Miladze - Se Lya Vi
posted by Sandman at 7:25 PM
2 comments
Monday, October 30, 2006
THE "SINS" OF OMA HAMOU
UPDATED 8/31/2007
January 19, 1991
This time line is offered in the interest of providing a fair and as much as possible unbiased history of the background of Oma Hamou leading up to the verbal war that has been conducted on the Internet by the Hate-Oma group lead by Bob Atchison and his cult like group surrounding the Alexander Palace Time Machine web site and many of it’s forum members, and those who do not believe that anyone should be the focus of a hate propaganda machine specifically those who have defended Oma and as such have in turn become the victims of the hate machine wielded by Atchison and his followers.
It has been a major bone of contention of those who espouse the position that Oma was/is and always will be a criminal in all her thoughts deeds and actions because of the events originating with her marriage to a man known as Marcus Demian. It is at the start of these events that we pick up the time line in the hopes that those who read it will be able to understand the significance of the events and how they impacted the life of Oma in a manner such that if they had not happened she would never have had the label of Felon placed on her. The intent is not to justify her mistakes, but rather to allow the reader to understand that what happened was not the actions of a hardened criminal but an engineered situation that was thrust upon her.
The information compiled below was gathered from several sources, which includes: Oma Hamou dot com, various legal document repositories (principally courts.) Statements made at various times by Rob Moshein and Bob Atchison, specifically on Bob Atchison’s Alexander Palace Time Machine web site and Atchison's web design company Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org. It should be noted that the photo images were lifted from the archives of Oma Hamou dot com and unlike those “other” sources, sites and Blogs on Hamou we offer "hard evidence" in terms of substantiated documentation, not hearsay and the twisted conclusions of authors bent on fostering the hate of Oma and those around her.
It has been a major bone of contention of those who espouse the position that Oma was/is and always will be a criminal in all her thoughts deeds and actions because of the events originating with her marriage to a man known as Marcus Demian. It is at the start of these events that we pick up the time line in the hopes that those who read it will be able to understand the significance of the events and how they impacted the life of Oma in a manner such that if they had not happened she would never have had the label of Felon placed on her. The intent is not to justify her mistakes, but rather to allow the reader to understand that what happened was not the actions of a hardened criminal but an engineered situation that was thrust upon her.
The information compiled below was gathered from several sources, which includes: Oma Hamou dot com, various legal document repositories (principally courts.) Statements made at various times by Rob Moshein and Bob Atchison, specifically on Bob Atchison’s Alexander Palace Time Machine web site and Atchison's web design company Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org. It should be noted that the photo images were lifted from the archives of Oma Hamou dot com and unlike those “other” sources, sites and Blogs on Hamou we offer "hard evidence" in terms of substantiated documentation, not hearsay and the twisted conclusions of authors bent on fostering the hate of Oma and those around her.
It is given that Oma started life in much the same way as any of us; Born, experienced childhood, went to school and all of that. And while there is much to be said of her childhood and the horrific experiences that she suffered at the hands of those who should have protected and cherished her still that is not the focus of this sequence of events. The following is convoluted and difficult to follow at points, as it deals with several people including Marcus Demian’s other wives and events intertwine around the various parties in a manner that is only visible from a distance and were almost impossible of understanding while buried in the midst of the events.
Much of this has been told before in the interest of correcting those who would foster the actions of hate towards Oma. It has been hoped that those who are behind the many sites, posts, and Blogs against Oma would correct their statements as while the truth is not pretty, it is the truth. Instead the various authors over time have derided any attempts at correcting “their” version of history in regards to Oma, even going so far as to decry the various documents offered in support of the truth as being doctored and or created. While their own version is offered as the truth because they said so, and typically it is offered on the pretense that because A is “true” and B is “true” (because they provided the documentation) that their conclusion C must also be true. This is a logical fallacy designed to lead the reader down the path of the authors design. A design that has but one destination --- the destruction of Oma Hamou such that she would never complete her movie project which Bob Atchison and his followers seem to feel is against their interest as the guardians of all things dealing with that specific time and place in history.
Please be aware in reading this that if similar events and situations happen to more than one person around a key figure then it logically stands that the key person must be the generator of the situations rather than the victim of multiple people all doing the same things to the “victim” That is… notice the patterns, if one is always the victim then it is possible that they have set themselves up to be the victim with some other motive towards gaining advantage or control in mind.
So with that in mind, let us pick up the trail after Oma and Marcus Demian have been together for some time and are married. It may be worth noting that in some peoples minds the commitment of marriage will “fix anything” that is wrong in a ongoing relationship, although it has been my experience that getting married or having a child while in a “rocky” relationship never does fix the problem and often only makes it worse, but human nature being what it is we all have to learn in our own ways…
June 15, 1990 – Oma McConnell marries Marcus Demian a/k/a Richard Castle a/k/a an Yakima Indian but born a Russian Jew to a William and Fannie Schloss as Bernard Schloss in 1928 who married 9 previous wives under three different names and has a history of violence.
October 24, 1990 – After several instances of domestic violence Oma Demian is granted a restraining order against Marcus Demian.
October 26, 1990 – The Montana Courts grant Marcus Demian’s ex” E. Demian” physical custody of Demian's two children the Sheriff advises Hamou to take the children, E. Demian, and get out of Dodge City.
October 29, 1990 – Marcus Demian files a petition for Divorce from Oma Demian.
Mrs. Demian (Oma) hides three small children along with the biological mother of Demian's two children providing them with clothing, medical, shelter, food and transportation.
According to the police reports filed against Marcus Demian during this time period he threatens to harm many people including but not limited to the town Pastor and his family. There are two separate court venues, which are happening at the same time, the Demian Divorce and the permanent custody of Demian's two small children being awarded to their biological mother. Demian is ordered by the courts to stay away from the children, the biological mother to his children, Oma Demian and the family residence --- all of which he ignores as is duly noted by the courts.
According to police reports filed in Billings, Montana, Marcus Demian didn't limit his terrorizing and stalking to that of his ex and present wife, he also directed it towards people who he perceived was a threat to him. In one report a Pastor Hanson, stated because of Demian's threats to harm him he applied for a concealed weapon permit to protect himself and his family from Demian's threats.
It goes on to say:
[Excerpt] "...Oma was running from her husband who had abused her and threatened to harm her. She was paranoid of everyone and when I went to her home upon entering her place I felt it was like a prison with all the shades and curtains drawn and lights low. I believe these actions were of a woman living in constant fear from the mental and physical abused heaped upon her for a period of time. Oma Demian is very distraught and frightened for her life..."
October 13, 1990 - Demian finds the hiding place of his Ex wife and their two small children who were in the custody of their biological mother whom he convinces that she is in immediate peril and that they must run. He pays for her and the two children to fly from Cody, Wyoming to San Francisco. Several days later he hires a man who impersonates a police officer and together they fly to San Francisco to inform the biological mother that Montana has a warrant out for her arrest. It wasn't true but their scheme worked. 
October 30, 1990 - Marcus Demian kidnaps his own children and returns to the State of Montana where his truck is surrounded at gunpoint by law enforcement. The children are removed from their father's custody and are placed in foster care, they are placed in "protective custody" because their father kidnapped them from their mother. In court documentation Demian claims the biological mother (Demian's ex wife) is dead and convinces the court since she is considered dead her attorney who was fighting on her behalf should be excluded from any future hearings. Lacking evidence to the contrary, the courts acquiesce.
November 1, 1990 - At a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) hearing, instigated by Oma Demian, she is awarded physical custody of the family residence and the restraining order is to remain in place. Later that same day, Marcus Demian convinces Hamou he is innocent of abusing the children (her child included) and begs for reconciliation, he informs his wife (Oma) that his previous wife, E. Demian, has been murdered. He convinces Oma she should stay with him as her life is in danger if she isn’t.
December 10, 1990 - After being under his influence for a month, Oma Demian testifies on behalf of her husband in his attempt to regain custody of his children one child is returned because of his inability to communicate (autism) while the other remained in foster care.
December 14, 1990 - Demian and Hamou travels to Cody Wyoming where he gets her to write a check to K-Mart in the amount of $437.95. Demian provides the cashier with his AMEX to secure the Check's payment and is noted on the top left hand side. 
December 17, 1990 - Two major things happen on this day:
Marcus Demian presents Oma with two checks written on the family owned business, Montana Coffee Roasters account to his wife which he informs her are to cover the checks she issued in Yellowstone County when they were separated. He hands them to the man (who unknown to Oma at the time) he hired to impersonate a police officer and instructs him to deliver those checks to the appropriate entities so his wife would avoid being prosecuted. According to Mike Newson, Oma Hamou has the actual checks which Demian said he paid but didn't and were never delivered have been turned over to law enforcement.
Notice the backs of the checks they were never endorsed by a bank.
Together with the small boys Hamou/Demian travels from Cody, Wyoming to Los Angeles California. Demian instructs Hamou to pay for this flight (promising to transfer the funds to cover the flight later) by writing a check to United Airlines in the amount of $3,456.00 and provides the cashier with his AMEX to secure payment of the check, which is noted on the top right hand side.
Note United Airlines Ticket serial numbers for each passenger:
2676484682 1 - Oma Demian, 2676484682 2 - Marcus Demian, 2676484682 3 & 4 - The Children
UPDATE: Marcus Demian's AMEX 73006 matches up to the numbers appearing on the Checks for which his wife was criminally prosecuted. Additionally, notice the statement date 11-14-90 which in of itself solidifies "E. Demian's" statement dated 11-29-1990 that Marcus Demian purchased airline tickets for her and their two (2) small children from Cody, Wyoming to California. Disregarding the fact, a restraining order was in place against Marcus Demian which prevented him from going anywhere near his children and their mother yet he not only violates the court order but drives them across state lines and pays for their airline tickets to California. He then hires someone to impersonate a police officer and kidnaps the children, shortly thereafter Marcus Demian tells the courts that his ex wife is dead and tells his then present wife Oma Demian he had the ex murdered.
December 23, 1990 - The Demian family travels back to Wyoming from Los Angeles on Continental Airlines. 
December 31, 1990 According to court records, Marcus Demian assaults Oma Demian with a gun, his fists and feet in the course of being beaten in a deserted field and fires his gun at her execution style she loses consciousness. When she comes too, she is inside of the truck without a blouse and does not remember anything.
January 2, 1991 Fearing that Marcus Demian had made good on his threat to murder his wife, Oma Demian the Sherriff, the Chief of Police, the Prosecutor, the Montana Department of Social Services, Mrs. Demian’s Attorney and friends convinces Marcus Demian to allow them access to his wife. They attempt to persuade Mrs. Demian to press charges against Marcus Demian she doesn’t however she does leave her husband.
