Black|RudderGossamer Thread
Sources/GT-S-90680EA779C2

Context source · GT-S-90680EA779C2

AW Harris Awh 2024 48085 Doc. 120558192

Original sourcedocument
Open full document ↗
SHA-256 90680ea779c277f7bd0d…7 pages · 276 KB

DISTILLATES

What the source contains

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

claimallegation

David A. Walton writes for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to Judge Michael Gomez in Harris County cause 2024-48085. The letter is filed

David A. Walton writes for Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to Judge Michael Gomez in Harris County cause 2024-48085. The letter is filed 15 May 2025 at 11:26 AM, envelope 100874891. He asks for the April 1 receivership proposal to be signed immediately when jurisdiction is formally revested, and offers a status conference. The request is not the appointment itself.

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

Walton alleges the failed removals were calculated to delay collection and permit dissipation. On information and belief he anticipates more

Walton alleges the failed removals were calculated to delay collection and permit dissipation. On information and belief he anticipates more than $20 million from HII under a settlement effective 26 February 2025, citing Cyberlux’s statement about concluding subcontract obligations. He presents a dissipation risk and factoring concern, not actual receipt of this future money or an adjudication of intent.

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

He describes the 28 June 2023 Virginia judgment and California/Texas domestications and states at least $912,000 remains after payments, cre

He describes the 28 June 2023 Virginia judgment and California/Texas domestications and states at least $912,000 remains after payments, credits and offsets. He quotes an agreed security/lien interest and describes 6 July 2023 Virginia and Texas UCC filings. His letter is not the instruments, a current payoff or a priority decision.

Read the anchor · page 2
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MAY 15, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 5 Atlantic Wave 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, writs of garnishment, or liens: 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 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 July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1) with the Texas Secretary of State 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.” 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 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

Walton claims more than $592,000 in breach-related fees/costs as of 24 April, over $6,017,250 for failure to make 195 million shares marketa

Walton claims more than $592,000 in breach-related fees/costs as of 24 April, over $6,017,250 for failure to make 195 million shares marketable by 31 December 2023, $9,392.50 unpaid under the September 2024 fee order, and second-removal fee entitlement. His stated share-price calculation, $0.0308577 times 195,000,000, gives $6,017,251.50, a $1.50 difference from the printed damages figure. These are distinct claims/awards with different bases, not all part of the domesticated principal.

Read the anchor · page 2
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MAY 15, 2025 PAGE 2 OF 5 Atlantic Wave 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, writs of garnishment, or liens: 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 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 July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1) with the Texas Secretary of State 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.” 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 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

The letter asserts aggregate Atlantic Wave entitlement above $7,774,000. The expressly quantified components $912,000, $592,000, $6,017,250

The letter asserts aggregate Atlantic Wave entitlement above $7,774,000. The expressly quantified components $912,000, $592,000, $6,017,250 and $9,392.50 sum to $7,530,642.50 before unspecified excess/accruals. Because several figures are minima or unquantified, this is an unprovided bridge rather than proof the stated aggregate is arithmetically impossible. No itemised ledger reconciles it here.

Read the anchor · page 3
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MAY 15, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 5 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, make the stock marketable, 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). 7. On September 10, 2024, the Virginia state court entered an order awarding attorney fees in the amount of $9,392.50 to be paid on or before December 27, 2024, which were not paid. 8. On May 14, 2025, the Texas federal court entered a memorandum and opinion granting “Atlantic Wave’s request for an award of the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in responding to the second removal.” (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2.) Based on the foregoing judgment, security interest, liens, and claims, among others, Atlantic Wave contends it is currently owed in excess of $7,774,000, and further contends that it is entitled to satisfy the amount with non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux. Not only does Cyberlux owe Atlantic Wave a substantial amount of money, 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. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 8-13.) On April 30, 2025, the court clerk entered default against Cyberlux. 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, UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

Other creditor exposures are attributed to their pleadings: Thin Air $365,049.42 as of 18 November 2024 plus 1.5 per cent monthly late charg

Other creditor exposures are attributed to their pleadings: Thin Air $365,049.42 as of 18 November 2024 plus 1.5 per cent monthly late charges and a reported 30 April clerk default; Legalist SPV III $7,313,627.17 with $4,364.46 daily fees; Aerotek $204,705.45 payroll claim and a reported $235,411.27 order; RB Capital $5,686,960 plus interest/fees; and an unquantified ARG distributor claim. The account distinguishes some allegations and procedural events but does not reproduce the underlying records. Clerk default is not itself a quantified default judgment.

