Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
ANPC verified claim, two landing-system SAT reports and shipping records
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 202448085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
Plaintiff, Judgment-Creditor, §
§
v. § 129TH JUDICIAL COURT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually § IN AND FOR
Defendant, Judgment-Debtor. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Exhibit 9-
Advanced Navigation and Positioning
Corporation
Cause No. 202448085 styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al.
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al, in the 129th District Court in and
For Harris County, Texas UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Exhibit 9 ANPC in the Harris County filing reproduces ANPC’s Durham County verified complaint, file 25CV005686-310, filed June 5, 2025 at 4:
Exhibit 9 ANPC in the Harris County filing reproduces ANPC’s Durham County verified complaint, file 25CV005686-310, filed June 5, 2025 at 4:37 PM. ANPC describes itself as a Delaware corporation based in Hood River and Cyberlux as a Nevada corporation with North Carolina offices. Filing/verification does not adjudicate the allegations.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 202448085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
Plaintiff, Judgment-Creditor, §
§
v. § 129TH JUDICIAL COURT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually § IN AND FOR
Defendant, Judgment-Debtor. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Exhibit 9-
Advanced Navigation and Positioning
Corporation
Cause No. 202448085 styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al.
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al, in the 129th District Court in and
For Harris County, Texas UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Dubno installation checks are recorded Y. Survey entries identify ASA 194°56′17″ at 865.8 feet, ATA 201°39′1″ at 750.5 feet, Cal/BIT 202°32′
Dubno installation checks are recorded Y. Survey entries identify ASA 194°56′17″ at 865.8 feet, ATA 201°39′1″ at 750.5 feet, Cal/BIT 202°32′26″ at 577.7 feet and interrogator 211°2′53″ at 1,039.1 feet. The FTM table prints calculated distance 139.63 feet but marked location 206.6 metres; retain both units without assuming a correction. Handwritten KW initials are visible on checked technical pages.
Read the anchor · page 20
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 15, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-2
Table 2-1 Installation Inspection (Document #020-00103)
Description
Site location and serial number: TLS2030
Contract number:
Para Manual Subheading Description Y/N
2 Antenna Component Siting Theodolite back-site stake same as
Interrogator offset from runway
Y
3.3 Shelter Setup Shelter components properly installed Y
4.1 Uplink Tower Assembly Uplink tower properly installed Y
4.1 Glide Slope Transmit Antenna
Installation
Glide slope antenna properly installed Y
4.1 Localizer Transmit Antenna
Installation
Localizer antenna properly installed Y
4.3 Cal/BIT Assembly Cal/BIT structure properly installed
per Cal/BIT Checklist outlined in
Section 4 Installation Procedures of
the TI Manual
Y
4.3 Cal/BIT Assembly Cal/BIT transmitter properly installed
per Cal/BIT Checklist outlined in
Section 4 Installation Procedures of
the TI Manual
Y
4.3 Cal/BIT Assembly Cal/BIT antenna properly installed per
Cal/BIT Checklist outlined in Section
4 Installation Procedures of the TI
Manual
Y
4.2 ASA Assembly ASA structure properly installed per
ASA Checklist outlined in Section 4
Installation Procedures of the TI
Manual
Y
#106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Dubno records a 19-row mask-angle survey, trees adding 0.25–0.5 degrees, clear azimuth ±20 degrees and stated 550-foot lowest coverage at te
Dubno records a 19-row mask-angle survey, trees adding 0.25–0.5 degrees, clear azimuth ±20 degrees and stated 550-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Power checks are Y with software 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.10/0.15 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6899 ns. Cal/BIT amplitudes lie within the displayed 1000–1950 mV limits; the optimised F1-delay field is blank, not a recorded zero.
Read the anchor · page 25
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 15, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-7
Table 2-4 Mask Angle Text (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Mask Angle Test Azimuth
Angles
Elevation
Angle
Units
5.1 Mask Angle
Measurement
P1/P3 mask angle with
theodolite zeroed on
approach angle
0° 00' Deg
5.1 Mask Angle
Measurement
P1/P3 mask angles ± 45 °
at 5° or peak increments
315° 1.5 Deg
320° 1.5 Deg
325° 1.5 Deg
330° 2.0 Deg
335° 1.0 Deg
340° 0.8 Deg
345° 0.5 Deg
350° 0.5 Deg
355° 0.5 Deg
360° / 0° 0.5 Deg
05° 0.5 Deg
10° 0.5 Deg
15° 0.5 Deg
20° 0.6 Deg
25° 0.8 Deg
30° 0.9 Deg
35° 1.0 Deg
40° 1.0 Deg
45° 1.0 Deg
Notes: Trees left and right of centerline add 0.25 to 0.5 degrees to mask angle
Table 2-5 Azimuth Space Test (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Measured Units
5.1 Mask Angle Measurement Clear Azimuth Space +/- 20 -Deg/+Deg
Notes: Lowest coverage elevation at 10 nm +/- 20 degrees (0.5 deg elevation) equals 550 feet
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Dubno calibration references D1211_02, D1211_09_1, D1211_00_1 and D1211_10_1 drone files and reports completed flight/cal.dat checks. Signal
Dubno calibration references D1211_02, D1211_09_1, D1211_00_1 and D1211_10_1 drone files and reports completed flight/cal.dat checks. Signal verification expressly excludes localiser arcs and additional glide-slope crossings/inspection beyond alignment from the project. It records F16 approaches during an air alert on Friday the 13th. This bounded alignment record is not an unrestricted flight-certification conclusion.
Read the anchor · page 29
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 15, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-11
Table 2-10 Calibration and Validation, FTM Link Validation (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Check Box
Calibration and Validation
6.1 FTM Assembly and Setup FTM link operational validation Y
Notes:
Table 2-11 Calibration Profiles (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Successful Calibration
Profiles
Raw File Name Notes
6.2 Calibration Procedures
& Calibration Profiles
Drone cal profile at 0.5nm D1211_02 Drone W/
Theodolite Rack B
Drone on glide slope from
0.5 nm
D1211_09_1 Drone W/
Theodolite Rack B
Drone on glide slope from
0.5 nm
D1211_00_1 Drone W/
Theodolite Rack A
Drone arc at 0.5 nm D1211_10_1 Drone W/O SkyRF
result = 5 deg
Notes:
Table 2-12 Flight Test Completion (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Check Box
6.2 Calibration File Generation &
Validation Profile Approach
Verify flights complete Y
6.2 Calibration Validation Verification
(Look Tool)
Valid Cal.dat created from flight
data
Y
Notes:
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Dubno final Rack A and B tables preserve differing ESA bias and tilt values, including Rack A perpendicular -0.735 versus Rack B -0.15 degre
Dubno final Rack A and B tables preserve differing ESA bias and tilt values, including Rack A perpendicular -0.735 versus Rack B -0.15 degrees. The supplied table alone does not establish equipment failure, because configurations, applicable limits and raw observations require reconciliation. Karl Winner’s release signature is displayed on December 15 with no added notes.
Read the anchor · page 31
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 15, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-13
Table 2-14 Final BIT Nominals Rack A (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Measured Units
5.8 ASA, ATA, ESA, Interrogator
and Uplink Monitor Values
Final Bit Nominals
ESA Nominals
ESA High Phase 108 Cnts
ESA Medium Phase 137 Cnts
ESA Low Phase 145 Cnts
ESA Average Power High 1268 mV
ESA Average Power Medium 1460 mV
ESA Average Power Low 1601 mV
ESA Average Power Reference 1571 mV
ESA TOA Bias Near 6899 ns
ESA Perpendicular Tilt -0.735 deg
ESA Parallel Tilt -0.017 deg
ASA Nominals
ASA High Phase 30 Cnts
ASA Low Phase 121 Cnts
ASA Average Power High 1789 mV
ASA Average Power Low 1812 mV
ASA Average Power ATA 1891 mV
ASA Average Power Reference 1788 mV
ASA TOA Bias Near ATA 6573 ns
ASA TOA Bias Near 6565 ns
GTU1
DSA setting 18 dB
Localizer Carrier Sample Power 1850 mV
Localizer Reflected Power 550 mV
DSA setting 17 db
Glide slope Carrier Sample
Power
1800 mV
Glide slope Reflected Power 500 mV
Interrogation Transmitter
Nominals
P1/P3 Nominal Amplitude 1022 mV
Notes:
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The Vasylkiv SAT/TRR is a distinct December 18, 2024 report under the same revision and agreement. It has its own location, measurements and
The Vasylkiv SAT/TRR is a distinct December 18, 2024 report under the same revision and agreement. It has its own location, measurements and Karl Winner release signature dated December 18. Shared form structure does not make its measurements identical to Dubno or provide independent corroboration of the other site.
Vasylkiv installation checks are Y. ASA survey is 167°56′17″/849.3 feet, ATA 152°45′44″/706.8 feet, Cal/BIT 160°17′6″/531.2 feet and interro
Vasylkiv installation checks are Y. ASA survey is 167°56′17″/849.3 feet, ATA 152°45′44″/706.8 feet, Cal/BIT 160°17′6″/531.2 feet and interrogator 150°30′50″/966.7 feet. Its FTM calculation is 206.6 metres for a 12.5-metre threshold-crossing height, a marked 207 metres and a three-degree glide slope.
