This comes as no surprised to me and others who Mr. Sadaka aggressively filed false complaints leveraging his past experienced as a State Prosecutor with the Ninth Circuit of Orange County.

Sadaka was fully aware of the scam and had knowledge of the FTC investigations as he continue to file multiple false cases before the courts.

Member Profile

Thomas Sadaka <tom@sadakalaw.com>	Mar 12, 2015, 5:15 AM
to me

Anything that you were to be served with you were served. I’m not required to serve you with a request for a certified or exemplified copy of a judgment. 

Sent from my iPhone please excuse any typographical errors. 
On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:38 PM, scamFRAUDalert <scamfraudalert@gmail.com> wrote:

The question is, why did you not ensure that copies were send to me initially?
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Thomas Sadaka <tom@sadakalaw.com> wrote:

There was no document attached.  I have gone to the ePortal and pulled some of the other documents that were filed by co-counsel Attorney Braeley.  The notice of filing and the exhibits are attached.  I’ve also attached the one “exemplified certificate” that I could pull.   

Thomas A. Sadaka, LL.M.

Sadaka Law Group, PLC
1701 Park Center Drive
Orlando, FL 32835
407-278-5728

Sadaka Law Group, PLC
1420 Celebration Blvd, Suite 200
Celebration, FL 34747
407-566-2110

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: Please note that the views expressed herein or in any attachments hereto are not intended

On March 6, 2015 at 6:08 PM scamFRAUDalert <scamfraudalert@gmail.com> wrote:Mr. Sadaka:
The attached document was not provided me in your attached Exhibits. provided me. I do not have a copy of Exhibit 4.  Again, I can not determine if you are being truthful or not. I will need  the Clerk stamped copies of documents to appropriately response to your Order to show Cause.
You’ve stated :

” I am not asking the Court to hold you accountable for things that are beyond your control.  The posting I have referenced in my most recent Motion for Order to Show Cause, and forwarded as exhibits, are posted directly on sites that you own and are under your control.”

Yet you have not provided the Court with the WhoIs information to show that I have ownership of websites you claimed to have posting referencing your client. 
I am going to make it crystal clear to you, I am going to need from you  going forward on all communication you submit to the Court to provide me with a stamped copy of your submission so that there is no discrepancies between what you say or provide me.
Please provide me with copies of Exhibit 4.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Respectfully,

Archie Garga-Richardson dba scamFRAUDalert

Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Thomas Sadaka <tom@sadakalaw.com> wrote:

Mr. Garga-Richardson,

I am not asking the Court to hold you accountable for things that are beyond your control.  The posting I have referenced in my most recent Motion for Order to Show Cause, and forwarded as exhibits, are posted directly on sites that you own and are under your control.  A perfect example is reflected in the attached document.  The requested remove these posts is not an unreasonable one.  Take them down and we can then address the Order to Show Cause.  If you recall the hearing in front of Judge Wallis, I made the same request.  The posts that the Judge referenced and were further discussed during the “Agreed Order” conversation were ones that appear to have been reposts of your own posts.  The Agreed Order would have allowed for a deindexing of those URLs from search results.  I am still in a position to be able to afford you the opportunity to cooperate in the formation of that Agreed Order as well.

I will not be sending you copies of the requests for exemplified copies as there is no document.  There is no pleading that was filed.  There was a request made of the Clerk for an exemplified copy of the final judgment, and the Clerk provided same.

You are also welcome to contact the Clerk’s office to determine if you are eligible for the electronic filing service that will also give you access to all of the pleadings filed in this matter since its inception. 

Thomas A. Sadaka, LL.M.

Sadaka Law Group, PLC
1701 Park Center Drive
Orlando, FL 32835
407-278-5728

Sadaka Law Group, PLC
1420 Celebration Blvd, Suite 200
Celebration, FL 34747
407-566-2110

On March 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM scamFRAUDalert < scamfraudalert@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Sadaka:
I did not expect your recollection to mirror mine. No surprises here. However, you do remembered that Judge Rand Wallis vacated his Contempt/Enforcement Order asking us to fashion some sort of agreement that would accommodate you and your client? 

I too do not play games. Based on my experienced in dealing with your client, he provides you and other Attorneys with fraudulent documents for filing in Court. Again, please provide me with all documents requested pursuant to Fla. Code of Civil Procedures 1.080 as requested Court certified copies. There are documents on the Court docket filed since  2014 which I do not have copies.

As Compliance Officer of Softrock, Inc., you have repeatedly use the word “urls” attributing these “urls” to me without educating the Court as to the difference between “urls”  and”  website addresses (domains).” What you and your client seek to have the Court hold me accountable for are web addresses/domains most of which are entirely not mine and a handful of 4 domains which have postings/urls the Court order removed. Those postings/urls have since been removed. The Court have already ruled on those postings/urls. 

