This morning on AA Legends Mike Newson posted:
The Reality of Pallasart and Bob Atchison
Tuesday Update!
As Dave Slater wrote in his brief to the court:
"...From 2001 to the present date: Bob Atchison and Pallasart, in combination and conspiracy, have communicated in print or verbally and have otherwise published to third parties a mosaic of defamatory claims without the consent of any of the targets of this defamatory language, and with express malice, intent and design to harm Oma Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation.
Both Bob Atchison and Pallasart's defamatory statements are of the kind calculated to cause harm to Oma Hamou in her profession and ability to earn. Because Oma Hamou is a motion picture executive, she is dependent upon worldwide public acceptance of her films. Losing the respect and enthusiasm of a substantial segment of the movie going public, would cost her very substantial sums. These defamatory statements are also intended to and do disparage the business standing, reputation and products of Enigma and the Charitable undertakings and projects of The Sarskaia Foundation.
These defamatory statements constitute statutory libel and statutory slander which tend to injure the reputation of Oma Hamou, expose her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and tend to expose her to financial injury, as well as impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation by exposing her to public hatred and ridicule. In addition to the foregoing, the defamatory statements of Pallasart and Bob Atchison constitute slander per se in that such statements were false, made without legal justification, published to third parties and referenced an ascertainable person. Said statements were, in the alternative, slanderous per quod and resulted in special damages suffered by Oma Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation..." http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
Here on Legends the author/historian Peter Kurth wrote: “…About this whole "Oma" thing I can't comment, except that the only people who really care about it are the ones being sued for libel -- so they have to have some kind of "defense" -- and you tell `em I said so…”
Mr. Kurth is right, most people would prefer to have never known all the sordid stories published on the web and represented as being true by Pallasart and Bob Atchison concerning Oma Hamou, Enigma and Sarskaia in the form of the written word printed on the web and in letters sent to business associates, financial institutions, and government officials. As well as telephone calls made by Pallasart and its President/Founder Bob Atchison about Oma Hamou. More to the point in my mind is WHY? That Blog (you know the one that is once again connected to “Pallasart” on Google’s blog spot, and to the inner circle Rob Moshein admits he did it yet on the Blog he hides behind yet another alias) says in its most recent disgorgement of hate towards Oma:
OHR BLOG: “Why do this? Well, this Oma Hamou chica makes a whole bunch of vague, nebulous statements and claims, starting with Oma Hamou herself writing "I am a motion picture producer relying on the respect and enthusiasm of a substantial segment of the movie going public." june 2004 ( see: http://web.archive.org/web/20041016010323/http://www.omahamou.com/June252004.htm). SO, since she is putting herself before the public, she is now a "public figure" and the public has a right to ask questions about her experience and reputation "as a Motion Picture Producer" and the public has a right to GET ANSWERS to those questions and investigate her assertions. Thats what we're doing here. Notice how Oma Hamou calls legitimate investigation into her background "stalking" or "harassment" or "libel". Hey babe, you don't want people asking questions, then DON'T go public with your claims. Easy as that...”
Rob Moshein submitted a Motion to the Court the main thrust of his argument was based on Oma Hamou being a “public figure” therefore his actions towards her were appropriate but the courts didn’t agree with his way of thinking and denied his Motion. Rob has graced all of us here on Legends with the same arguments which is now repeated on the Blog *snickering* http://omahamou.com/PDF/RobMosheinRequestSummary.pdf &
http://omahamou.com/PDF/HAMOUANSWERMOSHEINSUMMARY.PDF
Well somehow I don’t find a reason in that statement (on the OHR Blog) to justify all the effort and money that has been expended over many years to “cut” her down to size, to remove her as competition. Which seems to be the main attempt. Oh and the reference that was quoted on That Blog from archive.org is worth reading as it starts out, “Bob Atchison and Pallasart Web Venture's campaign of defamation has been well planned and relentlessly executed. Bob Atchison and his associates have and continue to post libelous statements about my projects, my affiliates and myself on the Internet. Bob Atchison has published libelous material on Pallasart's website. He and his associates, (LABloodhound) incessant efforts to damage my reputation and livelihood reveal an obsessive and irrational pattern of behavior that is well beyond any notion of decency and constitutes an ongoing violation of my rights.” The main point of the web page that was quoted is about Pallasart’s campaign of defamation, yet That Blog only attacks Oma Hamou, never a word about is what the “famous historian” (does that make him a public figure?) Bob Atchison done appropriate or not?