Read the anchor · page 42
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 18, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-2
Table 2-1 Installation Inspection (Document #020-00103)
Description
Site location and serial number: TLS2038
Contract number:
Para Manual Subheading Description Y/N
2 Antenna Component Siting Theodolite back-site stake same as
Interrogator offset from runway
Y
3.3 Shelter Setup Shelter components properly installed Y
4.1 Uplink Tower Assembly Uplink tower properly installed Y
4.1 Glide Slope Transmit Antenna
Installation
Glide slope antenna properly installed Y
4.1 Localizer Transmit Antenna
Installation
Localizer antenna properly installed Y
4.3 Cal/BIT Assembly Cal/BIT structure properly installed
per Cal/BIT Checklist outlined in
Section 4 Installation Procedures of
the TI Manual
Y
4.3 Cal/BIT Assembly Cal/BIT transmitter properly installed
per Cal/BIT Checklist outlined in
Section 4 Installation Procedures of
the TI Manual
Y
4.3 Cal/BIT Assembly Cal/BIT antenna properly installed per
Cal/BIT Checklist outlined in Section
4 Installation Procedures of the TI
Manual
Y
4.2 ASA Assembly ASA structure properly installed per
ASA Checklist outlined in Section 4
Installation Procedures of the TI
Manual
Y
#106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Vasylkiv records a separate 19-row mask-angle table, trees adding 0.25–0.4 degrees, ±35-degree clear space and stated 500-foot lowest covera
Vasylkiv records a separate 19-row mask-angle table, trees adding 0.25–0.4 degrees, ±35-degree clear space and stated 500-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Software is 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.05/-0.07 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6897 ns. Power/security responses are Y; optimised F1-delay remains blank despite a separate initial five-microsecond entry.
Read the anchor · page 47
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 18, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-7
Table 2-4 Mask Angle Text (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Mask Angle Test Azimuth
Angles
Elevation
Angle
Units
5.1 Mask Angle
Measurement
P1/P3 mask angle with
theodolite zeroed on
approach angle
0° 00' Deg
5.1 Mask Angle
Measurement
P1/P3 mask angles ± 45 °
at 5° or peak increments
315° 1.0 Deg
320° 1.0 Deg
325° 1.0 Deg
330° 2.0 tree Deg
335° 1.0 Deg
340° 0.6 Deg
345° 0.4 Deg
350° 0.4 Deg
355° 0.4 Deg
360° / 0° 0.4 Deg
05° 0.4 Deg
10° 0.3 Deg
15° 0.3 Deg
20° 0.3 Deg
25° 0.4 Deg
30° 0.4 Deg
35° 1.0 Deg
40° 1.5 tree Deg
45° 1.0 Deg
Notes: Trees left and right of centerline add 0.25 to 0.4 degrees to mask angle
Table 2-5 Azimuth Space Test (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Measured Units
5.1 Mask Angle Measurement Clear Azimuth Space +/- 35 -Deg/+Deg
Notes: Lowest coverage elevation at 10 nm +/- 35 degrees (0.4 deg elevation) equals 500 feet
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Vasylkiv’s calibration table retains D1211 file identifiers also found in Dubno, while its added notes identify V1218_00, _01, _02, _02_2 an
Vasylkiv’s calibration table retains D1211 file identifiers also found in Dubno, while its added notes identify V1218_00, _01, _02, _02_2 and _04_2. It reports an initial 2.5-degree drone approach, changed waypoints, subsequent verification within 0.05 degrees of three degrees, a 0.1-degree glide-slope adjustment and no localiser adjustment. Preserve the repeated table and site-specific notes; do not silently replace one with the other.
Read the anchor · page 51
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 18, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-11
Table 2-10 Calibration and Validation, FTM Link Validation (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Check Box
Calibration and Validation
6.1 FTM Assembly and Setup FTM link operational validation Y
Notes:
Table 2-11 Calibration Profiles (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Successful Calibration
Profiles
Raw File Name Notes
6.2 Calibration Procedures
& Calibration Profiles
Drone cal profile at 0.5nm D1211_02 Drone W/
Theodolite Rack B
Drone on glide slope from
0.5 nm
D1211_09_1 Drone W/
Theodolite Rack B
Drone on glide slope from
0.5 nm
D1211_00_1 Drone W/
Theodolite Rack A
Drone arc at 0.5 nm D1211_10_1 Drone W/O SkyRF
result = 5 deg
Notes: Drone calibration and approach verification is contained in the following files
V1218_00 cal profile from test mode, transponder code entered on test mode screen
V1218_01 cal profile again
V1218_02 cal profile again
V1218_02_2 Verification approach, transponder code entered on RCU 2; Drone flew the
approach at 2.5 degrees so the waypoints were changed to fly the approach again
V1218_02_2
V1218_04_2 Good verification with drone within 0.05 degrees of 3.0 degrees, glide slope was
adjusted just 0.1 degrees based on this approach. No adjustment to localizer needed UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Vasylkiv explicitly marks both localiser arcs and below-path approach NOT MEASURED, leaves the crossing row blank and limits the project to
Vasylkiv explicitly marks both localiser arcs and below-path approach NOT MEASURED, leaves the crossing row blank and limits the project to alignment. It reports seven F16 standard approaches on December 18, lists seven V1218 files and says RCU1 was used. Those limitations constrain what the signed release proves.
Read the anchor · page 53
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 18, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-13
Table 2-13 Signal Performance Verification (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Successful
Validation Profiles
Raw File Name Notes
Signal Performance Verification
6.3 Flight Inspection
Support
LOCALIZER ARCS
AND ADDITIOANL
GLIDE SLOPE
CROSSINGS IN THIS
SECTION NOT
APLICABLE AS WAS
FLIGHT INSPECTION
BEYOND GLIDE
SLOPE ALIGNMENT
AND LOCALIZER
ALIGNMENT ARE
NOT PART OF THE
PROJECT
Localizer arc (left to
right)
NOT MEASURED
Localizer arc (right to
left)
NOT MEASURED
Localizer standard
approach
V1218_07_1
Glide slope crossing
Glide slope standard
approach #1
V1218_08_1
Glide slope standard
approach #2
V1218_09_1
Glide slope below path
approach
NOT MEASURED
Notes: F16’s conducted seven standard approaches on Wednesday December 18, 2024. File names are
as follows.
File names are encoded with first letter of site name, month, day of month and then a number that
increments for each approach completed, followed by the designator of the RCU where the
transponder code was entered
RCU 1 was used for all approaches
V1218_00_1
V1218_01_1
V1218_02_1
V1218_06_1
V1218_07_1
V1218_08_1
V1218_09_1
Sample recording screen captures are included at the end of the document UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Vasylkiv’s final Rack A/B tables report separate phase, power, timing, tilt and transmitter values. Their tilt pairs are reversed between ra
Vasylkiv’s final Rack A/B tables report separate phase, power, timing, tilt and transmitter values. Their tilt pairs are reversed between racks: A perpendicular -0.07/parallel 0.05, B perpendicular 0.05/parallel -0.07. This is a configuration/record-comparison lead, not by itself a finding of deficient landing safety. Winner signs release on December 18.
Read the anchor · page 54
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 18, 2024
ANPC Initials_______________
2-14
Table 2-14 Final BIT Nominals Rack A (Document # 020-00103)
Para Manual Subheading Description Measured Units
5.8 ASA, ATA, ESA, Interrogator
and Uplink Monitor Values
Final Bit Nominals
ESA Nominals
ESA High Phase 154 Cnts
ESA Medium Phase 116 Cnts
ESA Low Phase 140 Cnts
ESA Average Power High 1601 mV
ESA Average Power Medium 1640 mV
ESA Average Power Low 1804 mV
ESA Average Power Reference 1662 mV
ESA TOA Bias Near 6897 ns
ESA Perpendicular Tilt -0.07 deg
ESA Parallel Tilt 0.05 deg
ASA Nominals
ASA High Phase 60 Cnts
ASA Low Phase 184 Cnts
ASA Average Power High 1860 mV
ASA Average Power Low 1860 mV
ASA Average Power ATA 1900 mV
ASA Average Power Reference 1860 mV
ASA TOA Bias Near ATA 6857 ns
ASA TOA Bias Near 6537 ns
GTU1
DSA setting 18 dB
Localizer Carrier Sample Power 1500 mV
Localizer Reflected Power 300 mV
DSA setting 17 db
Glide slope Carrier Sample
Power
1500 mV
Glide slope Reflected Power 300 mV
Interrogation Transmitter
Nominals
P1/P3 Nominal Amplitude 1022 mV
Notes:
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
ANPC alleges an October 11, 2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, two guidance transmitter units for ea
ANPC alleges an October 11, 2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, two guidance transmitter units for each and one applicable trailer plus services, payable in five milestones. It alleges the first three milestones were paid, a final December 20 invoice remained unpaid, and Cyberlux has not disputed performance. The underlying complete purchase agreement is not included here.
Read the anchor · page 3
2
BACKGROUND
5. ANPC is a supplier of precision approach guidance and area surveillance
solutions.
6. On or around October 11, 2024, Cyberlux and ANPC entered into a purchase
agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) in which ANPC agreed to provide and Cyberlux agreed
to purchase two Transportable Transponder Landing Systems with two guidance transmitter
units, one applicable trailer, documentation, and spare parts (the “Goods”), along with
installation services, training services, and assisted operations support (the “Services”)
7. The parties agreed that ANPC was to invoice Cyberlux for the Goods and
Services according to five milestones set out in the Purchase Agreement (each of the five
milestones referred to individually as a “Milestone” and together as “Milestones”).
8. ANPC performed under the Purchase Agreement, providing the Goods and
Services in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement.
9. ANPC invoiced Cyberlux for its performance through the first three Milestones
set out in the Purchase Agreement.
10. Cyberlux paid ANPC the corresponding amount invoiced for the first three
Milestones.
