Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
The August 4 federal Exhibit 6 contains Walton’s signed April 24, 2025 notice addressed by email to Clark J. Belote of Kaufman & Canoles for
The August 4 federal Exhibit 6 contains Walton’s signed April 24, 2025 notice addressed by email to Clark J. Belote of Kaufman & Canoles for HII. It identifies Subcontract P000043846, Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, TDL 1-023 and Modification 4 effective February 26, 2025 as the anticipated payment context. No delivery acknowledgement or HII response is attached.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 6
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 535
claimallegation
Walton claims a minimum $912,000 judgment balance after credits, quotes the agreed security/lien language and reports a July 6, 2023 Virgini
Walton claims a minimum $912,000 judgment balance after credits, quotes the agreed security/lien language and reports a July 6, 2023 Virginia UCC filing. He also quotes HII’s October 24, 2024 answer that it is withholding payments pending court direction. The judgment, filing and answer are reported or quoted, not attached here.
Read the anchor · page 2
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
April 24, 2025
VIA EMAIL (clark.belote@kaufcan.com)
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
RE: Claims to funds held or to be held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux
Corporation.
Dear Mr. Belote:
This letter serves as formal notice to Huntington Ingalls Industries and HII
Mission Technologies Corp. (collectively HII) as to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
(Atlantic Wave)’s claims to funds held or to be held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit
of Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux). Upon information and belief, “Cyberlux has
asserted entitlement to payment” from HII pursuant to Subcontract No. P000043846,
dated August 29, 2023, HII’s Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, and Technical Direction
Letter 1-023, as set forth in the Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846 to Effectuate
a Termination Settlement , effective as of February 26, 2025, by and between HII and
Cyberlux. Atlantic Wave hereby asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment
due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed
to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writ of
garnishment, or lien:
1. On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and
Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882,
in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final
Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in
January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July of 2024. The outstanding
balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at
minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or
offsets.
2. The Amended Final Order and Judgment , as agreed to by Cyberlux, also
provides that “the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest
in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 536
claimallegation
Counsel adds fees exceeding $592,000 and stock damages exceeding $6,017,250, calculated from 195 million shares at $0.0308577, and asserts a
Counsel adds fees exceeding $592,000 and stock damages exceeding $6,017,250, calculated from 195 million shares at $0.0308577, and asserts a composite claim exceeding $7,774,000. The stock calculation yields $6,017,251.50, consistent with the stated lower bound. This combines judgment and contested claims rather than a single adjudicated balance.
Read the anchor · page 3
CLARK J. BELOTE
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
APRIL 24, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 4
Plaintiffs [Atlantic Wave and Secure Community, LLC] 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.”
3. On July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1)
with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Office of the Clerk, to
perfect Atlantic Wave’s security interest in certain collateral of Cyberlux,
including but not limited to “money … [and] accounts receivable and other
rights to payment and performance.”
4. On October 24, 2024, HII filed an Answer to writ of garnishment issued at
the request of Atlantic Wave in Case No. CL22-3882-15, in the Circuit Court
of the City of Richmond, Virginia, stating it “is withholding any payment
which is or may become due and owing to Cyberlux … pending further
order and/or direction of the Court.”
5. On June 15, 2023, Atlantic Wave and Cyberlux entered into a Settlement
Agreement in Case No. CL22-3882, in the Circuit Court of the City of
Richmond, Virginia, wherein Cyberlux agreed to be “responsible for the
payment of [Atlantic Wave’s] attorneys’ fees and costs in any action caused
by the breach of this [Settlement] Agreement.” As of April 24, 2025, the
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Atlantic Wave caused by Cyberlux’s
breach of the Settlement Agreement is well in excess of $592,000, and
attorneys’ fees and costs continue to accrue as a result of Cyberlux’s
wrongful conduct.
6. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Cyberlux was contractually obligated,
among other obligations, to bring its stock to Pink Current status and to
remedy the caveat emptor classification on such stock by December 31,
2023, or be subject to additional liability and damages to Atlantic Wave.
Cyberlux did not comply with its contractual obligation, which is now the
subject of Case No. CL24-3910, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond,
Virginia. The damages caused by Cyberlux’s wrongful conduct is in excess
of $6,017,250 (calculated based on a 20-day rolling average share price of
$.0308577 for 195,000,000 shares).