In answer to the That Blogs primary assertion --- No, while the public may want “to ask questions about her experience and reputation ‘as a Motion Picture Producer’” The public never has had a “right to GET ANSWERS to those questions…” or even ask those questions in the first place. About the only one who has a right to ask any such questions are those who are financing any effort by Oma Hamou to produce a film, or those who are considering working for her. The public must judge by the results. But they have no “right” to invade anyone’s privacy. So other than as a vigilante effort Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart have no right to do what they have done. Certainly they have never offered any valid justification for what they have done to Oma. While on the other hand a quick perusal of the information presented and the way it is presented loaded with emotionally charged yellow journalism propaganda statements does seem to have one and only on objective. That is, as Dave Slater said it is intended to, “express malice, intent and design to harm Oma Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation. And while I could tear what they say on That Blog apart point by point I will just lump the majority of it in with all the other misleading and/or false (libelous) statements that have been stated by “Pallasart” in the past. And in essence cast it out into the void to freeze to death by being ignored as more of the same worthless rhetoric, and as such no worth. And while answers have been given in the past, they obviously were not the ones that “They” wanted. So if even a cease and desist letter which they at That Blog” obviously have read did not make any change in what was said, then why take the time to say it again? And it is not the investigation into her background that is a problem, it is the publication of false and misleading statements about her that is the problem. That having been said, lets focus on the reality of the whole picture.
History has taught us that Oma isn’t the first person to have been assaulted by these two why many people have also been the target and their careers almost ruined because of what Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein and their followers have done to them.
In a letter June 20, 2004 Peter Kurth writes:
Note: All of the images that either Justin or myself have published on this forum are documents which are a part of the previous litigation between Bob/ Oma and/or can be found on Oma’s own website.
Key words: “…My guess is he (Bob Atchison) will stop at nothing to destroy her, and would have done the same to me—believe me, he was well along the road—had the DNA tests of 1994 not (temporarily) given him a little breathing room…”
In a recent letter dated August 6, 2006 someone else wrote:
“…I have to tell you that I've had a pretty interesting week. I've spoken to Bob Atchison several times -- which is unusual…Anyway, long and short of it is he's pretty damned freaked out by what's going on here (Legends), and he watches obsessively. He's asked me to intercede with you guys…I did have a very bad time with them and the treatment I received on their board. They weren't interested in helping out a "friend" then, and guess what? I'm not interested in helping them out now. I told them that you guys had never, ever been anything other than perfectly friendly, helpful and pleasant people. This is my experience with you, and I see no reason to accept anyone else's as more valid. In fact, after my first conversation with Bob (last Sunday), I have to say that I really saw the nature of the beast. I refused to give in to his various demands -- not only concerning you guys, but also concerning Helen…, who has apparently threatened to sue him if he kicks her off his board -- and he went from zero to crazy in nothing flat. I've never seen anything like it. Before he slammed the phone down, he promised to "fuck with me" if I ever fuck with him -- and that he'll write what he "really thinks" …publish it in the NYTimes. The last thing I heard from him telephonically was Friday or Saturday when he called to apologize and tell me that Helen… told him some long story about Oma paying for someone's abortion (Amanda something?), which had something to do with Oma paying for Helen's ticket to St. P'burg. I didn't really get it, but sometimes it's hard to understand where Bob's going – he gives partial information, and then "can't remember" the rest. And I'm not at all sure what this had to do with me -- unless I'm supposed to think that Oma is a dreadful person because she helped out some poor girl in a bad situation. He obviously has no idea how much of a liberal I am ...I can understand your being loathe to part with any of Oma's information…my-brother-the-lawyer ran a low-income divorce clinic in downtown LA, we'd occasionally get threatening calls from people who were heading down to fuck us up or kill us or something. And then there's be a pause on the line.... and they'd ask us where we were. And we'd say, "We're just not going to help you fuck us up, asshole. Off you go to find out yourself. I told Bob the same thing about Rob going over to Anastasia D...'s place -- why on earth would anyone answering the door to a strange man confirm the residency of anyone, let alone a single woman? That's Robert Bardo territory. If any strange and unexpected visitor knocks on my from door, my husband will deny knowing me. And persistence will result in a call to the police and a possible beating with the aluminum baseball bat we keep behind the door. You cannot be too careful these days -- though you do have to be sensible. Anyway -- keep on keeping on..."