Read the anchor · page 3
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MAY 15, 2025 PAGE 3 OF 5 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, make the stock marketable, 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). 7. On September 10, 2024, the Virginia state court entered an order awarding attorney fees in the amount of $9,392.50 to be paid on or before December 27, 2024, which were not paid. 8. On May 14, 2025, the Texas federal court entered a memorandum and opinion granting “Atlantic Wave’s request for an award of the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in responding to the second removal.” (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2.) Based on the foregoing judgment, security interest, liens, and claims, among others, Atlantic Wave contends it is currently owed in excess of $7,774,000, and further contends that it is entitled to satisfy the amount with non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux. Not only does Cyberlux owe Atlantic Wave a substantial amount of money, 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. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 8-13.) On April 30, 2025, the court clerk entered default against Cyberlux. 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, UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

Walton alleges rent delinquency, lockout after removal of drones and total other-creditor exposure above $13.5 million, with a severe prospe

Walton alleges rent delinquency, lockout after removal of drones and total other-creditor exposure above $13.5 million, with a severe prospective dissipation risk. He expressly limits the requested collection to debtor property, not property subject to government or other proved liens, and cites Rosenthal’s property-boundary reasoning. His prediction and ownership characterisation are not findings about later seizures or actual title.

Read the anchor · page 4
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MAY 15, 2025 PAGE 4 OF 5 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.” (Doc. 1-3, pp. 16-19.) 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. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 22-29.) On April 11, 2025, in Wake County Superior Court, an order was entered against Cyberlux Corporation et al. in favor of Aerotek, Inc., in the amount of $235,411.27. 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. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 32-37.) Case 4:25-cv-01689 Document 6 Filed on 04/29/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 11 5. In Case No. 25CV004246-310, The ARG Group, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation, In the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North Carolina, filed on April 24, 2025, ARG Group alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to ARG Group for amounts due and owed under a distributor partner agreement. 6. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is considerably delinquent in paying rent under its lease for the warehouse facility in Spring, Texas, which caused the landlord to lock out Cyberlux from the facility, after Cyberlux removed a material portion of the drones located at the facility. 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. Based on Cyberlux’s conduct to date, there is a legitimate and severe risk that if Cyberlux receives money held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, which is likely soon pursuant to the agreements between Cyberlux and HII, the money will be dissipated before Atlantic Wave and other creditors are paid or can take any further action to prevent such dissipation by Cyberlux. It is imperative that the status quo is preserved UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation

Walton signs and certifies electronic service on May 15. The automated certificate records SENT entries at 11:26, with status as of 11:32 AM

Walton signs and certifies electronic service on May 15. The automated certificate records SENT entries at 11:26, with status as of 11:32 AM CST and a repeated contact across pages. SENT is a system dispatch status, not recipient reading or agreement. The complete seven-page file contains five letter pages and two service pages, not the described underlying judgments, agreements and creditor pleadings.

Read the anchor · page 5
HONORABLE MICHAEL GOMEZ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT MAY 15, 2025 PAGE 5 OF 5 and Cyberlux’s deliberate tactics to avoid paying valid and enforceable judgments, writ of garnishment, or liens be brought to an end. Thus, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in this Court, Atlantic Wave respectfully requests that the receivership order previously submitted to the Court on April 1, 2025, be signed instanter to preserve the status quo and minimize any further delay implemented by Cyberlux. Again, to be clear, the focus of Atlantic Wave’s collection efforts is not to seize personal property on which the United States (or anyone else) has or claims a mortgage or other lien as established by competent evidence, but rather to seize personal property of Cyberlux as set forth in the proposed receivership order. As aptly noted by the Honorable Judge Lee H. Rosenthal: “the proposed [receivership] order does not state, or even suggest, that Atlantic Wave or [the receiver Robert] Berleth intend to seize U.S. government property.” (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2, pp. 5-6.) Indeed, Cyberlux’s objections to the language in the proposed order are without merit. At the court’s convenience, Atlantic Wave is available for a telephonic (or other remote) status conference to further discuss the foregoing matters. We appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter. Very truly yours, David A. Walton CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 15, 2025, a true and correct copy of this document was served on all parties of record via electronic service from the court’s ECF system for registered users, in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk By: /s/ David A. Walton
entityobservation