11. On December 20, 2024, ANPC invoiced Cyberlux a final invoice in the amount of
$2,830,050 (the “Final Invoice”). A true and accurate copy of the Final Invoice is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
12. Cyberlux did not communicate to ANPC any issues with the Final Invoice.
13. Cyberlux has not disputed that ANPC performed under the Purchase Agreement,
that ANPC provided the Goods and Services, or that the amount set out in the Final Invoice is
due to ANPC.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Four TrackReplay screenshots identify Vasylkiv Air Base Runway 31, a 241218c_Vas_Rack_B_9_F-16_approaches/rcu1 path, PAR view and manual zoo
Four TrackReplay screenshots identify Vasylkiv Air Base Runway 31, a 241218c_Vas_Rack_B_9_F-16_approaches/rcu1 path, PAR view and manual zoom. They display orange approach tracks and green boundaries, with r1/r2 date selections and differing selected flights. These are static replay images, not the underlying authenticated telemetry or proof every listed approach met a regulatory standard.
Read the anchor · page 57
[Analyst image transcription and description, not raw telemetry]
300-00048 Rev. D | TTLS SAT and TRR | Dec 18, 2024
Two TrackReplay - Vasylkiv Air Base -- Runway 31 screenshots.
Track files directory includes Ukraine, Vasylkiv UA, Archives, 241218c_Vas_Rack_B_9_F-16_approaches, rcu1.
PAR view; Manual zoom; selectable dates 12-18-2024-r1 and 12-18-2024-r2; r1 selected.
Flights table columns: Time, Approach, Code, #Disp, #Int. TLS3.0 entries, differing selected flights. Upper selected row 09:32:19, TLS3.0, 1234, 675, 3952; lower selected row 09:17:47, TLS3.0, 1234, 805, 4534.
Orange plotted tracks, green boundary lines, dotted centreline, DH/TH and NM labels, ILS indicator. Stop, Continue; Speed Realtime/Fast; Altitude Limit to 30000 feet; Show surveillance tracks; Enable PAR track filter; Mouse Down Mode Select/Pan.
[Small numerical UI entries not relied upon for an independent flight-performance conclusion; screenshot is retained as authority.]
claimallegation
A separate goods-delivery Annex I lists TLS2030 and TLS2038 with two GTUs each, two TTLS Conex trailers and 32 further system/depot spare, c
A separate goods-delivery Annex I lists TLS2030 and TLS2038 with two GTUs each, two TTLS Conex trailers and 32 further system/depot spare, cable, antenna and test-equipment rows. The two-trailer quantity differs from the complaint’s one-applicable-trailer description; retain each source’s wording. Jeff Adams’s physical signature is dated December 13, before the separate December 19 SAT certificates. The certificate is addressed to ROCK NETWORKS INC. and identifies the purchase agreement between Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks; its supplier signature is not a customer payment confirmation. There are35 numbered goods rows.
Read the anchor · page 59
Agreement Number: #106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
ANNEX I - FORM OF GOODS DELIVERY CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE
(this "Certificate")
TO: ROCK NETWORKS INC.
RE: Confirmation Goods delivered to the Goods Delivery Location pursuant to and in accordance with the Purchase
Agreement Number 106703.105 between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks Inc. (the
"Agreement®)
Instructions and terms:
1. As of the date of the Supplier's signature below, Supplier hereby confirms and certifies that Goods listed
below were delivered to the Goods Delivery Location in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.
2. This document must be completed by the Supplier and accompany the shipment of the Goods.
3. This document forms part of the documentation for payment and payment of the applicable invoice
milestone as set out at Annex K shall not be made without submission of a fully completed Annex I. Any
comments and reservations made on this
document may result in non-payment until the
comments/reservations are successfully addressed in the view of BUYER.
4. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning respectively given to such in the Agreement.
5.
This Certificate may be signed electronically in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. The exchange of a fully
signed Certificate (in counterparts or otherwise) by electronic mail shall be sufficient to bind Supplier.
Item #
Qty
Model # /
Description of Goods
Part # /
Supplier Ref
1
950-00485-104
Transportable Transponder Landing System
SN: TTLS-2030
(TTLS) with two Guidance Transmitter Units
GTU)
2
1
-950-00485-104
Transportable Transponder Landing System
SN: TTLS-2038 (TTLS) with two Guidance Transmitter Units
(GTU)
920-01021
TTLS Conex Container Trailer
Item # Qty
Model # /
Description of Goods
Part # /
Supplier Ref
#
System Spare Parts
4
1
280-00642-103
ESA Ob Light
5
1
280-00661-100
Power Fiber Cable ESA
6
1
280-00661-101
Power Fiber Cable ASA
7
1
280-00661-102źę
Power Fiber Cable Cal/BIT
920-00852-10ůąŚźł
Power Fiber Cable ATA
claimallegation
CMR Sp.24374TC identifies a 20-foot CPMU2017410 container, TTLS2030 and 7,484 kg, from ANPC via Baltic Hub Gdansk December 4, 2024 to Armed
CMR Sp.24374TC identifies a 20-foot CPMU2017410 container, TTLS2030 and 7,484 kg, from ANPC via Baltic Hub Gdansk December 4, 2024 to Armed Forces Ukraine c/o Canadian Armed Forces at Rzeszow Jasionka. It identifies MPM Grupa/Piotr Strzelczak, invoice/permit/NATO302 IA D82583 and gas-cylinder dangerous-goods particulars. Sender and consignee stamps are visible; no inference of ownership follows solely from transport routing.
Read the anchor · page 62
Sender Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corp., 489 N 8th street suite 203, Hood River, CR, 97031 USA (CR as printed). Consignee Armed Forces Ukraine C/O Canadian Armed Forces, Jasionka 942, 36-002 Poland. Place of delivery Rzeszow Jasionka, Polska. CMR No. Sp.24374TC. Baltic Hub Gdansk, 04.12.2024. Invoice, Permit to deploy; NATO FORM 302 / IA D 82583. Carrier MPM Grupa Sp. Z O. O., Grzybowska 87, 00-844 Warszawa; STRZELCZAK Piotr, ID DFU231989, tel. 691867326; WSE3TW5 / PNTLS78. 1 x 20-foot CPMU2017410; CONEX TRANSPORTABLE TRANSPONDER LANDING SYSTEM (TTLS2030); RADIO NAVIGATIONAL AID APPARATUS FOR USE IN CIVIL AIRCRAFT. 7484,00 kg. UN3163, LIQUIFIED GAS, N.O.S. (PENTAFLUOROETHANE, DIFLUOROMETHANE), CLASS 2.2; PACKING TYPE: 1 CYLINDERS; GROSS WEIGHT: 27.665 KG; NET WEIGHT: 1.81 KG. MOVING UNDER SPECIAL PROVISION 188.5; MOVING UNDER SPECIAL PROVISION 238.1. Established Gdansk 04.12.2024. POL-MARE sender stamp/signature; recipient POLLOGHUB UKRL NO stamp, 04 12 2024 and signature. [No amount entered in carriage/cost table; no inference of payment.]
claimallegation
The photographed NATO302 IA D81033, Copy 3, AIR, names DT Gruelle for Canadian Forces support hub ILEA, Canadian Commercial Corporation as s
The photographed NATO302 IA D81033, Copy 3, AIR, names DT Gruelle for Canadian Forces support hub ILEA, Canadian Commercial Corporation as sender and Armed Forces of Ukraine as recipient/final Kyiv destination c/o Canadian Armed Forces. It describes one CONEX transportable landing system, 7,484 kg, issue December 7 and expiry January 7, 2025. The receipt displays a signature and December 12, 2024 date; the handwritten recipient name/unit are not reliably readable and are not assigned to an actor.
Read the anchor · page 63
[Analyst transcription of legible English fields; multilingual form and signatures remain visible in original]
IMPORT / EXPORT CUSTOMS DECLARATION (FOR GOODS WHICH ARE THE PROPERTY OF, OR DESTINED TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES)
Copy No. 3; Serial No. IA D 81033; means of transport AIR.
Transporter: D.T GRUELLE COMPANY - for CANADIAN FORCES OPERATION SUPPORT HUB ILEA.
FLUGHAFENSTRASSE 1, 51147 COLOGNE, GERMANY.
Reference No. 172 8088 4112. Document expires after 07 JANUARY 2025.
Sender: Canadian Commercial Corporation, 350 Albert Street, 7th Floor, OTTAWA, ON K1A 0S6, CANADA.
Recipient: Armed Forces of Ukraine, 6 Povitroflotskyi Avenue KYIV, UKRAINE.
FINAL DESTINATION: KYIV, UKRAINE C/O CANADIAN ARMED FORCES.
1 (ONE); TF 24 01424 FEDE; CONEX TRANSPORTABLE LANDING SYSTEM; 7484.0 KGS; AS PER ATTACHED; NOTHING TO FOLLOW.
[Shipping officer signature/stamps displayed; handwritten or obscured personal details not certified.]
CANADIAN FORCES SUPPORT HUB; FLUGHAFENSTRASSE 1, 51147 COLOGNE, GERMANY; ILEA SUPERVISOR; 07 DECEMBER 2024.
CERTIFICATE OF RECEIPT: [handwritten name and unit unresolved under overlapping handwriting; no canonical actor assigned]; [signature displayed]; [date written as December 12, 2024].
[Large diagonal COPY/TRAFFIC and unofficial court-copy watermark; no text reconstructed behind marks.]
claimallegation
The customs form’s preprinted property wording is disjunctive: goods that are property of, or destined to be property of, Canadian military
The customs form’s preprinted property wording is disjunctive: goods that are property of, or destined to be property of, Canadian military forces. It cannot alone establish which alternative applied, the time title passed or current beneficial ownership. The form refers to attachments that are not supplied as independently identified complete attachment sets.
Read the anchor · page 63
[Analyst transcription of legible English fields; multilingual form and signatures remain visible in original]
IMPORT / EXPORT CUSTOMS DECLARATION (FOR GOODS WHICH ARE THE PROPERTY OF, OR DESTINED TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES)
Copy No. 3; Serial No. IA D 81033; means of transport AIR.