And there’s more from the previous lawsuit but at least this gives an indication of the bullying tactics incorporated and used by Pallasart and Bob Atchison against anyone they perceive is an enemy. The only difference here is this: none of these people have suffered great financial and emotional hardships as Oma Hamou has at the hands of Pallasart and Bob Atchison. Take this morning, That Blog appears to be the same as what was written on yesterday, but it’s not, and we’ve got the hard copy, today they flat out accuse Oma of being a prostitute, in the same vein as Pallasart publishing on the web Oma looked like a Hollywood Drag Queen. While I am on a roll, Pallasart published on its Oma Hamou Report, which has been repeated on the “Blog” of how Oma refuses to say just what exactly she has done in the entertainment industry. Other than interviews she’s given to the press and/or the exception of a court room setting no one has asked her -- in the trial transcripts this question was asked by Bob’s own attorney and she answered it.
There are numerous things that are ridiculous but I as an individual not representing Oma Hamou or Enigma or Sarskaia but as a friend of hers will point out only a few things.
OHR Blog states:
“…An old dude in the Northridge area of the valley (you know, where they make all the porno vids...) named "Jim Sproul" wrote this: "I have been working closely with Oma Hamou for the past 3 years-- The normal credentials Oma has regarding the making of the film As a Matter of Honor are: Established, long standing, loyal contacts in the industry; experience in the industry ...Initially, I thought I wanted to date Oma. She has **P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y**!!... Oma has vested millions into her projects, I have given her over $150,000 just for the temporary relief from her compelling needs to continue and take the next step.
see: http://web.archive.org/web/20041025000255/http://www.omahamou.com/Omahamou+forum.htm
In regards to That Blog’s latest, Jim asked me to post this for him:
“…So you figured all that out from absolutely nothing. I wonder if your readers are aware of the staggering conclusions that you can draw about them from an equal lack of information. I guess the only reason your not calling each and every one of your readers a whore is that you haven’t taken the time to think about them., You really, really need something to do with your life (in the interim before you go to prison) might I suggest something commence rant with your staggering deductive and interpolative abilities might I suggest head rocket scientist at JPL or perhaps microwaving burgers at McDonalds. You really need to get back on your meds does the word making an “Ass” out of yourself mean anything to you?”
The actual statement quoted on OHR Blog from Jim was:
”I have been working closely with Oma Hamou for the past 3 years-- The normal credentials Oma has regarding the making of the film “As a Matter of Honor are: Established, long standing, loyal contacts in the industry; experience in the industry; she has an outstanding degree of creativity in her approaches. She is like water melting ice, no crevice no matter how small will escape her and she will work every avenue until it serves its purpose. Oma is not normal in this regard, she ranks in the highest and rarest percentile in the fabulous amount of creativity, resourcefulness, and sheer will she brings to her efforts on a daily basis.
