and no action against HII’s interests. This is requested relief and stated withholding posture, not an entered dismissal, priority determination or deposit order.supportsHII’s answer establishes a documented October 2024 position of unresolved termination compensation and competing payment demands. Its priority argument, joinder request and refusal to choose a recipient do not resolve the debt or entitlement.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 19–27 seek concessions about Rosen’s 125 million, 125 million and 200 million share transfers, subsequent loans, Kalenja insider status and roughly six billion common/300 million Series B shares for $30,000, proposed sale/merger, approximately $15 million drone shipments before December 31, 2023, requested sales documents and unpaid settlement instalment. Those precise amounts and events appear as requested admissions, not verified transaction records.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Zablah summarises HII’s May 17 termination and assignment disclosure, then alleges Cyberlux failed to tell shareholders, plaintiffs and court while maintaining the contract remained operative. The attached HII answer supports the termination report; it does not by itself establish what Cyberlux disclosed to each audience or intent to conceal.supportsWhat shareholder releases, court representations and recipient correspondence test the nondisclosure allegation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII says it is withholding any present or future payment pending court order/direction, and asks dismissal or alternatively Legalist joinder and no action against HII’s interests. This is requested relief and stated withholding posture, not an entered dismissal, priority determination or deposit order.supportsWhat actual notice, termination claim and later resolution determine amount, timing and recipient of HII’s payment obligation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII states the contracting officer terminated the relevant prime scope for convenience May 13, 2024 and HII terminated the subcontract May 17. It quotes section 32.1 limiting recovery to work percentage plus reasonable direct termination expenses, excluding lost profits and requiring a claim within twenty days on pain of waiver. The excerpt is HII’s pleading; the full subcontract, termination notices and any timely claim are absent, so no finding of waiver or recoverable amount follows.supportsHII’s answer establishes a documented October 2024 position of unresolved termination compensation and competing payment demands. Its priority argument, joinder request and refusal to choose a recipient do not resolve the debt or entitlement.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit D is HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s garnishee answer and plea of nonjoinder in CL22-3882-15, served October 24, 2024 by Belote. It reports September 27 service and October 28 return. HII identifies August 29, 2023 Subcontract P000043846 as firm fixed price supporting prime GS00Q14OADU109, task 47QFCA22F0039, issued by the Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, with performance through July 24, 2024.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII says termination compensation remains unresolved after communications since May and cannot state what, if anything, it owes. It reports no payments to Legalist because no amounts have been determined due since July 12, 2024. This is an unliquidated/contested obligation account, not a statement that the ultimate claim must be zero.supportsWhat actual notice, termination claim and later resolution determine amount, timing and recipient of HII’s payment obligation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A is a signed Richmond order entered August 9, 2024 in CL22-3882-04 against Mark D. Schmidt with Towne Bank garnishee. It recites $4,862.86 already tendered to court, finds creditors entitled, orders recovery and directs the clerk to forward funds to Caudle and Caudle. It does not itself document ultimate beneficiary receipt.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit B is a signed August 9, 2024 order in CL22-3882-05 against Cyberlux with PNC garnishee. It finds $183,798.34 withheld and creditors entitled, ordering the garnishee to forward that amount to Caudle and Caudle. Combined ordered recovery in A and B is $188,661.20; they concern different debtors/banks and are not duplicate payments.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII says termination compensation remains unresolved after communications since May and cannot state what, if anything, it owes. It reports no payments to Legalist because no amounts have been determined due since July 12, 2024. This is an unliquidated/contested obligation account, not a statement that the ultimate claim must be zero.supportsHII’s answer establishes a documented October 2024 position of unresolved termination compensation and competing payment demands. Its priority argument, joinder request and refusal to choose a recipient do not resolve the debt or entitlement.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A is a signed Richmond order entered August 9, 2024 in CL22-3882-04 against Mark D. Schmidt with Towne Bank garnishee. It recites $4,862.86 already tendered to court, finds creditors entitled, orders recovery and directs the clerk to forward funds to Caudle and Caudle. It does not itself document ultimate beneficiary receipt.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Zablah says requests for admission were served September 6, due September 27 and unanswered as of execution, and therefore deemed admitted under Virginia Rule 4:11. Exhibit C contains the thirty-two requests and a September 6 certificate of Federal Express/email service to Robinson, with blank ANSWER spaces. It contains neither responses nor an order determining the consequence of nonresponse. The claimed deemed-admission status is counsel’s procedural assertion, not an affirmative signed admission by Cyberlux.supportsWhat response history and orders, including any withdrawal or amendment of admissions, determine the procedural effect of the September requests?