Transporter: D.T GRUELLE COMPANY - for CANADIAN FORCES OPERATION SUPPORT HUB ILEA.
FLUGHAFENSTRASSE 1, 51147 COLOGNE, GERMANY.
Reference No. 172 8088 4112. Document expires after 07 JANUARY 2025.
Sender: Canadian Commercial Corporation, 350 Albert Street, 7th Floor, OTTAWA, ON K1A 0S6, CANADA.
Recipient: Armed Forces of Ukraine, 6 Povitroflotskyi Avenue KYIV, UKRAINE.
FINAL DESTINATION: KYIV, UKRAINE C/O CANADIAN ARMED FORCES.
1 (ONE); TF 24 01424 FEDE; CONEX TRANSPORTABLE LANDING SYSTEM; 7484.0 KGS; AS PER ATTACHED; NOTHING TO FOLLOW.
[Shipping officer signature/stamps displayed; handwritten or obscured personal details not certified.]
CANADIAN FORCES SUPPORT HUB; FLUGHAFENSTRASSE 1, 51147 COLOGNE, GERMANY; ILEA SUPERVISOR; 07 DECEMBER 2024.
CERTIFICATE OF RECEIPT: [handwritten name and unit unresolved under overlapping handwriting; no canonical actor assigned]; [signature displayed]; [date written as December 12, 2024].
[Large diagonal COPY/TRAFFIC and unofficial court-copy watermark; no text reconstructed behind marks.]
claimallegation
Three November 26, 2024 CMRs separately identify two 6,803-kg Nesoi trailers (Sp.24319TC-2 and -3) and MRKU9043706 CONEX/spares, seven crate
Three November 26, 2024 CMRs separately identify two 6,803-kg Nesoi trailers (Sp.24319TC-2 and -3) and MRKU9043706 CONEX/spares, seven crates and 1,139 kg (TC-1), routed through Baltic Hub to Rzeszow/Jasionka. Carrier names/vehicle IDs differ; TC-1 visibly bears seal 040861. Recipient marks show November 27. Photographed lower edges are cropped; no unseen text is reconstructed.
Read the anchor · page 64
Sender Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corp., 489 N 8th street suite 203, Hood River, CR, 97031 USA (CR as printed). Consignee Armed Forces Ukraine C/O Canadian Armed Forces, Jasionka 942, 36-002 Poland. Place of delivery Rzeszow Jasionka, Polska. CMR No. Sp.24319TC-2. Baltic Hub 26.11.2024. Invoice, Packing List, T1. POL-MARE TRANSPORT; KRZYSZTOF NAKONIECZNY; G0 PMT10 + GDA 0036P. 1 x Naczepa Nesoi; 6803,00 kg. Established Gdansk 26.11.2024. Sender and carrier stamps/signatures; POLLOGHUB UKRL NO recipient stamp and handwritten 27 with 11 2024. [Lower photo edge cropped; no unseen content reconstructed.]
claimallegation
The collection assembles a pleaded debt, repeated invoice, supplier goods/SAT certificates, bounded technical reports and transport/customs
The collection assembles a pleaded debt, repeated invoice, supplier goods/SAT certificates, bounded technical reports and transport/customs records. These support distinct steps in the claimed performance chain, but do not supply Cyberlux customer-payment evidence, a complete contractual milestone schedule, raw flight datasets or an adjudicated debt/priority determination.
Read the anchor · page 2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CVS-_____
Advanced Navigation & Positioning )
Corporation )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-v- ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
)
Cyberlux Corporation )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, alleges:
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, (“Plaintiff” or
“ANPC”) is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to
sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River,
Oregon, 97031.
2. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation (“Defendant” or
“Cyberlux”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County
located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can
be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine
Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. General
Statute §1-75.4 and other applicable bases for jurisdiction.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-82 and other applicable
bases for venue.
Electronically Filed Date: 6/5/2025 4:37 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
25CV005686-310
PR
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The pleaded payment term is ten business days after Cyberlux receives its customer payment. ANPC alleges customer receipt on December 20 upo
The pleaded payment term is ten business days after Cyberlux receives its customer payment. ANPC alleges customer receipt on December 20 upon information and belief, yet treats December 30 as the breach/interest date. Receipt and the business-day calculation are not independently proved by the invoice or SAT exhibits. The senior-management escalation clause is described as a fourteen-day process; the May 15 FedEx/email dispute notice and nonresponse are allegations.
Read the anchor · page 4
3
14. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Cyberlux was required to pay the Final
Invoice within ten days business days of Cyberlux’s receipt of payment from Cyberlux’s
customer.
15. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux had received payment from Cyberlux’s
customer as of December 20, 2024 sufficient to pay the Final Invoice by December 30, 2024.
16. Cyberlux breached the Purchase Agreement when it failed to make a payment on
the Final Invoice on or before December 30, 2024.
17. According to the Purchase Agreement, all disputes arising under the Purchase
Agreement must be initially referred to the parties’ senior management for resolution. The
parties agreed to wait fourteen calendar days following referral to senior management before
bringing to court any action arising out of or related to the Purchase Agreement.
18. Upon Cyberlux’s failure to pay the Final Invoice in a timely manner, ANPC, by
and through its attorney, gave notice to the Buyer’s CEO of Cyberlux’s failure to make timely
payments on May 15, 2025 (the “Payment Dispute Letter”).
19. The Payment Dispute Letter was sent to Cyberlux’s CEO via Federal Express and
email.
20. As of the date of this Verified Complaint, Cyberlux has not responded to the
Payment Dispute Letter.
21. It has been more than fourteen days since ANPC sent the Payment Dispute Letter
to Cyberlux.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract—Purchase Agreement)
22. ANPC incorporates the prior allegations of the Complaint by reference.
23. The Purchase Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract.
24. ANPC has performed all of its obligations under the Purchase Agreement.
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The complaint requests $2,926,814.39 comprising $2,830,050 principal and $96,764.39 interest calculated at 8% from December 30, 2024, plus f
The complaint requests $2,926,814.39 comprising $2,830,050 principal and $96,764.39 interest calculated at 8% from December 30, 2024, plus further interest, costs and other relief. Its wording concerning post-judgment interest from complaint to judgment is retained rather than silently corrected. No judgment awarding the requested sum is included.
Read the anchor · page 5
4
25. Cyberlux has materially breached the Purchase Agreement by failing to pay the
Final Invoice as and when due.
26. ANPC has been damaged by Cyberlux’s failure to pay the Final Invoice, which
represents amounts owed under the Agreement for ANPC’s performance.
27. As of the date of this Verified Complaint, ANPC is entitled to prejudgment
interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum for failure to pay the invoice by December
30, 2024.
28. ANPC is entitled to post-judgment interest accruing after the date of this
Complaint through the date of judgment.
29. ANPC is entitled to a judgment against Cyberlux on the Purchase Agreement in
the amount of $2,926,814.39, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2)
interest in the amount of $96,764.39, representing interest accruing from the date of breach
through the date of this Complaint.
WHEREFORE, ANPC respectfully prays that the Court:
A. Enter judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of
$2,926,814.39, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2) interest in the
amount of $96,764.39.
B. Grant ANPC post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
C. Tax the costs of this action against Cyberlux.
D. Grant ANPC such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
This the 5
th day of June, 2025.
/s/ Catherine G. Clodfelter
Catherine G. Clodfelter
N.C. State Bar No. 47653
Charles E. Raynal IV
N.C. State Bar No. 32310
PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
CFO Tim Arbogast’s verification states personal knowledge except information-and-belief matters, which he believes true. The page displays h
CFO Tim Arbogast’s verification states personal knowledge except information-and-belief matters, which he believes true. The page displays his signature and a June 5, 2025 Oregon/Hood River notarial acknowledgement by Emily Joyce, commission 1058184 expiring May 13, 2029. The personal-knowledge limitation applies to the pleaded customer-payment trigger.
Read the anchor · page 7
VERIFICATION
Tim Arbogast, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the CFO of Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and, as such, he is authorized to make this oath; that he has read the foregoing and attached Verified Complaint, and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge except those matters stated upon information and belief, which he believes to be true.
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation
By: Tim Arbogast [signature displayed], CFO
STATE OF Oregon; COUNTY OF Hood River.
Personally appeared before me, Tim Arbogast, either being personally known to me [the alternative wording about satisfactory evidence is crossed out], and acknowledged that he signed the foregoing document.
This the 5 day of June, 2025.
[signature] Emily Joyce, Notary Public.
My commission expires: May 13, 2029.
OFFICIAL STAMP: Emily Joyce, NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON; COMMISSION NO. 1058184; MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2029.
[Watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk]
claimallegation
The invoice appears twice as 0000696-IN dated December 20, 2024, sales order 0000261 and customer purchase order 106703.105. It describes Mi
The invoice appears twice as 0000696-IN dated December 20, 2024, sales order 0000261 and customer purchase order 106703.105. It describes Milestone 4, 20% upon SAT, for $2,830,050, quantity one shipped and zero backorder, without additional freight or tax. Duplication is repeat evidence of one invoice, not two debts. Its title does not independently establish that a fifth milestone was fulfilled or payable.