Based on the foregoing judgment, security interest, and claims, among others,
Atlantic Wave contends it is currently owed in excess of $7,774,000, and further contends
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 537
claimallegation
The notice identifies rival claims: Thin Air $365,049.42 plus monthly late charges; Legalist $7,313,627.17 plus $4,364.46 daily fees; Aerote
The notice identifies rival claims: Thin Air $365,049.42 plus monthly late charges; Legalist $7,313,627.17 plus $4,364.46 daily fees; Aerotek $204,705.45 plus interest/fees; and RB $5,686,960 plus interest/fees, together described as more than $13.5 million. These are dated pleading claims, not a reconciled current debt ledger.
Read the anchor · page 4
CLARK J. BELOTE
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
APRIL 24, 2025
PAGE 3 OF 4
that it is entitled to satisfy the amount owed by and through funds held by HII on behalf
of or for the benefit of Cyberlux.
There are reasonable grounds to anticipate other rival claims to the same funds
held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux. Upon information and belief,
Cyberlux is the subject of several other claims for monies due and owed by Cyberlux:
1. In Case No. 1:25-cv-00805-GPG-MDB, Thin Air Gear, LLC, v. Cyberlux
Corporation (D.Colo.), filed on March 12, 2025, Thin Air Gear, LLC, alleges
that Cyberlux is indebted to Thin Air Gear in the amount of $365,049.42 as
of November 18, 2024, including a 1.5% late fee per month on past due
amounts.
2. In Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al. , 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas,
Legalist SPV III, LP filed a Petition in Intervention on February 7, 2025,
alleging that Cyberlux is “indebted to Legalist in the amount of
$7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46 by virtue of their
failure to satisfy their obligations under the Loan Agreement.”
3. In Case No. 24CV034906-910, Aerotek, Inc. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. , In
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North
Carolina, filed on October 29, 2024, Aerotek alleges that Cyberlux is
indebted to Aerotek for payroll expenses in the amount of $204,705.45, plus
interest and attorney fees.
4. In Case No. 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-DTF, RB Capital Partners v. Cyberlux
Corporation et al. (S.D.Cal.), filed on August 12, 2024, RB Capital Partners
alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to RB Capital in the amount of $5,686,960,
plus interest and attorney fees.
On the face of those pleadings, Cyberlux is allegedly indebted to other creditors in
an amount in excess of $13,500,000, not including the amount due and owed to Atlantic
Wave. In addition, there is reason to believe that other creditors or stakeholders may exist
that have a claim to funds held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux.
Regardless of whether Cyberlux avers that it is not liable in whole or in part to any
or all of the creditors or stakeholders, such averment is not ground for objection to HII
taking appropriate actions to protect funds held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of
Cyberlux. We kindly request HII take all appropriate actions to protect such funds from
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 538
claimallegation
Walton asks HII to protect the affected funds from disbursement to or dissipation by Cyberlux until conflicting claims are resolved among ne
Walton asks HII to protect the affected funds from disbursement to or dissipation by Cyberlux until conflicting claims are resolved among necessary parties or by a competent court, and offers discussion of a fair resolution. This is a preservation demand; it is not a court command, HII acceptance or proof that funds were actually withheld because of this letter.
Read the anchor · page 4
CLARK J. BELOTE
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
APRIL 24, 2025
PAGE 3 OF 4
that it is entitled to satisfy the amount owed by and through funds held by HII on behalf
of or for the benefit of Cyberlux.
There are reasonable grounds to anticipate other rival claims to the same funds
held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux. Upon information and belief,
Cyberlux is the subject of several other claims for monies due and owed by Cyberlux:
1. In Case No. 1:25-cv-00805-GPG-MDB, Thin Air Gear, LLC, v. Cyberlux
Corporation (D.Colo.), filed on March 12, 2025, Thin Air Gear, LLC, alleges
that Cyberlux is indebted to Thin Air Gear in the amount of $365,049.42 as
of November 18, 2024, including a 1.5% late fee per month on past due
amounts.
2. In Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux
Corporation, et al. , 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas,
Legalist SPV III, LP filed a Petition in Intervention on February 7, 2025,
alleging that Cyberlux is “indebted to Legalist in the amount of
$7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46 by virtue of their
failure to satisfy their obligations under the Loan Agreement.”
