It was only a matter of time before someone tried to clean up the mess the Mark Schmidt created. Not in court, mind you—Cyberlux still hasn’t made much of a habit of showing up there—but on Twitter, where image is everything and memory is short.
Enter Michael Sinensky, founder of WeShield and self-appointed spin consultant to Cyberlux, who popped up on the timeline this week to explain that the now-infamous $2.5 million settlement disclosed in Cyberlux’s own financials wasn’t what it seemed. According to Sinensky, Rosewood Theater LLC isn’t a strip club-linked entity at all. It’s a “legacy marketing company,” he says, that helped secure a $78 million drone contract. I suppose, in the most creative sense, that a strip club is a “legacy marketing company”, but I digress….
Right.
This is the equivalent of saying you crashed a Ferrari into a swimming pool because it was thirsty.
Cyberlux’s own Q1 2025 report doesn’t describe the payment as a consulting fee. It doesn’t mention marketing. It doesn’t even gesture toward a legitimate business relationship. What it says—bluntly, clearly, and without any patriotic spin—is that it was a settlement agreement. It was a resolution of debts tied to convertible notes. Not a payment for services rendered. Not compensation for contract brokering. Just a deal to clear old paper with parties who never even filed proper conversion notices.
Calling that a consulting fee is like calling a bounced check a brand partnership.
And here’s the kicker: the Rosewood Theater website? It’s not a portfolio of past marketing campaigns. It’s a live, fully functional website for a strip club. One that proudly advertises its dancers, VIP service, and themed events—not Department of Defense marketing strategy. You can’t spin your way out of that. You can only hope no one looked it up.
This isn’t a misunderstanding. This is a shovel, delivered directly into the hands of retail investors, followed by the command: “Start digging.”
To be clear, there is no direct evidence that Sinensky is a party to the Rosewood transaction. But his decision to publicly defend and reframe it—without reconciling his claims with what’s actually in the filing—isn’t just misleading. It’s farcical.
It’s the business version of a man shouting, “THIS IS ALL GOING TO PLAN!” while the yacht sinks behind him.
Because even if we entertain his version of events—that this was just savvy marketing spend through a legacy LLC to close a military contract—it only makes the Cyberlux story more bizarre. Since when do defense deals hinge on debt-funded “consulting” from shell entities with suggestive names?
This is a company with a locked warehouse, unpaid execs, outstanding vendor lawsuits, and now its third receivership motion in Texas. It’s been kicked out of federal court twice in as many months. And now it’s explaining away a $2.5M backroom payout as just another line item on the PR budget?
“Ignore the noise,” Sinensky says.
But this isn’t noise. It’s the sound of disbelief trying to shout over delusion. I got news for Michael… you’re not a $500m company according to the US Government.
And at the end of the day, the numbers still matter. Cyberlux paid millions to parties with unclear affiliations, diluted shareholders to do it, and then tried to spin it as a strategic win on social media.
That’s not a turnaround story. That’s a rerun.
And this isn’t a rescue narrative. It’s a punchline with a cap table.
I wonder what’s going through Trellisware and AeroVironment’s PR heads right now being so closely allied to Cyberlux. Seems odd they didn’t tag AeroVironment or Brigadier Steven Anderson in this photo…I’ll take care of that for them. Must’ve been an oversight by Will the Shill.
Why would Mr. Maadarani be helping one of the largest and most reputable competitors to Cyberlux?
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.