January 17, 1991 - Marcus Demian informs the Cody Police Department that his wife has criminal charges pending in Yellowstone County, Montana for NSF checks and tells the officer he was not present at the time his wife issued a check to K-marts and to United Airlines, instead he encourages them to pursue charging her with a crime.
January 19, 1991 - The man who Marcus Demian hires to impersonate a police officer is arrested while Demian claims he had no involvement/knowledge of the crime.
Years Later Marcus Demian would distort the truth by explaining this incident to others in a letter: [Excerpts from a letter Demian wrote] "...I had given custody of....to E (the biological mother of his children) hoping she would take care of (the children). When I spoke to E... she was wiped out and I knew I had made a mistake... I got this guy who was a cop and together we went to Frisco to get (the children) away since (they the children) were in danger. When...I took (the children)... back to Montana...that is when all hell broke loose and my fight for (the children) started ... I nearly killed them....The charges against (name deleted to protect cop victims's privacy) was dropped and nothing was charged to me...I fought the good fight...(cop victim's name has been deleted to protect his privacy) was a means...in my book and the book of others that makes me a hero not a villain... "
FACT: During this time Marcus Demian did not have custody of his children as the State of Montana had awarded custody to their biological mother "E Demian." In the investigative police report regarding the man who "impersonated a cop" Marcus Demian claimed he didn't know anything about the incident. However, years later in San Diego, California he would attempt to destroy the evidence which linked him to the crime such as but not limited to his credit card statements, payment in the form of the endorsed bank check and taped telephone conversations with man he hired to impersonate an officer not to mention his recent admission. The man who he hired to impersonate a police officer was arrested and charged with having committed the crime plus fined, yet in the above letter Marcus Demian insists the charges against this individual was dismissed.
February 4, 1991 – Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Michael Sullivan is asked to perform an alleged sexual offender evaluation on Marcus Demian which the Montana Department of Family Services currently has a temporary investigative authority.
April 2, 1991 – Separated again, Marcus Demian is found breaking into and entering into his wife's residence, the violent attacks, and in the face of threats of more violence and in order to protect her then toddler child the State of Montana grants the then present wife. Oma Demian's request to hide her child in a different state. This is not the first time Mr. Demian has ignored a court order we at APO have located court records involving the Marriage of E. Demian and Marcus Demian.In the Matter of Light v. Marcus Demian No. 89K00544 several witnesses signed Affidavits stating:
[Excerpt] “…On numerous occasions I have seen and heard fighting, screaming and the breaking of furniture and property in this apartment by the tenant Marcus Demian…Police were called to this complex at all hours of the day. On several occasions Marcus Demian was breaking down the door or the windows to this apartment...”
In the Marriage between Marcus and E. Demian we learn not only does he have a violent temper but he is extremely jealous that his young wife left him for another man.
In court documents Mr. Demian views his then present wife, E. Demian in a car with her new boyfriend and calls in a favor from a LAPD reserve police officer who has the vehicle pulled over and its occupants are arrested. While this is happening, Marcus Demian goes to the apartment he once shared with his wife and removes his children from the care of the babysitter and leaves them with another babysitter. He then goes back to his former residence and trashes the place and has his attorney go into court and get "emergency protective custody" of the children citing his wife was in jail, is unfit as a parent who left their small children alone inside her apartment.
June 25, 1991 – Oma Demian is arrested in the State of Utah for NSF Check and is released on a $20,000 bond.
July 16, 1991 – In the Matter of a Youth of Need in Care, the Montana District Court cites H.D. is a victim of sexual abuse and it is probable that the person who committed that sexual abuse is Marcus Demian. HD is emotionally damaged, needs mental health intervention and meets the diagnostic criteria for post traumatic stress disorder. The court also notes in the fall of 1990, an incident of domestic violence observed by HD when Marcus Demian chased Oma Demian and hit her with his closed fists in the upper portion of her body. HD in her deposition indicated that she was very upset by these acts of violence of Marcus Demian against Oma Demian.
August 27, 1991 - Oma Demian is arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department on a warrant for failing to appear in Utah and fights extradition. The State of Montana places her child in "protective custody".
Marcus Demian hires an attorney for his wife who represents to the court to prevent Oma Demian from being criminally prosecuted for checks she wrote while on the run from her husband, he would make arrangements with the banks and prosecuting authorities in Montana and Utah in order to make restitution.
According to law enforcement in Utah as noted in the court record, Oma Demian's level of stress was significantly high due to several factors, she was incarcerated and separated from her family and was going through a nasty divorce and her husband threatened to murder her child.
October 30, 1991 – – Marcus Demian solicits women who are in jail with his wife and tells them he will pay them for information which could prove helpful in proving his wife was an unfit parent. According to Mike Newson, Hamou has provided the actual letters sent by Marcus Demian to law enforcement.
January 17, 1992 - The District Court in Utah duly noted although Mr. Demian represented to it he would provide the necessary funds to cover his wife's debt he did not follow through on his commitment.
Oma Demian pleads guilty for writing a bad check, "Theft by Deception" in the State of Utah because of the circumstances surrounding the offense and Mrs. Demian having had no prior criminal convictions until this tumultuous period in her life the court suspends her sentence and places her on probation. Marcus Demian pays for his wife's flight from Utah to San Diego, California where she resides with him inside the family home.
As Oma Hamou has pointed out and as Mike Newson has many, many times in other times and places, the State of Montana's Web site shows Oma has three convictions for writing a bad check. However, when you examine this same record on the web site it shows beside two of those convictions the phrase "OTHER STATE" which simply means that those convictions were from a different state -- Utah and Wyoming.
Yet when one reads what both Pallasart and now the author of Oma Hamou Reality, published; one walks away with the impression that she was/has been convicted three times in Montana, three times in Utah and once in Wyoming. For instance in the State of Utah it is actually one conviction as both numbers provided on these various reports contain the case number "1338"- anyone in criminal law will tell you that it is the same case.
Heck, don't take my word call the courts in Utah and ask them how many convictions do they show for Oma and ask them if it was for writing a bad check and verify the old case number 911313381 if it was converted during district / circuit data merge.The phone number for the Summit County District Clerk of Court's office is 435-615-4300.
According to Mike Newson the District Clerk's office has been notified of Hamou's stalkers who continue to libel her by publishing on the web she has three felony convictions in that State. They are not happy to hear about this.
Quote Mike Newson: The bottom line is that when I look at the evidence that was presented on Rob/Bob's hate Oma site, and is now found in Bob's own evidence to the Texas courts. I find that the evidence supports the conclusion that Oma Hamou had three different convictions, one each from Utah, Wyoming, and Montana, all of which were transferred to Montana for finial disposition.
We know that one case in Montana was from Utah, as Bob Atchison's evidence gives us the Utah case number 1338, which is also stated in the Montana record. The Montana conviction we know about because it says Yellowstone as the county the offense happened in. As to the Wyoming one, we know that there was an offense in Wyoming, because Oma Hamou said that was where it happened, and I have called the courts there to verify it.
How ever all that matters at this point is that we know it did not happen in Montana as the record specifically says, "Other State." We know that in all cases the sentence was suspended, and thus no prison time, so she could never have been on parole as Bob Atchison & Rob Moshein have said in the past. And that she made restitution as the court records state this, and that probation was rescinded, as she had made restitution and paid the price for her actions so many, many years ago - 16 to be exact!
When one continues to find error in Bob Atchison & Rob Moshein's research on so many points one has to feel that these errors are intentional. That they ignored the facts, and continue to deny that they have made mistakes in spite of their knowledge that they have made these mistakes --- as plenty of people have told them they have errors, including law enforcement officials, and we are aware of the many times that they have visited Oma Hamou's site where this was first published, and where it has many times hosted posts that refuted their conclusions, one has to wonder about their intent to see truth dispensed or if their intent is to bring humiliation and harm to Oma. Then there is the point of people who are "inside" Bob's circle (who are willing to testify) and who know that he has been told that his story is full of lies, and yet Bob/Rob continue to publish the lies.
Again, when you look at the complete Utah records you will find the case number 1338. All the records associated with Utah have this case number, however prior to 11-04-97 the case number was 911313381 this was then converted during district / circuit data merge to 1338.
Quote Utah District Court:
11-12-96 Note: ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT, STATE'S COUNSEL & COURT AGREEING, COURT GRANTS DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEEM RESTITUTION AS PAID;
11-12-96 Note: COURT ALSO TERMINATES HER FROM PROBATION AND WISHES HER SUCCESS
11-12-96 Note: Entered case disposition of: Closed
11-14-96 Note: Case disposition removed
11-04-97 Note: Old case number 911313381 converted during district / circuit data merge.
The heart of the issue here does involve propaganda and many of its techniques, such as the Big Lie, and Red Herrings, which is why I have been talking about them so that those who read about this skirmish will understand why each side has said what they have. There is a dance of words going on as that is the battle field in this war. Things like asking a question of one person and then switching in the middle to another person. So that if the person the question was asked of responded to the question, that it could be taken that someone else said that, again a simple propaganda technique. The ultimate question may simply come down to; is what Oma Hamou claims supportable by documentation, acceptable in court, such that she can support her position. Versus, is what Rob Moshein & Bob Atchison said/published as "fact" about Oma Hamou supportable as truth, in court. There seems to be an attitude of you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs in the "other" camp, not to mention the attitude of "the ends justify the means."
January 19, 1992 - Marcus Demian pays for his wife’s round trip from San Diego, California to Billings, Montana. 
March 10, 1992 Marcus Demian threatens a Montana District Court Judge
March 31, 1992 Marcus Demian pays for his wife's flight to Montana as well as her hotel accommodations.
April 1, 1992 The District Court duly noted although Mr. Demian represented to it he would provide the necessary funds to cover his wife's debt he did not follow through on his commitment. Oma Demian pleads guilty "issuing a bad check" in the State of Montana during the period of October 1990 through March 1991 and is sentenced to 10 years in prison. Because of the circumstances surrounding the offense Mrs. Demian having had no prior criminal convictions until this tumultuous period in her life the court suspended her sentence and she is placed on probation for 10 years.
April 8, 1992 While living with her husband in San Diego, California hospital records indicate several instances of "Domestic Violence" at the family residence in San Diego and notes the black eye and bruises on Oma Demian.
May 27, 1992 Marcus Demian pays for his wife's roundtrip from San Diego, California to Montana for a court appearance in the Matter of N.D. a Youth in Need of Care hearing. 
June 3, 1992 – Oma Demian is violently assaulted by her husband. She leaves him and takes a flight to Billings, Montana where currently her children reside in foster care. When she arrives at the airport she loses unconsciousness and is transported to a hospital who notes that she has multiple contusions to the chest and head, closed head injury, clinical fracture of the 5th Left post rib and she is pregnant.
June 4, 1992 – Oma Demian suffers a miscarriage and decides to move in to the family residence in Montana. That evening, learning his wife was staying inside of the family residence Marcus Demian becomes angry and sends someone out there. It is dark and someone is shining their flashlight into the windows and doesn't identify who they are.
