2
Primary public documents checked
CFTC release and original complaint. Separate documents about one civil action; not two cases.
Independent review / Source-led reporting
Alexander Hasan Sarwar
Business Records and Landlord Account
A transparent record of public documents, disputed events, and one landlord’s experience.
Independent records review published by Sargon Caklo. This website is not affiliated with or operated by Alexander Hasan Sarwar.
Publisher’s identification. Sargon Caklo confirms, based on his firsthand knowledge, that the tenant described in his account is the Hasan Sarwar, also known as Alexander Sarwar, named in the linked CFTC records. This identification is attributed to Sargon. Public-record summaries distinguish civil allegations from court findings.
01 / Evidence & Record Status
Understand the evidence.
These indicators measure this page’s source coverage. They do not rate a person’s character, criminality, or suitability as a tenant.
8
Contextual message panels
Published excerpt groups, including one panel explaining unavailable wording. Not eight independently verified events.
4
Redacted exhibit images
Distinct supplied images displayed below. Related images may concern the same interaction.
0
Outcomes checked against original orders
The reported default judgment remains secondary-source reporting. No rental judgment has been verified.
Primary records reviewedPublisher’s attributed accountIdentity confirmed by publisherOriginal outcome order unavailable
Method: count distinct document URLs, published excerpt groups and distinct image files. These categories overlap and must not be added together. Public-source access checked October 22, 2026; supplied excerpts carried forward from the earlier editorial review. Inspect the source register.
02 / My experience at a glance
“Based on my experience, I would not recommend renting to him.”
Accommodation described
$325 per week
Furnished master suite, private bathroom, workspace, Wi-Fi, and provided household supplies.
How to read this page
The landlord’s account and opinions are labelled. Public records have source links. Open the evidence panels to read messages and view screenshots in context.
Edited summary of Sargon Caklo’s account: We offered him a furnished master suite for $325 per week, with a master bathroom, marble flooring, a walk-in closet, a high ceiling, a king-size bed with nightstands, an executive office chair, and an adjustable desk. We also provided Wi-Fi, bedding, and household supplies. On August 19, he also asked us to replenish dishwasher detergent. [Message 7] I felt the continuing requests were unreasonable in the context of our dispute. I considered that a generous arrangement. I found his repeated remarks about my wife insulting and disrespectful. We dispute his account of the doorway incident. [Message 1] In my experience, the relationship became difficult over departure arrangements, household requests, and communication.
I say that he continued occupying the room after the departure date I had requested and continued asking for assistance. During the later Wi-Fi dispute, he asked me to come over. I was there to serve a three-day pay-or-quit notice, and I also used the Wi-Fi while at the property. From what I observed and the router status I checked remotely, I believed the connection was working. I later restarted the router.
This is the landlord’s account and opinion. The tenant disputed the Wi-Fi’s availability and said his laptop had used a hotspot. The landlord’s observation and remote router status do not independently establish connectivity on the tenant’s computer. Bedding and supplies described as provided here are not a determination that every consumable was contractually included. No finding about unlawful possession or the notice’s validity is asserted.
Further account from Sargon: I report that the other roommates moved out and that his continued occupancy delayed the planned whole-property tenancy. The incoming tenant is a single father and veteran whose family has had to stay with grandparents while waiting. I informed Alexander of the incoming tenancy and its disruption. [Message 3] I also report offering an alternative rental at the same price.
The incoming family’s circumstances, the alternative-rental offer, and the reason for the ongoing delay are the landlord’s account. No supporting alternative-rental message, signed replacement lease, or independent confirmation of the family’s circumstances was located in this review. No claim is made that Alexander caused the other roommates to leave.
03 / Business & court records
Sources and case history
Primary source · Civil complaint
September 28, 2017 — CFTC action
The CFTC filed a civil enforcement action in the Southern District of New York, case 17-7442. Its complaint names Hasan Sarwar a/k/a Alexander Sarwar d/b/a Profit Management Int.
