What does it say when you look at her attitude towards the law?
Oma Hamou wannabee nevahwuz Sockpuppet "Mike" said today "So as I asked many times in the past, what does it say about these people when you look at their attitude towards the law?"
Good question. Let us take a look at Oma Hamou's attitude towards the law.
Oma Hamou is a convicted Felon. She has at least three Felony convictions for writing bad checks and theft by Deception. She admits this. You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
Oma Hamou violated the terms of her probation for three different Felony sentences. That means the Law told her she had to do certain things, which she FAILED to do. The Courts involved issued Felony Arrest Warrants BECAUSE she failed to do what the Courts told her to do. She admits this. You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
Oma Hamou has spent a cumulative total time of about 12 months in jail. You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
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.
Oma Hamou responded:This judgment was obtained fraudulently. I was introduced to this organization's principal by Bob Atchison amongst other things it claimed to have spent an enormous amount of money on behalf of my film company Enigma while I was living in Russia and it had negotiated a contract on Enigma's behalf with the World Monuments Fund. The fact is it had done neither. The money this organization claimed it spent and was entitled for a reimbursement is not a true representation of the actual invoice sent to me by them. The attached document submitted to the court in NYC is not signed by both parties. I had no problem reimbursing this company for the transportation it provided or for their telephone expense what I did take issue and still do was the $50,000 non refundable rretainer fee regardless if they did nothing at all. I've been told by the Attorney General's office that criminal charges could be filed and the judgment set aside if fraud and deceptive trade practice were involved.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS:"I Oma Hamou disagree with the New York Court's ruling. It wasn't my fault, and so even though I could not be bothered to answer this lawsuit in court, when I had the chance, I don't think I have to pay it, so I'm not going to, SO I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE NEW YORK COURT SAYS BUT I ALSO DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST AND CERTAINLY WON'T PAY THIS JUDGMENT AGAINST ME"
We wrote 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.
Oma Hamou responded: "I should start off by saying this debt is 6 years old and is in relation to Enigma, a film company I own, due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations. Furthermore, pursuant to American Express, the balance owing on the account was sold to a collection agency.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS:
"I Oma Hamou acknowledge that I owe over $200,000 to American Express BUT, gee this is kind of old by now, so who cares right? ALSO, it wasn't MY FAULT I couldn't pay it, so I really don't have to, right? AND since they sold it to a collection agency because I never bothered to pay them anything for so long, well I really DON'T owe them this money anymore, right?"
We wrote: 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.
Oma Hamou responded: "This web design company was hired after Bob's company Pallasart defrauded Enigma over $10, 000 I've been told by the criminal prosecutor that Pallasart could be forced to pay this amount and more if it along with Bob Atchison is found guilty of committing a crime."
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, I owe these people this money for work they did at my request, but, somebody else FORCED ME TO HIRE THEM, SO REALLY EVEN THOUGH THEY DID SERVICES ON MY BEHALF AND I'VE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THEM BY THE COURT, WELL REALLY SOMEBODY ELSE SHOULD PAY THEM, SO EVEN THOUGH THE COURT TOLD ME I HAVE TO PAY IT, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO BOTHER."
We wrote: 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.
Oma Hamou responded: Due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations. It is a legitimate debt related to my film company, Enigma Films and is 5 years old. A payment was made towards our advertising expenses related to the film project, As A Matter of Honour.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, I Oma Hamou really do owe them well over $100,000, BUT it's not my fault that I couldn't pay them even though I contracted with them to purchase all those ads, which they ran, but, see it's somebody else's fault I can't pay. I mean, again it's five years old now, so even though I paid them a little bit originally, well I don't really have to pay them all this money do I? So, I Oma Hamou won't bother to pay this."
We wrote: 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
Oma Hamou responded: Again, this is a legitimate debt related to Enigma Films but due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
We wrote: Sept. 26, 2003: FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY LLP v. OMA HAMOU. LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, West Los Angeles Case 03T02636, Breach of Contract, lawsuit filed.