Oh yes, did I say determination. I hear of investors who think she lost their investment. Oma hasn’t lost anything! Oma’s dictionary does not contain such words. Under such words as lose, give up, surrender, there are nothing but blank pages and curious lack of comprehension. In Oma’s mind it is not just a matter of succeed or die. There is no “or die” option! Some ambitious people have a compelling project; in Oma’s case it is more like a compelling project has a person. This goes beyond will and determination. This project is fundamental to her soul. She gets up in the morning thinking, planning, creating, working on it and continues until she goes to bed at night, dreaming about it. Initially, I thought I wanted to date Oma. She has **P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y**!! Like the song says, and between it, good looks and enthusiasm --- she is adorable. Well, guess what a “date” with Oma looks like:
After about a year of asking, and being left hanging because she was working on her film project; she finally agrees; you go over to her house after work, I said AFTER work, and Oma, sitting at her computer says, “I’m sorry, I’m just finishing something up. Can you give me a minute…” 3 hours later she has said the same thing a number of times, each time with disarming sincerity… The good news is that if you do this a number of times she eventually may take you into her confidence and you can sometimes help her in the wording of letters etc. she is writing to bankers, Russian contacts and officials, American officials, the neighbor, the neighbor's dog and cat… Anybody and everybody who may be able to advance her project in some way. Right now, she is working on something with the Russian Government in order to facilitate her projects.
The area where Oma has no peer is in her absolute commitment. This is what makes her a good investment. People like me have taken all the risk. Oma lives, breaths, eats and sleeps her film project and Russian restoration projects, and that’s to say the least. Unlike others, Oma is not a person with a project; Oma is a project with a person. Oma has vested millions into her projects, I have given her over $150,000 just for the temporary relief from her compelling needs to continue and take the next step. Oma is like a warp in the space-time continuum, she has nothing, and she does nothing but pull in the materials she needs to accomplish her purpose.
I believe Oma would have succeeded but for the efforts of one jealous and determined saboteur named Bob Atchison. I don’t really know what motivates Bob. It looks like Bob translates his petty jealousy into a construct in his own mind as to what constitutes morality, decency and law in this fragile world. Perhaps it is that Oma threatens his legendary status in his own mind, so he is compelled to personify her as the root of all-evil.
I guess she is not the root of “all evil” because he has done the same thing to other responsible dedicated people who have the audacity to disagree with him. An example is several authors who believe Anna Anderson is Anastasia, and she survived the assassination of Czar Nicholas ll and his family. Bob does not see it as a disagreement, but a vicious assault on the Holy Grail and has taken it upon himself in the name of all that is holy to discredit them. Who knows what motivates Bob Atchison? What is known is that he has been sabotaging Oma with a demonic and compelling need for years.
For (at least) two years his attacks were in secret as a coward in the dark, virtually unknown to Oma. That is, she would see some effect, someone turning against her, and hear it had something to do with Bob, but it is only in the last few months that his attacks have been revealed as the determined, extensive and coordinated assault that they are. Through it all, through all the disappointment and heart-ache and man killing distress, Oma hasn’t wavered from her goal, she worked each day, and night to make any and every bit of progress she could possibly make. Oma has taken on a daunting task with conviction I would not expect to see in a single lifetime, she has taken plenty of steps to complete a Journey of a thousand miles, but on top of the extraordinary effort, this guy Bob puts up stone walls to try to stop her at every opportunity. Oma’s answer before she understood the source was to get out the hammer and chisel, proceeding to cover her one thousand miles a fraction of an inch at a time.