3. In Case No. 24CV034906-910, Aerotek, Inc. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. , In
the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North
Carolina, filed on October 29, 2024, Aerotek alleges that Cyberlux is
indebted to Aerotek for payroll expenses in the amount of $204,705.45, plus
interest and attorney fees.
4. In Case No. 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-DTF, RB Capital Partners v. Cyberlux
Corporation et al. (S.D.Cal.), filed on August 12, 2024, RB Capital Partners
alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to RB Capital in the amount of $5,686,960,
plus interest and attorney fees.
On the face of those pleadings, Cyberlux is allegedly indebted to other creditors in
an amount in excess of $13,500,000, not including the amount due and owed to Atlantic
Wave. In addition, there is reason to believe that other creditors or stakeholders may exist
that have a claim to funds held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux.
Regardless of whether Cyberlux avers that it is not liable in whole or in part to any
or all of the creditors or stakeholders, such averment is not ground for objection to HII
taking appropriate actions to protect funds held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of
Cyberlux. We kindly request HII take all appropriate actions to protect such funds from
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 538
entityobservation
David A. Walton
Read the anchor · page 2
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
April 24, 2025
VIA EMAIL (clark.belote@kaufcan.com)
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
RE: Claims to funds held or to be held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux
Corporation.
Dear Mr. Belote:
This letter serves as formal notice to Huntington Ingalls Industries and HII
Mission Technologies Corp. (collectively HII) as to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
(Atlantic Wave)’s claims to funds held or to be held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit
of Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux). Upon information and belief, “Cyberlux has
asserted entitlement to payment” from HII pursuant to Subcontract No. P000043846,
dated August 29, 2023, HII’s Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, and Technical Direction
Letter 1-023, as set forth in the Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846 to Effectuate
a Termination Settlement , effective as of February 26, 2025, by and between HII and
Cyberlux. Atlantic Wave hereby asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment
due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed
to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writ of
garnishment, or lien:
1. On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and
Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882,
in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final
Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in
January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July of 2024. The outstanding
balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at
minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or
offsets.
2. The Amended Final Order and Judgment , as agreed to by Cyberlux, also
provides that “the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest
in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 536
entityobservation
Clark J. Belote
Read the anchor · page 2
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
April 24, 2025
VIA EMAIL (clark.belote@kaufcan.com)
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
RE: Claims to funds held or to be held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux
Corporation.
Dear Mr. Belote:
This letter serves as formal notice to Huntington Ingalls Industries and HII
Mission Technologies Corp. (collectively HII) as to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
(Atlantic Wave)’s claims to funds held or to be held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit
of Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux). Upon information and belief, “Cyberlux has
asserted entitlement to payment” from HII pursuant to Subcontract No. P000043846,
dated August 29, 2023, HII’s Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, and Technical Direction
Letter 1-023, as set forth in the Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846 to Effectuate
a Termination Settlement , effective as of February 26, 2025, by and between HII and
Cyberlux. Atlantic Wave hereby asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment
due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed
to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writ of
garnishment, or lien:
1. On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and
Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882,
in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final
Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in
January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July of 2024. The outstanding
balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at
minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or
offsets.
2. The Amended Final Order and Judgment , as agreed to by Cyberlux, also
provides that “the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest
in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 536
entityobservation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
April 24, 2025
VIA EMAIL (clark.belote@kaufcan.com)
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
RE: Claims to funds held or to be held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux
Corporation.
Dear Mr. Belote:
This letter serves as formal notice to Huntington Ingalls Industries and HII
Mission Technologies Corp. (collectively HII) as to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
(Atlantic Wave)’s claims to funds held or to be held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit
of Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux). Upon information and belief, “Cyberlux has
asserted entitlement to payment” from HII pursuant to Subcontract No. P000043846,
dated August 29, 2023, HII’s Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, and Technical Direction
Letter 1-023, as set forth in the Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846 to Effectuate
a Termination Settlement , effective as of February 26, 2025, by and between HII and
Cyberlux. Atlantic Wave hereby asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment
due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed
to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writ of
garnishment, or lien:
1. On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and
Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882,
in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final
Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in
January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July of 2024. The outstanding
balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at
minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or
offsets.
2. The Amended Final Order and Judgment , as agreed to by Cyberlux, also
provides that “the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest
in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 536
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
David A. Walton
TEL: 214.740.1445
FAX: 214.740.5745
DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM
April 24, 2025
VIA EMAIL (clark.belote@kaufcan.com)
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
RE: Claims to funds held or to be held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux
Corporation.