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII states the contracting officer terminated the relevant prime scope for convenience May 13, 2024 and HII terminated the subcontract May 17. It quotes section 32.1 limiting recovery to work percentage plus reasonable direct termination expenses, excluding lost profits and requiring a claim within twenty days on pain of waiver. The excerpt is HII’s pleading; the full subcontract, termination notices and any timely claim are absent, so no finding of waiver or recoverable amount follows.supportsNo admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Zablah summarises HII’s May 17 termination and assignment disclosure, then alleges Cyberlux failed to tell shareholders, plaintiffs and court while maintaining the contract remained operative. The attached HII answer supports the termination report; it does not by itself establish what Cyberlux disclosed to each audience or intent to conceal.supportsNo admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII states the contracting officer terminated the relevant prime scope for convenience May 13, 2024 and HII terminated the subcontract May 17. It quotes section 32.1 limiting recovery to work percentage plus reasonable direct termination expenses, excluding lost profits and requiring a claim within twenty days on pain of waiver. The excerpt is HII’s pleading; the full subcontract, termination notices and any timely claim are absent, so no finding of waiver or recoverable amount follows.supportsWhat actual notice, termination claim and later resolution determine amount, timing and recipient of HII’s payment obligation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 28–32 seek concessions that sales information was never provided, Caveat Emptor designation and reasons were known, approximately $317,000 released after the May 31 hearing was used for legal expenses, and inaccurate financials induced settlement. The last two are particularly consequential allegations, but this blank request form supplies no payment ledger or original financial statements.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit D is HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s garnishee answer and plea of nonjoinder in CL22-3882-15, served October 24, 2024 by Belote. It reports September 27 service and October 28 return. HII identifies August 29, 2023 Subcontract P000043846 as firm fixed price supporting prime GS00Q14OADU109, task 47QFCA22F0039, issued by the Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, with performance through July 24, 2024.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 28–32 seek concessions that sales information was never provided, Caveat Emptor designation and reasons were known, approximately $317,000 released after the May 31 hearing was used for legal expenses, and inaccurate financials induced settlement. The last two are particularly consequential allegations, but this blank request form supplies no payment ledger or original financial statements.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII reports an April 5, 2024 Legalist SPV III, LP notice of security interest and receivables assignment, plus Cyberlux’s July 12 written consent to pay Legalist until contrary written notice. HII says Legalist appears earlier perfected than the creditors’ execution rights, yet expressly takes no position on ultimate recipient, says Legalist’s debt balance is unknown, and seeks protection against inconsistent obligations. Assignment and priority instruments themselves are not attached.supportsNo admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
RFAs 19–27 seek concessions about Rosen’s 125 million, 125 million and 200 million share transfers, subsequent loans, Kalenja insider status and roughly six billion common/300 million Series B shares for $30,000, proposed sale/merger, approximately $15 million drone shipments before December 31, 2023, requested sales documents and unpaid settlement instalment. Those precise amounts and events appear as requested admissions, not verified transaction records.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Zablah says requests for admission were served September 6, due September 27 and unanswered as of execution, and therefore deemed admitted under Virginia Rule 4:11. Exhibit C contains the thirty-two requests and a September 6 certificate of Federal Express/email service to Robinson, with blank ANSWER spaces. It contains neither responses nor an order determining the consequence of nonresponse. The claimed deemed-admission status is counsel’s procedural assertion, not an affirmative signed admission by Cyberlux.supportsThe packet mixes direct signed garnishment orders, HII’s own pleading, counsel testimony and unanswered discovery requests. Those evidential forms support different levels of certainty; alleged deemed admission cannot silently turn every requested proposition into externally verified fact.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
HII reports an April 5, 2024 Legalist SPV III, LP notice of security interest and receivables assignment, plus Cyberlux’s July 12 written consent to pay Legalist until contrary written notice. HII says Legalist appears earlier perfected than the creditors’ execution rights, yet expressly takes no position on ultimate recipient, says Legalist’s debt balance is unknown, and seeks protection against inconsistent obligations. Assignment and priority instruments themselves are not attached.supportsHII’s answer establishes a documented October 2024 position of unresolved termination compensation and competing payment demands. Its priority argument, joinder request and refusal to choose a recipient do not resolve the debt or entitlement.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Zablah characterises Cyberlux’s cases as compliance/enforcement challenges rather than attacks on judgment validity and alleges no affirmative prosecution, ignored discovery, missed deposition, refusal to confer and dilatory tactics. He reports opposing counsel’s March unavailability and later April dates without reproducing the scheduling chain. Printed March 27, 2024 and July 9 filing date differ from the surrounding future-2025 context and earlier July 8 date; retain them as source inconsistencies.supportsNo admission response or ruling, payment ledger, full subcontract/termination documents, assignment instruments or complete disclosure history is supplied; the scheduling email chain is also outside this particular packet.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Zablah says requests for admission were served September 6, due September 27 and unanswered as of execution, and therefore deemed admitted under Virginia Rule 4:11. Exhibit C contains the thirty-two requests and a September 6 certificate of Federal Express/email service to Robinson, with blank ANSWER spaces. It contains neither responses nor an order determining the consequence of nonresponse. The claimed deemed-admission status is counsel’s procedural assertion, not an affirmative signed admission by Cyberlux.supportsAre the thirty-two requests themselves conclusive admissions of misconduct?
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.