I again have reach out to you and requesting that you provide me with all documents submitted to the Court.
Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Archie Garga-Richardson |PO Box 10294 |Glendale, CA 91209| 

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Thomas Sadaka <tom@sadakalaw.com> wrote:
We have differing “recollections” of the last hearing.  Regardless, this hearing is based upon URLs that are attributed directly to you.  They are on sites that you own and control.  I do not play games.  If you are willing to remove the postings than so say, otherwise we will leave it to the Judge to decide.
I have provided you with the operative pleading which is the Amended Motion for Order (amended as to exhibit numbers) and the attached exhibits.  The references to the exemplified documents were for a certified copy of the final judgment that will be used to levy on your Trademarks and your domain names.  You are already in possession of the Final Judgment.

From: scamFRAUDalert < scamfraudalert@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 10:05 PM
To: Thomas Sadaka < tom@sadakalaw.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Non-Delivery of Motion To Show Cause

Mr. Sadaka:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Motion for Order filed 11/14/15. The copy  motion emailed me is incomplete.  At our last hearing on April 30, 2013 where I was represented by Counsel, there appears to be discrepancies between documents send me and those submitted to the Court. To ensure that these documents are the same, I would appreciate and like to have from you a stamped copy of documents filed with the Court.
I have not received copies of the following documents filed per the Court docket.10/10/2014 – Correspondence: re Exemp FJ10/14/2014 –  Exemplified Certificate Issued & sent to Judge11/14/2014 – Amended Motion for Order11/14/2014 – Amended Motion for Order  Second02/19/2015 – All Exhibits In Support of Order To Show Cause
My recollection of our last hearing, not sure if date was April 30 or June 10, 2013 is as follows:

1. Judge Rand Willis denied  Motion For Contempt/Enforcement on grounds that Plaintiffs could not substantiate the urls/postings presented to the Court were that of (Defendant).
2. Plaintiffs “witness” admitted in Court he was totally unaware that urls presented to the Courts were “”fraudulent” since the urls/postings were complied and supplied to Counsel by Plaintiffs employee. Plaintiffs witness also admitted that he was unaware that postings online can easily be copied and easilyre-post where about online.
3. You also stated that postings on “Ripoffreport” not attributed to the Defendant could not be remove since Ripoffreport have a policy of non removal of posts.
4. You also asked the Court for mercy if the Court would entertained and facilitate assisting Plaintiffs in removing all urls/postings online relating to your client by issuing an Court Order attributing  urls/postings to Defendant provided both Plaintiffs and Defendant agreed to go along.
5. Judge Willis agreed and said he would signed such agreement if both parties could fashion some sort of agreement aiding in the removal of urls/postings online not attributed to the Defendant for which your client seek removal.
6. Defendant position is not to assist or aid in any removal of urls/postings online relating to your client since he is not responsible for those urls/postings. That  your client business practices have resulted in these postings. 
7. You did not present to the Court any evidence which showed  posting of those urls /domain names belong to the Defendant or were made by the Defendant. 
8. Your client attempted to seek an Contempt of Court proceeding in California by way of the Debtor/Creditor examination hearing again by filing “fraudulent” documents was denied. The Glendale California rejected such filings comfortable to Judge Rand Willis of the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

The issued of urls/postings and domain names on the internet which you are seeking the aids of the Court from removal by the Defendant have been ruled upon both in Florida and California. 
Please tell me if my recollection of events is differ from what you understand Judge Willis ruling to be.
Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Archie Garga-Richardson /scamFRAUDalert
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Sadaka <tom@sadakalaw.com> wrote:

Mr. Garga-Richardson,

Thank you for your email and your request to “Please provide me with copies and the offending urls so that I can comply to the Court order.”  Please provide me a list of all sites that you have published information about Alec Difrawi, Edward Bell, and all companies you have attributed to Alec on your various web-sites.  With confirmation of the posts and their removal, we can ask the Court to withdraw the Order to Show Cause.

As you know from our last hearing, all the Plaintiff’s are seeking is your compliance with the Final Judgment and Orders that have been entered in this case.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Sadaka, LL.M.

Sadaka Law Group, PLC
1701 Park Center Drive
Orlando, FL 32835
407-278-5728

Sadaka Law Group, PLC
1420 Celebration Blvd, Suite 200
Celebration, FL 34747
407-566-2110

——— Forwarded message ———-
From: scamFRAUDalert <scamfraudalert@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Subject: Non-Delivery of Motion To Show Cause
To: Thomas Sadaka < tom@nejamelaw.com>

NeJame, LaFay, Jancha, Ahmed, Barker, Joshi & Moreno, P.A.189 South Orange Avenue , Suite 1800Orlando, FL 32801Phone: 407-245-1232
Fax: 407-245-2980
tom@nejamelaw.com

Attention: Thomas Sadaka
Dear Mr. Sadaka:
It has come to my attention that Circuit Court Judge Kest has issued an order requesting my appearance before the Court on March 13, 2015 on what I believe is a Motion to Show Cause. To date, I have not received a copy of your Motion or a copy of the Judge Kest ordered.
Please provide me with copies and the offending urls so that I can comply to the Court order.
Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

Archie Garga-Richardson

PO Box 10294Glendale, CA 91209