The complaint alleges fraudulent solicitation of at least $1,191,000 from more than 40 participants during October 2012–July 2014, Ponzi-style payments, commingling, and registration violations. These statements describe the complaint’s allegations.
CFTC release 7622-17 · September 29, 2017
Original complaint · Caption and paragraphs 1–5
Secondary source · Order not retrieved
February 1, 2019 — Reported judgment
FinanceFeeds reported a final default judgment, $763,752 in restitution, a $2,291,258 civil monetary penalty, and termination of the case on February 1, 2019.
The underlying judgment and current docket have not been retrieved in this review. Payment, subsequent proceedings, and the precise scope of any restrictions remain unverified. This page does not describe the action as currently pending.
FinanceFeeds · February 1, 2019
Supplied docket link · Not accessible during review
Financial context / Publisher’s estimate
Claimed costs & estimated work
Sargon attributes these costs to the tenancy dispute. Reported amounts, modeling assumptions and historical regulatory figures are shown separately.
$4,000
Monthly claimed cost basis
$3,500 rent + $200 HOA + $300 utilities.
$133.33
Modeled cost per day
$4,000 ÷ 30, calculated without rounding until the final amount.
$2,800
21-day claimed-cost snapshot
October 1–21, 2026, including both dates. The cutoff is October 21 in Los Angeles; the cutoff day is included in full for this estimate.
Basis supplied by Sargon Caklo: $3,500 monthly rent, $200 monthly HOA and $300 monthly utilities. The model starts on his originally planned October 1 turnover date. It is a snapshot, not a continuously growing claim about present occupancy.
| Component | Monthly input | Daily equivalent | 21-day estimate | Evidence / treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected whole-property rent | $3,500 | $116.67 | $2,450 | Publisher’s expected rent; proposed replacement tenancy, executed agreement and actual loss not independently verified. |
| HOA | $200 | $6.67 | $140 | Publisher’s stated carrying expense; an ongoing expense is not necessarily an additional loss caused by the dispute. |
| Utilities | $300 | $10.00 | $210 | Publisher’s estimate; bills, actual incremental use and allocation not reconciled. |
| Gross modeled total | $4,000 | $133.33 | $2,800 | Arithmetic sum of these inputs, not a judicial damages calculation. |
| Rent receipts, offsets and avoided costs | Not reconciled; no credits entered in this gross snapshot. | Payments or offsets must be deducted where applicable. No claim is made that no credits exist. | ||
Individual displayed daily figures are rounded; calculations use the original monthly amounts. Expected rent and carrying expenses can overlap economically. The $2,800 figure is the publisher’s gross cost model, not an established net loss, unpaid tenant-rent balance, legal entitlement, or court award. The tenant’s $325 weekly room rate is a different measure and is not added again.
Estimated labor and alternative lawyer-cost scenario
Illustrative planning allowances, not logged hours or invoices. Sargon requests a valuation of the work involved. The following task ranges are editorial assumptions to make the estimate transparent; they are not evidence that these hours were worked.
| Work category | Assumed hours | Illustrative self-managed value at $100/hour |
|---|---|---|
| Organizing messages, records and exhibits | 6–12 | $600–$1,200 |
| Notices and service coordination | 2–4 | $200–$400 |
| Forms, chronology and filing preparation | 4–8 | $400–$800 |
| Court visits and service logistics | 4–8 | $400–$800 |
| Tenancy communications and turnover coordination | 4–8 | $400–$800 |
| Illustrative work total | 20–40 | $2,000–$4,000 |
The $100 hourly value is an illustrative assumption, not Sargon’s documented wage, lost earnings or an established recovery rate. These tasks may overlap; a time log is required to replace the allowances with recorded hours.
Alternative attorney-equivalent scenario: applying 20–40 assumed hours at an illustrative $250–$500/hour gives $5,000–$20,000. This is a hypothetical alternative to the self-managed valuation—not an attorney invoice, quote, or additional amount to add for the same work. Actual lawyer task allocation and hours can differ substantially.