Read the anchor · page 9
Invoice
Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation
489 N 8th Street Suite 203
Hood River, OR 97031
(800) 228-1857
Sold To: Ship To:
Cyberlux Corporation
800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209
Research Triangle Park
Durham, NC 27709
Cyberlux Corporation
800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209
Research Triangle Park
Durham, NC 27709
Page: 1
Invoice Number:
Invoice Date:
Salesperson:
Customer Number:
FRMB
14-CYB001
12/20/2024
0000696-IN
Order Number:
Order Date: 10/8/2024
0000261
Prepaid
Customer P.O. Ship VIA F.O.B. Terms
Confirm To:
CCC Agreement 106703.105
Item Code Unit Ordered Shipped Back Ordered Price Amount
/4000-14
Revenue-International
EACH 1.00 1.00 0.00 2,830,050.00 2,830,050.00
Milestone 4: 20% of contract due upon SAT
Net Invoice: 2,830,050.00
Less Discount: 0.00
Freight: 0.00
Sales Tax: 0.00
Invoice Total: 2,830,050.00
Prepared by:
Tim Arbogast
2024.12.20
07:16:42-08'00'
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Steve Naito’s June 6 email to Berleth forwards ANPC’s claim and asks acknowledgement that it will be considered against receivership assets.
Steve Naito’s June 6 email to Berleth forwards ANPC’s claim and asks acknowledgement that it will be considered against receivership assets. This is a creditor submission, not the receiver’s acceptance, a priority ruling or payment.
Read the anchor · page 10
1
Robert Berleth
From: Steve Naito <steve.naito@tnslaw.net>
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Robert Berleth
Cc: Tim Arbogast; Jeff Mains; Ashley Arnett
Subject: Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC Receivership CAUSE NO. 202448085
Attachments: 2025.06.05 Complaint(filed) NC.pdf
Robert, attached is a copy of the complaint filed by Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation (ANPC)
against Cyberlux Corporation in North Carolina seeking $2,926,814.39 in damages. Please consider this ANPC’s
claim as to Cyberlux assets subject to the referenced receivership.
I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thank you.
Steve Naito
Tarlow Naito & Summers
2014 NE Broadway
Portland Oregon 97232
503 968-9000
503-913 4242 (cell)
steve.naito@tnslaw.net UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Two separate Annex I certificates under agreement 106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC identify Site 1 TLS2030 and Site 2 TLS2038 SAT completion. Each d
Two separate Annex I certificates under agreement 106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC identify Site 1 TLS2030 and Site 2 TLS2038 SAT completion. Each displays Jeff Adams’s electronic signature dated December 19, 2024. Their conditions connect payment to fully completed certification and permit withholding where comments/reservations remain unresolved; they are supplier certifications, not an appended customer bank receipt.
Read the anchor · page 12
Agreement Number: #106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
ANNEX I – FORM OF GOODS DELIVERY CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE
(this “Certificate”)
TO: ROCK NETWORKS INC.
RE: Confirmation Goods delivered to the Goods Delivery Location pursuant to and in accordance with the Purchase
Agreement Number 106703.105 between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks Inc. (the
“Agreement”)
Instructions and terms:
1. As of the date of the Supplier’s signature below, Supplier hereby confirms and certifies that Goods listed
below were delivered to the Goods Delivery Location in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.
2. This document must be completed by the Supplier and accompany the shipment of the Goods.
3. This document forms part of the documentation for payment and payment of the applicable invoice
milestone as set out at Annex K shall not be made without submission of a fully completed Annex I. Any
comments and reservations made on this document may result in non-payment until the
comments/reservations are successfully addressed in the view of BUYER.
4. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning respectively given to such in the Agreement.
5. This Certificate may be signed electronically in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. The exchange of a fully
signed Certificate (in counterparts or otherwise) by electronic mail shall be sufficient to bind Supplier.
Item # Qty Model # /
Part # /
Supplier Ref
#
Description of Goods
1 1 Site Acceptance Test (SAT) Site 1 Report
(TLS-2030)
Submitted by: Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation
Authorised Representative:
Name:………….Jeff Adams……..………………
Signature:……..…………………………………..
Date:………….…12/19/2024…………………....
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The Dubno SAT/TRR is revision D of 300-00048. Its cover completion date is December 16 while repeated headers and Karl Winner’s signed relea
The Dubno SAT/TRR is revision D of 300-00048. Its cover completion date is December 16 while repeated headers and Karl Winner’s signed release show December 15. Instructions reference installation/field manual 020-00103 and require completed records and copies to the customer and ANPC. Those referenced manuals and original raw data are not appended.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CVS-_____
Advanced Navigation & Positioning )
Corporation )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-v- ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
)
Cyberlux Corporation )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, alleges:
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, (“Plaintiff” or
“ANPC”) is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to
sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River,
Oregon, 97031.
2. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation (“Defendant” or
“Cyberlux”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County
located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can
be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine
Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. General
Statute §1-75.4 and other applicable bases for jurisdiction.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-82 and other applicable
bases for venue.
Electronically Filed Date: 6/5/2025 4:37 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
25CV005686-310
PR
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CVS-_____
Advanced Navigation & Positioning )
Corporation )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-v- ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
)
Cyberlux Corporation )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, alleges:
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, (“Plaintiff” or
“ANPC”) is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to
sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River,
Oregon, 97031.
2. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation (“Defendant” or
“Cyberlux”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County
located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can
be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine
Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. General
Statute §1-75.4 and other applicable bases for jurisdiction.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-82 and other applicable
bases for venue.
Electronically Filed Date: 6/5/2025 4:37 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
25CV005686-310
PR
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Tim Arbogast
Read the anchor · page 7
VERIFICATION
Tim Arbogast, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the CFO of Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and, as such, he is authorized to make this oath; that he has read the foregoing and attached Verified Complaint, and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge except those matters stated upon information and belief, which he believes to be true.
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation
By: Tim Arbogast [signature displayed], CFO
STATE OF Oregon; COUNTY OF Hood River.
Personally appeared before me, Tim Arbogast, either being personally known to me [the alternative wording about satisfactory evidence is crossed out], and acknowledged that he signed the foregoing document.
This the 5 day of June, 2025.
[signature] Emily Joyce, Notary Public.
My commission expires: May 13, 2029.
OFFICIAL STAMP: Emily Joyce, NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON; COMMISSION NO. 1058184; MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2029.
[Watermark: Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk]
entityobservation
Jeff Adams
Read the anchor · page 12
Agreement Number: #106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
ANNEX I – FORM OF GOODS DELIVERY CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE
(this “Certificate”)
TO: ROCK NETWORKS INC.
RE: Confirmation Goods delivered to the Goods Delivery Location pursuant to and in accordance with the Purchase
Agreement Number 106703.105 between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks Inc. (the
“Agreement”)
Instructions and terms:
1. As of the date of the Supplier’s signature below, Supplier hereby confirms and certifies that Goods listed
below were delivered to the Goods Delivery Location in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.
2. This document must be completed by the Supplier and accompany the shipment of the Goods.
3. This document forms part of the documentation for payment and payment of the applicable invoice
milestone as set out at Annex K shall not be made without submission of a fully completed Annex I. Any
comments and reservations made on this document may result in non-payment until the
comments/reservations are successfully addressed in the view of BUYER.
4. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning respectively given to such in the Agreement.
5. This Certificate may be signed electronically in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. The exchange of a fully
signed Certificate (in counterparts or otherwise) by electronic mail shall be sufficient to bind Supplier.
Item # Qty Model # /
Part # /
Supplier Ref
#
Description of Goods
1 1 Site Acceptance Test (SAT) Site 1 Report
(TLS-2030)
Submitted by: Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation
Authorised Representative:
Name:………….Jeff Adams……..………………
Signature:……..…………………………………..
Date:………….…12/19/2024…………………....
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Karl Winner
Read the anchor · page 33
300-00048 Rev. D TTLS SAT and TRR Dec 15, 2024
APPENDIX A. ANPC SITE DATA VERIFICATION SIGN-OFF
Test Result Register
NOTES / Remarks:
Released by: Dec 15, 2024____________________________________
Karl Winner
Subject Matter Expert TT-ILS
ANPC Representative UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Goods delivery certificate signature date.
Read the anchor · page 61
Agreement Number: #106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
Submitted by: Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation
Authorised Representative:
Name:..
•Jeff Adams….
Signature:
larilyn Burgess District Clerk
Date:................ 12/13/2024...............
Unofficial Copy Office of Mari
eventattribution
Both supplier SAT certificates signed electronically.
Read the anchor · page 12
Agreement Number: #106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC
ANNEX I – FORM OF GOODS DELIVERY CONFIRMATION CERTIFICATE
(this “Certificate”)
TO: ROCK NETWORKS INC.
RE: Confirmation Goods delivered to the Goods Delivery Location pursuant to and in accordance with the Purchase
Agreement Number 106703.105 between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks Inc. (the
“Agreement”)
Instructions and terms:
1. As of the date of the Supplier’s signature below, Supplier hereby confirms and certifies that Goods listed
below were delivered to the Goods Delivery Location in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.
2. This document must be completed by the Supplier and accompany the shipment of the Goods.
3. This document forms part of the documentation for payment and payment of the applicable invoice
milestone as set out at Annex K shall not be made without submission of a fully completed Annex I. Any
comments and reservations made on this document may result in non-payment until the
comments/reservations are successfully addressed in the view of BUYER.
4. Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning respectively given to such in the Agreement.
5. This Certificate may be signed electronically in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document. The exchange of a fully
signed Certificate (in counterparts or otherwise) by electronic mail shall be sufficient to bind Supplier.
Item # Qty Model # /
Part # /
Supplier Ref
#
Description of Goods
1 1 Site Acceptance Test (SAT) Site 1 Report
(TLS-2030)
Submitted by: Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation
Authorised Representative:
Name:………….Jeff Adams……..………………
Signature:……..…………………………………..
Date:………….…12/19/2024…………………....
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
ANPC files verified complaint.
