Context source · GT-S-F25ABE26EB3C
f25abe26eb3c9933e473…5 pages · 2 MBDISTILLATES
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
Treating the judgment as currently enforceable for its full face amount assumes no later modification, stay, reversal or satisfaction; this copy alone does not establish that current state.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
$6,000,000 negotiated compensatory award jointly and severally, stated $25,250.50 costs/fees, and 6% annual post-judgment interest from entry.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 3871[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page.] that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt. Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants’ representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas. And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the “Second Motion”). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants’ appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion. And lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage Printed page 2.
Exhibit 9 is a five-page Consent Final Order in Richmond Circuit Court CL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community v. Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt individually. It records a 16 December 2025 hearing and bears Judge Jacqueline S. McClenney’s signature and handwritten entry date 18 December 2025. It was later filed as EDVA ECF 180-9 on 15 April 2026.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
The order recounts a September 19 joint consent motion, defendants’ objection and an October 30, 2025 opinion finding an earlier CL22-3882 settlement valid and the receivership properly recorded in Richmond. It says the earlier consent request was nevertheless denied and further rulings stayed pending Texas proceedings. Page 1’s description says the Receiver acted “on behalf of the Plaintiffs”; that printed wording is preserved without silently correcting its apparent role inconsistency.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
The order describes Berleth’s 22 May 2025 Texas appointment by Michael Gomez as controlling Cyberlux and Schmidt business functions. Footnote 1 separately says the receiver had filed a Texas order removing Schmidt individually but that it had not yet been entered. A proposed removal is not treated as completed removal.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
The order relies on changed circumstances: a Texas appellate abatement order of 4 November 2025 treating the mandamus-related appeal as closed and removing it from the docket, and an 11 November denial of an emergency stay motion. These are this court’s recitals of external instruments, not a supplied Texas merits decision or adjudication of every appellate issue.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 3871[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page.] that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt. Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants’ representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas. And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the “Second Motion”). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants’ appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion. And lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage Printed page 2.
The court finds the Receiver has authority to control/manage litigation incident to his role and states that Receiver and plaintiffs agreed to a consent judgment. It grants judgment to Atlantic Wave and Secure Community against Cyberlux and Schmidt individually, jointly and severally, for negotiated compensatory damages of $6,000,000.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 3871[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page.] that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt. Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants’ representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas. And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the “Second Motion”). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants’ appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion. And lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage Printed page 2.
The order additionally awards costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees in the stated amount of $25,250.50, per agreement, and post-judgment interest at 6% per annum from entry. It dismisses remaining motions as moot and both complaint and counter-complaint with prejudice and ends the cause. The express award is not proof of satisfaction or current balance.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 3872[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page.] litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants to resolve the Complaint and finalize the litigation, it is therefore ORDERED that judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, jointly and severally, as follows: a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the negotiated sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint. b. That Plaintiffs be awarded all their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,250.50, per the parties agreement and post judgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entry of this order. c. Any remaining Motions pending before the court are dismissed as moot. d. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants’ Counter-Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the parties. e. The cause is ended and may be stricken from the docket upon entry of this order. The Court notes that the Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the December 16, 2025, hearing based on its assertion that the hearing was improperly scheduled, and that defense counsel was unable to appear. The Defendants’ counsel of record did not appear. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Quash electronically with supporting exhibits. The Defendants then filed a reply, electronically, all of which were reviewed by the court and considered. Based on the pleadings and argument, the Motion to Quash is Denied. The Court Printed page 3.