LATER THAT SAME EVENING OF JUNE 4, 1992 - According to the report filed with the YWCA Gateway House Support Line Oma Demian stated the following:
[Excerpt] "…her husband might hire someone to kill her, she is laying in living room with a knife and is real scared, she is getting a divorce, she is her husband's 10th wife, one wife is missing presumed dead, there are current child abuse issues pending, wants shelter but has no car, a car pulled up in her driveway with the lights shining on her door, she is upset because she didn't know who was in the car. I called the police who are on their way, she stayed on the line we got cut off a few times…"
June 5, 1992 - - Unbeknownst to Oma Demian her husband transferred the Deed to the family residence into the name of an then employee of their San Diego restaurant, Buffalo Joe's and instructs the Sheriff's department on behalf of this employee to arrest Oma Demian for trespassing. The Sheriff doesn't arrest Mrs. Demian instead allows her as much time as she needs to vacate the premises.
June 25, 1992 – According to the Montana Court record Oma Demian’s child is a victim of abuse by his step-father, Marcus Demian and remains in Foster Care.
August 10, 1992 - Marcus Demian and Oma Demian's final decree of dissolution is entered.
December 22, 1992 - the Montana Supreme Court DENIED Marcus Demian's Appeal and sided with the lower courts ruling citing he abused the children and noted that he abused his then wife Oma. 
March 31, 1993 – Oma Demian pleads guilty in Park County, Wyoming for "Issuing a Bad Check" on December 14 &17, 1990 because of the circumstances surrounding her offense her sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation. Like Utah her probation status was transferred to the State of Montana since this was her primary place of residence, and where her children resided in foster care.
March 3, 1993 - In Wyoming, Oma Demian enters a plea of no contest to both the misdemanor and felony check fraud. (Updated)
August 1993 - Oma McConnell regains custody of her child.
July 4, 1994 - Oma McConnell marries an Israeli, Eli Hamou. It should be noted prior to her marriage to Mr. Hamou she did not use the name "Hamou" court records and police records bear this fact out.
MONTANA AFTERMATH:
July 9, 1997 - Although the State of Montana granted Oma Demian permission to relocate to the State of California and transferred her probation under the provisions of the Interstate Compact Act to California, it (Montana) did not receive a report from the California authorities on Demian's status. Thus a warrant on a probation violation was issued and Oma Hamou was arrested. It took several weeks for the California Adult Probation Department to provide the necessary documents to the State of Montana which proved Hamou had reported on a monthly basis to its department and had committed nothing that would warrant her arrest.
August 13, 1997 The Court in Montana issues an Order for Oma Demian's release from a San Diego jail.
November 27, 2001 – Oma Hamou paid in full all fines and restitution in the amount of $7,500.00 and her probation status within the State of Montana was terminated and case closed.
UTAH AFTERMATH:
The paper work concerning the State of Utah and Wyoming's probation was not transferred along with the State of Montana to California. Court records indicate the paper work got lost in the shuffle which caused the State of Utah in 1994 to issue a warrant for her arrest because they didn't know where she was.
Neither the California Probation Department nor Oma Hamou was aware there was a warrant out for her arrest until she was arrested in November 1995 on a probation violation from the State of Utah. She was extradited to the State of Utah and released from custody. As an "independent paralegal" working with various law firms and modeling eventually Oma was able to pay the fines and restitution in the amount of $7,500.00 thus terminating her probation status within the State of Utah. She worked as a paralegal and eventually paid $7,500.00 in fines and restitution thus her probation status in the State of Utah was terminated and case closed.
WYOMING AFTERMATH:
Court documents from Wyoming indicate the paper work concerning both the State of Utah and Wyoming's probation was not properly transferred along with the State of Montana’s paper work to the California authorities.
July 30, 2000 - Unaware a problem existed Hamou walked into a local police station to file a complaint but when the LAPD ran her name she was told there was a warrant out for her arrest from Wyoming on a probation violation.
She was arrested and a call was placed to the Park County Attorney's office who said all they wanted was to get paid and would terminate her probation status once this happened. A cashier's check in the amount of $4,043.95 was sent by way of FEDEX to the prosecutor in Wyoming thus terminating Hamou's probation status and the case is closed.
August 1, 2000 Oma Hamou is released from custody in Los Angeles, California.
It should be noted since this isolated time period of being married to Marcus W. Demian, Oma Hamou has had no other criminal convictions.
January 2001- Oma Hamou travels to Russia in pursuit of her film project "A Matter of Honor" and the rest as they say is history...
UPDATE: We received this letter via email which was written to Marcus Demian after he reentered Oma’s life, joined forces with Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein…
[Excerpts]
Marcus Demian,
...You've called every wife you have had a "whore" but you only bothered to continue to pursue the one that actually has you on the ropes and is about to knock you out legally...
You think you've got staunch allies in my "stalkers" but as far as unmitigated evil their just "Mini You's" --- Your problem this time is you think you can beat me like you did last time when I was a still a child and innocent and your treachery came at me out of the blue, this time I know your tactics and this time it's you that needs to be very afraid of the legal consequences. This time around it is the truth that will vindicate myself ...one of your "give or take" fifteen ex wives who you refer to as whores. It is interesting how only one of us has the distinction of being the "Whore of Babylon” and her own Blog, where you do your best to berate me to the whole world. I guess the difference between all the other whores and the singular "Whore of Babylon" is that I'm the one bringing you to justice and avenging us all...
On your Blog about me, you write you have "evidence".. This is where you are confused, I have mountains of quality evidence which proves beyond any shadow of the doubt what kind of a sick bastard you really are and when we get to court you're the one who should be shaking in his boots. I even have all your tape recordings that you thought you got rid of when you threw them into the trash bin...I was able to obtain the police records, court files and other information such as but not limited to .... and was able to piece together what happened to...after she was returned to you. You are without a doubt a man who has no honor or shame when it comes to his family or for that matter anyone else...I read the police record of how you claimed ....beat you up and though no one believed her because your injuries were more visible than hers, so she lost that battle. Being an ex wife who knows first hand what your fist feels like I believe ...was only defending herself...In the official court records I read copies, copies of ...diaries that you gladly turned over to the authorities in order to further humiliate her...diaries only helped the authorities to ascertain that living with you was hell --- meaning ...had a troubled existence as you are, and I quote the official record comments, a "control freak"...I read ... statements to the police and the authorities how you verbally abused her and told her that because of her you lost all of your money, all of this Marcus is a part of ....record....as are all the other lies you forced ...to accept and believe...You lost your money because of you and you alone, not because you fought the State of Montana to regain custody...because when you got...back you still had money... You lost your wealth because you cheated business partners, your own son and your ex-wives so it had nothing to do with .... yet you made...believe it was her fault... Again, Marcus this is in the court record, a criminal record that you gladly slapped on ....when you had her arrested......You almost had..."Willy" arrested for entering his own restaurant...a business venture that he vested in with you which cost him his good name and his credit and cost you the loss of your son and Grandchildren...You set "Willy" up just like you set...up, just like you set .... up, just like you set....up and just like you set me up...I've read in the court documents that you threw ......out of your apartment with nothing...You didn't provide ...a place...money or anything ...might need to exist....nothing...Why didn't you do this?..I know why because you're a control freak...Let me ask you Marcus, did you ever get...help ....I read in the California reports ...you would rather spend money on a motorcycle ...In short Marcus...You can continue to pretend that your actions were heroic but in the eyes of law enforcement and courts you're a criminal, you broke the law, your a man without a conscious...I know all about your hotel venture in Idaho and the real reasons why you left town and left your personal belongings behind, yeh, I got those too......In fact Marcus I know all about every business partner you have had and the lawsuits that followed and everything else….After our divorce you accomplished absolutely nothing... you've destroyed your own family, children and others all because you're a selfish son-of-a-bitch...With courage and determination I went on with my life although I was living in the shadow of the destruction you brought to me I was able to achieve important things, but you didn't. Instead you repeated the past...In closing, I hate you, I hate you for what you did to me but especially for what you did to the children, to my own child may your soul rot in hell!
April 31, 2006 on the Legend of Anastasia Forum
Oma Hamou posted this message:
[Excerpts] "…I am the C.E.O. of Enigma Films, Inc., and the Chairman of The Sarskaia Foundation both of which are California corporations. I am much like most any other hard working, conscientious individual eager to get ahead in life and to make a respectable living. However, one thing clearly sets me apart from the rest of the crowd. I have endured, and am enduring, being the victim of a hate crime, of being stalked, and have endured extreme invasions of my privacy. Through out the course of uncovering Mr. Atchison and those associated with his company, Pallasart's trail, and waiting for justice, my world has become a living nightmare. I honestly believe that the victimization will never end, that I will never become whole again.I personally was and am so extremely affected and distracted through out this ordeal that I suffer at times from a nearly non-existent appetite, very little sleep, depression, mood swings and I have suffered a number of close calls medically because of the stress...My daily life, far from being productive and fulfilling, is consumed with the ferocious chore of restoring my name and attempting to quell any future abuse by Mr. Atchison and his company, Pallasart and its associates. I've lost identification with the person I really am inside and shut myself out of social functions because of the negativity this has caused on my life. Unless you have endured being stalked and persecuted, with what has felt to me to be a religious cult like zeal, you will have no comprehension of the devastation that being stalked and hated can create in your life, even to the fears that you face in just waking up...No words will ever be strong enough to completely convince others what this period in my life since my discovery of what Mr. Atchison, Mr. Moshein and those associated with Pallasart have been doing to me is like, every day filled with; terror, aggravation, unceasing anger and frustration. I awake every morning to emotionally charged livid angst. I strike out unreasonably at those who I loved. I unceasingly am forced to live through a clouded reality, one seriously altered by the horrendous actions of one man, Mr. Atchison who committed or influenced a series of unforgivable acts against me, even using my church and faith as a weapon against me...At times I became someone I hated, because of the emotions and associated words that were forced out of me. The existence of Mr. Atchison's attentions robbed me of the normal life I have strived for and entirely deserve. My life should be one in which I, and I alone, should be held responsible and accountable for my personal life and its failures and triumphs...Mr. Atchison traveled to Russia with the court document from the Los Angeles courts and proceeded to show my business colleagues this document and told them that I was a fugitive when I wasn't...He told all who would listen that I had no film project. He told them that I should not be trusted and that I did no work for the Alexander Palace or the Fedorovsky Cathedral and I had conned a priest into co-signing a loan and the banks forced the priest to sell his home to pay my debt. None of what Mr. Atchison said was true but people believed him and when people didn't choose to believe him or Mr. Moshein they proceeded to harass them...For me, the most personally frightening moment was dealing with the fact that Mr. Atchison hated me so much that he would plot and concoct a murder for hire scheme. A scheme in which I could've been arrested and prosecuted for a crime I never committed or took part in. It is frightening to know that someone hates me so much that they would go to such extremes. Although I am living what may on the surface seem to be a normal life with normal freedoms, this is far from the truth...I have never deserved less than a normal life, one free of the ill effects of a heinous individual who deliberately and unabashedly used and abused my world and my past. I am a law abiding citizen, who never deserved to be haunted, stalked shadowed and harassed. I have lived and breathed the nightmare of a hate crime I have learned what it is to be in the crosshairs of a cult. I will tell you first hand this is devastation beyond any outsider's comprehension, a nearly unbearable burden that no one should ever have to suffer...At times I have felt that Mr. Atchison was the father of lies, so adroitly has he wielded this weapon. Yet when one places his words under the microscope one finds that what he says does not match reality. It is very telling to note that prior to my relationship with Mr. Atchison that Enigma Films, Inc. had no debt, it was only after that, that everything began to fall apart, and for the life of us we could not understand why. I ...lost $20 million in financing for my film project based on the actions of Mr. Atchison and those associated with his small company, Pallasart..."
