Lets Revisit Credibility and "Deception"
OK, Miss Thang Oma Hamou and her sockpuppet "friends" all are now screaming about "deception" because some guy listed the company pet dog on the staff list as an inside joke. I mean, get a grip, does she really THINK customers are going to start screaming to get their money back for "deceptive" practices because the dog was listed? How pathetic is that?
But, we felt compelled to address the deceptive practices of one Miss Thang Oma Hamou, yet again, since SHE brought the subject up:
June 20:: Oma Hamou's good "friend" writes "she has a legitimate income stream that is hers, and it is no ones business what that is."
ACTUALLY, THIS IS NOT TRUE. Rather a lot of people have legitimate court judgments against Mizz Thang Oma Hamou. Therefore, her "income stream" is something which these people are ENTITLED BY LAW to have an interest in. Specifically, the following people HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN OMA HAMOU'S "INCOME STREAM":
May 21, 2002: Judgment in the amount of $213,805 was awarded on May 21, 2002 against Oma Hamou, personally in favor of Boardrush, LLC. by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by the Hon. Richard. F. Braun in Index No. 01/605021 for a Default Judgment against Oma Hamou, and was filed with the Clerk's office on June 11, 2002. Oma Hamou signed a contract with Boardrush to act as her Production management firm, but never paid them the retainer she had agreed to pay under the contract she signed.
October 24, 2002: Writs of Execution for Judgments in Case PC027665 in Los Angeles County Superior Court were granted for American Express Travel Related Services, to execute judgments for unpaid American Express Credit Card charges, against Enigma Royal Films, LLC, in the amount of $190,006 and $82,012; against Oma Hamou, personally in the amount of $127,155, and William Donald Morton in the amount of $15,882. William Donald Morton was the owner of Oma Hamou's Mayall Street residence, and resided there as well himself.
June 23, 2003: UCC Judgment lien was filed by NTT/Verio Inc. in California, filing no. 0317860421 against Enigma Films, securing Judgment against Enigma Films in the amount of $61,000. Oma Hamou had engaged NTT/Verio to design a website for Enigma Films, but never paid for the work.
July 28,2003 Reed Business Information files a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, no. 03112486 against Oma Hamou, personally dba Enigma films in the amount of $112,179 for unpaid advertising in their magazines in 2002. They are unable to have Oma Hamou served with the lawsuit as she appears to have avoided all attempts at service of process for this lawsuit.
August 5, 2003: WESTAR LEGAL ENTERPRISES, LLC. v. OMA HAMOU ET AL. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case PC033237, Breach of Contract, filed 08/05/2003, Default Judgment issued against Oma Hamou individually and dba Engima Productions for the suit originally filed on 04/23/2004 for an as yet unknown amount in excess of $10,000
Sept. 26, 2003: FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY LLP v. OMA HAMOU. LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, West Los Angeles Case 03T02636, Breach of Contract, lawsuit filed.
December 26: Global Insight,(Usa) Inc. vs. Enigma Films Inc., Sarskaia Foundation. Los Angeles Superior Court, case SC078588. Default judgment issued against Enigma Films and Sarskaia, for a debt collection case "in excess of $60,000" according to Plaintiff's attorney Jacqueline Anker. Global Insight produced the "Economic Impact Statement" for her motion picture project which Hamou/Sarskaia made available as a PDF on her websites, until Global Insight demanded she cease using this report.
September 27, 2005:Robert Atchison v. Oma Hamou, cause GN303141, 345th District Court of the State of Texas. After trial a jury found in favor of Bob Atchison for services he rendered on behalf of Hamou in the year 2000 and for which she never paid him in the amount of $13,859.99 plus interest. The final judgment was filed October 11, 2005.
AND Let us not forget the law firm of Foster Malish and Blair who have an outstanding bill for Mizz Thang Nevahwuz Oma Hamou in excess of $20,000, by her own admissions.
We have at LEAST $675,000 currently owed by OMA HAMOU, to ten different people/entities MININUM, all of whom have a legal right to know about Oma Hamou's "income stream"...
SOOOOO. LOTS of people have a legitimate and legal "interest" into Oma Hamou's "income stream". SOOO, since she "has" this income. WHY does she not permit debtors exams from the people with legitimate legal judgments against her AND FESS UP AND ACTUALLY PAY THESE PEOPLE SHE OWES ALL THIS MONEY TO?
ATTENTION LAW FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS OMA HAMOU APPROACHES: PAY HEED TO THESE OUTSTANDING DEBTS. OMA HAMOU APPEARS TO HAVE A BAD TRACK RECORD PAYING HER ATTORNEY'S BILLS.