The court records that defendants’ counsel challenged the 16 December hearing as improperly scheduled and could not appear; counsel of record did not appear. It considered the opposition and defendants’ reply and denied the motion to quash. It expressly makes no ruling on defendants’ standing to claim defective notice or on any appellate rights.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 3872[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page.] litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants to resolve the Complaint and finalize the litigation, it is therefore ORDERED that judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, jointly and severally, as follows: a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the negotiated sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint. b. That Plaintiffs be awarded all their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $25,250.50, per the parties agreement and post judgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entry of this order. c. Any remaining Motions pending before the court are dismissed as moot. d. Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants’ Counter-Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the parties. e. The cause is ended and may be stricken from the docket upon entry of this order. The Court notes that the Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the December 16, 2025, hearing based on its assertion that the hearing was improperly scheduled, and that defense counsel was unable to appear. The Defendants’ counsel of record did not appear. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Quash electronically with supporting exhibits. The Defendants then filed a reply, electronically, all of which were reviewed by the court and considered. Based on the pleadings and argument, the Motion to Quash is Denied. The Court Printed page 3.
The order bears signatures in the judge, plaintiffs’ counsel and Receiver’s counsel blocks plus a clerk copy certification. Jimmy F. Robinson’s defence counsel block has a blank signature line and says Signature Waived Pursuant to Rule 1:13. The title Consent Final Order therefore does not establish that defence counsel signed or personally consented.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 3873[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page; signature marks described, not authenticated.] makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This [handwritten 18th] day of December, 2025. [Signature over printed name] Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. WE ASK FOR THIS: [Signature] Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391. Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law. 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd., Chester, Virginia 23836. (804) 748-3600, ext. 306. (804) 748-4671 facsimile. E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com. Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC. [Signature across counsel block] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699. Robert N. Drewry, VSB #9128[final digit obscured by signature]. Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP. Two James Center, 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001, Richmond, VA 23219. 804.977.3301; 804.977.3291 Facsimile. vinge@whitefordlaw.com; rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com. Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver. [A Copy certification stamp] Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK. BY: [handwritten deputy signature not independently identified], D.C. Printed page 4.
The order supplies a judicial award and its recited basis, not the full prior settlement, Texas appointment/abatement/stay records, motion papers, later appellate disposition or payment history. Its reserved notice-standing/appellate questions remain reserved; they are not resolved against defendants by implication.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 3874[Own image-verified transcription.] Signature Waived Pursuant to Rule 1:13 [Blank signature line] Jimmy F. Robinson, Esquire Ogletree Deakins 901 East Byrd Street Suite 1300 Richmond, VA 23219 804-663-2330 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com Counsel for Cyberlux Corp. & Mark D. Schmidt Printed page 5.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 3871[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page.] that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt. Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants’ representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas. And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the “Second Motion”). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants’ appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to the Second Motion. And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion. And lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage Printed page 2.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 3873[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page; signature marks described, not authenticated.] makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This [handwritten 18th] day of December, 2025. [Signature over printed name] Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. WE ASK FOR THIS: [Signature] Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391. Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law. 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd., Chester, Virginia 23836. (804) 748-3600, ext. 306. (804) 748-4671 facsimile. E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com. Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC. [Signature across counsel block] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699. Robert N. Drewry, VSB #9128[final digit obscured by signature]. Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP. Two James Center, 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001, Richmond, VA 23219. 804.977.3301; 804.977.3291 Facsimile. vinge@whitefordlaw.com; rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com. Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver. [A Copy certification stamp] Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK. BY: [handwritten deputy signature not independently identified], D.C. Printed page 4.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 3873[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page; signature marks described, not authenticated.] makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This [handwritten 18th] day of December, 2025. [Signature over printed name] Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. WE ASK FOR THIS: [Signature] Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391. Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law. 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd., Chester, Virginia 23836. (804) 748-3600, ext. 306. (804) 748-4671 facsimile. E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com. Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC. [Signature across counsel block] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699. Robert N. Drewry, VSB #9128[final digit obscured by signature]. Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP. Two James Center, 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001, Richmond, VA 23219. 804.977.3301; 804.977.3291 Facsimile. vinge@whitefordlaw.com; rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com. Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver. [A Copy certification stamp] Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK. BY: [handwritten deputy signature not independently identified], D.C. Printed page 4.