This is only a smattering of the events and evidence to support our contention that Oma Hamou is not and never has been a habitual criminal. We believe that as you study the time line that you will reach the same conclusion that we have. That Oma Hamou was controlled and placed in situations that would best serve Marcus Demian no matter who he had to hurt to gain his desires and to feed his “appetite.” Including his appetite for Oma as he seemed to have a twisted desire to have and possess her body even though he had to get rid of her to keep the children. You may have a hard time understanding why things happened back then the way they did, you have to understand that back then law enforcement did not interfere with “domestic” situations husbands in a way exercised high, middle and low justice over their wives with some impunity. We did not understand back then the psychological control that could be exerted in a relationship based on terror. To understand much of why Oma did what she did you would have to study up on Battered Spouse Syndrome.
Does Oma like what she did back then? No! --- Does she whimper and cry victim? No, she stood up and told the courts "...Yes, I wrote the checks..." and made things as right as she could. Oma has never denied that this time period happened, she has simply stated that there were extenuating circumstances and that she never has been a violent hardened criminal with a life time of criminal activities behind her as Bob Atchison and his group would have you believe. We agree that a one time period in a persons life filled with extraordinary events does not make one a life time criminal especially as we study the time line and begin to see the ways in which Oma was manipulated to do and say what she did, and how events were engineered so as to accomplish Marcus’s desires to maintain control of the children so he could continue to feed his appetite…
For more information click here: http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-age-of-spin-bob-atchison-and-rob.html
Labels: Marcus Demian, TimeLine of Oma Hamou Criminal Convictions
posted by Sandman at 2:45 PM
12 comments
posted by Sandman at 11:50 AM
0 comments
This Morning on AA Legends...
Updated with APO Inserts
Not A Knee Jerk Reaction - Mike Newson posted:
You know, it is strange how many people can read/see the same thing and get different impressions. American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based this poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant", on a fable that was told in India many years ago.
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Which is why I write what I do, and the length that I do, so that those who just hear Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein’s point of view can see that the “Elephant” has many sides to it. And from what I have heard, it seems that we are making headway, that many people are starting to question Bob/Rob. Kind of like Olga did way back when, when she told Bob, after he denied saying something that we questioned on Oma’s forum that he now denied, saying to Bob in effect, “but you did say that to me…” After which she was told that she obviously was against him, and was kicked out of the “presence.”
I am sure that there are sides of this Elephant that I know nothing of, however I am aware that those other sides may exist, so I have to base what I write off of what I am told, what I read, and what I have experienced. I have to take the first two with a “grain of salt,” unless it is a trusted source or from documents presented to the courts as valid and true, but what I have personally experienced at the words of Pallasart is for me very real and horrifying. I don’t know if you have ever encountered an experience where just someone’s words left such an impact on you that you became physically sick, but at the words of Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison/Pallasart I have (and they laughed at me because of it, just like they laughed at Oma Hamou for the same reasons. Remember she was so afraid of “them” that she hired a body guard to be with her in court, and they laughed at that also…)
Any way the last entry of Rob Moshein /Bob Atchison at their blog --- Why Rob/Bob or Bob/Rob? Because as far as we can tell they operate as one and the same. Who knows if it is one or the other that at any one time is the one or the other saying/doing something, they seem to be “one in intent.” Bob Atchison says that Rob Moshein was Gilbert McDuff in his court papers, Rob Moshein on Legends says that he was not. So which one was it? Probably the entity Rob/Bob… ;) Kind of like how that one version of the hate Oma site on free web host had a Pallasart assigned IP used to create the account, but used made up names to register under, anyway, frankly I can’t tell them apart so why bother trying… Lets just call them Bob/Rob and or Pallasart as they seem to be one. Getting back to the blog, Yes Rob the inner circle has passed word out that you admitted that you created it you know the blog, the one that contains all the same basic things from previous hate Oma sites, the one that basically says all the stuff that caused that judge in Texas to hand write: “The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.”
Updated with APO Inserts
Not A Knee Jerk Reaction - Mike Newson posted:
You know, it is strange how many people can read/see the same thing and get different impressions. American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based this poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant", on a fable that was told in India many years ago.
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Which is why I write what I do, and the length that I do, so that those who just hear Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein’s point of view can see that the “Elephant” has many sides to it. And from what I have heard, it seems that we are making headway, that many people are starting to question Bob/Rob. Kind of like Olga did way back when, when she told Bob, after he denied saying something that we questioned on Oma’s forum that he now denied, saying to Bob in effect, “but you did say that to me…” After which she was told that she obviously was against him, and was kicked out of the “presence.”
I am sure that there are sides of this Elephant that I know nothing of, however I am aware that those other sides may exist, so I have to base what I write off of what I am told, what I read, and what I have experienced. I have to take the first two with a “grain of salt,” unless it is a trusted source or from documents presented to the courts as valid and true, but what I have personally experienced at the words of Pallasart is for me very real and horrifying. I don’t know if you have ever encountered an experience where just someone’s words left such an impact on you that you became physically sick, but at the words of Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison/Pallasart I have (and they laughed at me because of it, just like they laughed at Oma Hamou for the same reasons. Remember she was so afraid of “them” that she hired a body guard to be with her in court, and they laughed at that also…)
Any way the last entry of Rob Moshein /Bob Atchison at their blog --- Why Rob/Bob or Bob/Rob? Because as far as we can tell they operate as one and the same. Who knows if it is one or the other that at any one time is the one or the other saying/doing something, they seem to be “one in intent.” Bob Atchison says that Rob Moshein was Gilbert McDuff in his court papers, Rob Moshein on Legends says that he was not. So which one was it? Probably the entity Rob/Bob… ;) Kind of like how that one version of the hate Oma site on free web host had a Pallasart assigned IP used to create the account, but used made up names to register under, anyway, frankly I can’t tell them apart so why bother trying… Lets just call them Bob/Rob and or Pallasart as they seem to be one. Getting back to the blog, Yes Rob the inner circle has passed word out that you admitted that you created it you know the blog, the one that contains all the same basic things from previous hate Oma sites, the one that basically says all the stuff that caused that judge in Texas to hand write: “The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.”
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/ApplicationRestrainingOrderAgainstRobMoshein.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
That blog, the blog that from now on I’ll just refer to as “that blog.” that is Pallasart’s blog as we have reason to believe that Pallasart was implicated in its creation, and as one never knows who is who with those two, and if this is “just” Rob Moshein then Bob Atchison needs him as a friend like he needs a hole in the head, unless that is Rob’s motive. Could that be why, for instance, Rob Moshein seems to have advised Bob to let his company fall out of good standing, and indeed all the way to forfeiture of charter with the State of Texas, (over something like $250, according to “that blog”…) because in his legal opinion then Oma would not be able to sue Pallasart? Yet as a lawyer, he should have been capable of finding out that all that did was remove the corporate shield from Bob so that he was directly in the line of legal fire.
Pallasart on “their blog” said in the most recent entry, “Now Oma Hamou's whoppers turn to me!”
Whoppers? Turn? Come on, the word from the inner circle is that Rob can no longer post on Legends, so he now has to turn to their own blog to say anything.
OHRBLOG Quote: Wow, seems this wannabe playah Miss Thang Oma Hamou finds this little slice of reality about her exaggeratin herself seems to REALLY bother her.
Her exaggerating herself? Oh, come on now, she only said, writer, actress, model, and film producer. The exaggeration came from Rob/Bob/ and the Pallasart “cult” followers. They were the ones who always tried to make Oma into the International Heroine and Star. Oma has never claimed that status.
OHRBLOG Quote: ”I wake up on this nice cool LA morning…” (so is this a veiled attempt at intimidation, as in Oh, no Rob is in town and looking for me again, just like he said he went to Anastasia Davis’s home? True or not it had that effect because of past events in Oma’s life --- the Red Mafia would shred her to pieces, being tossed up against a wall by one of Bob’s “followers,” and etcetera. ) …to find she posted this huge psychotic ramble…”
Quote: Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behavior, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. A psychotic episode is often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
Pallasart on “their blog” said in the most recent entry, “Now Oma Hamou's whoppers turn to me!”
Whoppers? Turn? Come on, the word from the inner circle is that Rob can no longer post on Legends, so he now has to turn to their own blog to say anything.
OHRBLOG Quote: Wow, seems this wannabe playah Miss Thang Oma Hamou finds this little slice of reality about her exaggeratin herself seems to REALLY bother her.
Her exaggerating herself? Oh, come on now, she only said, writer, actress, model, and film producer. The exaggeration came from Rob/Bob/ and the Pallasart “cult” followers. They were the ones who always tried to make Oma into the International Heroine and Star. Oma has never claimed that status.
OHRBLOG Quote: ”I wake up on this nice cool LA morning…” (so is this a veiled attempt at intimidation, as in Oh, no Rob is in town and looking for me again, just like he said he went to Anastasia Davis’s home? True or not it had that effect because of past events in Oma’s life --- the Red Mafia would shred her to pieces, being tossed up against a wall by one of Bob’s “followers,” and etcetera. ) …to find she posted this huge psychotic ramble…”
Quote: Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behavior, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. A psychotic episode is often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
Psycotic? I don’t think so, and apparently neither do a lot of readers… It is also a method of propaganda to denigrate ones opponent so that the readers will think that what was written was insignificant and not of worth. Take some time and read up on propaganda methods at wikipedia some day, I think you will be astounded just how many methods are used by Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison.
