Oma Hamou Reality Blog - Cease & Desist
Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:10 pm on AA Legends...
Rob Moshein: "...Whats good for the goose Oma is good for the gander....if you want that person to stop the Oma Hamou Reality site, it will have the same effect for the one you operate there as well. Just FYI. Ta Psycho..."
Sept 6, 2006 Mike Newson posted:
Oma Hamou has tried on many occasions to correct Bob/Rob’s libelous statements about her. As in this letter which was sent to them but delivery was refused. So now you, Rob, know the contents --- if somehow you managed to miss it before:
August 11, 2006
Mr. Robert Atchison/ Mr. Robert Moshein 101 Laurel Lane Austin, Texas 78705
Re: The Oma Hamou Reality Blog Cease & Desist
Dear Mr. Atchison & Mr. Moshein: It has recently come to my attention that you are (or have knowledge as to who is) the author of a new website about me called “Oma Hamou Reality Blog” (“Blog”). The purpose of this letter is to demand that you and/or the author of the Blog immediately ‘cease and desist’ from making false, defamatory and libelous statements concerning me on the Blog.
The statements on the Blog published or otherwise communicated to third parties concerning Enigma, Sarskaia and/or myself have been blatant fabrications, self-serving, and demonstrate a course of conduct calculated to harass and oppress. Such conduct exposes you and all involved to substantial liability. I strongly caution you to refrain from further such publications or other communications to third parties.
The information provided on Pallasart’s “Oma Hamou Report” (“OH Report”) and its Alexander Palace Time Machine’s the “Tangled Affairs of Hamou, Enigma & Sarskaia” (“AP Report”), together with the Blog, has been and remains libelous. The authors of these various sites should not infer, based on incomplete information or the absence of information, that certain events happened, or did not happen, in my life. Such fallacious, incomplete, incorrect, and deliberately libelous reports concerning me and my life imperil my existing economic benefits, resulting in substantial damages to me.
The fact that Mr. Moshein re-published on the Blog the same libelous verbiage which is displayed on the OH Report and on the AP Report is painful and humiliating. I had hoped that, in light of what you’ve already experienced during my prior lawsuit against you, and given the fact that you have been put on notice of the pending litigation that you would have stopped doing this kind of thing.
Significant efforts to educate you regarding the real facts have been put forth in the past, evidently with little effect. Nonetheless, I’ve decided to correct the inaccurate statements published on the Blog. In so doing, I, specifically request that untruths regarding my alleged criminal history be removed from the Blog, along with the following incorrect personal information, to which I make specific reference:
1. Oma was represented by the Public Defender's Office because she could not afford an attorney.
This is not true. I was able to pay for an attorney, but chose not to fight the extradition proceeding.
2. Oma was released in the interest of Justice as Wyoming refused to extradite her at that time.
This is not true. While incarcerated, I was able to fulfill and satisfy any and all obligations as
set forth by the court, by sending a cashier’s check to the District Attorney’s office. In turn, it was duly noted and the status of my probation from this state was terminated. As such, the state of Wyoming informed the state of California that it had no reason to proceed with the extradition hearings; therefore, I was released.
3. Oma was extradited back to Yellowstone Montana on August 15.
At no time was I was ever extradited to the State of Montana.
4. Oma Hamou's attorneys of Record, Foster Malish & Blair withdrew their representation of Oma Hamou during this litigation after showing the Court that Hamou had failed to pay them almost $20,000 in legal fees she had accrued and that she also failed to pay the retainer fee she had promised to pay them when they undertook representation. Again, the documentation from these attorneys show numerous promises to pay, which Hamou failed to keep.
I paid the law firm Foster, Malich & Blair its requested retainer fee.
5. Hamou also wrote bad checks on the same closed account to Wild West Productions, the director, and others involved in making the "trailer".
I was the director at this specific shoot. I have never issued a check to “Wild West Productions”.
6. Heard about this woman claiming to be a famous actress, movie producer, author, big model and now champion of Russian History. Mostly the info out there seems to involve her attacking other people.