Rate context: Martinez Law Center’s 2026 fee guide describes a general $250–$500 hourly range. This is one tenant-defense firm’s published guide, not a quote for this landlord case. It does not establish the assumed hours or recoverability. Fee paragraph checked October 21, 2026 (Los Angeles).
Excluded until documented: actual attorney bills, court filing fees, process-server and sheriff fees, copying, postage, travel and any other claimed expenses. No amount has been invented for these categories. Historical plaintiffs’ or agencies’ lawyer costs are not quantified without billing records or an order.
Earlier civil case: amounts and what they mean
| Amount | Meaning | Source status |
|---|---|---|
| At least $1,191,000 | Funds allegedly solicited and received from more than 40 pool participants. Not a verified net-loss total. | CFTC release 7622-17; civil allegations. |
| $763,752 | Restitution reported in the 2019 default-judgment article. Payment status not verified. | FinanceFeeds, February 1, 2019; original order not retrieved. |
| $2,291,258 | Reported civil monetary penalty. A penalty is a separate remedy, not another victim-loss amount. | Same secondary report; payment status not verified. |
| Prior-case legal fees | Not quantified. No billing record or fee award reviewed. | Excluded from totals. |
These historical figures are not added together or combined with the landlord’s model. Solicited principal, restitution and penalties can represent different or overlapping measures; adding them would misstate a total “damage caused.”
Adjust the dates or inputs for a private scenario calculation
This calculator changes only the figures in your browser. It does not edit the published snapshot, submit a claim, or confirm continued occupancy after the stated cutoff.
Enable JavaScript to calculate an adjusted scenario.
04 / Firsthand account
The landlord’s account
Edited summary of Sargon Caklo’s account: “I rented a room to Alexander Hasan Sarwar. I report that our tenancy became disputed, that I gave termination and payment notices, and that I pursued eviction. I also report two attempts to end the tenancy.”
The following chronology summarizes the landlord’s messages in this project. The court-preparation packet and holdover excerpt packet have been reviewed. These are supplied organizing documents, not independently authenticated exports or verified filed pleadings. The rental court docket has not been obtained.
Chronology of the dispute
Source: supplied court-preparation and holdover packets, as identified in the evidence panels. These dates describe recorded statements and reported events, not judicial findings.
- March 30–April 2026: The preparation packet preserves a March 30 email referring to an earlier notice. The landlord reports later withdrawing that notice and accepting continued occupancy and rent.
- September 1–2, 2026: The landlord reports emailing a 30-day notice and receiving a WhatsApp acknowledgment the following day.
- September 16–17, 2026: Messages preserve conflicting doorway accounts and a conditional statement about remaining without rent and delaying eviction. A proposed $2,000 payment for immediate departure was not an accepted agreement in the reviewed record.
- September 22–23, 2026: Alexander proposed an October 12 departure, citing his claimed work arrangements. Sargon rejected an extension. Employment claims have not been independently verified.
- October 1–2, 2026: The holdover packet preserves the “Guest” request and continued October 12 departure statements. It also records Sargon’s assertion of personal delivery of payment and surrender notices on October 2; no signed service proof has been verified here.
- October 2026: The landlord reports preparing and serving unlawful-detainer papers and a disputed departure timeline.
These are the landlord’s assertions, not findings by a court. Two attempts do not establish two filed cases or two completed evictions. Present possession, unpaid amounts, service validity, and the proceeding’s current status remain unverified. No response to this page has been solicited; relevant tenant statements from the supplied records are included.
HOA and household communications
Sargon reports that Alexander contacted the HOA without telling him and caused confusion among renters. The undated screenshot in Exhibit O says Alexander was about to contact the HOA; it does not establish that he actually contacted it. No HOA complaint or response has been reviewed.
The packet records disputes about parking, shared spaces, cleanliness, and mail, alongside cordial exchanges and assistance. Those records do not independently establish who caused household confusion.