OHRBLOG Quote: ”…on her sham blog (its REALLY a hoot that she pretends to be some sixty year old bald guy, the pic is probably one she got sent from some internet sex hookup place she trolls to find a new sugar daddy...the REALLY big screamer is she uses the screenname "sandman" which is pretty accurate, the psycho shouting puts anyone right to sleep trying to read it)”
I thought that Rob Moshein got it chapter and verse the last time in court where the T.R.O. was issued., you know, that one where the judge said, “The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.” that you need to state the truth, or you are going to be held accountable for libel, and now that you have said that you read the material from Legends that Sandman copies to his blog, which includes the cease and desist letter, well then you are aware of the legal ramifications of what you have said. So you know for a fact that Sandman is Oma? That he as a fact does not exist? The Internet Sex comment shows the level at which your thoughts emanate and serve only to condemn yourself, but to keep on a roll, you know for a fact that this is true? Or are your words libelous?
OHRBLOG Quote: ”…on her sham blog (its REALLY a hoot that she pretends to be some sixty year old bald guy, the pic is probably one she got sent from some internet sex hookup place she trolls to find a new sugar daddy...the REALLY big screamer is she uses the screenname "sandman" which is pretty accurate, the psycho shouting puts anyone right to sleep trying to read it)”
I thought that Rob Moshein got it chapter and verse the last time in court where the T.R.O. was issued., you know, that one where the judge said, “The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.” that you need to state the truth, or you are going to be held accountable for libel, and now that you have said that you read the material from Legends that Sandman copies to his blog, which includes the cease and desist letter, well then you are aware of the legal ramifications of what you have said. So you know for a fact that Sandman is Oma? That he as a fact does not exist? The Internet Sex comment shows the level at which your thoughts emanate and serve only to condemn yourself, but to keep on a roll, you know for a fact that this is true? Or are your words libelous?
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/OmaHamouLetterBobAtchison81306.pdf
OHR BLOG Quote: ”I really like how the only evidence she provides are her own SELF SERVING STATEMENTS from "affidavits" that don't mean diddly, since they weren't submitted into a trial. She never DOES submit outside verifiable info, ever...Notice the pattern?”
Do you mean, the affidavits that were submitted under oath to the court? Do you mean the documents and depositions that Bob Atchison submitted to the court under oath that they were true and correct? In fact I believe that some of Rob Moshein’s words to the court are in those documents. Not to mention various lawyers and judges. Used in a trial or not, the documents and affidavits were submitted to the courts under an oath of true and correct. That such an oath has no meaning to Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison is a totally different thing. So lets see, then Rob/Bob are you saying that Bob Atchison’s documents and depositions and court transcripts are not valid evidence? Kind of like how the F.A. at the AP Forum (Rob/Bob?) said that certain memos were fake, when the court bate stamp shows that Bob submitted them to the courts? I would think that Bob Atchison’s evidence would count as being outside verification… There is a huge two edged sword here now, if Bob Atchison comes up with “evidence” that he was requested to provide the last time, but did not, then he was lying about the fact that he had provided all evidence, so either way he has problems. And if as Rob Moshein said that the evidence is fake, then who faked it?, as Bob Atchison was the one who presented it to the courts….
OHR BLOG Quote: “Now she starts screamin that I must be Bob Atchison, (pretty funny no?) and now she's saying I make all this stuff up or lie.
No one is screaming, I think anyone who read the material I (MIKE NEWSON) wrote would say that it was stated in a most calm fashion, and enumerated the reasons as to why that statement was made, and no one said that you were Bob Atchison. Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein could possibly be extracted from “the Boys at Pallasart,” but Bob singularly? No, unless you were trying to drag a Red Herring over the tracks? (Check out propaganda techniques at Wikipedia to see what a red herring is.)
OHR BLOG Quote: "Whopper No. 1: I must be Bob Atchison cuz "The Texas Franchise Tax Board won't disclose the exact amount of tax owed." Well Miss Thang, scroll down. I said it was "like $250", not exactly $250. I asked the guy in the tax office it Pallasart had owed alot of money, he said, I can't tell you the exact amount, but it wasn't alot, it was "LIKE $250"... Sorry to disappoint ya, but I aint Bob Atchison. The info in this blog is PUBLIC info, available to anyone via google, Know X, USSearch and the Los Angeles County Superior Court's own PUBLIC website for the criminal and civil filings.”
What you are saying now seems like an after the fact attempt to cover up that such information is privy only to the Owner of the company, or some one the owner confided in. A kind of hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar reaction.
Now there is a whopper here, as the pure kernel of information is accompanied by conclusions. As in the past it is the conclusions and the interpretations that created the problems. This is a standard propaganda method called Yellow Journalism. Misdirect the audience into believing that it was all pure fact from reputable sources, when in fact the majority of it was the author’s conclusion. A pattern of truth in the opening statement and then the false conclusion presented at the end of the statement as a fact, when in reality and under closer reading we find that the conclusion was purely the authors emotional opinion presented as a fact to sway the audience. Site valid and honorable sources as your sources and then of course what you say MUST be the truth… Another great propaganda method, right up there with the “Big Lie.”
OHR BLOG Whopper No. 2: My statements are poorly researched and "intentionally misleading". Well, first Miss Thang Wannabe Oma Hamou and your fictional pscyho alter ego boyfriend Mike Newson, lets just address the reality behind the statment I got from the guy at the Texas Franchise Tax office, shall we? He told me that the forfeiture only affected corporate standing, that the officers were personally liable for debts, but Pallasart was fully within its rights to stay in business. She/he (weird no?) said they were told otherwise.
This is primarily an attempt to misdirect the reader, oh and I am not fictional, that is another of your libelous statements that have no facts to back them up. The law itself was never at question, just the conclusions about your interpretations. Yes, the people behind the corporation do become liable personally, that is they lose the protection of the corporate shield, the company loses the “privileges” of being a corporation in Texas, and the ability to conduct business as a corporation. Yes they can continue in business but without the privileges of a corporation, that is they can not continue with business as usual, (which is what “we” have stated) as they forfeited the privilege of being a corporation in Texas, so they become and operate as a partnership or sole proprietor depending on the company. They also lose the right to even the name of the corporation.
In the non-legal, normal-human type language I found this on Texas corporations, “The franchise tax is considered a privilege tax, meaning that corporations pay the tax in exchange for specific privileges granted by the State of Texas. These privileges include access to the state’s legal system, the right to accumulate property separate and apart from any individual’s property, and a limitation of personal financial liability for officers of the corporation. A corporation may have its corporate privileges in Texas forfeited for failure to file a report, including the Public Information Report, or pay the tax within 90 days after the due date. The forfeiture bars the corporation from using the corporate name to sue or defend in court and exposes the officers and directors to personal liability. The personal liability is for all debts of the corporation, including taxes, that were incurred in Texas after the due date of the delinquent report, unless the officer or director objected to the creation of, or could not have known about the creation of, the debt.
If the corporate privileges have been forfeited and franchise taxes have not been paid within 120 days after the date the privileges were forfeited, the charter or Certificate of Authority may be forfeited by the Secretary of State or in a court proceeding brought by the Attorney General.
Every profit and nonprofit corporation in Texas must file all franchise tax reports and public information reports with appropriate payment until granted a franchise tax exemption by the Comptroller's office. Failure to do so will cause the loss of corporate privileges as well as the forfeiture of charter by the Texas Secretary of State.”
Notice that there are two states of penalty, the first is loss of privileges, where by the corporation loses certain privileges, including the right of the corporate shield, the right to do business as a corporation, and the principles are now exposed to personal liability for debts and other actions of the company. The second which happens 120 days AFTER suspension of corporate privileges is the loss or forfeiture of the corporate charter itself, that is the loss of the corporate entity, effectively a legal death of an entity. Pallasart did not rectify the loss of corporate privilege with in the 120 days allowed by law and the state of Texas then determined that the CHARTER itself was forfeited. The Charter was forfeited February 10, 2006, which means that in November of 2005 it lost its privileges under Texas law, and then in February 2006 it lost its charter. Two separate events.
OHR BLOG Quote: Ok Miss Thang wannabe playah, a dose of some reality:
The effects of forfeiture may include the denial of the corporation's right to sue in a Texas court, and each officer and director may become personally liable for certain debts of the corporation. (Tex. Tax Code Ann. 171.251 and 171.252)
If the corporate privileges are forfeited, each officer or director of the corporation may be liable for each debt of the corporation that is created or incurred in Texas after the date on which the report is due and before the corporate privileges are revived, as provided by http://secure.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=F&p_rloc=109052&p_tloc=14
OHR BLOG Quote: ”I really like how the only evidence she provides are her own SELF SERVING STATEMENTS from "affidavits" that don't mean diddly, since they weren't submitted into a trial. She never DOES submit outside verifiable info, ever...Notice the pattern?”
Do you mean, the affidavits that were submitted under oath to the court? Do you mean the documents and depositions that Bob Atchison submitted to the court under oath that they were true and correct? In fact I believe that some of Rob Moshein’s words to the court are in those documents. Not to mention various lawyers and judges. Used in a trial or not, the documents and affidavits were submitted to the courts under an oath of true and correct. That such an oath has no meaning to Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison is a totally different thing. So lets see, then Rob/Bob are you saying that Bob Atchison’s documents and depositions and court transcripts are not valid evidence? Kind of like how the F.A. at the AP Forum (Rob/Bob?) said that certain memos were fake, when the court bate stamp shows that Bob submitted them to the courts? I would think that Bob Atchison’s evidence would count as being outside verification… There is a huge two edged sword here now, if Bob Atchison comes up with “evidence” that he was requested to provide the last time, but did not, then he was lying about the fact that he had provided all evidence, so either way he has problems. And if as Rob Moshein said that the evidence is fake, then who faked it?, as Bob Atchison was the one who presented it to the courts….
OHR BLOG Quote: “Now she starts screamin that I must be Bob Atchison, (pretty funny no?) and now she's saying I make all this stuff up or lie.
No one is screaming, I think anyone who read the material I (MIKE NEWSON) wrote would say that it was stated in a most calm fashion, and enumerated the reasons as to why that statement was made, and no one said that you were Bob Atchison. Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein could possibly be extracted from “the Boys at Pallasart,” but Bob singularly? No, unless you were trying to drag a Red Herring over the tracks? (Check out propaganda techniques at Wikipedia to see what a red herring is.)
OHR BLOG Quote: "Whopper No. 1: I must be Bob Atchison cuz "The Texas Franchise Tax Board won't disclose the exact amount of tax owed." Well Miss Thang, scroll down. I said it was "like $250", not exactly $250. I asked the guy in the tax office it Pallasart had owed alot of money, he said, I can't tell you the exact amount, but it wasn't alot, it was "LIKE $250"... Sorry to disappoint ya, but I aint Bob Atchison. The info in this blog is PUBLIC info, available to anyone via google, Know X, USSearch and the Los Angeles County Superior Court's own PUBLIC website for the criminal and civil filings.”
What you are saying now seems like an after the fact attempt to cover up that such information is privy only to the Owner of the company, or some one the owner confided in. A kind of hand-caught-in-the-cookie-jar reaction.
