What is Legitimate?
What is Legitimate?The AlexanderPalace.org web site, a work of love?
Update
Bob Atchison claims the only reason why he designed a website about the Alexander Palace was to educate the world on Russian history. He has said that he doesn't receive an income from doing any of this.
A quick glance at his site plus a little knowledge of marketing and how the Internet works, something called traffic and links, and I begin to question ---how much of this is a work of loveand how much that of a shrewd businessman?
Not only does he derive his income by using the name of Nicholas II, but it appears that the “Kuchumov Photographs” which “technically” belonged to the Russian government, will be used in an upcoming book that Mr. Atchison is said to be writing.
I wonder just who will profit from the sale of this book? Will any of Mr. Kuchumov’s heirs?
Bob Atchison is a clever and shrewd businessman. He left his job at Apple computer and started his own web/design/hosting company, Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc, located in Austin, Texas. He also created a website dedicated to the life of Nicholas II and life inside of the Alexander Palace which has links to Bob Atchison’s web/design/hosting company, Pallasart, his import/export furniture business and a site dedicated to selling religious icons. Bob Atchison derives some of his money from the sweat and blood of the Russian people by getting them to duplicate Imperial furniture and export this furniture or painting to the US where he then sells it at a higher price.
Is this "normal" capitalism?
It seems so on the surface, but think back to those images that create so much of the atmosphere at the Alexander Palace web site, the traffic that comes to see those images and that is directed to purchase this furniture, and Icons. I wonder, just what constitutes a fair markup or profit?Or looked at in reverse, how much was paid to the Russian craftsmen who made this furniture?
Notice that the traffic to this site is derived from links to the Alexander Palace web site from places such as Encyclopedia Britannica, all of which drives large numbers of people to look at this site where he then directs them to his web design business, his selling of religious Icons, and furniture --- pretty sharp use of a few photos…
As to all the money Bob Atchison is spending out of his own pocket to keep the AexanderPalace.org site alive, well the forum is run by “open source” software. Meaning that just like the last software that he used to run the forum it is free to anyone who wants to use it. So scratch that expense. Now sure a normal person would have to spend tons of money to provide bandwidth and storage space for a site like the AlexanderPalace.org, but as Bob owns his own servers, well that takes care of the monthly storage fee. Sure it cost to buy the server, but typically site are co-hosted and Bob is no different with 54 other sites on the same server as the AlexanderPalace.org site. His web design site quotes sites starting at $4,000 to create a site and he charged Oma about $100 a month to host a few pages. Assuming that is still the same… $216,000 up front in design fees (looking only at the minimum) will buy a huge server.
OK yes he has to pay for his time, but still he had to buy a server to host those other sites and I think you can see that even at say $20,000 for a top of the line monster server with multi-processors and RAID 5 hot swappable hard drives and a few hours of UPS power reserves that there was enough cash from just the web design work to pay for the server that runs AlexanderPalace.org and $5,400 a month income from just that one server should pay for a lot of bandwidth as typically if you have your own hosting company you buy it in a huge block for cheap. The way most hosting companies do it is that they balance the load by placing a high bandwidth / server load site along with a bunch of other sites who may be lucky to get a dozen hits a month. Checking with one reseller they offer a package for $69.00 a month that has the space to host 80 sites and provides 750 GIG of bandwidth, (that is about eighty-six cents per month per site) another host says that if you go over your bandwidth limit it is only $7.00 more per GIG, per month and the more you use the cheaper per month, per gig it gets. Also realize that repeat visitors have all the graphics and such stored up in their computer’s cache memory so that does not cause much bandwidth, and text only such as is on the forum is unbelievably cheap in terms of bandwidth. So in the whole equation of site hosting the human cost is the most expensive, but I had heard that the AlexanderPalace.org site was an act of love?