Doorway, police, and witness accounts
According to Sargon’s account of what his wife told him, she went to Alexander’s door accompanied by their daughter to ask him to confirm his move-out date. She disputes attempting forced entry or threatening him. The September 16 message from Sargon records a request for sheets; Alexander’s September 17 account describes questions about departure. The purpose and course of the interaction are disputed.
Alexander’s messages allege attempted forced entry and harassment. Sargon did not witness his wife’s interaction and disputes Alexander’s description based on her account.
Edited summary of Sargon’s account: “I report that Alexander called police during a later encounter while I stood approximately six feet away. I called him a ‘scumbag.’ This followed an earlier police call involving my wife, whose alleged threatening conduct we dispute.”
Sargon reports that two roommates heard the earlier interaction and that one considered intervening to assist his wife. No signed witness statements or original witness messages were located in this review. Their actual observations have not been independently established; considering intervention does not itself verify either party’s account.
The preparation packet distinguishes an initial interaction around September 16 from a later visit by Sargon. Each police call’s date, report contents, and outcome remain unverified. Sargon’s admitted insult is preserved; this is not described as an encounter without confrontational language.
Observed charts and claimed employment
Sargon reports briefly seeing candlestick-style financial charts on Alexander’s computer screen and believes he may still be trading. No contemporaneous image or supporting message was located. This is Sargon’s recollection, not confirmation of live trading, transactions, account ownership, management of others’ funds, or breach of a court order.
In messages dated September 22, Alexander claimed a promotion and a transfer to a London office, with a proposed October 14 start. Sargon doubts those claims. Employment, promotion, and transfer have not been independently verified; the doubts do not establish that the claims are false.
Sources: Sargon’s account in this project; Court Visit Packet, private-export appendix, pages 52–53. Historical statements about intended employment do not establish current whereabouts.
Replacement tenancy and rental case
The packet reproduces a September 8 email sending a proposed October 1 lease to a prospective renter. That establishes a proposal, not an executed lease. Sargon reports later postponement to October 15 and resulting loss; the signed replacement agreement and amounts have not been verified.
Rental case number: not verified. No court-stamped complaint or current rental docket was located in the material reviewed. The preparation packet is not a filed complaint. No rental judgment or completed eviction is asserted here.
Sources: Court Visit Packet, pages 1–18 and exhibits A–T; Holdover Review Packet, pages 1–4. Private source documents are retained outside the website’s downloadable assets.
05 / Message evidence
Read the messages behind the account
Selected excerpts from supplied records. Timestamps are reproduced as recorded; timezone has not been independently established. Displayed transcriptions preserve wording and line wrapping from the packet, with marked privacy redactions. Screenshots are partial views and are paired with context.
September 16 — Conflicting doorway accounts
Source: Court Visit Packet, private-export appendix, page 50; original screenshots reproduced in exhibits A and B, pages 19–20. Sargon recounts what his wife told him rather than claiming to have witnessed her encounter. Alexander’s allegations are disputed.
[9/16/26, 10:13:55 AM] Alex S.: Sargan, you guys gave me a notice to leave in the 30th of the month and I told you in one of my message I accept your notice. I told you wife just now that next week I will give her a date exactly when I am leaving. She started arguing and fighting with me while I am at work here in my room. Please tell your wife : 1. Not to disturb me while I am at work. 2. Not to fight with me and keep nagging on my door disturbing me for nothing. 3. Not to make threats against me. 4. Not to try to force entry into my room and try to snatch blankets, beds linens etc. I suggest we finish this and allow me to leave in peace and with respect to both parties. If not then things will get more ugly between us than it has been before. Thank you.
[9/16/26, 2:15:46 PM] Sargon: I already spoke with my wife. She told me she knocked and asked you for the sheets—not that she tried to force her way into your room. I take that accusation seriously, and her account is different from yours. If you were busy, you could have told her it wasn’t a good time. I understand things got heated, but saying things will “get more ugly” is unnecessary. I expect respectful communication with me and my wife, and you can expect the same from us. From here on, send rental concerns and move-out arrangements directly to me in writing. We’ll coordinate any necessary access properly. You’ve acknowledged the notice for September 30. Confirm your move-out date and time once you have them so we can finish this peacefully.