David A. Walton

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation

Michael Gomez

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation

Secure Community, LLC

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation

Cyberlux Corporation

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation

Mark D. Schmidt

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution

Walton filed the request letter; automated records show dispatch.

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference

The letter’s large total mixes remaining judgment principal, claimed share damages, disputed contractual fees and separate fee awards. Its r

The letter’s large total mixes remaining judgment principal, claimed share damages, disputed contractual fees and separate fee awards. Its request to preserve assets does not collapse these into one adjudicated enforceable balance.

otherattribution

Complete supplied 7-page source reviewed at SHA-256 90680ea779c277f7bd0de8c994064ab3f14bb6853e9d6df9f61c968630e1d4b2. Source assertions, ori

Complete supplied 7-page source reviewed at SHA-256 90680ea779c277f7bd0de8c994064ab3f14bb6853e9d6df9f61c968630e1d4b2. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. No unexamined later court outcome is inferred.

Read the anchor · page 1
David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM May 15, 2025 VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002 RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas. Dear Judge Gomez: I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux’s jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave’s judgment, as well as other creditors’ claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46). 1 Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that “Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract.” (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.) 5/15/2025 11:26 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 100874891 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 5/15/2025 11:26 AM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
questionquestion

What dated ledger and orders bridge the $912,000 judgment balance to the claimed total above $7,774,000 without duplication?

questionquestion

What actual receipt, title, lien and receiver records test the anticipated HII payment and proposed collection boundary?

questionquestion

Is the $7,774,000 figure wholly an existing domesticated judgment balance?

question

CONNECT

Reviewed relationships

The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.

damages from cyberlux s failure to bring stock to pink current status and remedy caveat emptor classification by december 31 2023relates 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.

100%
Confidence 100%Link weight 100%
Damages from Cyberlux's failure to bring stock to Pink Current status and remedy caveat emptor classification by December 31, 2023supportsdamages from cyberlux s failure to bring stock to pink current status and remedy caveat emptor classification by december 31 2023

This database-linked source passage is the reviewed documentary support mapped to the allegation in the controlling book version.