Oma Hamou responded: Absolutely, this is a legitimate debt and is 5 years old related to Sarskaia a company I own due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, heck yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
We wrote: 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.
Oma Hamou responded: Again, it is a 5 year old debt due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations. To the best of my recollection the judgment obtained on behalf of Global Insight was not in excess of $60,000.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, heck yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault. I mean, its 5 years now and I haven't paid them anything, so I don't really "have to" and gee, I don't "think" it was that much, but who cares anyway, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
We wrote: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.
Oma Hamou responded:Bob Atchison was able to obtain this judgment against me by committing fraud, perjury and submitting forged documents to the courts in Texas it is one of many reasons I have turned to law enforcement in an attempt to right the wrongs.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS:"I Oma Hamou disagree with the Texas's ruling. It wasn't my fault, I don't care WHAT the Court says, the Court screwed up, I didn't care enough to challenge it though when I had the chance, and so I don't think I have to pay it, so I'm not going to, SO I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE TEXAS COURT SAYS SO I CAN JUST PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST AND CERTAINLY WON'T PAY THIS JUDGMENT AGAINST ME"
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.
Oma Hamou responded: It is a legitimate 3 year old debt and is related to Bob Atchison and my Counter lawsuit with him, his web Design Company Pallasart and Rob Moshein due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, heck yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
December 2, 2005: ole Mizz Thang Oma Hamou was "held in Contempt of Court" for failing to abide by the order of the Court that she pay sanctions to Robert Atchison. Sanctions? That is legal speak for a fine as punishment. Turns out, the Court found that Oma Hamou had abused the Discovery Process, and so was sanctioned as punishement. She refused to pay the money ordered and SO WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT ORDER THAT SHE HAD TO PAY. Thus the Court found her IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
Good question. Let us take a look at Oma Hamou's attitude towards the law.
Oma Hamou is a convicted Felon. She has at least three Felony convictions for writing bad checks and theft by Deception. She admits this. You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
Oma Hamou violated the terms of her probation for three different Felony sentences. That means the Law told her she had to do certain things, which she FAILED to do. The Courts involved issued Felony Arrest Warrants BECAUSE she failed to do what the Courts told her to do. She admits this. You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
Oma Hamou has spent a cumulative total time of about 12 months in jail. You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
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.
Oma Hamou responded:This judgment was obtained fraudulently. I was introduced to this organization's principal by Bob Atchison amongst other things it claimed to have spent an enormous amount of money on behalf of my film company Enigma while I was living in Russia and it had negotiated a contract on Enigma's behalf with the World Monuments Fund. The fact is it had done neither. The money this organization claimed it spent and was entitled for a reimbursement is not a true representation of the actual invoice sent to me by them. The attached document submitted to the court in NYC is not signed by both parties. I had no problem reimbursing this company for the transportation it provided or for their telephone expense what I did take issue and still do was the $50,000 non refundable rretainer fee regardless if they did nothing at all. I've been told by the Attorney General's office that criminal charges could be filed and the judgment set aside if fraud and deceptive trade practice were involved.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS:"I Oma Hamou disagree with the New York Court's ruling. It wasn't my fault, and so even though I could not be bothered to answer this lawsuit in court, when I had the chance, I don't think I have to pay it, so I'm not going to, SO I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE NEW YORK COURT SAYS BUT I ALSO DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST AND CERTAINLY WON'T PAY THIS JUDGMENT AGAINST ME"
We wrote 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.
Oma Hamou responded: "I should start off by saying this debt is 6 years old and is in relation to Enigma, a film company I own, due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations. Furthermore, pursuant to American Express, the balance owing on the account was sold to a collection agency.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS:
"I Oma Hamou acknowledge that I owe over $200,000 to American Express BUT, gee this is kind of old by now, so who cares right? ALSO, it wasn't MY FAULT I couldn't pay it, so I really don't have to, right? AND since they sold it to a collection agency because I never bothered to pay them anything for so long, well I really DON'T owe them this money anymore, right?"