September 17–19 — Remarks about Sargon’s wife
Source: Court Visit Packet, private-export appendix, pages 51–52. These messages preserve Alexander’s characterizations and allegations, not verified descriptions of her behavior. The intelligence comparison and instructions to “control” her are the specific remarks Sargon considers insulting. The statement about a restraining order does not establish that one was requested or granted.
[9/17/26, 10:57:28 AM] Alex S.: This is not the first time she has been behaving so aggressively, irrational, egoistic, impolite, hostile, assaultive, belligerent and combative. You are her husband. I put you in her own shoes and do not expect any friendly talk back from you. But only thing I give you credit for is that you have a better IQ than her.
[9/17/26, 10:58:49 AM] Alex S.: I am only here for a few more days or maybe a couple more weeks longer. There is no point in getting a restraining order against your wife. But I suggest you try to control her. The renters have their own rights by law too. The landlord cannot just walk in here without notice anytime/day they want and cannot come during odd hours and surely cannot try to create disturbance with tenant(s) or try to make a force entry to a room.
[9/19/26, 9:49:09 AM] Alex S.: Two things in life I do not accept: Violence and Egoism. I apologize and sorry to say this but your wife have these 2 qualities in her. You on the other hand quite opposite of that and may God bless you and your children.
Sargon’s September 19 response rejecting personal insults appears in the next evidence panel in its preserved wording. Alexander’s later assertion that he had been respectful and his account of the dispute are also retained there.
September 29–October 1 — Incoming tenancy warning and replies
Source: Holdover Review Packet, page 2, items 6–7, and page 3, items 8–10. These are excerpts reproduced in a preparation packet, not a complete chronological export. The September 29 reply below precedes the warning shown here; it must not be represented as a response to that later message.
[9/29/26, 3:29:58 PM] Alex S. — excerpt: “I have requested you for a move out date on October 12th. I cannot move out before that.” “You have the right to exercise your legal rights... I will leave on October 12...”
[9/29/26, 3:43:59 PM] Sargon — excerpt: “Beginning October 1, the house is scheduled for turnover and preparation for the incoming long-term family... Any continued occupancy that interferes with the scheduled turnover or preparation of the property may cause additional documented financial losses.”
[10/1/26, 8:09:29 PM] Alex S. — excerpt: “I must say I can not leave on 1st or 2nd... handing over the place to you on October 12th stands as it is.”
The packet preserves these quoted excerpts with ellipses; missing text has not been reconstructed. The warning documents notice of planned turnover and potential losses. It does not establish a signed replacement lease, an agreed extension, actual departure, or the amount of any loss.
September 17–19 — Conditional statement, payment proposal, and response
Source: Holdover Review Packet, item 2; Court Visit Packet, private-export appendix, pages 51–52. The first message states a conditional plan. These excerpts do not establish that nonpayment, delaying motions, or a payment agreement followed.
[9/17/26, 10:59:27 AM] Alex S.: I watched this for the last 8 months and did not say anything. But now that her "violence" is moving forward I must warn you to control her. If your wife continues to behave again like she did yesterday, I will delay my transfer for 2-3 months, I will stay here right in this room, for 2-3 months without paying any rent and you can file an eviction which will be delayed by my attorney by filing motion after motion after motion. [Redacted: family and location details.]
[9/19/26, 8:03:56 AM] Sargon: I’ve reached my limit with this back-and-forth. We’ve made repeated efforts to accommodate you, and I do not accept the personal insults toward my wife. My offer to accommodate an earlier voluntary move-out and prorate your rent remains available. I have nothing further to add to the personal argument. Confirm your move-out date as promised. If you choose to involve an attorney, they can contact me directly.
