Cyberlux Corporation has now tried to remove this case to federal court four times. Two in California. Two in Texas. Their latest attempt leans on the idea that drones stored in their warehouse are the property of the U.S. government, and therefore off-limits to state court enforcement. They cite the wrong FAR clause, hide behind a non-disclosure agreement, and claim a federal question where none exists.
All of this could be resolved with one simple thing: a letter confirming transfer of title.
They haven’t provided one. They say they can’t. According to sources familiar with the matter, Cyberlux has strongly discouraged the prime contractor from disclosing the contract, raising concerns about potential legal consequences if they did.
If I were the judge overseeing this mess, here’s how that hearing might go:
COURTROOM TRANSCRIPT – SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
April 2025
Hon. Clarkson J. Holt, Presiding (Hypothetically)
THE COURT: Let’s begin. Counsel for Cyberlux, you’re here again. For the fourth time. At this point, I’m half-expecting you to try removal to the moon.
COUNSEL FOR CYBERLUX: Your Honor, we respectfully assert that the drones at issue are federal property. As such—
THE COURT: No. Just—no. We are not doing this again. You are still citing FAR 52.249-6(c), aren’t you?
COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honor. It governs property disposition after contract termination—
THE COURT: Except it doesn’t apply. Not to you. You have a Firm-Fixed-Price contract. That clause applies to Cost-Reimbursement contracts. That’s like citing the DMV handbook to fly a plane.
THE COURT: Have you provided a letter—any documentation—confirming that title to the drones has passed to the federal government?
COUNSEL: We’re constrained by a non-disclosure agreement—
THE COURT: And yet, according to sources, you’re the one making the threats to your contractor if they speak. So let’s not pretend you’re bound and gagged. You tied the knot.
THE COURT: It’s been sixteen months since the stop-work order. Over a year since the contract was canceled. And you still can’t produce a simple letter? Not an email, not a memo, not even a forwarded out-of-office reply?
COUNSEL: Your Honor, there are significant federal interests—
THE COURT: The only federal interest I see is you weaponizing jurisdiction as a delay tactic. This isn’t national security. This is a collection case dressed up in camouflage and buzzwords.
THE COURT: And here’s the part that really insults the court: you expect me to accept this without documentation, while hiding behind rules that don’t apply to your contract, and crying “federal” every time someone gets close to a warehouse door.
THE COURT: Enough.
If you have Proof the government owns these drones, show me.
Otherwise, don’t come back here dragging the FAR behind you like it’s a blankie. Take it, and your procedural theatrics, back to state court.
THE COURT: Motion denied. Dismissed. And if you file this again without new evidence, I’m holding the next hearing on April Fools’ Day. In mime. Wearing robes and full disbelief.
(Gavel slams. Transcript ends.)
POSTSCRIPT (aka Reality Check):
No, this transcript isn’t real. But it should be.
Because after four removal attempts, 16 months since a stop-work order, and more than a year since the contract was canceled, Cyberlux still hasn’t provided a single document showing the government owns the drones. Not a title transfer. Not a delivery confirmation. Not even a note from HII.
They continue to rely on a FAR clause that doesn’t apply to their contract. They continue to blame an NDA, while allegedly threatening the only party who could clear it all up. And they continue to file emergency motions while withholding the only thing that would settle the issue.
At some point, it’s not strategy. It’s just stalling.
So yes—if I were the judge? This is how I’d respond. With exasperation, disbelief, and one very simple ask:
Show me the bloody proof.
And still Cyberlux hasn’t said they DON’T owe any money. Nor have they addressed the acceleration clause they agreed to which required full payment in September 2023.
Disclaimer
All posts, articles, and op-eds about Cyberlux Corporation are grounded entirely in information sourced from publicly available court records, government documents, and financial disclosures filed with OTC Markets. This content is intended for informational purposes only—it’s not legal advice, it’s not financial guidance, and it’s definitely not an invitation to dive headfirst into investment decisions. Our interpretations, opinions, and conclusions stem exclusively from these accessible resources. Ultimate adjudication of legal matters rests with the courts and qualified legal professionals. As always, you’re encouraged to verify independently because, let’s face it, trust but verify is a motto that never goes out of style. If you believe there is an error in our reporting and have verifiable proof, we encourage you to present it, and we will promptly review and address any inaccuracies.