June 11: On May 27, 2008 Oma Hamou wrote under her own name (for a rare change): "On their blog they pretend to be a third person and say they are not Rob Moshein or Bob Atchison, I know who the Blog belongs to because law enforcement told me."
This statement concerned us, as it implied that Google breached their own Privacy Policy, and so we wrote and asked them if they had indeed "told law enforcement" who writes this blog. They answered.
Under federal law, (US Code Title47, Ch. 5 SS 551) an ISP such as Google is required to notify a blogger if there has been a request for his identity even by Law Enforcement. A court is then asked to consider compelling the ISP to unmask the blogger, either because an ISP files suit asking for such relief or a blogger files a John Doe suit to maintain his anonymity.
In other words, Google can NOT legally reveal the identity of a blogger even to law enforcement without first 1. TELLING the blogger of the request, then 2. Giving the blogger the opportunity to refuse the request, 3. THEN the Court has a hearing, where the blogger can be heard by the Court to ask anonymously that their identity be protected 4. The Court THEN will decide to issue the order.
In Short: There is NO circumstance short of our advocating some sort of anti government terrorist acts, WHICH WE CERTAINLY DO NOT, which would trigger Homeland Security powers where Google would tell ANYONE our identity without our first being notified and without a Court Order where we would be given the chance to be heard. EVER. We certainly never advocated any harm, physical or otherwise to Hamou. Our blog is in no way "criminal activity" as we have NEVER advocted harm to anyone, but even then, the Federal notice rules apply to Law Enforcement. In fact, we could sue Google for damages if the DO release personal information without first telling us and getting the Court order. Take that to the bank. Its Federal Law.
SO: Oma Hamou's statement that "I know who the Blog belongs to because law enforcement told me." IS WHOLLY DECEPTIVE AS IT IS NOT TRUE. GOOGLE CONFIRMED IT FOR US, SPECIFICALLY. Oma Hamou does NOT know who writes this blog, and she certainly did not get the information from Law Enforcement, as Law Enforcement has NOT asked Google.
6/16: On her blog, she or one of her sockpuppets wrote on June 15:
That is why she was in magazines, that is why she was in film and on television,
OK THEN...For about the five millionth time: EXACTLY WHICH MAGAZINES? DATES, MAGAZINE NAME, PAGE NUMBERS. IF SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS, ASK WHY.
EXACTLY WHICH FILMS? TITLES, HER CHARACTER ROLES, ETC. IF SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS ASK WHY.
EXACTLY WHAT TELEVISION PROGRAMS? NAMES, HER ROLES, DATE AIRED, ETC. IF SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS, ASK WHY.
Since Oma Hamou wants to be Motion Picture Producer, WHAT are her SPECIFIC Motion Picture Credits and work experience that support this contention?
Who SPECIFICALLY are her alleged "numerous Industry contacts"? Names, phone numbers please.
What SPECIFIC Motion Picture experience gives Oma Hamou the background to produce a Motion Picture?
Oma Hamou says she is an Actress. WHAT are her specific screen/stage credits, appearances etc?? IF she refuses to answer this specifically, WHY does she refuse?
Since Oma Hamou desires to STAR in her film, WHAT specific acting background and credentials support this? IF she refuses to answer publicly, WHY the refusal?
Oma Hamou says she is a MODEL. WHAT are her specific credits, publications, experience, etc?? IF she refuses publicly to answer this, WHY does she refuse?
Oma Hamou is a convicted Felon. What are ALL of her specific convictions, with date and place? IF she refuses to provide this public information, WHY?
How many times has Oma Hamou been arrested? when, where and for what? IF she refuses.. WHY?
She has said that she and her companies have no income. WHY does Oma Hamou not inform business people with whom she contracts that she has no income?
Oma Hamou maintains a "foundation", Sarskaia, which is listed as a non profit charitable foundation.WHAT specific charitable works has this foundation provided? IF she refuses to account to the public for this, WHY??
Oma Hamou says she is a busy Motion Picture Producer. Oma Hamou has no offices, no business address other than a cheap Pak n Mail PO box drop, no business telephone and no Federal or California Employer ID numbers (required to actually have the "employees" she says she has).
