Three failed removals. Two federal courts. One company determined to lose the expensive way.
There’s courtroom strategy. And then there’s Cyberlux Corporation, which seems to believe that if you lose badly enough in enough jurisdictions, maybe one judge will just give up and let you win out of pity.
Spoiler: that’s not happening.
This week, Cyberlux lost again—in Texas federal court, for the second time—after attempting to remove a state enforcement case brought by Atlantic Wave Holdings. Senior U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal didn’t just reject the maneuver; she also ordered Cyberlux to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees, noting the removal was objectively baseless.
It’s their third failed removal attempt:
- Twice in Texas
- Once in California
Different courts, same outcome: remanded, rejected, and now financially penalized.
They tried to claim that federal property at a Cyberlux facility created a federal issue. The judge said—again—no, it doesn’t. Even worse, they were late filing, and tried to repackage old arguments as something new.
Meanwhile, Cyberlux was also busy:
- Filing motions to strike or seal documents they themselves submitted
- Arguing that contracts and settlement agreements were “confidential” after the fact
- Burning through legal fees that likely exceed the cost of paying the judgment in the first place (which, notably, they still haven’t done)
And then—because irony never sleeps—they issued a press release about a jam-resistant drone for U.S. Special Operations.
A drone no one saw at SOF Week—because Cyberlux didn’t show up.
They didn’t show up to court, either.
They haven’t shipped anything to Ukraine.
But sure—special ops hardware.
According to their press release here, the drone features “advanced waveform technology” powered by TrellisWare. But this raises a deeper concern: is Cyberlux now trying to shield itself from its legal and financial implosion by aligning with reputable defense firms like TrellisWare?
Because if TrellisWare’s name is being used as a last-minute credibility cloak—a kind of defense-contractor camouflage—then someone might want to ask how much TrellisWare actually knows about the company it’s now implicitly vouching for.
What this looks like is a company desperately trying to bury a financial mess under patriotic branding and procedural fog.
What it is—legally, financially, publicly—is a slow-motion collapse dressed in defense contractor cosplay.
So what’s next? Another motion? Another drone? Another Capitol Hill selfie?
Whatever it is, here’s the trendline:
Courts aren’t buying it. And neither should the rest of us.
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.