Now that Bob has been revealed, Oma has much more effective means in the testimony on numerous people who have revealed Bob Atchison for what he is, whatever that is. Oma works constantly to one end always determined and always creative. Oma has one value in life that supercedes all others: “Make this movie, restore these buildings ”. She will make this movie and she will make it a success!” http://www.omahamou.com/Omahamou%20forum.htm
OHR Blog also says:
“…The Oma Hamou Reality: Oma Hamou has a SCRIPT called "As A Matter of Honour whcih Oma Hamou developed from her novel of the same title.". First problem in the real world:
"As A Matter of Honour" is the title of a novel published not by Oma Hamou, but rather by Lord Jeffrey Archer in 1986. A call to Lord Archer's current US publishers, St. Martin's Press revealed that their legal department has not granted Oma Hamou or Enigma Films the right to use this title for a motion picture, and would take all necessary legal steps to ensure it was not so used…”
First Jeffrey Archer’s book is actually titled “A Matter of Honor” not “AS A Matter of Honour.” Now, while I’ve never worked on the development of a motion picture I have had reason to work with the Trade Mark Office of the United States. You can use a name that someone else has, if their product is in a different category. As in Athena is the name of a sewing machine, but that does not prevent a software program from using that name. Or how about that film in Canada called “A matter of Honour?” Still I had to chuckle on this one because what both Bob Atchison/Pallasart have represented to the public and now is repeated on that blog isn’t true, sure they make it sound like it, but in truth it is not. All film productions have to eventually submit to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) the title of its working film in order to obtain some sort of rating and approval. Once the working title is submitted to the MPAA it is submitted in its weekly reports which are generally sent to all the major studios and productions houses and if there is a conflict with the use of the title (in this case “As A Matter of Honour”) studios will submit what is called “protest” letters this goes back and forth until both sides reach a compromise and every one signs off. Usually all it takes is a brief synopsis of what your film is all about and almost (I did say almost) all cases the title is released. In Enigma’s case such letters were sent out back in 2000 and such releases were eventually obtained, I would imagine anyone “legit” in Hollywood or film making would say this is true since everyone has to go through this process.
By now the vast majority of people realize when the topic of Oma Hamou comes up in association with “Pallasart” that Pallasart (Bob Atchison) is/are not telling the truth. And Rob Moshein falls under Pallasart no matter how much he tap dances around it and says he’s not a part of it. We know Pallasart listed him as their Billing Director – the guy who collects the money for some years. I believe, at least for my part, that I have successfully proven that Bob Atchison got up on the stand and committed perjury an event compounded when his attorney vetted this lie. Amongst other things, their testimony that a previous lawsuit being filed in the state of Texas involving Bob Atchison and Oma’s company was false and I believe that Bob knew it was --- thus a jury awarded a verdict in Bob’s favor.
At the very least I feel that I’ve demonstrated the lengths that Bob Atchison and/or his followers will go, including but not limited to forgery (which I’ve been told by law enforcement is essentially what Bob Atchison did when he fabricated evidence and submitted it to the courts as a “true” copy.) Then there is stalking, harassing, threats, and calls to; financial institutions, law enforcement, government agencies, friends, and business associates. Not to mention that he will use your religious beliefs against you and in general slander/libel you “IF” they don’t like you.
We've exposed Pallasart’s con in that for almost a year Bob Atchison has represented to the public via the web that his small web design company with all its accolades has been a legitimate Texas corporation with all the rights and privileges there of --- when in fact its corporate shield was literally taken away by the state of Texas. Knowing this Pallasart and Bob Atchison continued to “defraud” consumers who believed they were dealing with a valid corporation.
But this isn’t the first time that it has done something like this and then there is Pallasart’s web club the Alexander Palace Association which can be found on:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990224204506/http:/www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/apaspr98.html
Bob Atchison testified that no money was sent to Russia to restore Father Markell’s church or the Alexander Palace --- that’s why there was no need to produce those documents. However, on the web it says that the money Bob got was sent to the World Monuments Fund. If that was true then why couldn’t Pallasart or Bob Atchison himself produce one shred of evidence that would’ve supported this claim? So the million dollar question is where did all those people’s money go?
