As law enforcement seems unable to assist me, and the person behind this campaign to defame me and interfere with my business and profession, named variously Oma Hamou, Oma Mcconnell or Alexandra McConnell is what they call "judgment proof" meaning she has no money, I must place this blog here. She recently filed Bankruptcy, swearing under oath that her only income is $2500 a month from her friend Jim Sproul's company "Reseda Screen & Glass", that she lives in rental houses in the Antelope Valley and in July she was evicted for non payment of rent from a house in Palmdale, and she has over $500,000 in outstanding debts.
I would NOT even have written here, had this person not continually written her own false and defamatory statements herself and aided and abetted other personae writing "on her behalf" for the last three years. If she doesn't want me to say anything about her, she ought not have been continually blogging and writing about me much less aiding and encouraging others to do so as well.
The woman behind all of this goes by many names: Oma Hamou, Oma McConnell, Alexandra McConnell, Alexandra Hamou, Oma Demian, Alexandra Murphy, are the usual ones, but there are others. The reason this woman and her "alleged" friends crusade to destroy me is simple. I learned about her genuine background, and she wants me silenced from speaking about it.
This woman admits that her actions are all motivated by her bitterness and hatred towards me, and this is the reason for her actions.
This woman, Oma Hamou, Oma McConnell, Alexandra McConnell, Alexandra Hamou, Oma Demian, Alexandra Murphy and her other aliases have a twenty year track record of FELONY CONVICTIONS, multiple arrests, failure to abide by the requirements of her probation for her felony convictions which lead to more arrests, many many civil judgments against her for hundreds of thousands of dollars, a history of writing bad checks, and currently she was arrested late in 2008 in San Bernardino California on a Felony Charge of Forgery of a Financial Instrument (she seems to have forged a large check) After 14 months of dragging the process out, she paid the Victim full restitution and the District Attorney dropped the Felony charge. She has a history of evictions and bad checks.
This woman also has a recent default Judgment against her in Los Angeles County, in the amount of $55,000:
Case Number: MC020860 HAMID REFAI VS ALEXANDRA MCCONNELL, JIM SPROUL, ET AL
Filing Date: 09/23/2009
According to the case, Mr. Refai, a married man, was "involved" with Alexandra McConnell, she kept telling him about serious "medical problems" and asking for "loans" for medical bills in the total amount of $51,000. This was confirmed by the fact that a woman who used to live in her house wrote on the internet THREE MONTHS before the suit was filed: "I lived with this lady, she is no good. SHE LIES. SHE HAS LIKE 50 CATS LIVING WITH HER AND HER HOUSE SMELLS LIKE SHIT AND CAT SPRAY AND PISS. She is dirty, filthy and uses old men for money I SEEN IT MYSELF. By the way Hamid's wife knows it was LIPOSUCTION you drained their bank account for, not cancer in your asshole. He had her sign a promissory note, co signed by long time co-conspirator Jim Sproul. She of course never PAID back the money. She, of course, never showed up in Court.
Here is the Final Judgment against Alexandra McConnell aka Oma Hamou and her "longtime friend" Jim Sproul:
This woman has been EVICTED TWICE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS FOR FAILURE TO PAY RENT AND GIVING THE LANDLORD BACK CHECKS.
Someone else has recently posted a precis of the criminal and debt history of this woman. You can go here to read the specific details for yourself:
http://www.omahamoureality.blogspot.com
I have put up a precis of the specific information for her victims and law enforcement here: http://OmaHamouVictims.blogspot.com
You are encouraged to share information you may have about her and her activities with me.
While Oma Hamou aka Alexandra McConnell claims to be a "Motion Picture Executive" her online anonymous "friends" admit she works as a Paralegal in the Palmdale area. She has no background experience as a "Producer".
She is nearly psychotic in her daily compulsion because I stumbled onto these actual facts of her past, and present, which do not coincide with the personae she wants to project to others.
This woman, Oma Hamou, Oma McConnell, Alexandra McConnell, Alexandra Hamou, Oma Demian, Alexandra Murphy et al, has for YEARS now, threatened me with civil and criminal actions. For years now, NOTHING has happened except more ongoing threats online. NOW HER OWN WEBSITE ON FEBRUARY 28, 2010 CONFIRMS AND ADMITS SHE AND HER "FRIENDS" DELIBERATELY LIED EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY SAID OMA HAMOU HAD FILED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST ME AND THEY WERE LYING EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY SAID I WAS UNDER POLICE INVESTIGATION, SINCE THE POLICE WILL INVESTIGATE NOTHING UNLESS A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS FILED. HER ONLINE ALLEGED 'FRIENDS' NOW CLAIM THEY HAVE LIED FOR YEARS ABOUT THEIR IDENTITIES.