Dear Mr. Belote:
This letter serves as formal notice to Huntington Ingalls Industries and HII
Mission Technologies Corp. (collectively HII) as to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
(Atlantic Wave)’s claims to funds held or to be held by HII on behalf of or for the benefit
of Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux). Upon information and belief, “Cyberlux has
asserted entitlement to payment” from HII pursuant to Subcontract No. P000043846,
dated August 29, 2023, HII’s Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, and Technical Direction
Letter 1-023, as set forth in the Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846 to Effectuate
a Termination Settlement , effective as of February 26, 2025, by and between HII and
Cyberlux. Atlantic Wave hereby asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment
due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed
to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writ of
garnishment, or lien:
1. On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and
Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882,
in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final
Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in
January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July of 2024. The outstanding
balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at
minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or
offsets.
2. The Amended Final Order and Judgment , as agreed to by Cyberlux, also
provides that “the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest
in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 536
inferenceinference
The letter documents a specific rival-claims warning directed to HII counsel before later interpleader events, but the record here does not
The letter documents a specific rival-claims warning directed to HII counsel before later interpleader events, but the record here does not establish receipt, reliance or the validity of every asserted claim.
omissiongap
Underlying judgment, UCC filing, HII answer, creditor pleadings and any reply are absent from this letter exhibit.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 6
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 535
otherattribution
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 878b97cfffef0b69a130a569f7c0da605c9426f230cf4337690fc0bb7816e488. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 878b97cfffef0b69a130a569f7c0da605c9426f230cf4337690fc0bb7816e488. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Exact version_88d0322f48444d0fbdbf2ecb567114e3; SHA256 878b97cfffef0b69a130a569f7c0da605c9426f230cf4337690fc0bb7816e488. All five pages read; final preservation request and signature visually checked. Original extraction retained; authored and later exhibit dates separated.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 6
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-6 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 535
questionquestion
What receipt or response, operative instruments and subsequent instructions show HII’s knowledge and treatment of these competing claims?
questionquestion
What did this letter ask HII to do?
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.
atlantic wave claims damages exceeding $6 million for cyberlux s failure to bring stock to pink current status and remedy caveat emptor classification by december 31 2023 deadlinerelates to{"chapter":27,"exposure_lens":"The prime-contractor exposure inquiry asks what HII submitted or accepted, who knew what, and whether the procurement, payment and settlement files support the decision made.","responsibility":"Supplier selection, price, subcontract administration, advance controls, inspection, termination and Government submissions.","sequence":327,"unit_key":"CH27"}
The controlling book database maps this allegation into Part II; the book's explicit control-to-exposure crosswalk places that responsibility in Part III, Chapter 27. This is an identifier-based publication link, not a name match.
Atlantic Wave claims damages exceeding $6 million for Cyberlux's failure to bring stock to Pink Current status and remedy caveat emptor classification by December 31, 2023 deadlinesupportsatlantic wave claims damages exceeding $6 million for cyberlux s failure to bring stock to pink current status and remedy caveat emptor classification by december 31 2023 deadline
This database-linked source passage is the reviewed documentary support mapped to the allegation in the controlling book version.
Counsel adds fees exceeding $592,000 and stock damages exceeding $6,017,250, calculated from 195 million shares at $0.0308577, and asserts a composite claim exceeding $7,774,000. The stock calculation yields $6,017,251.50, consistent with the stated lower bound. This combines judgment and contested claims rather than a single adjudicated balance.supportsThe claimed stock damages exceed $6,017,250, using 195 million shares at $0.0308577; multiplication yields $6,017,251.50, consistent with the rounded lower bound. The letter identifies this as a pending CL24-3910 claim concerning December 31, 2023 marketability obligations. Its aggregate exceeding $7,774,000 combines judgment, fees and damages claims; it is not a single adjudicated debt balance.
Same author’s earlier composite claim recurs in May15 letter; repetition only, not independent proof.