We’ve exposed that Bob Atchison has been for many years running an import/export business via through Pallasart such as but not limited, Pallasart’s “Amber Palace Galleries” which no one seems to be able to locate any official documentation on. Question, how come Bob/Pallasart hasn’t paid taxes to our government on shipments arriving through the US ports from Russia and elsewhere? I think the government would classify some of Pallasart’s indiscretions as falling under a white collar crime umbrella --- fraud, tax evasion, conspiracy, forgery, stalking, harassment and etc.
And then we’ve got people from all walks of life, some people who barely make a living, being asked to give money to Pallasart for Father Markell’s church or to support the costs involved to maintain Pallasart’s Alexander Palace Time Machine Forum - a software which by the way anyone can get for free because its an open source software which now many of its forum participants have discovered and started their own Russian forums.
Do I personally feel that people believe what I've published? Yes, because of what I have heard from them, but in the same breath I also know that people who don’t know Oma or may want to do business with her will, like in the past, do a web search by using “Google” or any other search engine and find all this stuff written by Pallasart and walk away with the wrong impression. As far as OHR Blog as Mr. Kurth stated:
“…About this whole "Oma" thing I can't comment, except that the only people who really care about it are the ones being sued for libel -- so they have to have some kind of "defense" -- and you tell `em I said so…”
It does matter to Oma Hamou as it has for six years now affect her financially professionally and personally. In the last lawsuit Oma’s then attorney Dave Slater successfully showed this and I am certain this will once again be used against them.
On Pallasart’s current Oma Hamou Report dot org it reads:
“…We no longer provide this information on this website. However, elsewhere on the Internet appears to be providing similar information, and interested persons may wish to view that information. We, of course, can not vouch for, nor guarantee, the accuracy of this other website and provide this link only as a courtesy to interested parties. OmaHamouReality Blog…”
Notice the words “Providing similar information” and “provide this link as a courtesy..”
First a Judge in Texas told Pallasart’s employee (Rob Moshein was the then Billing Director) in a judicial ruling:
“Said restraining order shall restrain Robert Moshein from operating and shall require the removal of the website http://www.omahamoureport.org”
Also…
”The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.”
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
It is a well documented fact and one Oma’s attorneys (and probably one that the Prosecutors will use also) will show in court that Pallasart, Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein hide behind false names and had it not been for the fact that we were able to get IP log records they would’ve succeeded in being able to con the court and public by saying that Rob was the one who created Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org. But we did get the IP log records and we did one better we got Bob’s statements to the police where he admits that HE AND HE ALONE (not Rob) created Oma Hamou Report.
Getting back to what my original thought was --- of course Pallasart wouldn't "dare" repost its Oma Hamou Report site after all there was a judicial ruling on it. However, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't hide behind another false name , now would it?
For those who support that BLOG --- do you know the meaning of stalking, harassing, libel and slander?
Okay, Pallasart, on “your” BLOG (*snickering*) you claim police officers said “xyz” and all the other false or misleading statements that we’ve seen spewed forth here on Legends now published as a-matter-of-fact on your blog so you are going to have to prove every word you wrote. I know from the previous lawsuit, neither Rob or Bob or any other representative of Pallasart could prove that the words it published or said about Oma were true, all they could say was “Uh --- so-so told me, or that they did do their very best to make certain that what they said was true…” but you know what? The court didn’t buy their story last time and my guess is that it’ll be the same this next time around.