[9/19/26, 9:14:11 AM] Alex S.: Sargan, I have been very respectful to your wife ever since. It is her who started insulting me since April. I cannot take any further insult and attack on my peace from her. So please try to keep her away from me. I don't want to see her, I don't want to talk to her and I do not want to receive any messages from her. I work 7 days a week and I have no time to start packing and move out now to a hotel then start packing again to fly to overseas to my job. So the voluntary move out earlier is out of question. But I gave you an option to pay me $2,000 and I can call a moving company who will pack up stuff for me and help me move out within 12- 24 hours. I know that is not acceptable to you but I gave you an option anyway. I told your wife on Wednesday and I told you yesterday and I am saying again, I will give you my exact move out date Monday or the latest Tuesday. Thank you.
September 22–October 1 — Disputed departure date and “Guest” request
Source: Court Visit Packet, pages 53–54; Holdover Review Packet, items 8–10. On September 22, Alexander proposed October 12 and described September 30 as an estimate, citing claimed work arrangements. Sargon disputed that description:
[9/22/26, 7:46:06 PM] Sargon: I received your message. September 30 was the date stated in the notice, not an estimate. You previously confirmed in writing that you would honor that notice. I have not agreed to extend your stay until October 12. My earlier offer to prorate rent was for an earlier departure, not an extension. Please confirm whether you will vacate by September 30. I will keep further communication in writing and limited to the tenancy and move-out arrangements.
[9/23/26, 5:22:29 PM] Alex S.: Sargan, In my previous message some 3 weeks ago I acknowledged receiving your 30 days notice. In my other message after that I stated I may honor the 30 days notice. I never gave you any exact date to vacate the property because I was waiting for confirmation from my job. Now I gave you the exact date. If anything changes I will update you accordingly. Thank you.
[10/1/26, 8:40:40 PM] Alex S.: Consider me as your 'Guest' for the next 10 days.
The holdover packet records an October 1, 8:15:04 p.m. statement retaining October 12 as the intended departure date, and an 8:48:20 p.m. message proposing an October 12 walk-through and handover. This is not evidence of an agreed extension, a change in legal status, or actual departure.
Comparison: September messages acknowledge receipt of the notice, while later messages dispute the departure deadline and propose October 12. Those differences document a disagreement; they do not alone prove deliberate deception or establish the notice’s legal validity. One supplied packet records the September 23 acknowledgment at 5:22:30 p.m.; the longer export appendix records 5:22:29 p.m.
Earlier notice and HOA reference — Undated screenshot
Source: Court Visit Packet, Exhibit O, page 36. The visible time is 3:58 p.m.; the calendar date and quoted album are absent. Alexander thanks Sargon for mail and the notice and alleges “violence.” That allegation is not independently established. His statement that he was about to contact the HOA does not prove he contacted it.
August 19 — Household-supply request
Source: Court Visit Packet, reproduced group export, page 61. An August 19, 2026, 10:57:49 a.m. message contains this request, following a question about mail:
Also, we ran out of Automatic Dishwasher detergent. Thank you.
This is an excerpt of the message, not its complete text. Sargon regards it as an example of requests for replenishment of household supplies. The request itself does not establish misconduct or determine contractual responsibility for detergent.
Faith-related wording and other unverified requests
The specific alleged message invoking Sargon’s Christian faith was not located in the reviewed packet text. It has not been invented or substituted with unrelated religious discussion. No inference about dishonesty is drawn from faith or ideology.
06 / Sources & corrections
Sources, methodology & corrections
Traceable sources
Public-record entries link to their sources; private-account entries identify the supplied document and distinguish allegations from findings. Sargon Caklo identifies the person discussed in both sections based on his firsthand knowledge.
Corrections & right of response
Corrections and responses can be submitted for review. Personal residences, private contact details, and current whereabouts are excluded.
Public-source register
CFTC release 7622-17
- Issuing organization / publisher
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Document date
- September 29, 2017
- What it supports
- The agency announced a civil action filed September 28, 2017 and described its allegations.