90%
Confidence 90%Link weight 90%
Walton claims more than $592,000 in breach-related fees/costs as of 24 April, over $6,017,250 for failure to make 195 million shares marketable by 31 December 2023, $9,392.50 unpaid under the September 2024 fee order, and second-removal fee entitlement. His stated share-price calculation, $0.0308577 times 195,000,000, gives $6,017,251.50, a $1.50 difference from the printed damages figure. These are distinct claims/awards with different bases, not all part of the domesticated principal.supportsThe letter’s large total mixes remaining judgment principal, claimed share damages, disputed contractual fees and separate fee awards. Its request to preserve assets does not collapse these into one adjudicated enforceable balance.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Walton claims more than $592,000 in breach-related fees/costs as of 24 April, over $6,017,250 for failure to make 195 million shares marketable by 31 December 2023, $9,392.50 unpaid under the September 2024 fee order, and second-removal fee entitlement. His stated share-price calculation, $0.0308577 times 195,000,000, gives $6,017,251.50, a $1.50 difference from the printed damages figure. These are distinct claims/awards with different bases, not all part of the domesticated principal.supportsIs the $7,774,000 figure wholly an existing domesticated judgment balance?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
He describes the 28 June 2023 Virginia judgment and California/Texas domestications and states at least $912,000 remains after payments, credits and offsets. He quotes an agreed security/lien interest and describes 6 July 2023 Virginia and Texas UCC filings. His letter is not the instruments, a current payoff or a priority decision.supportsThe letter’s large total mixes remaining judgment principal, claimed share damages, disputed contractual fees and separate fee awards. Its request to preserve assets does not collapse these into one adjudicated enforceable balance.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
He describes the 28 June 2023 Virginia judgment and California/Texas domestications and states at least $912,000 remains after payments, credits and offsets. He quotes an agreed security/lien interest and describes 6 July 2023 Virginia and Texas UCC filings. His letter is not the instruments, a current payoff or a priority decision.supportsIs the $7,774,000 figure wholly an existing domesticated judgment balance?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Walton alleges rent delinquency, lockout after removal of drones and total other-creditor exposure above $13.5 million, with a severe prospective dissipation risk. He expressly limits the requested collection to debtor property, not property subject to government or other proved liens, and cites Rosenthal’s property-boundary reasoning. His prediction and ownership characterisation are not findings about later seizures or actual title.supportsWhat actual receipt, title, lien and receiver records test the anticipated HII payment and proposed collection boundary?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The letter asserts aggregate Atlantic Wave entitlement above $7,774,000. The expressly quantified components $912,000, $592,000, $6,017,250 and $9,392.50 sum to $7,530,642.50 before unspecified excess/accruals. Because several figures are minima or unquantified, this is an unprovided bridge rather than proof the stated aggregate is arithmetically impossible. No itemised ledger reconciles it here.supportsWhat dated ledger and orders bridge the $912,000 judgment balance to the claimed total above $7,774,000 without duplication?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Walton claims more than $592,000 in breach-related fees/costs as of 24 April, over $6,017,250 for failure to make 195 million shares marketable by 31 December 2023, $9,392.50 unpaid under the September 2024 fee order, and second-removal fee entitlement. His stated share-price calculation, $0.0308577 times 195,000,000, gives $6,017,251.50, a $1.50 difference from the printed damages figure. These are distinct claims/awards with different bases, not all part of the domesticated principal.supportsWhat dated ledger and orders bridge the $912,000 judgment balance to the claimed total above $7,774,000 without duplication?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The letter asserts aggregate Atlantic Wave entitlement above $7,774,000. The expressly quantified components $912,000, $592,000, $6,017,250 and $9,392.50 sum to $7,530,642.50 before unspecified excess/accruals. Because several figures are minima or unquantified, this is an unprovided bridge rather than proof the stated aggregate is arithmetically impossible. No itemised ledger reconciles it here.supportsIs the $7,774,000 figure wholly an existing domesticated judgment balance?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Walton alleges the failed removals were calculated to delay collection and permit dissipation. On information and belief he anticipates more than $20 million from HII under a settlement effective 26 February 2025, citing Cyberlux’s statement about concluding subcontract obligations. He presents a dissipation risk and factoring concern, not actual receipt of this future money or an adjudication of intent.supportsWhat actual receipt, title, lien and receiver records test the anticipated HII payment and proposed collection boundary?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
He describes the 28 June 2023 Virginia judgment and California/Texas domestications and states at least $912,000 remains after payments, credits and offsets. He quotes an agreed security/lien interest and describes 6 July 2023 Virginia and Texas UCC filings. His letter is not the instruments, a current payoff or a priority decision.supportsWhat dated ledger and orders bridge the $912,000 judgment balance to the claimed total above $7,774,000 without duplication?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The letter asserts aggregate Atlantic Wave entitlement above $7,774,000. The expressly quantified components $912,000, $592,000, $6,017,250 and $9,392.50 sum to $7,530,642.50 before unspecified excess/accruals. Because several figures are minima or unquantified, this is an unprovided bridge rather than proof the stated aggregate is arithmetically impossible. No itemised ledger reconciles it here.supportsThe letter’s large total mixes remaining judgment principal, claimed share damages, disputed contractual fees and separate fee awards. Its request to preserve assets does not collapse these into one adjudicated enforceable balance.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%

WEIGH

Explained weighting

A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.

No published WEIGH run

The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.