Oma Hamou TOLD Dunn & Bradstreet in a report she filed that Enigma Royal Films was started in 1999 and operated as a film production company with 100 employees, operating out of a 5,362 sq. ft. three story building at the rear of her residence on Mayall Street in Northridge CA. She also tells D&B that she was in the process of leasing space at 100 Universal City Dr. (Universal Studios). Dunn & Bradstreet investigations concluded that Enigma Royal Films was not registered until just Sept. 14, 2000, not 1999 as she claimed. Further, the property management company for 100 Universal City Drive had no record of her "being in the process of leasing space there. Additional investigation by them showed that there was no three story 5,362 building at the rear of her Mayall Street residence and that there was no evidence of any employees. IN short she said DECEPTIVE THINGS TO DUNN & BRADSTREET FOR REPORTS PEOPLE MIGHT RUN ABOUT HER.
Oma Hamou SAID she had offices in Russia, in the town of Pushkin and published an adddress to make it appear she HAD Russian offices, for years according to the internet archived files. The Oma Hamou reality was that the building was then and still is a vacant ruin. The Orthodox Church which owns the building had given Oma Hamou an agreement six years ago that IF she restored the building, THEN she could use it for offices. The Oma Hamou Reality is that since she did NOTHING to restore the building in the last six years, she has never had offices there.
Oma Hamou used a Camden Drive Beverly Hills address for years, calling it her "offices". I went by there, went upstairs, spoke to the manager. She remembered Hamou well. Hamou NEVER had a permanent office there. The place is a self admitted mail drop, where they will answer one of several hundred phone lines with your "business" name, and you can rent a little cubicle, desk or meeting room on an as needed basis. HOW DECEPTIVE IS THIS?
Hamou said publicly "I was the director at this specific shoot. I have never issued a check to “Wild West Productions”." See, we got the name wrong of the studio. Oma Hamou wrote checks on a long closed account to Monique Hahn, the make up artist, the studio where the shoot took place AND the Director of the shoot. Notice she puts the name in quotes, the reality is that she DID issue a bad check to the studio at that specific shoot, but tap dances around that reality. That wasn't deceptive??
We like this one: She posted a letter from Westar Legal Enterprises to prove her point about something, WELL seems she forgot to mention this too...
August 5 2003: WESTAR LEGAL ENTERPRISES, LLC. v. OMA HAMOU ET AL. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case PC033237, Breach of Contract, filed 08/05/2003, Default Judgment issued against Oma Hamou individually and dba Engima Productions for the suit originally filed on 04/23/2004 for an as yet unknown amount in excess of $10,000
and THIS chick has the audacity to scream about a guy putting a dog's name into the staff roster of his business as a joke?? I need to shower...
But, we felt compelled to address the deceptive practices of one Miss Thang Oma Hamou, yet again, since SHE brought the subject up:
June 20:: Oma Hamou's good "friend" writes "she has a legitimate income stream that is hers, and it is no ones business what that is."
ACTUALLY, THIS IS NOT TRUE. Rather a lot of people have legitimate court judgments against Mizz Thang Oma Hamou. Therefore, her "income stream" is something which these people are ENTITLED BY LAW to have an interest in. Specifically, the following people HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN OMA HAMOU'S "INCOME STREAM":
May 21, 2002: Judgment in the amount of $213,805 was awarded on May 21, 2002 against Oma Hamou, personally in favor of Boardrush, LLC. by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by the Hon. Richard. F. Braun in Index No. 01/605021 for a Default Judgment against Oma Hamou, and was filed with the Clerk's office on June 11, 2002. Oma Hamou signed a contract with Boardrush to act as her Production management firm, but never paid them the retainer she had agreed to pay under the contract she signed.
October 24, 2002: Writs of Execution for Judgments in Case PC027665 in Los Angeles County Superior Court were granted for American Express Travel Related Services, to execute judgments for unpaid American Express Credit Card charges, against Enigma Royal Films, LLC, in the amount of $190,006 and $82,012; against Oma Hamou, personally in the amount of $127,155, and William Donald Morton in the amount of $15,882. William Donald Morton was the owner of Oma Hamou's Mayall Street residence, and resided there as well himself.
June 23, 2003: UCC Judgment lien was filed by NTT/Verio Inc. in California, filing no. 0317860421 against Enigma Films, securing Judgment against Enigma Films in the amount of $61,000. Oma Hamou had engaged NTT/Verio to design a website for Enigma Films, but never paid for the work.
July 28,2003 Reed Business Information files a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, no. 03112486 against Oma Hamou, personally dba Enigma films in the amount of $112,179 for unpaid advertising in their magazines in 2002. They are unable to have Oma Hamou served with the lawsuit as she appears to have avoided all attempts at service of process for this lawsuit.