Read the anchor · page 2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM 25-CVS-_____
Advanced Navigation & Positioning )
Corporation )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-v- ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
)
Cyberlux Corporation )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, alleges:
PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, (“Plaintiff” or
“ANPC”) is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to
sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River,
Oregon, 97031.
2. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation (“Defendant” or
“Cyberlux”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County
located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can
be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine
Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. General
Statute §1-75.4 and other applicable bases for jurisdiction.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-82 and other applicable
bases for venue.
Electronically Filed Date: 6/5/2025 4:37 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
25CV005686-310
PR
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
inferenceinference
The exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment a
The exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 66-page source reviewed at SHA-256 e6ba829f7c01cdc82f3edd3a15805da20c283b92a672bab37eaffeec51c2bc6c. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 66-page source reviewed at SHA-256 e6ba829f7c01cdc82f3edd3a15805da20c283b92a672bab37eaffeec51c2bc6c. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own complete66-page source reading retained from prior checkpoint, with full usable native text and material images already read. Exact source SHA256 e6ba829f7c01cdc82f3edd3a15805da20c283b92a672bab37eaffeec51c2bc6c. Final supplements from root’s exact-source image review13September are separately attributed; own recheck59–61 confirms all35goods rows, ROCK Networks addressee and December13JeffAdams signature. Unreadable receipt name/unit63 remain unresolved; no missing pixels or cropped edges reconstructed.
Read the anchor · page 1
CAUSE NO. 202448085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
Plaintiff, Judgment-Creditor, §
§
v. § 129TH JUDICIAL COURT
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually § IN AND FOR
Defendant, Judgment-Debtor. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Exhibit 9-
Advanced Navigation and Positioning
Corporation
Cause No. 202448085 styled Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC et al.
v. Cyberlux Corporation et al, in the 129th District Court in and
For Harris County, Texas UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
questionquestion
What complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the t
What complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
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.
Vasylkiv installation checks are Y. ASA survey is 167°56′17″/849.3 feet, ATA 152°45′44″/706.8 feet, Cal/BIT 160°17′6″/531.2 feet and interrogator 150°30′50″/966.7 feet. Its FTM calculation is 206.6 metres for a 12.5-metre threshold-crossing height, a marked 207 metres and a three-degree glide slope.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The complaint requests $2,926,814.39 comprising $2,830,050 principal and $96,764.39 interest calculated at 8% from December 30, 2024, plus further interest, costs and other relief. Its wording concerning post-judgment interest from complaint to judgment is retained rather than silently corrected. No judgment awarding the requested sum is included.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The photographed NATO302 IA D81033, Copy 3, AIR, names DT Gruelle for Canadian Forces support hub ILEA, Canadian Commercial Corporation as sender and Armed Forces of Ukraine as recipient/final Kyiv destination c/o Canadian Armed Forces. It describes one CONEX transportable landing system, 7,484 kg, issue December 7 and expiry January 7, 2025. The receipt displays a signature and December 12, 2024 date; the handwritten recipient name/unit are not reliably readable and are not assigned to an actor.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The pleaded payment term is ten business days after Cyberlux receives its customer payment. ANPC alleges customer receipt on December 20 upon information and belief, yet treats December 30 as the breach/interest date. Receipt and the business-day calculation are not independently proved by the invoice or SAT exhibits. The senior-management escalation clause is described as a fourteen-day process; the May 15 FedEx/email dispute notice and nonresponse are allegations.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv records a separate 19-row mask-angle table, trees adding 0.25–0.4 degrees, ±35-degree clear space and stated 500-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Software is 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.05/-0.07 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6897 ns. Power/security responses are Y; optimised F1-delay remains blank despite a separate initial five-microsecond entry.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The Dubno SAT/TRR is revision D of 300-00048. Its cover completion date is December 16 while repeated headers and Karl Winner’s signed release show December 15. Instructions reference installation/field manual 020-00103 and require completed records and copies to the customer and ANPC. Those referenced manuals and original raw data are not appended.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The pleaded payment term is ten business days after Cyberlux receives its customer payment. ANPC alleges customer receipt on December 20 upon information and belief, yet treats December 30 as the breach/interest date. Receipt and the business-day calculation are not independently proved by the invoice or SAT exhibits. The senior-management escalation clause is described as a fourteen-day process; the May 15 FedEx/email dispute notice and nonresponse are allegations.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The pleaded payment term is ten business days after Cyberlux receives its customer payment. ANPC alleges customer receipt on December 20 upon information and belief, yet treats December 30 as the breach/interest date. Receipt and the business-day calculation are not independently proved by the invoice or SAT exhibits. The senior-management escalation clause is described as a fourteen-day process; the May 15 FedEx/email dispute notice and nonresponse are allegations.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit 9 ANPC in the Harris County filing reproduces ANPC’s Durham County verified complaint, file 25CV005686-310, filed June 5, 2025 at 4:37 PM. ANPC describes itself as a Delaware corporation based in Hood River and Cyberlux as a Nevada corporation with North Carolina offices. Filing/verification does not adjudicate the allegations.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno calibration references D1211_02, D1211_09_1, D1211_00_1 and D1211_10_1 drone files and reports completed flight/cal.dat checks. Signal verification expressly excludes localiser arcs and additional glide-slope crossings/inspection beyond alignment from the project. It records F16 approaches during an air alert on Friday the 13th. This bounded alignment record is not an unrestricted flight-certification conclusion.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv explicitly marks both localiser arcs and below-path approach NOT MEASURED, leaves the crossing row blank and limits the project to alignment. It reports seven F16 standard approaches on December 18, lists seven V1218 files and says RCU1 was used. Those limitations constrain what the signed release proves.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CFO Tim Arbogast’s verification states personal knowledge except information-and-belief matters, which he believes true. The page displays his signature and a June 5, 2025 Oregon/Hood River notarial acknowledgement by Emily Joyce, commission 1058184 expiring May 13, 2029. The personal-knowledge limitation applies to the pleaded customer-payment trigger.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Two separate Annex I certificates under agreement 106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC identify Site 1 TLS2030 and Site 2 TLS2038 SAT completion. Each displays Jeff Adams’s electronic signature dated December 19, 2024. Their conditions connect payment to fully completed certification and permit withholding where comments/reservations remain unresolved; they are supplier certifications, not an appended customer bank receipt.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno records a 19-row mask-angle survey, trees adding 0.25–0.5 degrees, clear azimuth ±20 degrees and stated 550-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Power checks are Y with software 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.10/0.15 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6899 ns. Cal/BIT amplitudes lie within the displayed 1000–1950 mV limits; the optimised F1-delay field is blank, not a recorded zero.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Three November 26, 2024 CMRs separately identify two 6,803-kg Nesoi trailers (Sp.24319TC-2 and -3) and MRKU9043706 CONEX/spares, seven crates and 1,139 kg (TC-1), routed through Baltic Hub to Rzeszow/Jasionka. Carrier names/vehicle IDs differ; TC-1 visibly bears seal 040861. Recipient marks show November 27. Photographed lower edges are cropped; no unseen text is reconstructed.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Steve Naito’s June 6 email to Berleth forwards ANPC’s claim and asks acknowledgement that it will be considered against receivership assets. This is a creditor submission, not the receiver’s acceptance, a priority ruling or payment.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The Dubno SAT/TRR is revision D of 300-00048. Its cover completion date is December 16 while repeated headers and Karl Winner’s signed release show December 15. Instructions reference installation/field manual 020-00103 and require completed records and copies to the customer and ANPC. Those referenced manuals and original raw data are not appended.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno final Rack A and B tables preserve differing ESA bias and tilt values, including Rack A perpendicular -0.735 versus Rack B -0.15 degrees. The supplied table alone does not establish equipment failure, because configurations, applicable limits and raw observations require reconciliation. Karl Winner’s release signature is displayed on December 15 with no added notes.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv installation checks are Y. ASA survey is 167°56′17″/849.3 feet, ATA 152°45′44″/706.8 feet, Cal/BIT 160°17′6″/531.2 feet and interrogator 150°30′50″/966.7 feet. Its FTM calculation is 206.6 metres for a 12.5-metre threshold-crossing height, a marked 207 metres and a three-degree glide slope.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The invoice appears twice as 0000696-IN dated December 20, 2024, sales order 0000261 and customer purchase order 106703.105. It describes Milestone 4, 20% upon SAT, for $2,830,050, quantity one shipped and zero backorder, without additional freight or tax. Duplication is repeat evidence of one invoice, not two debts. Its title does not independently establish that a fifth milestone was fulfilled or payable.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno records a 19-row mask-angle survey, trees adding 0.25–0.5 degrees, clear azimuth ±20 degrees and stated 550-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Power checks are Y with software 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.10/0.15 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6899 ns. Cal/BIT amplitudes lie within the displayed 1000–1950 mV limits; the optimised F1-delay field is blank, not a recorded zero.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The customs form’s preprinted property wording is disjunctive: goods that are property of, or destined to be property of, Canadian military forces. It cannot alone establish which alternative applied, the time title passed or current beneficial ownership. The form refers to attachments that are not supplied as independently identified complete attachment sets.