Which came first the Chicken or the Egg, or read that as Pallasart Web Design or the AP site? Now lets figure that with traffic in the millions of visitors per day because of links to it by sites such as Encyclopedia Britannica (Currently AlexanderPalace.org is ranked 139,135th in the world by Alexa) and when you look at the traffic details you will notice that about half, or a little less, of that traffic also checks out the Pallasart Web Design company where the visitor is exposed to advertising and of course there are links from the AlexanderPalace.org site to Bob’s Amber Palace Galleries and such.
So it seems that the AP.org site is a great source of advertising for Bob, which he would otherwise have to pay for. Of course any site that is linked to by AP.org gets immediate attention from the search engines because of its traffic rank and who links to it, (such as the Encyclopedia Britannica site.) So the whole AlexanderPalace.org site forms the nucleus of a major traffic magnet, buying Bob traffic for his profit centers at unbelievably cheap rates. That is one savvy and shrewd businessman!
QUOTE PALLASART'S MIKE PYLES A/K/A/ "VAPORS" "...I take personal offense at Hamou's using Russian history websites to support her grifts by trying to put the spit shine on her foul antics. As for donating money to something positive, I find putting a stop to her grifts on these sites sufficiently positive to warrant the investment of my time and money. Young people visit these sites in the formative stages of their interest in Russian history. It might not bother you that they would encounter a seedy grift passing itself off as the noble advancement of historical restoration and cultural advancement, but it does bother me..."
Thinking about Vapors reaction, and then how Bob Atchison has reacted --- could jealousy be at the heart of this? Having to share the Palace with Oma Hamou?An example (one of many illustrations) where Hamou's "Sarskaia Site" can be found on the web along side Bob Atchison's Alexander Palace Time Machine: Russian EmpireThe Sarskaia Foundation - Aims to preserve of cultural heritage in Russia. Current projects include the rehabilitation of the city of Pushkin's historic core. A link to the page that features Sarskaia is found
http://www.google.com/Top/Regional/Europe/Russia/Society_and_Culture/History/Russian_Empire/
So here we have a prime example of why jealousy might be exhibited 'just because' one of Oma's company’s is listed in search engines under the topic of Russian History...As I look at the situation it seems to me that the very thing Pyles, et. al. (Pallasart) have accused Oma and Enigma & Sarskaia of doing is the very thing that Bob Atchison's Alexander Palace Time Machine and his 'small' web design company, Pallasart Web ventures, Inc has been doing all these years --- yet no one until NOW has noticed - take a look.
Definitions:
Grift Pronunciation: 'grift Function: transitive verb Etymology: grift, n., perhaps alteration of graft slang : to obtain (money) illicitly (as in a confidence game)
So lets look at some past activities that “They” indulged in...
Art of Bob Atchison
Ikons: Windows Into Heaven
Virgin and Child with St. Francis
22 x 28 inches
acrylic on canvas - available for purchase, $1250
Queen Katherine
18 x 24 inches - acrylic on canvas - available for purchase, $2650
An English Madonna
18 x 24 inchesacrylic on canvas - available for purchase, $3250
St. George of England
18 x 24 inches acrylic on canvas - available for purchase, $2450 
Virgin and Child with two Angels
24 x 48 inches acrylic on canvas - available for purchase, $1450
More paintings are featured on Pallasart's site for lesser amounts....
Question: Is this extra income reported to the IRS by either Pallasart or Bob Atchison as an individual? Does this "Icon" business exist as a DBA/corporation or a subordinate entity of Pallasart?
AMBER PALACE GALLERIES - PALLASART
101 Laurel LaneAustin, Texas 78705
Question: Another subordinate entity under Pallasart? Is the extra income reflected on Pallasart's Tax Records? Does Amber Palace Galleries records reflect the Import tax (also known as an import duty or import tariff) on every import?