I have never claimed to be a famous actress, or a big (i.e. famous) model, nor a champion of Russian History. I have never attacked anyone, and your statement about my having done so is false and/or misleading. Aside from the various web sites that you have created about me that contain complete fabrications about me (OH Report, AP Report, and Blog), there is no other information on the web that supports this statement.
7. Oma Hamou is a Convicted Felon, with a criminal record of at least three Felony Convictions for Fraud, Theft by Deception and Bad Checks.
My conviction in Utah was for writing a bad check. I was convicted in the state of Wyoming for writing a bad check. About the only thing you did get right was that I was convicted in the State of Montana for issuing a bad check. The information I’ve provided can be found on the link to the State of Montana’s Criminal web site (which you provide on OH Report, AP, Report, and Blog). The State of Montana provides the proper verbiage concerning my convictions from the State of Utah and Wyoming by using the words, “Other State” and “Fraudulent check”. But instead you choose to continue to use the most defamatory words possible, ignoring the fact and substance of what I was really convicted of.
8. Oma Demain, AKA: OMA ASHKENAZY DEMAIN, OMA MCCONNEL, OMA ASHKENAZY, was convicted in Montana of the Felony crimes of:
1. OFFENSE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS, OTHER STATE, DOCKET: 3659, CODE: 260, by JUDGE: HUNTER OFFENSE DATE: 26-OCT-92 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 31-MAR-93 SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 31-MAR-93 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 120
2. OFFENSE: ISSUING A BAD CHECK OVER $150 DOCKET: 91-103, YELLOWSTONE CODE: 456316 by JUDGE: HOLMSTROM OFFENSE DATE: 01-OCT-91 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 01-APR-92 SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 01-APR-92 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 120
3. OFFENSE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS, OTHER STATE DOCKET: 1338 COUNTY: UNKNOWN CODE: 260 by: JUDGE: WILKINSON OFFENSE DATE: 18-JUN-91 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 17-JAN-92 LEGAL TYPE: ORIGINAL SENTENCE SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 17-JAN-92 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 36
I was never convicted in the State of Montana on numbers 1 and 3.
9. Found lots of recorded judgments and lawsuits against her on the web too.
The “purported” debts listed on both OH Report and Blog, respectively, are related to my companies and/or are not mine. The judgments obtained in my name by Boardrush, LLC and Robert D. Atchison were obtained fraudulently based on “false statements” and the work they claim that they did would have been done for my company, Enigma Films, and/or are not mine.
Please be advised of the current state of case law on this subject, as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17-18, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2705-2706 (1990): …If a speaker says, “In my opinion John Jones is a liar,” he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker state the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications[.]
As Judge Friendly aptly stated: [It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words “I think” [Citation omitted] A defendant in a libel case is accountable and liable “for what is insinuated as well as for what is stated explicitly”. Kapellas v. Koffman, 1 Cal, 3 d 20, 33, 81 Cal. Rptr. 360 33 (1969). It is well established that “defamation by implication stems not what is literally stated, but what is implied. White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F. 2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (recognizing the possibility that a defamatory inference may be derived from a factually accurate news report)...Publication of incomplete and hence misleading information may give rise to liability for defamation since the incomplete presentation of facts may imply an actionable false assertion of fact. Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1180, 96 Cal.Rptr. 2d 136, 149 (2002): see also, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19. 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2706, 111 L. Ed. 1, 18 (1990) (incomplete facts still imply false assertions of fact): see also, Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F. 3d 979, 985 (9th Cir. 2002).
Despite the facts that (1) you were put on notice of my intent to refile my lawsuit against Bob Atchison and Pallasart Web Venture, and (2) you have consistently elected to snidely disregard the content of my letters to you, choosing instead to post snippets of them on the web, which served only to distort the true substance of said letters and advance your deliberate distortions of the truth, and (3) I have set forth legal arguments within this letter which are, to put in mildly, not in your favor, I request that, in this instance, you instead consider in good faith my request that you either (1) amend the current information being displayed on the Blog to reflect the truth, or, in the alternative, remove the Blog from the web altogether, or (2) if you are not the author of the Blog, that you ask the author of the Blog to either report the truth or, in the alternative, remove the Blog from the web altogether. If you fail to do so, and instead maliciously disregard this letter, you proceed at your own peril.
Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquished of my rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Rob Moshein: "...Whats good for the goose Oma is good for the gander....if you want that person to stop the Oma Hamou Reality site, it will have the same effect for the one you operate there as well. Just FYI. Ta Psycho..."
Sept 6, 2006 Mike Newson posted:
Oma Hamou has tried on many occasions to correct Bob/Rob’s libelous statements about her. As in this letter which was sent to them but delivery was refused. So now you, Rob, know the contents --- if somehow you managed to miss it before:
August 11, 2006
Mr. Robert Atchison/ Mr. Robert Moshein 101 Laurel Lane Austin, Texas 78705
Re: The Oma Hamou Reality Blog Cease & Desist
Dear Mr. Atchison & Mr. Moshein: It has recently come to my attention that you are (or have knowledge as to who is) the author of a new website about me called “Oma Hamou Reality Blog” (“Blog”). The purpose of this letter is to demand that you and/or the author of the Blog immediately ‘cease and desist’ from making false, defamatory and libelous statements concerning me on the Blog.
The statements on the Blog published or otherwise communicated to third parties concerning Enigma, Sarskaia and/or myself have been blatant fabrications, self-serving, and demonstrate a course of conduct calculated to harass and oppress. Such conduct exposes you and all involved to substantial liability. I strongly caution you to refrain from further such publications or other communications to third parties.
The information provided on Pallasart’s “Oma Hamou Report” (“OH Report”) and its Alexander Palace Time Machine’s the “Tangled Affairs of Hamou, Enigma & Sarskaia” (“AP Report”), together with the Blog, has been and remains libelous. The authors of these various sites should not infer, based on incomplete information or the absence of information, that certain events happened, or did not happen, in my life. Such fallacious, incomplete, incorrect, and deliberately libelous reports concerning me and my life imperil my existing economic benefits, resulting in substantial damages to me.
The fact that Mr. Moshein re-published on the Blog the same libelous verbiage which is displayed on the OH Report and on the AP Report is painful and humiliating. I had hoped that, in light of what you’ve already experienced during my prior lawsuit against you, and given the fact that you have been put on notice of the pending litigation that you would have stopped doing this kind of thing.
Significant efforts to educate you regarding the real facts have been put forth in the past, evidently with little effect. Nonetheless, I’ve decided to correct the inaccurate statements published on the Blog. In so doing, I, specifically request that untruths regarding my alleged criminal history be removed from the Blog, along with the following incorrect personal information, to which I make specific reference:
1. Oma was represented by the Public Defender's Office because she could not afford an attorney.
This is not true. I was able to pay for an attorney, but chose not to fight the extradition proceeding.
2. Oma was released in the interest of Justice as Wyoming refused to extradite her at that time.
This is not true. While incarcerated, I was able to fulfill and satisfy any and all obligations as
set forth by the court, by sending a cashier’s check to the District Attorney’s office. In turn, it was duly noted and the status of my probation from this state was terminated. As such, the state of Wyoming informed the state of California that it had no reason to proceed with the extradition hearings; therefore, I was released.
3. Oma was extradited back to Yellowstone Montana on August 15.
At no time was I was ever extradited to the State of Montana.
4. Oma Hamou's attorneys of Record, Foster Malish & Blair withdrew their representation of Oma Hamou during this litigation after showing the Court that Hamou had failed to pay them almost $20,000 in legal fees she had accrued and that she also failed to pay the retainer fee she had promised to pay them when they undertook representation. Again, the documentation from these attorneys show numerous promises to pay, which Hamou failed to keep.
I paid the law firm Foster, Malich & Blair its requested retainer fee.
5. Hamou also wrote bad checks on the same closed account to Wild West Productions, the director, and others involved in making the "trailer".
I was the director at this specific shoot. I have never issued a check to “Wild West Productions”.
6. Heard about this woman claiming to be a famous actress, movie producer, author, big model and now champion of Russian History. Mostly the info out there seems to involve her attacking other people.
I have never claimed to be a famous actress, or a big (i.e. famous) model, nor a champion of Russian History. I have never attacked anyone, and your statement about my having done so is false and/or misleading. Aside from the various web sites that you have created about me that contain complete fabrications about me (OH Report, AP Report, and Blog), there is no other information on the web that supports this statement.