I am called a "criminal stalker". First, being called a criminal is Libel per se in Texas, since I have never been convicted of ANYTHING worse than one speeding ticket. As for a stalker, well, I have no clue where this woman is, where she lives, and frankly I don't WANT to know, nor can I care less. In the words of one of her attorney's, Dave. S. "the faster that woman is in my rearview mirror the happier I'll be" (yeah I have the email he said that to me in.). I WISH NO CONTACT WITH OR FROM THIS PERSON.
I do NOT wish this person ill, or harm. Frankly, I do not care about her. The less I hear about her, the better. That said, no one should ever be subjected to harm or danger. I DO NOT WISH THIS PERSON HARM, nor have I advocated, wished, nor advised anyone to harm her. Such allegations are baseless, wrong and defamatory. I just want he to leave me and my partner ALONE and stop the thousands of pages of defamatory lies she puts up and allows "friends" to post on her website in order to cause me harm.
This woman, Oma Hamou, Oma McConnell, Alexandra McConnell, Alexandra Hamou, Oma Demian, Alexandra Murphy has demonstrated she has no credibility. You can read in previous posts where she has outright lied, most notably when she filed a report about her business with Dunn and Bradstreet that was investigated by them and shown to be completely fraudulent.
Ask yourself if the following make any, rational or reasonable common sense:
This woman claims to be an actress and model, but for a decade steadfastly REFUSES to provide one single shred of evidence to support the allegation, not even a credit, reference or magazine issue. She says only "I was and I don't have to prove it. YOU have to prove I wasn't". Does that make sense?
This woman claims that her three felony convictions were not Her fault, but rather someone else's fault. Does THAT make sense?
This woman claims that her recent Felony Forgery Charges in San Bernardino are "just a big mistake" and "law enforcement and the DA" are on "her side" and "believe her", yet they STILL pressed charges and scheduling dozens of hearings over FOURTEEN MONTHS. Does THAT make sense??
This woman has claimed for six years non stop that I am being investigated by law enforcement and the FBI. Yet, NOTHING ever happened, I have never been contacted by law enforcement for any reason in those six years other than one speeding ticket. Does it make any sense to you that law enforcement is doing ANYTHING for six years now?
Buddha said Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Look at all the blathering posts she has put up on the internet, and ask yourself, do these things agree with YOUR reason and your own common sense? The answer is obvious.
As you can see, this woman and/or her cronies now LIE, falsify documents and use years old private letters to attempt to defame and disparage me, and Bob Atchison
Many people whom have come into contact with her call her a con artist and scam artist. She hangs out with convicted felons, even inviting these career criminals to live in her house with her.
You can verify all the arrests, judgments, evictions, etc for yourself with simple online searches.
You are free to email me with your questions, Rob@AustinWineGuy.com, and if you yourself have been a VICTIM of this woman Oma Hamou, Oma McConnell, Alexandra McConnell, Alexandra Hamou, Oma Demian, Alexandra Murphy, I encourage you to contact me.
217 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 217 of 217Oma said:
Oma filed her brief with the court. The stamp on the copy of that brief is not fake or forged.
THE COURT ITSELF SAID:
"THE FACT THAT STAMP IS ON THAT DOCUMENT IS PROOF ITSELF THAT IT WAS NOT FILED WITH THIS COURT. ANY DOCUMENT FILED WITH US WOULD HAVE THE CORRECT STAMP. THIS DOCUMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH US".
THE COURT SAYS YOU ARE A LIAR IF YOU CLAIM THAT THEY PUT THAT STAMP ON ANY DOCUMENT. IS PROOF ITSELF THAT IT WAS NOT FILED WITH THIS COURT
I've been trying to pin down the situation with that notary seal from Santo Bocanegra, Jr. today.
First, I talked to someone at the California Department of State notary public division in Sacramento this morning. She confirmed that a Santos Bocanegra, Jr. has a notary certification through April 2011.
She also told me that due to an upsurge in identity fraud, the California statute was rewritten in 2008 to require that any jurat contain an affirmative statement either that the notary knows the affiant personally or that the affiant presented the notary with satisfactory identification. That was the legislative change that was captured in 2009 in the current California Notary Public Handbook.
They said that while the notary has some latitude in choosing the wording of the affirmative statement, the statement must be present in the jurat. I read the lady in the Notary Public office the declaration in the document Hamou posted, and she said it was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
I also asked her to check whether I had the correct address for Santos Bocanegra, Jr. She confirmed the address in Sylmar I had been given and had no explanation why the phone number registered to that address was answered by someone who claimed not to know Bocanegra.
Last night I had called the Mission station of the LAPD (which covers Sylmar) to see if they could help me locate Bocanegra. They checked their systems and even the local white pages and found no listing for him.
I have also searched numerous websites that help one find a notary in California by name, town, county, or zip code. None of those sites had a listing for Santos Bocanegra, Jr. in the zip code he listed with the Department of State, in the town of Sylmar, or in Los Angeles County.