Now there is a whopper here, as the pure kernel of information is accompanied by conclusions. As in the past it is the conclusions and the interpretations that created the problems. This is a standard propaganda method called Yellow Journalism. Misdirect the audience into believing that it was all pure fact from reputable sources, when in fact the majority of it was the author’s conclusion. A pattern of truth in the opening statement and then the false conclusion presented at the end of the statement as a fact, when in reality and under closer reading we find that the conclusion was purely the authors emotional opinion presented as a fact to sway the audience. Site valid and honorable sources as your sources and then of course what you say MUST be the truth… Another great propaganda method, right up there with the “Big Lie.”
OHR BLOG Whopper No. 2: My statements are poorly researched and "intentionally misleading". Well, first Miss Thang Wannabe Oma Hamou and your fictional pscyho alter ego boyfriend Mike Newson, lets just address the reality behind the statment I got from the guy at the Texas Franchise Tax office, shall we? He told me that the forfeiture only affected corporate standing, that the officers were personally liable for debts, but Pallasart was fully within its rights to stay in business. She/he (weird no?) said they were told otherwise.
This is primarily an attempt to misdirect the reader, oh and I am not fictional, that is another of your libelous statements that have no facts to back them up. The law itself was never at question, just the conclusions about your interpretations. Yes, the people behind the corporation do become liable personally, that is they lose the protection of the corporate shield, the company loses the “privileges” of being a corporation in Texas, and the ability to conduct business as a corporation. Yes they can continue in business but without the privileges of a corporation, that is they can not continue with business as usual, (which is what “we” have stated) as they forfeited the privilege of being a corporation in Texas, so they become and operate as a partnership or sole proprietor depending on the company. They also lose the right to even the name of the corporation.
In the non-legal, normal-human type language I found this on Texas corporations, “The franchise tax is considered a privilege tax, meaning that corporations pay the tax in exchange for specific privileges granted by the State of Texas. These privileges include access to the state’s legal system, the right to accumulate property separate and apart from any individual’s property, and a limitation of personal financial liability for officers of the corporation. A corporation may have its corporate privileges in Texas forfeited for failure to file a report, including the Public Information Report, or pay the tax within 90 days after the due date. The forfeiture bars the corporation from using the corporate name to sue or defend in court and exposes the officers and directors to personal liability. The personal liability is for all debts of the corporation, including taxes, that were incurred in Texas after the due date of the delinquent report, unless the officer or director objected to the creation of, or could not have known about the creation of, the debt.
If the corporate privileges have been forfeited and franchise taxes have not been paid within 120 days after the date the privileges were forfeited, the charter or Certificate of Authority may be forfeited by the Secretary of State or in a court proceeding brought by the Attorney General.
Every profit and nonprofit corporation in Texas must file all franchise tax reports and public information reports with appropriate payment until granted a franchise tax exemption by the Comptroller's office. Failure to do so will cause the loss of corporate privileges as well as the forfeiture of charter by the Texas Secretary of State.”
Notice that there are two states of penalty, the first is loss of privileges, where by the corporation loses certain privileges, including the right of the corporate shield, the right to do business as a corporation, and the principles are now exposed to personal liability for debts and other actions of the company. The second which happens 120 days AFTER suspension of corporate privileges is the loss or forfeiture of the corporate charter itself, that is the loss of the corporate entity, effectively a legal death of an entity. Pallasart did not rectify the loss of corporate privilege with in the 120 days allowed by law and the state of Texas then determined that the CHARTER itself was forfeited. The Charter was forfeited February 10, 2006, which means that in November of 2005 it lost its privileges under Texas law, and then in February 2006 it lost its charter. Two separate events.
OHR BLOG Quote: Ok Miss Thang wannabe playah, a dose of some reality:
The effects of forfeiture may include the denial of the corporation's right to sue in a Texas court, and each officer and director may become personally liable for certain debts of the corporation. (Tex. Tax Code Ann. 171.251 and 171.252)
If the corporate privileges are forfeited, each officer or director of the corporation may be liable for each debt of the corporation that is created or incurred in Texas after the date on which the report is due and before the corporate privileges are revived, as provided by http://secure.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=F&p_rloc=109052&p_tloc=14
920&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=34&pt=1&ch
=3&rl=544
Tax Code, §171.255.
So, lets read the exact language of the code:
§ 171.252. EFFECTS OF FORFEITURE. If the corporate privileges of a corporation are forfeited under this subchapter:
(1) the corporation shall be denied the right to sue or
defend in a court of this state; and
(2) each director or officer of the corporation is
liable for a debt of the corporation as provided by Section 171.255 of this code.
Umm, I don't see anywhere an effect of forfeiture being the loss of ability to conduct business. Lets keep looking...
a domestic filing entity is considered to have continued in existence without interruption from the date of termination only if the filing entity is reinstated before the third (3rd) anniversary of the date of its involuntary termination.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/forms/811_boc.doc nope, not here either. I tried the Texas Law Manual next, Texas Law Manual: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/tax/manuals/law/law_ch1_02.html
1.4.6 Forfeiture of Charter - A corporation whose charter has been forfeited remains a corporation. It can neither bring nor defend a suit, except one brought to forfeit charter. It remains liable for debts incurred prior to forfeiture.
So, lets read the exact language of the code:
§ 171.252. EFFECTS OF FORFEITURE. If the corporate privileges of a corporation are forfeited under this subchapter:
(1) the corporation shall be denied the right to sue or
defend in a court of this state; and
(2) each director or officer of the corporation is
liable for a debt of the corporation as provided by Section 171.255 of this code.
Umm, I don't see anywhere an effect of forfeiture being the loss of ability to conduct business. Lets keep looking...
a domestic filing entity is considered to have continued in existence without interruption from the date of termination only if the filing entity is reinstated before the third (3rd) anniversary of the date of its involuntary termination.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/forms/811_boc.doc nope, not here either. I tried the Texas Law Manual next, Texas Law Manual: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/tax/manuals/law/law_ch1_02.html
1.4.6 Forfeiture of Charter - A corporation whose charter has been forfeited remains a corporation. It can neither bring nor defend a suit, except one brought to forfeit charter. It remains liable for debts incurred prior to forfeiture.
1.4.7 Operation Subsequent to Forfeiture
If the corporation whose right to do business has been forfeited takes the necessary action to promptly remedy the defect causing the forfeiture, no status change in the identity of the employing unit is recorded insofar as Commission practice is concerned. ...However, debts knowingly created by the knowledgeable officers and directors during any period subsequent to the forfeiture of the corporation's right to do business (because of failure to pay franchise taxes) becomes the personal liability of these individuals as if they were partners. Sorry miss thang wannabee playah Oma Hamou and psycho alter ego boyfriend, the law just don't say what ya want it to say. I guess maybe if you keep up ranting and shreaking long enough somebody "might" start to believe ya. I'll stick with reality though. Suggest strongly that the readers do the same.
If the corporation whose right to do business has been forfeited takes the necessary action to promptly remedy the defect causing the forfeiture, no status change in the identity of the employing unit is recorded insofar as Commission practice is concerned. ...However, debts knowingly created by the knowledgeable officers and directors during any period subsequent to the forfeiture of the corporation's right to do business (because of failure to pay franchise taxes) becomes the personal liability of these individuals as if they were partners. Sorry miss thang wannabee playah Oma Hamou and psycho alter ego boyfriend, the law just don't say what ya want it to say. I guess maybe if you keep up ranting and shreaking long enough somebody "might" start to believe ya. I'll stick with reality though. Suggest strongly that the readers do the same.
In Utah the effect of continuing to do business after forfeiture is:
59-7-535. Doing business thereafter -- Penalty.
(1) Pursuant to any suspension or forfeiture under Section 59-7-534, any person who attempts or purports to exercise any of the rights, privileges, or powers of any suspended domestic corporation, or who transacts or attempts to transact any intrastate business in this state in behalf of any forfeited foreign corporation, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. A fine shall be imposed of not less than $250, and a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed of not less than 50 days in the county jail.
(2) Jurisdiction of the offense shall be in any county in which any part of the attempted exercise of the powers, or any part of the transaction of business occurred.
(3) Any contract made in violation of this section is unenforceable by the corporation or person.
In Texas looking at governing laws dealing with forfeiture of the corporate charter (That is looking just one section above the section that was quoted on “that blog” and reading 171.251 which is found in its entirety at http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TX/content/htm/tx.002.00.000171.00.htm as I am going to remove some superfluous information from this section as quoted here.)
Sorry, I have to take a break and point out something before showing you what I found. In the various incarnations of the Hate-Oma Hamou sites created by the various members of the Pallasart team we found that in reading the documentation dealing with Oma and Utah, that they read what they wanted to see and said that Oma Hamou had two different cases in Utah, they did not read to the bottom where it said that the case number had been changed in a conversion of records. So they read two cases in Utah because that was what they “wanted” to see.
The very first thing Bob Atchison sent to me to “prove” that Oma Hamou was this bad person, well Bob Atchison listed all these people in regards to a AmEx debt, yet when you read to the end of the file he sent me to you found that the case had been changed to just a corporate debt, and all the names that Bob Atchison had reported was old news and not true currently, that is they read and reported what they wanted to see, what it seemed to them would place Oma Hamou in the worst light possible.
In the Montana records “they” reported that Oma Hamou had three convictions there, and they did not “see” the words “other state” and so they reported what they wanted events to be, not what happened.
Even with me and my start date with Oma Hamou, they read the data from one web site and not the data from the site that I said I worked on, so that they could “prove” what they wanted to prove, not what the reality is/was.
Well this may be the case here also. I suspect that Rob Moshein read that if the corporation was not in good standing then according to 172.252 (1) “the corporation shall be denied the right to sue or defend in a court of this state;” I suspect that this flared up bright in Rob’s mind, --- here is a way out --- not reading the rest of the effects of Forfeiture of Charter, because he found what he wanted to see. Also remember that this is a two part forfeiture, the first one is of loss of privilege, the second of loss of charter, that is even the loss of the name, a death.
59-7-535. Doing business thereafter -- Penalty.
(1) Pursuant to any suspension or forfeiture under Section 59-7-534, any person who attempts or purports to exercise any of the rights, privileges, or powers of any suspended domestic corporation, or who transacts or attempts to transact any intrastate business in this state in behalf of any forfeited foreign corporation, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. A fine shall be imposed of not less than $250, and a penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed of not less than 50 days in the county jail.
(2) Jurisdiction of the offense shall be in any county in which any part of the attempted exercise of the powers, or any part of the transaction of business occurred.
(3) Any contract made in violation of this section is unenforceable by the corporation or person.
In Texas looking at governing laws dealing with forfeiture of the corporate charter (That is looking just one section above the section that was quoted on “that blog” and reading 171.251 which is found in its entirety at http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TX/content/htm/tx.002.00.000171.00.htm as I am going to remove some superfluous information from this section as quoted here.)