August 5, 2003: WESTAR LEGAL ENTERPRISES, LLC. v. OMA HAMOU ET AL. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case PC033237, Breach of Contract, filed 08/05/2003, Default Judgment issued against Oma Hamou individually and dba Engima Productions for the suit originally filed on 04/23/2004 for an as yet unknown amount in excess of $10,000
Sept. 26, 2003: FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY LLP v. OMA HAMOU. LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, West Los Angeles Case 03T02636, Breach of Contract, lawsuit filed.
December 26: Global Insight,(Usa) Inc. vs. Enigma Films Inc., Sarskaia Foundation. Los Angeles Superior Court, case SC078588. Default judgment issued against Enigma Films and Sarskaia, for a debt collection case "in excess of $60,000" according to Plaintiff's attorney Jacqueline Anker. Global Insight produced the "Economic Impact Statement" for her motion picture project which Hamou/Sarskaia made available as a PDF on her websites, until Global Insight demanded she cease using this report.
September 27, 2005:Robert Atchison v. Oma Hamou, cause GN303141, 345th District Court of the State of Texas. After trial a jury found in favor of Bob Atchison for services he rendered on behalf of Hamou in the year 2000 and for which she never paid him in the amount of $13,859.99 plus interest. The final judgment was filed October 11, 2005.
AND Let us not forget the law firm of Foster Malish and Blair who have an outstanding bill for Mizz Thang Nevahwuz Oma Hamou in excess of $20,000, by her own admissions.
We have at LEAST $675,000 currently owed by OMA HAMOU, to ten different people/entities MININUM, all of whom have a legal right to know about Oma Hamou's "income stream"...
SOOOOO. LOTS of people have a legitimate and legal "interest" into Oma Hamou's "income stream". SOOO, since she "has" this income. WHY does she not permit debtors exams from the people with legitimate legal judgments against her AND FESS UP AND ACTUALLY PAY THESE PEOPLE SHE OWES ALL THIS MONEY TO?
ATTENTION LAW FIRMS AND ATTORNEYS OMA HAMOU APPROACHES: PAY HEED TO THESE OUTSTANDING DEBTS. OMA HAMOU APPEARS TO HAVE A BAD TRACK RECORD PAYING HER ATTORNEY'S BILLS.
June 11: On May 27, 2008 Oma Hamou wrote under her own name (for a rare change): "On their blog they pretend to be a third person and say they are not Rob Moshein or Bob Atchison, I know who the Blog belongs to because law enforcement told me."
This statement concerned us, as it implied that Google breached their own Privacy Policy, and so we wrote and asked them if they had indeed "told law enforcement" who writes this blog. They answered.
Under federal law, (US Code Title47, Ch. 5 SS 551) an ISP such as Google is required to notify a blogger if there has been a request for his identity even by Law Enforcement. A court is then asked to consider compelling the ISP to unmask the blogger, either because an ISP files suit asking for such relief or a blogger files a John Doe suit to maintain his anonymity.
In other words, Google can NOT legally reveal the identity of a blogger even to law enforcement without first 1. TELLING the blogger of the request, then 2. Giving the blogger the opportunity to refuse the request, 3. THEN the Court has a hearing, where the blogger can be heard by the Court to ask anonymously that their identity be protected 4. The Court THEN will decide to issue the order.
In Short: There is NO circumstance short of our advocating some sort of anti government terrorist acts, WHICH WE CERTAINLY DO NOT, which would trigger Homeland Security powers where Google would tell ANYONE our identity without our first being notified and without a Court Order where we would be given the chance to be heard. EVER. We certainly never advocated any harm, physical or otherwise to Hamou. Our blog is in no way "criminal activity" as we have NEVER advocted harm to anyone, but even then, the Federal notice rules apply to Law Enforcement. In fact, we could sue Google for damages if the DO release personal information without first telling us and getting the Court order. Take that to the bank. Its Federal Law.
SO: Oma Hamou's statement that "I know who the Blog belongs to because law enforcement told me." IS WHOLLY DECEPTIVE AS IT IS NOT TRUE. GOOGLE CONFIRMED IT FOR US, SPECIFICALLY. Oma Hamou does NOT know who writes this blog, and she certainly did not get the information from Law Enforcement, as Law Enforcement has NOT asked Google.
6/16: On her blog, she or one of her sockpuppets wrote on June 15:
That is why she was in magazines, that is why she was in film and on television,
OK THEN...For about the five millionth time: EXACTLY WHICH MAGAZINES? DATES, MAGAZINE NAME, PAGE NUMBERS. IF SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS, ASK WHY.
EXACTLY WHICH FILMS? TITLES, HER CHARACTER ROLES, ETC. IF SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS ASK WHY.