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CMR Sp.24374TC identifies a 20-foot CPMU2017410 container, TTLS2030 and 7,484 kg, from ANPC via Baltic Hub Gdansk December 4, 2024 to Armed Forces Ukraine c/o Canadian Armed Forces at Rzeszow Jasionka. It identifies MPM Grupa/Piotr Strzelczak, invoice/permit/NATO302 IA D82583 and gas-cylinder dangerous-goods particulars. Sender and consignee stamps are visible; no inference of ownership follows solely from transport routing.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv’s calibration table retains D1211 file identifiers also found in Dubno, while its added notes identify V1218_00, _01, _02, _02_2 and _04_2. It reports an initial 2.5-degree drone approach, changed waypoints, subsequent verification within 0.05 degrees of three degrees, a 0.1-degree glide-slope adjustment and no localiser adjustment. Preserve the repeated table and site-specific notes; do not silently replace one with the other.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CFO Tim Arbogast’s verification states personal knowledge except information-and-belief matters, which he believes true. The page displays his signature and a June 5, 2025 Oregon/Hood River notarial acknowledgement by Emily Joyce, commission 1058184 expiring May 13, 2029. The personal-knowledge limitation applies to the pleaded customer-payment trigger.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Three November 26, 2024 CMRs separately identify two 6,803-kg Nesoi trailers (Sp.24319TC-2 and -3) and MRKU9043706 CONEX/spares, seven crates and 1,139 kg (TC-1), routed through Baltic Hub to Rzeszow/Jasionka. Carrier names/vehicle IDs differ; TC-1 visibly bears seal 040861. Recipient marks show November 27. Photographed lower edges are cropped; no unseen text is reconstructed.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit 9 ANPC in the Harris County filing reproduces ANPC’s Durham County verified complaint, file 25CV005686-310, filed June 5, 2025 at 4:37 PM. ANPC describes itself as a Delaware corporation based in Hood River and Cyberlux as a Nevada corporation with North Carolina offices. Filing/verification does not adjudicate the allegations.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv’s calibration table retains D1211 file identifiers also found in Dubno, while its added notes identify V1218_00, _01, _02, _02_2 and _04_2. It reports an initial 2.5-degree drone approach, changed waypoints, subsequent verification within 0.05 degrees of three degrees, a 0.1-degree glide-slope adjustment and no localiser adjustment. Preserve the repeated table and site-specific notes; do not silently replace one with the other.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno final Rack A and B tables preserve differing ESA bias and tilt values, including Rack A perpendicular -0.735 versus Rack B -0.15 degrees. The supplied table alone does not establish equipment failure, because configurations, applicable limits and raw observations require reconciliation. Karl Winner’s release signature is displayed on December 15 with no added notes.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
A separate goods-delivery Annex I lists TLS2030 and TLS2038 with two GTUs each, two TTLS Conex trailers and 32 further system/depot spare, cable, antenna and test-equipment rows. The two-trailer quantity differs from the complaint’s one-applicable-trailer description; retain each source’s wording. Jeff Adams’s physical signature is dated December 13, before the separate December 19 SAT certificates. The certificate is addressed to ROCK NETWORKS INC. and identifies the purchase agreement between Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks; its supplier signature is not a customer payment confirmation. There are35 numbered goods rows.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
ANPC alleges an October 11, 2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, two guidance transmitter units for each and one applicable trailer plus services, payable in five milestones. It alleges the first three milestones were paid, a final December 20 invoice remained unpaid, and Cyberlux has not disputed performance. The underlying complete purchase agreement is not included here.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The photographed NATO302 IA D81033, Copy 3, AIR, names DT Gruelle for Canadian Forces support hub ILEA, Canadian Commercial Corporation as sender and Armed Forces of Ukraine as recipient/final Kyiv destination c/o Canadian Armed Forces. It describes one CONEX transportable landing system, 7,484 kg, issue December 7 and expiry January 7, 2025. The receipt displays a signature and December 12, 2024 date; the handwritten recipient name/unit are not reliably readable and are not assigned to an actor.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv records a separate 19-row mask-angle table, trees adding 0.25–0.4 degrees, ±35-degree clear space and stated 500-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Software is 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.05/-0.07 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6897 ns. Power/security responses are Y; optimised F1-delay remains blank despite a separate initial five-microsecond entry.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno final Rack A and B tables preserve differing ESA bias and tilt values, including Rack A perpendicular -0.735 versus Rack B -0.15 degrees. The supplied table alone does not establish equipment failure, because configurations, applicable limits and raw observations require reconciliation. Karl Winner’s release signature is displayed on December 15 with no added notes.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Steve Naito’s June 6 email to Berleth forwards ANPC’s claim and asks acknowledgement that it will be considered against receivership assets. This is a creditor submission, not the receiver’s acceptance, a priority ruling or payment.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv explicitly marks both localiser arcs and below-path approach NOT MEASURED, leaves the crossing row blank and limits the project to alignment. It reports seven F16 standard approaches on December 18, lists seven V1218 files and says RCU1 was used. Those limitations constrain what the signed release proves.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit 9 ANPC in the Harris County filing reproduces ANPC’s Durham County verified complaint, file 25CV005686-310, filed June 5, 2025 at 4:37 PM. ANPC describes itself as a Delaware corporation based in Hood River and Cyberlux as a Nevada corporation with North Carolina offices. Filing/verification does not adjudicate the allegations.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
A separate goods-delivery Annex I lists TLS2030 and TLS2038 with two GTUs each, two TTLS Conex trailers and 32 further system/depot spare, cable, antenna and test-equipment rows. The two-trailer quantity differs from the complaint’s one-applicable-trailer description; retain each source’s wording. Jeff Adams’s physical signature is dated December 13, before the separate December 19 SAT certificates. The certificate is addressed to ROCK NETWORKS INC. and identifies the purchase agreement between Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks; its supplier signature is not a customer payment confirmation. There are35 numbered goods rows.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno records a 19-row mask-angle survey, trees adding 0.25–0.5 degrees, clear azimuth ±20 degrees and stated 550-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Power checks are Y with software 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.10/0.15 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6899 ns. Cal/BIT amplitudes lie within the displayed 1000–1950 mV limits; the optimised F1-delay field is blank, not a recorded zero.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Four TrackReplay screenshots identify Vasylkiv Air Base Runway 31, a 241218c_Vas_Rack_B_9_F-16_approaches/rcu1 path, PAR view and manual zoom. They display orange approach tracks and green boundaries, with r1/r2 date selections and differing selected flights. These are static replay images, not the underlying authenticated telemetry or proof every listed approach met a regulatory standard.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno calibration references D1211_02, D1211_09_1, D1211_00_1 and D1211_10_1 drone files and reports completed flight/cal.dat checks. Signal verification expressly excludes localiser arcs and additional glide-slope crossings/inspection beyond alignment from the project. It records F16 approaches during an air alert on Friday the 13th. This bounded alignment record is not an unrestricted flight-certification conclusion.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno installation checks are recorded Y. Survey entries identify ASA 194°56′17″ at 865.8 feet, ATA 201°39′1″ at 750.5 feet, Cal/BIT 202°32′26″ at 577.7 feet and interrogator 211°2′53″ at 1,039.1 feet. The FTM table prints calculated distance 139.63 feet but marked location 206.6 metres; retain both units without assuming a correction. Handwritten KW initials are visible on checked technical pages.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv records a separate 19-row mask-angle table, trees adding 0.25–0.4 degrees, ±35-degree clear space and stated 500-foot lowest coverage at ten nautical miles. Software is 7.1.1, tilt averages 0.05/-0.07 degrees and initial TOAs 6573/6905/6897 ns. Power/security responses are Y; optimised F1-delay remains blank despite a separate initial five-microsecond entry.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
ANPC alleges an October 11, 2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, two guidance transmitter units for each and one applicable trailer plus services, payable in five milestones. It alleges the first three milestones were paid, a final December 20 invoice remained unpaid, and Cyberlux has not disputed performance. The underlying complete purchase agreement is not included here.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
ANPC alleges an October 11, 2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, two guidance transmitter units for each and one applicable trailer plus services, payable in five milestones. It alleges the first three milestones were paid, a final December 20 invoice remained unpaid, and Cyberlux has not disputed performance. The underlying complete purchase agreement is not included here.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The Vasylkiv SAT/TRR is a distinct December 18, 2024 report under the same revision and agreement. It has its own location, measurements and Karl Winner release signature dated December 18. Shared form structure does not make its measurements identical to Dubno or provide independent corroboration of the other site.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv explicitly marks both localiser arcs and below-path approach NOT MEASURED, leaves the crossing row blank and limits the project to alignment. It reports seven F16 standard approaches on December 18, lists seven V1218 files and says RCU1 was used. Those limitations constrain what the signed release proves.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Four TrackReplay screenshots identify Vasylkiv Air Base Runway 31, a 241218c_Vas_Rack_B_9_F-16_approaches/rcu1 path, PAR view and manual zoom. They display orange approach tracks and green boundaries, with r1/r2 date selections and differing selected flights. These are static replay images, not the underlying authenticated telemetry or proof every listed approach met a regulatory standard.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The invoice appears twice as 0000696-IN dated December 20, 2024, sales order 0000261 and customer purchase order 106703.105. It describes Milestone 4, 20% upon SAT, for $2,830,050, quantity one shipped and zero backorder, without additional freight or tax. Duplication is repeat evidence of one invoice, not two debts. Its title does not independently establish that a fifth milestone was fulfilled or payable.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno installation checks are recorded Y. Survey entries identify ASA 194°56′17″ at 865.8 feet, ATA 201°39′1″ at 750.5 feet, Cal/BIT 202°32′26″ at 577.7 feet and interrogator 211°2′53″ at 1,039.1 feet. The FTM table prints calculated distance 139.63 feet but marked location 206.6 metres; retain both units without assuming a correction. Handwritten KW initials are visible on checked technical pages.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno calibration references D1211_02, D1211_09_1, D1211_00_1 and D1211_10_1 drone files and reports completed flight/cal.dat checks. Signal verification expressly excludes localiser arcs and additional glide-slope crossings/inspection beyond alignment from the project. It records F16 approaches during an air alert on Friday the 13th. This bounded alignment record is not an unrestricted flight-certification conclusion.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