Sorry, I have to take a break and point out something before showing you what I found. In the various incarnations of the Hate-Oma Hamou sites created by the various members of the Pallasart team we found that in reading the documentation dealing with Oma and Utah, that they read what they wanted to see and said that Oma Hamou had two different cases in Utah, they did not read to the bottom where it said that the case number had been changed in a conversion of records. So they read two cases in Utah because that was what they “wanted” to see.
The very first thing Bob Atchison sent to me to “prove” that Oma Hamou was this bad person, well Bob Atchison listed all these people in regards to a AmEx debt, yet when you read to the end of the file he sent me to you found that the case had been changed to just a corporate debt, and all the names that Bob Atchison had reported was old news and not true currently, that is they read and reported what they wanted to see, what it seemed to them would place Oma Hamou in the worst light possible.
In the Montana records “they” reported that Oma Hamou had three convictions there, and they did not “see” the words “other state” and so they reported what they wanted events to be, not what happened.
Even with me and my start date with Oma Hamou, they read the data from one web site and not the data from the site that I said I worked on, so that they could “prove” what they wanted to prove, not what the reality is/was.
Well this may be the case here also. I suspect that Rob Moshein read that if the corporation was not in good standing then according to 172.252 (1) “the corporation shall be denied the right to sue or defend in a court of this state;” I suspect that this flared up bright in Rob’s mind, --- here is a way out --- not reading the rest of the effects of Forfeiture of Charter, because he found what he wanted to see. Also remember that this is a two part forfeiture, the first one is of loss of privilege, the second of loss of charter, that is even the loss of the name, a death.
Next the law quoted in “that blog” entry states something that you need to look at very closely. “If the corporation whose right to do business has been forfeited takes the necessary action to promptly remedy the defect causing the forfeiture;…” notice this phrase, " whose right to do business has been forfeited…” 'Whose right to do business has been forfeited…’(Also notice the word “prompt” I doubt that around a years delay would be considered “prompt” legally speaking.) Also remember I am quoting information that “that blog” reported as my source. …Hmmm does that not sound like what “we” have said, as well as Rachel said here on Legends after she talked to the, “Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Taxpayer Services and Collections Central Services Building, Suite 180 1711 San Jacinto Boulevard Austin TX 78701-1416 (512) 463-4865. (APO 8/2006)
Or the fact that later a "Ron Bardo" from the Comptroller’s office confirmed what was told to her by the accounts maintenance division that as far as “he was concerned Pallasart was a corporation that didn't exist.”
Quote: A Tax Specialist in the Open Record Division for the State of Texas, Mr. Patrick Merrell at 800-252-1386 confirmed what was told to Ivanka and others by the Secretary of State, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts & the Tax Franchise division --- when Pallasart's charter was taken away in February 2006 they didn't have the right to conduct business under the name of this defunct corporation.”
So getting back to law and remembering that Pallasart had their Charter Forfeited as well, not just the loss of Corporate Privileges, we find:
SUBCHAPTER F. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES
§ 171.251. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES. The comptroller shall forfeit the corporate privileges of a corporation on which the franchise tax is imposed if the corporation:
(1) does not file, in accordance with this chapter and within 45 days after the date notice of forfeiture is mailed, a report required by this chapter;
(2) does not pay, within 45 days after the date notice of forfeiture is mailed, a tax imposed by this chapter or does not pay, within those 45 days, a penalty imposed by this chapter relating to that tax; or
(3) does not permit the comptroller to examine under Section 171.211 of this code the corporation's records.
171.2515. FORFEITURE OF RIGHT OF TAXABLE ENTITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
(a) The comptroller may, for the same reasons and using the same procedures the comptroller uses in relation to the forfeiture of the corporate privileges of a corporation, forfeit the right of a taxable entity to transact business in this state.
(b) The provisions of this subchapter, including Section 171.255, that apply to the forfeiture of corporate privileges apply to the forfeiture of a taxable entity's right to transact business in this state.
The next paragraph is where “that blog” started to quote, so there is no need to continue to quote here, go to the Texas page if you want to read it all in one continuous flow.
Now we look at forfeiture of the corporate charter a few paragraphs further on…
(Which is found at the same link as loss of corporate privilege, and again we don’t need to read the whole thing here, so go to the link if you want to read all of it.)
SUBCHAPTER G. FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
This is why Bob Atchison/Pallasart lost his charter.
§ 171.301. GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. It is a ground for the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority if:
(1) the corporate privileges of the corporation are forfeited under this chapter and the corporation does not pay, within 120 days after the date the corporate privileges are
forfeited, the amount necessary for the corporation to revive under this chapter its corporate privileges; or
(2) the corporation does not permit the comptroller to examine the corporation's records under Section 171.211 of this code.
§ 171.302. CERTIFICATION BY COMPTROLLER. After the 120th day after the date that the corporate privileges of a corporation are forfeited under this chapter, the comptroller shall certify the name of the corporation to the attorney general and the secretary of state.
§ 171.309. FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. The secretary of state may forfeit the charter or certificate of authority of a corporation if:
(1) the secretary receives the comptroller's certification under Section 171.302 of this code;
(2) the corporation does not revive its forfeited corporate privileges within 120 days after the date that the corporate privileges were forfeited; and
(3) the corporation does not have assets from which a judgment for any tax, penalty, or court costs imposed by this chapter may be satisfied.
§ 171.310. JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT REQUIRED FOR FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. The forfeiture by the secretary of state of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority under this chapter is effected without a judicial proceeding.
§ 171.311. RECORD OF FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. The secretary of state shall effect a forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority under this chapter by inscribing on the corporation's record in the secretary's office the words "Charter Forfeited" or "Certificate Forfeited," the date on which this inscription is made, and a citation to this chapter as authority for the forfeiture.
Now this is what Bob had to do to revive his company this month (October 17, 2006).
§ 171.312. REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. A corporation whose charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state is entitled to have its charter or certificate revived and to have its corporate privileges revived
if:
(1) the corporation files each report that is required by this chapter and that is delinquent;
(2) the corporation pays the tax, penalty, and interest that is imposed by this chapter and that is due at the time the request under Section 171.313 of this code to set aside
forfeiture is made; and
(3) the forfeiture of the corporation's charter or certificate is set aside in a proceeding under Section 171.313 of this code.
§ 171.313. PROCEEDING TO SET ASIDE FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. (a) If a corporation's charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state, a stockholder, director, or officer of the corporation at
the time of the forfeiture of the charter or certificate or of the corporate privileges of the corporation may request in the name of the corporation that the secretary of state set aside the forfeiture of the charter or certificate.
(b) If a request is made, the secretary of state shall determine if each delinquent report has been filed and any delinquent tax, penalty, or interest has been paid. If each report
has been filed and the tax, penalty, or interest has been paid, the secretary shall set aside the forfeiture of the corporation's charter or certificate of authority.
§ 171.314. CORPORATE PRIVILEGES AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE IS SET ASIDE. If the secretary of state sets aside under this chapter the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority, the comptroller shall revive the corporate privileges of the corporation.
Or the fact that later a "Ron Bardo" from the Comptroller’s office confirmed what was told to her by the accounts maintenance division that as far as “he was concerned Pallasart was a corporation that didn't exist.”
Quote: A Tax Specialist in the Open Record Division for the State of Texas, Mr. Patrick Merrell at 800-252-1386 confirmed what was told to Ivanka and others by the Secretary of State, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts & the Tax Franchise division --- when Pallasart's charter was taken away in February 2006 they didn't have the right to conduct business under the name of this defunct corporation.”
So getting back to law and remembering that Pallasart had their Charter Forfeited as well, not just the loss of Corporate Privileges, we find:
SUBCHAPTER F. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES
§ 171.251. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES. The comptroller shall forfeit the corporate privileges of a corporation on which the franchise tax is imposed if the corporation:
(1) does not file, in accordance with this chapter and within 45 days after the date notice of forfeiture is mailed, a report required by this chapter;
(2) does not pay, within 45 days after the date notice of forfeiture is mailed, a tax imposed by this chapter or does not pay, within those 45 days, a penalty imposed by this chapter relating to that tax; or
(3) does not permit the comptroller to examine under Section 171.211 of this code the corporation's records.
171.2515. FORFEITURE OF RIGHT OF TAXABLE ENTITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
(a) The comptroller may, for the same reasons and using the same procedures the comptroller uses in relation to the forfeiture of the corporate privileges of a corporation, forfeit the right of a taxable entity to transact business in this state.
(b) The provisions of this subchapter, including Section 171.255, that apply to the forfeiture of corporate privileges apply to the forfeiture of a taxable entity's right to transact business in this state.
The next paragraph is where “that blog” started to quote, so there is no need to continue to quote here, go to the Texas page if you want to read it all in one continuous flow.
Now we look at forfeiture of the corporate charter a few paragraphs further on…
(Which is found at the same link as loss of corporate privilege, and again we don’t need to read the whole thing here, so go to the link if you want to read all of it.)
SUBCHAPTER G. FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
This is why Bob Atchison/Pallasart lost his charter.
§ 171.301. GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. It is a ground for the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority if:
(1) the corporate privileges of the corporation are forfeited under this chapter and the corporation does not pay, within 120 days after the date the corporate privileges are
forfeited, the amount necessary for the corporation to revive under this chapter its corporate privileges; or
(2) the corporation does not permit the comptroller to examine the corporation's records under Section 171.211 of this code.
§ 171.302. CERTIFICATION BY COMPTROLLER. After the 120th day after the date that the corporate privileges of a corporation are forfeited under this chapter, the comptroller shall certify the name of the corporation to the attorney general and the secretary of state.
§ 171.309. FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. The secretary of state may forfeit the charter or certificate of authority of a corporation if:
(1) the secretary receives the comptroller's certification under Section 171.302 of this code;
(2) the corporation does not revive its forfeited corporate privileges within 120 days after the date that the corporate privileges were forfeited; and
(3) the corporation does not have assets from which a judgment for any tax, penalty, or court costs imposed by this chapter may be satisfied.
§ 171.310. JUDICIAL PROCEEDING NOT REQUIRED FOR FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. The forfeiture by the secretary of state of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority under this chapter is effected without a judicial proceeding.
§ 171.311. RECORD OF FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. The secretary of state shall effect a forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority under this chapter by inscribing on the corporation's record in the secretary's office the words "Charter Forfeited" or "Certificate Forfeited," the date on which this inscription is made, and a citation to this chapter as authority for the forfeiture.
Now this is what Bob had to do to revive his company this month (October 17, 2006).