EXACTLY WHAT TELEVISION PROGRAMS? NAMES, HER ROLES, DATE AIRED, ETC. IF SHE REFUSES TO ANSWER THIS, ASK WHY.
Since Oma Hamou wants to be Motion Picture Producer, WHAT are her SPECIFIC Motion Picture Credits and work experience that support this contention?
Who SPECIFICALLY are her alleged "numerous Industry contacts"? Names, phone numbers please.
What SPECIFIC Motion Picture experience gives Oma Hamou the background to produce a Motion Picture?
Oma Hamou says she is an Actress. WHAT are her specific screen/stage credits, appearances etc?? IF she refuses to answer this specifically, WHY does she refuse?
Since Oma Hamou desires to STAR in her film, WHAT specific acting background and credentials support this? IF she refuses to answer publicly, WHY the refusal?
Oma Hamou says she is a MODEL. WHAT are her specific credits, publications, experience, etc?? IF she refuses publicly to answer this, WHY does she refuse?
Oma Hamou is a convicted Felon. What are ALL of her specific convictions, with date and place? IF she refuses to provide this public information, WHY?
How many times has Oma Hamou been arrested? when, where and for what? IF she refuses.. WHY?
She has said that she and her companies have no income. WHY does Oma Hamou not inform business people with whom she contracts that she has no income?
Oma Hamou maintains a "foundation", Sarskaia, which is listed as a non profit charitable foundation.WHAT specific charitable works has this foundation provided? IF she refuses to account to the public for this, WHY??
Oma Hamou says she is a busy Motion Picture Producer. Oma Hamou has no offices, no business address other than a cheap Pak n Mail PO box drop, no business telephone and no Federal or California Employer ID numbers (required to actually have the "employees" she says she has).
Oma Hamou TOLD Dunn & Bradstreet in a report she filed that Enigma Royal Films was started in 1999 and operated as a film production company with 100 employees, operating out of a 5,362 sq. ft. three story building at the rear of her residence on Mayall Street in Northridge CA. She also tells D&B that she was in the process of leasing space at 100 Universal City Dr. (Universal Studios). Dunn & Bradstreet investigations concluded that Enigma Royal Films was not registered until just Sept. 14, 2000, not 1999 as she claimed. Further, the property management company for 100 Universal City Drive had no record of her "being in the process of leasing space there. Additional investigation by them showed that there was no three story 5,362 building at the rear of her Mayall Street residence and that there was no evidence of any employees. IN short she said DECEPTIVE THINGS TO DUNN & BRADSTREET FOR REPORTS PEOPLE MIGHT RUN ABOUT HER.
Oma Hamou SAID she had offices in Russia, in the town of Pushkin and published an adddress to make it appear she HAD Russian offices, for years according to the internet archived files. The Oma Hamou reality was that the building was then and still is a vacant ruin. The Orthodox Church which owns the building had given Oma Hamou an agreement six years ago that IF she restored the building, THEN she could use it for offices. The Oma Hamou Reality is that since she did NOTHING to restore the building in the last six years, she has never had offices there.
Oma Hamou used a Camden Drive Beverly Hills address for years, calling it her "offices". I went by there, went upstairs, spoke to the manager. She remembered Hamou well. Hamou NEVER had a permanent office there. The place is a self admitted mail drop, where they will answer one of several hundred phone lines with your "business" name, and you can rent a little cubicle, desk or meeting room on an as needed basis. HOW DECEPTIVE IS THIS?
Hamou said publicly "I was the director at this specific shoot. I have never issued a check to “Wild West Productions”." See, we got the name wrong of the studio. Oma Hamou wrote checks on a long closed account to Monique Hahn, the make up artist, the studio where the shoot took place AND the Director of the shoot. Notice she puts the name in quotes, the reality is that she DID issue a bad check to the studio at that specific shoot, but tap dances around that reality. That wasn't deceptive??
We like this one: She posted a letter from Westar Legal Enterprises to prove her point about something, WELL seems she forgot to mention this too...
August 5 2003: WESTAR LEGAL ENTERPRISES, LLC. v. OMA HAMOU ET AL. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case PC033237, Breach of Contract, filed 08/05/2003, Default Judgment issued against Oma Hamou individually and dba Engima Productions for the suit originally filed on 04/23/2004 for an as yet unknown amount in excess of $10,000
and THIS chick has the audacity to scream about a guy putting a dog's name into the staff roster of his business as a joke?? I need to shower...
posted by Watchtower at 8:21 AM
<< Home