We wrote: 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.
Oma Hamou responded: "This web design company was hired after Bob's company Pallasart defrauded Enigma over $10, 000 I've been told by the criminal prosecutor that Pallasart could be forced to pay this amount and more if it along with Bob Atchison is found guilty of committing a crime."
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, I owe these people this money for work they did at my request, but, somebody else FORCED ME TO HIRE THEM, SO REALLY EVEN THOUGH THEY DID SERVICES ON MY BEHALF AND I'VE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY THEM BY THE COURT, WELL REALLY SOMEBODY ELSE SHOULD PAY THEM, SO EVEN THOUGH THE COURT TOLD ME I HAVE TO PAY IT, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO BOTHER."
We wrote: 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.
Oma Hamou responded: Due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations. It is a legitimate debt related to my film company, Enigma Films and is 5 years old. A payment was made towards our advertising expenses related to the film project, As A Matter of Honour.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, I Oma Hamou really do owe them well over $100,000, BUT it's not my fault that I couldn't pay them even though I contracted with them to purchase all those ads, which they ran, but, see it's somebody else's fault I can't pay. I mean, again it's five years old now, so even though I paid them a little bit originally, well I don't really have to pay them all this money do I? So, I Oma Hamou won't bother to pay this."
We wrote: 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
Oma Hamou responded: Again, this is a legitimate debt related to Enigma Films but due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
We wrote: Sept. 26, 2003: FREEMAN FREEMAN & SMILEY LLP v. OMA HAMOU. LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT, West Los Angeles Case 03T02636, Breach of Contract, lawsuit filed.
Oma Hamou responded: Absolutely, this is a legitimate debt and is 5 years old related to Sarskaia a company I own due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, heck yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
We wrote: 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.
Oma Hamou responded: Again, it is a 5 year old debt due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations. To the best of my recollection the judgment obtained on behalf of Global Insight was not in excess of $60,000.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, heck yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault. I mean, its 5 years now and I haven't paid them anything, so I don't really "have to" and gee, I don't "think" it was that much, but who cares anyway, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
We wrote: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.
Oma Hamou responded:Bob Atchison was able to obtain this judgment against me by committing fraud, perjury and submitting forged documents to the courts in Texas it is one of many reasons I have turned to law enforcement in an attempt to right the wrongs.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS:"I Oma Hamou disagree with the Texas's ruling. It wasn't my fault, I don't care WHAT the Court says, the Court screwed up, I didn't care enough to challenge it though when I had the chance, and so I don't think I have to pay it, so I'm not going to, SO I DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE TEXAS COURT SAYS SO I CAN JUST PRETEND IT DOES NOT EXIST AND CERTAINLY WON'T PAY THIS JUDGMENT AGAINST ME"
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.
Oma Hamou responded: It is a legitimate 3 year old debt and is related to Bob Atchison and my Counter lawsuit with him, his web Design Company Pallasart and Rob Moshein due to a set of unfortunate circumstances (which we can now trace substantially to Bob Atchison’s interference in my corporate affairs) we were unable to meet our financial obligations.
THE OMA HAMOU REALITY TRANSLATION OF HER WORDS: Well, heck yeah, I Oma Hamou actually owe them all this money, but it's not MY fault I can't pay them, its somebody else's fault, and so I'm not going to bother to pay these guys either."
December 2, 2005: ole Mizz Thang Oma Hamou was "held in Contempt of Court" for failing to abide by the order of the Court that she pay sanctions to Robert Atchison. Sanctions? That is legal speak for a fine as punishment. Turns out, the Court found that Oma Hamou had abused the Discovery Process, and so was sanctioned as punishement. She refused to pay the money ordered and SO WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT ORDER THAT SHE HAD TO PAY. Thus the Court found her IN CONTEMPT OF COURT.You can see the details below. Judge what this means about her attitude towards the Law.
posted by Watchtower at 11:15 AM
<< Home