Bob Atchison's Internet Club
THE ALEXANDER PALACE ASSOCIATION
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20050818183442/http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/apaspr98.html -
Notice the Archive Site Date August 2005
NOW COMES Robert D. Atchison, Plaintiff, and responds to the Requests for Production propounded by Oma Hamou pursuant to Rule 196 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
10. All corporate documents pertaining to Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc., and The Alexander Palace Association.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION. This Request for Production of Documents is vague and is equally as available to Defendant as it is a matter of public record. However, subject to the foregoing objection and without waiving the same, Plaintiff is providing a copy of the information found on the Secretary of State’s Website stating that Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. is a Domestic Business Corporation that is in good standing in the State of Texas and has been in existence since 1999. The Alexander Palace Association is not a registered business as Defendant took the incorporation papers from Plaintiff.
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY SLATER'S RESPONSE: This response is not acceptable. There may be numerous corporate documents not publicly available and those documents are sought. The statement that Defendant is in possession of the incorporation documents pertaining to the Alexander Palace Association is nonsensical and false. These documents are relevant in that these organizations amount to engines of fraud and defamation and have been utilized by Plaintiff in undertaking the wrongdoing complained of by Counter Plaintiffs.
15. Any and all documents related to the formation of the Alexander Palace Association, as the identity of its officers, directors, managers and board members.
RESPONSE: There are no documents related to the formation of the Alexander Palace Association, and the identity of its officers, directors, managers and board members.
ANSWER NOT ACCEPTED
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY SLATER'S NOTE: Defendant/Counter Plaintiffs seek documents, which provide information related to the identity of the above referenced officers, directors, managers and board members. It is not credible that Plaintiff has no documents that reveal any portion of this information as the entity in question could not function or be operated by Plaintiff in the absence of this information. The response is obviously evasive.
26. Any and all documents that refer or relate to any restoration or other or activity of Pallasart, the Alexander Palace Association or you with respect to any of the Alexander Palace or the Fedorovsky Cathedral.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION. Plaintiff objections to Defendant’s Request for Production No. 26 in that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. However, without waiving the foregoing objection, Plaintiff has no documents in his possession dated subsequent to the year 2000 when he met the Plaintiff that would satisfy this request.
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY SLATER'S NOTE: The objection that the request is “not proper” is meaningless and insufficient to inform Defendants’ of the basis of the objection. These documents are relevant to this case as Plaintiff has published on the Internet and on his website, The Alexander Palace Time Machine, that the Alexander Palace Association has contributed money towards the restoration of these Russian monuments in touting his expertise and accomplishments which will be at issue in this case.
27. Describe what work, if any, that Pallasart, the Alexander Palace Association or you perform on either the Alexander Palace or the Fedorovsky Cathedral.
RESPONSE: OBJECTION. Plaintiff objects to Request for Production No. 27 in that it is not a proper request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff does not have any documents in his possession that would satisfy this Request for Production.
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY SLATER'S NOTE: The objection that the request is “not proper” is meaningless and insufficient to inform Defendants’ of the basis of the objection. These documents are relevant to this case as Plaintiff has published on the Internet and on his website, The Alexander Palace Time Machine, that the Alexander Palace Association has contributed money towards the restoration of these Russian monuments in touting his expertise and accomplishments which will be at issue in this case.
Source: OmaHamou.com
Question: Why didn't Mr. Atchison produce one document which would've supported statements published on the web concerning his Internet Web Club, the Alexander Palace Association activity/contributions towards the restoration of the Alexander Palace or the Fedorvsky Cathedral?
Where did the money designated for the restoration of the Alexander Palace or Fedorovsky Cathedral by the general public go? Did Pallasart/Mr. Atchison reflect this extra income on its/personal Tax Records?
According to information found on OmaHamou.com Pallasart/Mr. Atchison coordinated and acted as a furniture broker for "Nathaniel Byron" of Houston, Texas.
Question: Does Pallasart's records reflect the Import tax on every import from its association with Nathaniel Byron - Pallasart?
Trianon Studios
Trianon Studios
101 Laurel Lane
Austin, TEXAS 78705, USA
Pallasart Web Ventures,Inc. - Pallasart Web Design Company
Austin Web Design Services 101 Laurel Lane, Austin, Texas 78705
QUOTE MIKE NEWSON FROM AA LEGENDS: "...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.
§ 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?)
posted by Sandman at 12:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home