The fact that the jurat Hamou produced has been insufficient since 2008 increases the suspicion that she took an old notary seal from some other document and put into onto a document she created herself.
And the fact that Santos Bocanegra, Jr. is absent from all current listings in his old stomping grounds also indicates some passage of time since he first registered with the state, and that he may no longer be active as a notary.
Oma Oma Oma.
Judge TRIANA is reading NOTHING. Judge Dietz is in charge of the DWOP, and he won't be reading anything you filed after the Motion to Retain.
Further, you filed NO "Brief" with the Court. We know this for a fact from the Court itself.
"THE COURT ITSELF SAID:
"THE FACT THAT STAMP IS ON THAT DOCUMENT IS PROOF ITSELF THAT IT WAS NOT FILED WITH THIS COURT. ANY DOCUMENT FILED WITH US WOULD HAVE THE CORRECT STAMP. THIS DOCUMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH US".
THE COURT SAYS YOU ARE A LIAR IF YOU CLAIM THAT THEY PUT THAT STAMP ON ANY DOCUMENT. Mr, Murillo said that stamp ITSELF IS PROOF ITSELF THAT IT WAS NOT FILED WITH THIS COURT
Well Well Well..
Thank you OMA for proving what I said was correct!
You had NOT filed anything with the Court! Handing a paper to the Judge's clerk means NOTHING in Travis County.
One MUST file with the Clerk of Court, which you HAD NOT DONE!!!
Jumpin' Jehosephat. Just how many mistakes can one woman make?
First, she goes to court unprepared and blames that on losing the lawsuit to Bob Atchison.
Then she misses the deadline for filing an appeal.
Then she mistakenly thinks a Bill of Review is an appropriate vehicle for urging a missed appeal.
Then she accidentally sues herself in attempting to file a Bill of Review on the last day.
Then she submits an incomplete pleading.
Then she gets mixed up about the certification and service process and misses the deadline for having the action served.
Then she writes a letter where she refers to herself as both the defendant and the plaintiff in the same action.
Then she posts a "notarized" document with a legally insufficient jurat, showing the document is faked.
Then she sends a certified letter to Atchison, mistakenly thinking that qualifies as "service" on him.
Then she files a "Supplemental Brief" with the wrong court.
She really should retain a lawyer. I know she's been sued twice by her own lawyers, which has got to be a bit embarrassing even for her. But they do say the third time's the charm.
To all those who believe Oma Hamou really wants to encounter Bob Atchison again in court (and that would only be Michele Biernat), let's see how she answers these questions:
Why did you not appeal the original judgment? (You had two years to do so.)
Why did you wait until the waning minutes of the four-year period for filing a Bill of Review and then file one with incomplete pleadings that rendered it insufficient?
Why did you not take steps to serve and prosecute the Bill of Review within the one-year period given?
Why is it that in over FIVE YEARS, you have not met one single, solitary deadline for doing anything relating to this matter?
The conclusion, I'm afraid, is obvious (except, of course, to Michele Biernat). You have no desire actually to get in front of a judge on any of your claims.
You just want to wave all these claims on the internet, pretending they have substance and will vindicate you once you lay out all the "proof" before a judge.
It's like your whole miserable life. The reality is so unrelentingly dismal that you try to invent an internet world where you are a film producer, an international executive, a successful actress and model, a woman with leagues of admirers.
None of this is real, Oma. None of it.
Oma wrote:
"Oma's Supplemental brief was was filed on December 17, 2010 with the 345th District Court (Judge Yelonsky) because Oma's front page says, 345th Disrtict Court instead of 200th District Court. Funny, how not even you or Bob notice that mistake?"
It is not a MISTAKE you brain dead idiot. It only shows that YOU have no clue whatsoever about how it works in the District Court.
One NEVER EVER EVER files ANY document with the specific Court. One files EVERYTHING with the Court Clerk's office. The MISTAKE was YOURS in not knowing this elementary point of Civil Procedure.
Just like you have NO CLUE about "service of Process" rules and requirements. And WHY you STILL haven't served Bob with ANYTHING.
I'm not going to explain that to you any more, because you are too damn rock stupid to understand.
and Blake, you were not correct about her motion to Appeal or for New Trial. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 369 sets forth that she had only THIRTY DAYS to file for her Appeal or MNT. A deadline she was aware of, as Judge Triana told her and blew.
Darlings, she is forging documents now? Oy, it never ends! Omele, you're like that verstunkene Bunny that has the battery!
So, Rob, you mean she had only four years and one month instead of five years to take action?
Well -- no wonder she missed all the deadlines.
Perfectly understandable.
No Blake.
Oma Hamou had THIRTY DAYS only to file a Motion for New Trial and/or Appeal. Period.