§ 171.312. REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. A corporation whose charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state is entitled to have its charter or certificate revived and to have its corporate privileges revived
if:
(1) the corporation files each report that is required by this chapter and that is delinquent;
(2) the corporation pays the tax, penalty, and interest that is imposed by this chapter and that is due at the time the request under Section 171.313 of this code to set aside
forfeiture is made; and
(3) the forfeiture of the corporation's charter or certificate is set aside in a proceeding under Section 171.313 of this code.
§ 171.313. PROCEEDING TO SET ASIDE FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. (a) If a corporation's charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state, a stockholder, director, or officer of the corporation at
the time of the forfeiture of the charter or certificate or of the corporate privileges of the corporation may request in the name of the corporation that the secretary of state set aside the forfeiture of the charter or certificate.
(b) If a request is made, the secretary of state shall determine if each delinquent report has been filed and any delinquent tax, penalty, or interest has been paid. If each report
has been filed and the tax, penalty, or interest has been paid, the secretary shall set aside the forfeiture of the corporation's charter or certificate of authority.
§ 171.314. CORPORATE PRIVILEGES AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE IS SET ASIDE. If the secretary of state sets aside under this chapter the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority, the comptroller shall revive the corporate privileges of the corporation.
This part is very interesting, notice the implications!
§ 171.315. USE OF CORPORATE NAME AFTER REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. If a corporation's charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state and if the corporation requests the secretary to set aside the forfeiture under Section 171.313 of this code, the corporation shall determine from the secretary whether the corporation's name is available for use. If the name is not available, the corporation shall amend its charter or certificate to change its name.
Notice that the very name of the corporation was taken away if it’s charter was forfeited….
So if the name of the corporation was taken away, how could they continue to do business in the name of the corporation? Not to mention that Texas law said that they no longer had the right to conduct business as normal for Pallasart, Inc.? And if so, why did they continue to do so ignoring the law?
Of course this is not the first time, that “they” have done so. Back when the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was in full effect, Rob Moshein said that Bob Atchison had told him to say something to someone (Olga, mentioned above, was one of those people, most of whom have sent us the communications in question.) that meant that Rob Moshein was saying and doing things specifically in direct violation of the restraining order. Even the way that he went about removing the Oma Hamou Report dot org site, and how images were left up, while the rest was just blocked, and after seeing how they selectively blocked specific IPs from the AP forum the question is, was that site just as selectively blocked. Then we have Data Lounge and how “someone” (and yes they cooperated in telling us what IP and other identifying information was used to create those posts) posted about Oma Hamou and provided a link back to a web archive of the Oma Hamou Report dot org, and this was during the period when the TRO was in effect. So again a thumbing of the nose at the law was not an unusual event. I could pick event after event, but this is enough to see a pattern.
Over time we have seen a pattern of “them” hiding behind web aliases, Gilbert McDuff is the most infamous of these as Rob/Bob, which ever one really did it, posted Oma Hamou’s Social Security number on the web using this web entity, as in who cares if it is legal or even moral/ethical, because - as was basically said when this happened, if you won’t believe me, you have forced me to do this act. A number of posts have been made in various names and at various times and places, many names of which Rob Moshein admitted to and can be seen in the TRO, enough so that it is very natural that “they” seem to feel that anyone who defends Oma Hamou, must be Oma hiding behind a web name --- because that is what they do…. Notice this last series of accusations about Oma’s, “fictional pscyho alter ego boyfriend Mike Newson.” Does that not fit that pattern? (As well as the propaganda technique of denigration?)
§ 171.315. USE OF CORPORATE NAME AFTER REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. If a corporation's charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state and if the corporation requests the secretary to set aside the forfeiture under Section 171.313 of this code, the corporation shall determine from the secretary whether the corporation's name is available for use. If the name is not available, the corporation shall amend its charter or certificate to change its name.
Notice that the very name of the corporation was taken away if it’s charter was forfeited….
So if the name of the corporation was taken away, how could they continue to do business in the name of the corporation? Not to mention that Texas law said that they no longer had the right to conduct business as normal for Pallasart, Inc.? And if so, why did they continue to do so ignoring the law?
Of course this is not the first time, that “they” have done so. Back when the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was in full effect, Rob Moshein said that Bob Atchison had told him to say something to someone (Olga, mentioned above, was one of those people, most of whom have sent us the communications in question.) that meant that Rob Moshein was saying and doing things specifically in direct violation of the restraining order. Even the way that he went about removing the Oma Hamou Report dot org site, and how images were left up, while the rest was just blocked, and after seeing how they selectively blocked specific IPs from the AP forum the question is, was that site just as selectively blocked. Then we have Data Lounge and how “someone” (and yes they cooperated in telling us what IP and other identifying information was used to create those posts) posted about Oma Hamou and provided a link back to a web archive of the Oma Hamou Report dot org, and this was during the period when the TRO was in effect. So again a thumbing of the nose at the law was not an unusual event. I could pick event after event, but this is enough to see a pattern.
Over time we have seen a pattern of “them” hiding behind web aliases, Gilbert McDuff is the most infamous of these as Rob/Bob, which ever one really did it, posted Oma Hamou’s Social Security number on the web using this web entity, as in who cares if it is legal or even moral/ethical, because - as was basically said when this happened, if you won’t believe me, you have forced me to do this act. A number of posts have been made in various names and at various times and places, many names of which Rob Moshein admitted to and can be seen in the TRO, enough so that it is very natural that “they” seem to feel that anyone who defends Oma Hamou, must be Oma hiding behind a web name --- because that is what they do…. Notice this last series of accusations about Oma’s, “fictional pscyho alter ego boyfriend Mike Newson.” Does that not fit that pattern? (As well as the propaganda technique of denigration?)
We keep hearing that Bob Atchison is the victim, yet who went to Russia to stop who? Who wrote and called banks and such saying don’t believe Oma Hamou she has no project, she is a fugitive on the run from the law, she scams people? Who started up a web page full of Hate, that turned into a full fledged site that was pushed to the top of Google’s search pages? Who has tried to get who tossed in jail many times, even trying to get America’s most wanted to film Wyoming arresting them because they would be in Texas for court related events? If you honestly look at what has gone on, read how the first lawsuit from Bob Atchison has changed from some quarter million (not half million as I said in error previously) down to the issue of Oma owes me some money for two months, or so, work. If you look at what was said over time on the various Hate-Oma sites and the perseverance, single mindedness and sheer determination to prove that Oma Hamou was some “evil” creature…. For instance, have you noticed this latest trend, “she got … from some internet sex hookup place she trolls to find a new sugar daddy...”? How is that for sheer yuck factor? Would you not love to have someone saying that about you? It may be that the one thing that has driven this diatribe against Oma, this incitation to hate her and those around her is expressed in this statement, “wannabe playah Miss Thang Oma Hamou,” the core concept is “wannabe.” Oma did get contracts in Russia to do something, Oma was getting press about her projects, Oma Hamou did do something in Russia towards restoration of several buildings there, and would have done much more. Oma Hamou did have a working project, and was going forward. But at the same time it seems that Bob Atchison had been halted, according to his testimony in court, his own actions seem to have served to alienate himself from the very places he most wanted to be, and help. He made a phone call years and years ago which raised awareness of a problem, kudos for doing so, but what has he done since? His web site at one point in time asked for money and yet his court testimony said that he did not send any money to help the palace. So where did it go? What has he done since? Could this whole thing be jealousy taken to an obsessive degree?
Look for patterns as you read about this primordial battle between Bob Atchison and Oma Hamou. Who is the one who was trying to go about the realization of dreams, and who was tearing that down. Who is using negative to tear down the other, and who is simply defending, not withstanding that sometimes the best defense is a good offense, but the question is more of who is pointing out things that support the concepts that the other one is the one doing these things because that is who they are, just look at the patterns of what they have done, to others as well as each other.
For instance, Oma gave Bob Atchison money for an air conditioner, why? What was in it for her? (Possibly it was simply caring for a friend?) Bob Atchison sent people to Oma who instead of helping Oma asked for money for their own pet projects? (This was helping Oma?) What was his motivation behind his actions? Oma Hamou went to Russia to get contracts to restore the Alexander Palace with a realistic plan to accomplish that goal. Bob says that he “wants” to help. What is the difference? What are the true patterns once you go beyond the propaganda and emotion to see the truth? What part of the Elephant have you seen? IF I had wanted to play the game the other side does, I could stick to highly emotionally laden word attacks, but to allow you to see more than one aspect of the Elephant I have to be able to show you that there are others aspects, you have to understand the nature of those who would control your mind. Only by understanding all aspects of the beast can you then perceive it’s true nature. So that hopefully you will not, “prate about an Elephant not one of them has seen!”
Hopefully my “novels” will help you to see the whole beast, and not just the myopic part that “they” want you to see. So as was said on “that Blog,” “I'll stick with reality though. Suggest strongly that the readers do the same.”
For instance, Oma gave Bob Atchison money for an air conditioner, why? What was in it for her? (Possibly it was simply caring for a friend?) Bob Atchison sent people to Oma who instead of helping Oma asked for money for their own pet projects? (This was helping Oma?) What was his motivation behind his actions? Oma Hamou went to Russia to get contracts to restore the Alexander Palace with a realistic plan to accomplish that goal. Bob says that he “wants” to help. What is the difference? What are the true patterns once you go beyond the propaganda and emotion to see the truth? What part of the Elephant have you seen? IF I had wanted to play the game the other side does, I could stick to highly emotionally laden word attacks, but to allow you to see more than one aspect of the Elephant I have to be able to show you that there are others aspects, you have to understand the nature of those who would control your mind. Only by understanding all aspects of the beast can you then perceive it’s true nature. So that hopefully you will not, “prate about an Elephant not one of them has seen!”
Hopefully my “novels” will help you to see the whole beast, and not just the myopic part that “they” want you to see. So as was said on “that Blog,” “I'll stick with reality though. Suggest strongly that the readers do the same.”
posted by Sandman at 9:16 AM
6 comments
About Me
- Name: Sandman
- Location: United States
I am fascinated by news stories featuring the past as it's unearthed and reimagined and brought to life. I spend a large quantity of time searching for news in archaeology and history. Once in a great while a new archaeological discovery will act as an inspiration for what I'm currently writing. But most of the time the news stories I read are simply interesting tidbits of history.
Links
Previous Posts
- Among the several contenders for overzealous and i...
- ROB MOSHEIN WHO DUBS HIMSELF AS THE AUSTIN WINE GU...
- EDITED.Lacking Research Skills Rob Moshein & Bob A...
- BOB ATCHISON THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR??Yesterday Just...
- "...Bob Atchison the man who created a web site de...
- A REALITY CHECK FOR ROB MOSHEIN & HIS PARTNER, BOB...
- How is it that Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein can ri...
- Drum Roll: Rob Moshein & Bob Atchison ARE the crea...
- Gregorian - The Sound Of Silence object width="425...
- The Carol Affidavit Against Bob AtchisonIn 2007, m...
Archives
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- May 2009
- July 2009