- Limits and unresolved questions
- The release describes civil allegations, not a criminal conviction. The identification of the tenant is attributed to Sargon Caklo.
- Last access check
- October 22, 2026 — page accessible
Complaint, Document 1, civil case 17-7442
- Issuing organization / publisher
- CFTC; filed in the Southern District of New York
- Document date
- September 28, 2017
- What it supports
- The filed caption names Hasan Sarwar a/k/a Alexander Sarwar d/b/a Profit Management Int; the pleading sets out civil allegations.
- Limits and unresolved questions
- A complaint records allegations and requested relief; it is not a judgment.
- Last access check
- October 22, 2026 — PDF accessible
Reported default judgment
- Issuing organization / publisher
- FinanceFeeds / Maria Nikolova
- Document date
- February 1, 2019
- What it supports
- The article reports a final default judgment, restitution, civil penalty and case termination.
- Limits and unresolved questions
- Original judgment, subsequent docket activity, exact restrictions and payment status have not been independently verified.
- Last access check
- October 22, 2026 — article accessible
Supplied federal docket link
- Issuing organization / publisher
- CourtListener / RECAP
- Document date
- Docket status not retrieved
- What it supports
- A source link for further docket review; no current docket contents were retrieved.
- Limits and unresolved questions
- Access failed during this update. Do not infer that the case remains pending.
- Last access check
- October 22, 2026 — retrieval unsuccessful
Five remaining documentation groups
- Federal outcome: original judgment, subsequent docket entries, precise restrictions and payment status.
- Rental proceeding: court-stamped complaint, case number, service proof, latest docket and any outcome.
- Independent accounts: original witness statements and HOA or police records.
- Financial and employment claims: executed replacement lease, loss support, alternative-rental message, chart observation and employment corroboration.
- Message provenance: original complete exports and notices, independent authentication, timezone and inconsistent service dates.
A source being reviewed means its contents were inspected. It does not mean every assertion was independently corroborated. Private court-preparation packets and screenshot excerpts are supplied materials, not authenticated court findings.
Supplied records and limitations
| Record | Supports | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| CFTC release and complaint September 2017 | Named aliases, business name, filing, and allegations. | Sargon Caklo confirms the identification based on his firsthand knowledge. |
| FinanceFeeds February 1, 2019 | Contemporaneous report of judgment and termination. | Original order, later docket activity, restrictions, and payment not verified. |
| Court Visit Packet September 25, 2026 | Supplied chronology, exhibits, and reproduced export through September 23. | Organizing packet, not a filed pleading; original exports not independently authenticated. |
| Holdover Review Packet October 2026 | Supplied dated excerpts through October 1 and reported October 2 delivery. | No independent proof of service or actual departure. |
| Landlord statements | Attributed account of HOA contact, household disputes, police calls, and replacement tenancy. | HOA and police records, signed witness statements, alternative-rental message, chart observation evidence, signed replacement lease, loss calculation, and current rental case status remain unverified. |
Private-packet excerpts were carried forward from the October 18, 2026 review; the original packets were not newly authenticated for this design update. Public-source access checks: October 22, 2026 (UTC). Source-date and transcript discrepancies are retained rather than silently resolved. No court-stamped rental complaint or verified rental case number was located. The named individual may submit a relevant response or correction using the contact form below, once delivery is enabled.
07 / Contact
Contribute information.
Request a correction.
Have relevant firsthand experience or supporting records about this case? Send your account, dates, and original sources for review. You may also suggest another documented business or consumer case for separate review.
Submissions are reviewed for relevance, identity, supporting evidence, and privacy before any publication. Sending information does not guarantee publication. Another person will not be added to this page merely because of a similar name, appearance, or an unsupported accusation.
Do not submit home addresses, identification numbers, private financial information, or information about family members. Submissions are not published automatically.
Delivery is currently disabled while the sending service is configured. Nothing is sent until the form confirms provider acceptance.