The notice identifies rival claims: Thin Air $365,049.42 plus monthly late charges; Legalist $7,313,627.17 plus $4,364.46 daily fees; Aerotek $204,705.45 plus interest/fees; and RB $5,686,960 plus interest/fees, together described as more than $13.5 million. These are dated pleading claims, not a reconciled current debt ledger.supportsUnderlying judgment, UCC filing, HII answer, creditor pleadings and any reply are absent from this letter exhibit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 4 federal Exhibit 6 contains Walton’s signed April 24, 2025 notice addressed by email to Clark J. Belote of Kaufman & Canoles for HII. It identifies Subcontract P000043846, Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, TDL 1-023 and Modification 4 effective February 26, 2025 as the anticipated payment context. No delivery acknowledgement or HII response is attached.supportsUnderlying judgment, UCC filing, HII answer, creditor pleadings and any reply are absent from this letter exhibit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 4 federal Exhibit 6 contains Walton’s signed April 24, 2025 notice addressed by email to Clark J. Belote of Kaufman & Canoles for HII. It identifies Subcontract P000043846, Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, TDL 1-023 and Modification 4 effective February 26, 2025 as the anticipated payment context. No delivery acknowledgement or HII response is attached.supportsWhat did this letter ask HII to do?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton asks HII to protect the affected funds from disbursement to or dissipation by Cyberlux until conflicting claims are resolved among necessary parties or by a competent court, and offers discussion of a fair resolution. This is a preservation demand; it is not a court command, HII acceptance or proof that funds were actually withheld because of this letter.supportsThe letter documents a specific rival-claims warning directed to HII counsel before later interpleader events, but the record here does not establish receipt, reliance or the validity of every asserted claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton claims a minimum $912,000 judgment balance after credits, quotes the agreed security/lien language and reports a July 6, 2023 Virginia UCC filing. He also quotes HII’s October 24, 2024 answer that it is withholding payments pending court direction. The judgment, filing and answer are reported or quoted, not attached here.supportsWhat receipt or response, operative instruments and subsequent instructions show HII’s knowledge and treatment of these competing claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The notice identifies rival claims: Thin Air $365,049.42 plus monthly late charges; Legalist $7,313,627.17 plus $4,364.46 daily fees; Aerotek $204,705.45 plus interest/fees; and RB $5,686,960 plus interest/fees, together described as more than $13.5 million. These are dated pleading claims, not a reconciled current debt ledger.supportsThe letter documents a specific rival-claims warning directed to HII counsel before later interpleader events, but the record here does not establish receipt, reliance or the validity of every asserted claim.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 4 federal Exhibit 6 contains Walton’s signed April 24, 2025 notice addressed by email to Clark J. Belote of Kaufman & Canoles for HII. It identifies Subcontract P000043846, Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, TDL 1-023 and Modification 4 effective February 26, 2025 as the anticipated payment context. No delivery acknowledgement or HII response is attached.supportsWhat receipt or response, operative instruments and subsequent instructions show HII’s knowledge and treatment of these competing claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton asks HII to protect the affected funds from disbursement to or dissipation by Cyberlux until conflicting claims are resolved among necessary parties or by a competent court, and offers discussion of a fair resolution. This is a preservation demand; it is not a court command, HII acceptance or proof that funds were actually withheld because of this letter.supportsWhat receipt or response, operative instruments and subsequent instructions show HII’s knowledge and treatment of these competing claims?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton claims a minimum $912,000 judgment balance after credits, quotes the agreed security/lien language and reports a July 6, 2023 Virginia UCC filing. He also quotes HII’s October 24, 2024 answer that it is withholding payments pending court direction. The judgment, filing and answer are reported or quoted, not attached here.supportsUnderlying judgment, UCC filing, HII answer, creditor pleadings and any reply are absent from this letter exhibit.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Walton asks HII to protect the affected funds from disbursement to or dissipation by Cyberlux until conflicting claims are resolved among necessary parties or by a competent court, and offers discussion of a fair resolution. This is a preservation demand; it is not a court command, HII acceptance or proof that funds were actually withheld because of this letter.supportsWhat did this letter ask HII to do?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The August 4 federal Exhibit 6 contains Walton’s signed April 24, 2025 notice addressed by email to Clark J. Belote of Kaufman & Canoles for HII. It identifies Subcontract P000043846, Prime Task Order 47QFCA22F0039, TDL 1-023 and Modification 4 effective February 26, 2025 as the anticipated payment context. No delivery acknowledgement or HII response is attached.supportsThe letter documents a specific rival-claims warning directed to HII counsel before later interpleader events, but the record here does not establish receipt, reliance or the validity of every asserted claim.
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.