7. Oma Hamou is a Convicted Felon, with a criminal record of at least three Felony Convictions for Fraud, Theft by Deception and Bad Checks.
My conviction in Utah was for writing a bad check. I was convicted in the state of Wyoming for writing a bad check. About the only thing you did get right was that I was convicted in the State of Montana for issuing a bad check. The information I’ve provided can be found on the link to the State of Montana’s Criminal web site (which you provide on OH Report, AP, Report, and Blog). The State of Montana provides the proper verbiage concerning my convictions from the State of Utah and Wyoming by using the words, “Other State” and “Fraudulent check”. But instead you choose to continue to use the most defamatory words possible, ignoring the fact and substance of what I was really convicted of.
8. Oma Demain, AKA: OMA ASHKENAZY DEMAIN, OMA MCCONNEL, OMA ASHKENAZY, was convicted in Montana of the Felony crimes of:
1. OFFENSE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS, OTHER STATE, DOCKET: 3659, CODE: 260, by JUDGE: HUNTER OFFENSE DATE: 26-OCT-92 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 31-MAR-93 SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 31-MAR-93 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 120
2. OFFENSE: ISSUING A BAD CHECK OVER $150 DOCKET: 91-103, YELLOWSTONE CODE: 456316 by JUDGE: HOLMSTROM OFFENSE DATE: 01-OCT-91 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 01-APR-92 SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 01-APR-92 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 120
3. OFFENSE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS, OTHER STATE DOCKET: 1338 COUNTY: UNKNOWN CODE: 260 by: JUDGE: WILKINSON OFFENSE DATE: 18-JUN-91 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 17-JAN-92 LEGAL TYPE: ORIGINAL SENTENCE SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 17-JAN-92 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 36
I was never convicted in the State of Montana on numbers 1 and 3.
9. Found lots of recorded judgments and lawsuits against her on the web too.
The “purported” debts listed on both OH Report and Blog, respectively, are related to my companies and/or are not mine. The judgments obtained in my name by Boardrush, LLC and Robert D. Atchison were obtained fraudulently based on “false statements” and the work they claim that they did would have been done for my company, Enigma Films, and/or are not mine.
Please be advised of the current state of case law on this subject, as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17-18, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2705-2706 (1990): …If a speaker says, “In my opinion John Jones is a liar,” he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker state the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications[.]
As Judge Friendly aptly stated: [It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words “I think” [Citation omitted] A defendant in a libel case is accountable and liable “for what is insinuated as well as for what is stated explicitly”. Kapellas v. Koffman, 1 Cal, 3 d 20, 33, 81 Cal. Rptr. 360 33 (1969). It is well established that “defamation by implication stems not what is literally stated, but what is implied. White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F. 2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (recognizing the possibility that a defamatory inference may be derived from a factually accurate news report)...Publication of incomplete and hence misleading information may give rise to liability for defamation since the incomplete presentation of facts may imply an actionable false assertion of fact. Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1180, 96 Cal.Rptr. 2d 136, 149 (2002): see also, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19. 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2706, 111 L. Ed. 1, 18 (1990) (incomplete facts still imply false assertions of fact): see also, Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F. 3d 979, 985 (9th Cir. 2002).
Despite the facts that (1) you were put on notice of my intent to refile my lawsuit against Bob Atchison and Pallasart Web Venture, and (2) you have consistently elected to snidely disregard the content of my letters to you, choosing instead to post snippets of them on the web, which served only to distort the true substance of said letters and advance your deliberate distortions of the truth, and (3) I have set forth legal arguments within this letter which are, to put in mildly, not in your favor, I request that, in this instance, you instead consider in good faith my request that you either (1) amend the current information being displayed on the Blog to reflect the truth, or, in the alternative, remove the Blog from the web altogether, or (2) if you are not the author of the Blog, that you ask the author of the Blog to either report the truth or, in the alternative, remove the Blog from the web altogether. If you fail to do so, and instead maliciously disregard this letter, you proceed at your own peril.
Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquished of my rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
posted by Sandman at 12:18 AM
0 comments