IF she had lost her appeal or MNT, she THEN had four years from the date of judgment to File and SERVE a Bill of Review.
She did not file an appeal or MNT at all, much less within the thirty day period.
She filed a Bill of Review but did not SERVE it at all for a full calendar year. It STILL isn't served. Citation has not been issued by the Clerk yet either (and will NOT be issued because it is on DWOP calendar).
Yep, Rob -- I know an appeal or motion for new trial was her only avenue for securing a rehearing of the case she lost.
But the point I'm making is that Hamou likes to pretend she still has avenues open and is going to use them.
The problem we've created for her is that we keep calling her bluff.
She postured for years on the internet about a Bill of Review and then suddenly went silent as the deadline approached.
However, we did not forget the deadline and began chiding her about it. So, in an attempt to save face, she rushed a filing to the court via the internet on the last day before the deadline expired.
Of course, in her hurry, she made a complete fool of herself, first accidentally suing herself by confusing the plaintiff with the defendant. Then, with only minutes left to correct that screw up, she filed a pleading that didn't even state a cause of action, in effect telling the court, "hold my place in line; I'll get back to you."
Of course, she failed to take the next step, which was to obtain a certification to have process served (which is the last thing she actually wanted to have happen). Instead, she focused her efforts again on internet posturing about the Bill of Review she really had filed, just as promised.
Then when the deadline for serving process passed and we began chiding her about that, in another effort to save face, she started all this silliness with certified letters, faked notary seals, trying to file a "supplement brief" on a case that the court had not even accepted for litigation, and -- for an additional piece of insurance -- making sure to drop that brief off at the wrong court.
Then, of course, we called her bluff on all this nonsense, and she was forced to get her "brief" dropped off to the correct court -- but secure in the knowledge that nothing would really happen with it.
Our persistence must be maddening to her. She's used to making promises she doesn't intend to keep, signing contracts she'll never fulfill, writing checks on closed or empty accounts, and then just disappearing with no one able to call those bluffs.
But here we are, day after day, actually calling her bluffs and keeping her reminded of the things she promises she's going to do.
It must be something like the experience of a fish that's pulled out of water and experiences gravity for the first time. It just lays there flopping helplessly and smelling bad.
Oh, yeah. Hamou is really getting frustrated now about her bluffs being called on this Bill of Review.
She's now posting photos and direct libels and insults against Atchison's attorney.
That is just more indication that she will never put herself back in a courtroom in Austin.
There's some very interesting psychopathy going on here.
Hamou knew when she first started posting about a Bill of Review that she would never walk back into a courtroom in Austin.
She knows when she signs a lease for a large house she cannot afford that she will eventually get evicted.
She knows when she writes a bad check that the recipient will eventually know she had no money and was thieving.
She knows when she claims for years on end to have cancer in order to engender sympathy (and get money) that her failure to die at some point will reveal an obvious ruse.
She knows when she posts endlessly about all kinds of "proof" she is going to show in court that eventually she will have to produce it in court or be recognized as lying.
Yet she does all these things over and over.
There is a particularly strong strain of living in the moment in this woman's psychology. Perhaps it's why creating a phantom life on the internet works for her in a strange way. When she is at her keyboard spinning tales of movies, international charity work, friends in high places, legions of admirers, stylish living, acting, modeling -- for those moments of typing and poring over her own posts, she is all those things.
Sure, reality will eventually come crashing in. But one savors what little one can in life for what few moments it can be made to feel real.
At least if you actually have nothing.
So Hamou had a document examiner look at a fax of a document?
"Snoopy" posted:
"Mr. Baggett a Dallas court document examiner said this about the fake invoice Bob Atchison gave the court:
'...This document is a manufactured and fraudulent document and the owner of PallasArt Web Ventures committed fraud on the court by passing this “Q1” document. I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will provide to the Court that my opinion is correct....' "
So Daggett is making an accusation that Bob Atchison committed "fraud on the court", huh?
Well, I wonder how he's going to feel about being sued.
Let me show you what this Daggett's website says:
"Unlike many 'document examiners' who routinely charge $1200 or more to just look at your document, I am available right now to provide a 'Quick Verbal Opinion' of your case for just $295."
And his site includes features such as clicking for a "Quick Opinion".
So this is a discount get-a-quickie-opinion-by-phone-fax-or-mail type of operation.
Very impressive. Very impressive, indeed.
Want a chuckle?
Check out Baggett's website:
http://www.usahandwritingexperts.com/
What's next? Is Hamou going to "prove" she has cancer by posting a prescription from an internet doctor?
Want another chuckle? Oma Hamou keeps posting stuff she said THREE YEARS AGO, like it means anything today, other than she DID NOTHING over those three years.
Too many posts. I've started a new blog. Please continue there.
Post a Comment