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 3873[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page; signature marks described, not authenticated.] makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This [handwritten 18th] day of December, 2025. [Signature over printed name] Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. WE ASK FOR THIS: [Signature] Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391. Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law. 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd., Chester, Virginia 23836. (804) 748-3600, ext. 306. (804) 748-4671 facsimile. E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com. Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC. [Signature across counsel block] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699. Robert N. Drewry, VSB #9128[final digit obscured by signature]. Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP. Two James Center, 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001, Richmond, VA 23219. 804.977.3301; 804.977.3291 Facsimile. vinge@whitefordlaw.com; rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com. Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver. [A Copy certification stamp] Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK. BY: [handwritten deputy signature not independently identified], D.C. Printed page 4.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 3873[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page; signature marks described, not authenticated.] makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This [handwritten 18th] day of December, 2025. [Signature over printed name] Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. WE ASK FOR THIS: [Signature] Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391. Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law. 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd., Chester, Virginia 23836. (804) 748-3600, ext. 306. (804) 748-4671 facsimile. E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com. Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC. [Signature across counsel block] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699. Robert N. Drewry, VSB #9128[final digit obscured by signature]. Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP. Two James Center, 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001, Richmond, VA 23219. 804.977.3301; 804.977.3291 Facsimile. vinge@whitefordlaw.com; rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com. Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver. [A Copy certification stamp] Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK. BY: [handwritten deputy signature not independently identified], D.C. Printed page 4.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 3873[Own image-verified transcription, continuing previous page; signature marks described, not authenticated.] makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This [handwritten 18th] day of December, 2025. [Signature over printed name] Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge, Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia. WE ASK FOR THIS: [Signature] Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391. Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law. 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd., Chester, Virginia 23836. (804) 748-3600, ext. 306. (804) 748-4671 facsimile. E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com. Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC. [Signature across counsel block] Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699. Robert N. Drewry, VSB #9128[final digit obscured by signature]. Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP. Two James Center, 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001, Richmond, VA 23219. 804.977.3301; 804.977.3291 Facsimile. vinge@whitefordlaw.com; rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com. Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver. [A Copy certification stamp] Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK. BY: [handwritten deputy signature not independently identified], D.C. Printed page 4.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
The operative joint-and-several award against Schmidt must be retained alongside the footnote about a proposed, unentered removal. Neither the proposed Texas action nor absent defence signature cancels this supplied order; later validity and review require their own records.
The consent relied on is expressly Receiver/plaintiff consent within the court’s authority finding. The source records defendants’ opposition and waived counsel signature, preventing a summary that all parties voluntarily signed.
The supporting Texas instruments and subsequent docket/payment trail are absent, leaving current effect and the reserved questions outside the source’s demonstrated scope.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 f25abe26eb3c9933e47338792c3a9e372242fa0f8ab17cb6d8cdb9d829896d80. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. All five supplied scanned pages visually read and manually transcribed, including the footnote, all operative subparagraphs, express reservations, signatures and waived defence signature. Page 4 enlarged to verify date and signature-block details; only identified peripheral handwriting/overprint remains unresolved.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 3870[Own image-verified transcription; the native layer contains only the federal filing stamp.] EXHIBIT 9. VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. Case No.: CL24-3910. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling: It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order (“First Motion”) entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. [The source prints “Plaintiffs” here.] The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written “Opinion and Order” dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and Footnote 1: While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas. Printed page 1.
The court entered a Consent Final Order on December 8, 2025, awarding $6 million in damages and dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PagelD#X1879T VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Ber
Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, Secure Community, and Receiver Robert W. Berleth filed Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order on September 19, 2025; defendants objected and court allowed briefing.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 180-9 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 5 PagelD#X1879T VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, Case No.: CL24-3910 CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants. CONSENT FINAL ORDER On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Ber
CONNECT
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
This reviewed database occurrence and exact public source passage document the dated event in the public chronology.
This reviewed database occurrence and exact public source passage document the dated event in the public chronology.
This reviewed database occurrence and exact public source passage document the dated event in the public chronology.
The controlling book publication map connects this dated event to Part III, Chapter 30. The connection follows stored event/source and publication identifiers.
The controlling book publication map connects this dated event to Part III, Chapter 30. The connection follows stored event/source and publication identifiers.
The controlling book publication map connects this dated event to Part III, Chapter 30. The connection follows stored event/source and publication identifiers.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.