A separate goods-delivery Annex I lists TLS2030 and TLS2038 with two GTUs each, two TTLS Conex trailers and 32 further system/depot spare, cable, antenna and test-equipment rows. The two-trailer quantity differs from the complaint’s one-applicable-trailer description; retain each source’s wording. Jeff Adams’s physical signature is dated December 13, before the separate December 19 SAT certificates. The certificate is addressed to ROCK NETWORKS INC. and identifies the purchase agreement between Canadian Commercial Corporation and ROCK Networks; its supplier signature is not a customer payment confirmation. There are35 numbered goods rows.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The collection assembles a pleaded debt, repeated invoice, supplier goods/SAT certificates, bounded technical reports and transport/customs records. These support distinct steps in the claimed performance chain, but do not supply Cyberlux customer-payment evidence, a complete contractual milestone schedule, raw flight datasets or an adjudicated debt/priority determination.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The Vasylkiv SAT/TRR is a distinct December 18, 2024 report under the same revision and agreement. It has its own location, measurements and Karl Winner release signature dated December 18. Shared form structure does not make its measurements identical to Dubno or provide independent corroboration of the other site.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Two separate Annex I certificates under agreement 106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC identify Site 1 TLS2030 and Site 2 TLS2038 SAT completion. Each displays Jeff Adams’s electronic signature dated December 19, 2024. Their conditions connect payment to fully completed certification and permit withholding where comments/reservations remain unresolved; they are supplier certifications, not an appended customer bank receipt.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CMR Sp.24374TC identifies a 20-foot CPMU2017410 container, TTLS2030 and 7,484 kg, from ANPC via Baltic Hub Gdansk December 4, 2024 to Armed Forces Ukraine c/o Canadian Armed Forces at Rzeszow Jasionka. It identifies MPM Grupa/Piotr Strzelczak, invoice/permit/NATO302 IA D82583 and gas-cylinder dangerous-goods particulars. Sender and consignee stamps are visible; no inference of ownership follows solely from transport routing.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Two separate Annex I certificates under agreement 106703.105-CYBERLUX-ANPC identify Site 1 TLS2030 and Site 2 TLS2038 SAT completion. Each displays Jeff Adams’s electronic signature dated December 19, 2024. Their conditions connect payment to fully completed certification and permit withholding where comments/reservations remain unresolved; they are supplier certifications, not an appended customer bank receipt.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Steve Naito’s June 6 email to Berleth forwards ANPC’s claim and asks acknowledgement that it will be considered against receivership assets. This is a creditor submission, not the receiver’s acceptance, a priority ruling or payment.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv’s final Rack A/B tables report separate phase, power, timing, tilt and transmitter values. Their tilt pairs are reversed between racks: A perpendicular -0.07/parallel 0.05, B perpendicular 0.05/parallel -0.07. This is a configuration/record-comparison lead, not by itself a finding of deficient landing safety. Winner signs release on December 18.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The complaint requests $2,926,814.39 comprising $2,830,050 principal and $96,764.39 interest calculated at 8% from December 30, 2024, plus further interest, costs and other relief. Its wording concerning post-judgment interest from complaint to judgment is retained rather than silently corrected. No judgment awarding the requested sum is included.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The Dubno SAT/TRR is revision D of 300-00048. Its cover completion date is December 16 while repeated headers and Karl Winner’s signed release show December 15. Instructions reference installation/field manual 020-00103 and require completed records and copies to the customer and ANPC. Those referenced manuals and original raw data are not appended.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The invoice appears twice as 0000696-IN dated December 20, 2024, sales order 0000261 and customer purchase order 106703.105. It describes Milestone 4, 20% upon SAT, for $2,830,050, quantity one shipped and zero backorder, without additional freight or tax. Duplication is repeat evidence of one invoice, not two debts. Its title does not independently establish that a fifth milestone was fulfilled or payable.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv’s final Rack A/B tables report separate phase, power, timing, tilt and transmitter values. Their tilt pairs are reversed between racks: A perpendicular -0.07/parallel 0.05, B perpendicular 0.05/parallel -0.07. This is a configuration/record-comparison lead, not by itself a finding of deficient landing safety. Winner signs release on December 18.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The customs form’s preprinted property wording is disjunctive: goods that are property of, or destined to be property of, Canadian military forces. It cannot alone establish which alternative applied, the time title passed or current beneficial ownership. The form refers to attachments that are not supplied as independently identified complete attachment sets.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv’s calibration table retains D1211 file identifiers also found in Dubno, while its added notes identify V1218_00, _01, _02, _02_2 and _04_2. It reports an initial 2.5-degree drone approach, changed waypoints, subsequent verification within 0.05 degrees of three degrees, a 0.1-degree glide-slope adjustment and no localiser adjustment. Preserve the repeated table and site-specific notes; do not silently replace one with the other.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The Vasylkiv SAT/TRR is a distinct December 18, 2024 report under the same revision and agreement. It has its own location, measurements and Karl Winner release signature dated December 18. Shared form structure does not make its measurements identical to Dubno or provide independent corroboration of the other site.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The collection assembles a pleaded debt, repeated invoice, supplier goods/SAT certificates, bounded technical reports and transport/customs records. These support distinct steps in the claimed performance chain, but do not supply Cyberlux customer-payment evidence, a complete contractual milestone schedule, raw flight datasets or an adjudicated debt/priority determination.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CFO Tim Arbogast’s verification states personal knowledge except information-and-belief matters, which he believes true. The page displays his signature and a June 5, 2025 Oregon/Hood River notarial acknowledgement by Emily Joyce, commission 1058184 expiring May 13, 2029. The personal-knowledge limitation applies to the pleaded customer-payment trigger.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv’s final Rack A/B tables report separate phase, power, timing, tilt and transmitter values. Their tilt pairs are reversed between racks: A perpendicular -0.07/parallel 0.05, B perpendicular 0.05/parallel -0.07. This is a configuration/record-comparison lead, not by itself a finding of deficient landing safety. Winner signs release on December 18.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Three November 26, 2024 CMRs separately identify two 6,803-kg Nesoi trailers (Sp.24319TC-2 and -3) and MRKU9043706 CONEX/spares, seven crates and 1,139 kg (TC-1), routed through Baltic Hub to Rzeszow/Jasionka. Carrier names/vehicle IDs differ; TC-1 visibly bears seal 040861. Recipient marks show November 27. Photographed lower edges are cropped; no unseen text is reconstructed.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The customs form’s preprinted property wording is disjunctive: goods that are property of, or destined to be property of, Canadian military forces. It cannot alone establish which alternative applied, the time title passed or current beneficial ownership. The form refers to attachments that are not supplied as independently identified complete attachment sets.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The photographed NATO302 IA D81033, Copy 3, AIR, names DT Gruelle for Canadian Forces support hub ILEA, Canadian Commercial Corporation as sender and Armed Forces of Ukraine as recipient/final Kyiv destination c/o Canadian Armed Forces. It describes one CONEX transportable landing system, 7,484 kg, issue December 7 and expiry January 7, 2025. The receipt displays a signature and December 12, 2024 date; the handwritten recipient name/unit are not reliably readable and are not assigned to an actor.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CMR Sp.24374TC identifies a 20-foot CPMU2017410 container, TTLS2030 and 7,484 kg, from ANPC via Baltic Hub Gdansk December 4, 2024 to Armed Forces Ukraine c/o Canadian Armed Forces at Rzeszow Jasionka. It identifies MPM Grupa/Piotr Strzelczak, invoice/permit/NATO302 IA D82583 and gas-cylinder dangerous-goods particulars. Sender and consignee stamps are visible; no inference of ownership follows solely from transport routing.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The collection assembles a pleaded debt, repeated invoice, supplier goods/SAT certificates, bounded technical reports and transport/customs records. These support distinct steps in the claimed performance chain, but do not supply Cyberlux customer-payment evidence, a complete contractual milestone schedule, raw flight datasets or an adjudicated debt/priority determination.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Vasylkiv installation checks are Y. ASA survey is 167°56′17″/849.3 feet, ATA 152°45′44″/706.8 feet, Cal/BIT 160°17′6″/531.2 feet and interrogator 150°30′50″/966.7 feet. Its FTM calculation is 206.6 metres for a 12.5-metre threshold-crossing height, a marked 207 metres and a three-degree glide slope.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Four TrackReplay screenshots identify Vasylkiv Air Base Runway 31, a 241218c_Vas_Rack_B_9_F-16_approaches/rcu1 path, PAR view and manual zoom. They display orange approach tracks and green boundaries, with r1/r2 date selections and differing selected flights. These are static replay images, not the underlying authenticated telemetry or proof every listed approach met a regulatory standard.supportsThe exhibits materially support a documented supplier performance sequence, but supplier delivery/SAT, transport receipt, customer payment and legal entitlement remain separate propositions. The alleged ten-business-day trigger needs customer payment evidence; restricted testing and incomplete receipt attribution prevent broader technical or ownership conclusions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The complaint requests $2,926,814.39 comprising $2,830,050 principal and $96,764.39 interest calculated at 8% from December 30, 2024, plus further interest, costs and other relief. Its wording concerning post-judgment interest from complaint to judgment is retained rather than silently corrected. No judgment awarding the requested sum is included.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Dubno installation checks are recorded Y. Survey entries identify ASA 194°56′17″ at 865.8 feet, ATA 201°39′1″ at 750.5 feet, Cal/BIT 202°32′26″ at 577.7 feet and interrogator 211°2′53″ at 1,039.1 feet. The FTM table prints calculated distance 139.63 feet but marked location 206.6 metres; retain both units without assuming a correction. Handwritten KW initials are visible on checked technical pages.supportsWhat complete agreement, customer payment ledger, milestone acceptance record, raw flight files and legible original receipt establish the trigger date, final amount, precise test scope and receiving actor?
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.