I feel compassion for Rob Moshein on so many different levels, strange as that may seem. Let me try to explain and wander off topic for a moment, Rob has an AOL account - go look up his name on its membership roster and you will find:
I also found Bob Atchison’s comments on his “marriage” but the funny thing is during his previous lawsuit with Oma he said he had never been married --- so which story is true? http://web.archive.org/web/19971007023709/www.pallasweb.com/who.html From what I have seen, I would say, to Rob’s credit, that he is very committed in his relationship with Bob and as an act of love Bob put Rob’s name on the deed to their residence and place of business. But Bob’s testimony about his life partner, the love of his life paints Rob as a “moocher” and about the time that Bob filed his lawsuit against Oma, Rob was “unemployed” and was placing his resume on the web as his wine company went kaput.
http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf &
http://groups.google.com/group/austin.jobs/browse_thread/thread/1fde1627185bca97/7c27cc092cbff132?lnk=st&q=rob+moshein&rnum=42&hl=en#7c27cc092cbff132
Another friend and colleague of Oma Hamou’s, Mr. Davidson has been singled out and unmercifully slandered/libeled by Pallasart in its latest reincarnation OHR Blog. One of many unbelievable moments of the previous lawsuit was when Bob Atchison testified under oath that Mrs. Davidson told him these things --- “word for word” what appears in court documents now appears on that Blog. But as was pointed out in the previous litigation by way of “Affidavits” what Bob represented to the court as being true was false an outright lie. I guess Bob believed he could say whatever he wanted as none of these people would ever know/compare what he said.
Another example of the perjury Bob Atchison committed was when he testified that a police officer by the name of Scott Moss from the City of Napa had contacted him about Oma. But again there was one major flaw when attorney Dave Slater investigated Bob's claims it turned out not only had the City of Napa Police Department not called Bob but the address he submitted to the court "under oath" never belonged to the City of Napa Police Department. The Human Resource department for both the Petaluma Police Department and the Petaluma’s Sheriff’s Department never heard of this alleged officer “Scott Moss.” Does any of this sound familiar to what Rob and Vapors have published here on Legends?????
As Oma stated in an Affidavit to the court in the previous lawsuit: "...Throughout the previous lawsuit Bob presented false testimony that soiled the record. But it is truly extraordinary when you have perjury committed at trial. It undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Necessary to the foundation of the justice system is the fact that lying cannot be tolerated. Bob Atchison’s testimony and his lies are “collateral to the facts in dispute.” A verdict that rests upon such a corroded foundation cannot stand..."
This is swaying off topic….
In the fall of 2003, Oma traveled to Texas to meet with attorney Dave Slater unbeknownst to her Bob was trying to locate her and dissuade her from filing her counter lawsuit against him and his company by threatening to expose her for all the wrong he perceived she had caused to a priest in Russia, his friends and especially to him.
In a letter dated November 9, 2003 Bob sent Attorney Dave Slater this letter:
And on November 10, 2003 the Attorney Dave Slater replied:
As typical, Bob Atchison “ignored” the attorney’s letter and proceeded to contact the state of Wyoming to alert them of Oma Hamou’s whereabouts in Austin. He sent the officials in Wyoming faxes of what was purported to be debts belonging to Oma and told them all kinds of stories of offenses according to him she had committed against a priest in Russia and to all sorts of people all over the world. The only problem with Bob’s zeal to get Oma arrested was that she wasn’t a fugitive and Wyoming told him this (this information is included in the previous lawsuit) but either he didn’t believe them or he just didn’t care, in his eyes Oma was a fugitive and would always remain so. Pallasart published on the Alexander Palace Time Machine site that "...Oma Hamou is a fugitive from Justice in Wyoming...", imagine how this kind of statement impacted Oma's life professionally and personally. This is in the same vein as “Watch Tower’s” Blog (That Blog) where he alleges Oma was in porn and is/was a prostitute. (This is slander/libel and criminal.)
A couple months later as Oma Hamou was embarking to travel to Russia to participate in the 2003 Energy Summit one of her colleagues after viewing Pallasart’s web site about her contacted Bob who informed him that Oma had no projects in Russia, there was no film project, she wasn’t invited to participate in any Energy Summit, it was all a lie. Bob Atchison said amongst other things, Oma was a mentally disturbed woman who had hurt a priest in Russia and conned him into co-signing for a loan that she never paid back and that he (Bob) was trying to have her thrown in jail as she was a fugitive out of Wyoming with seven felony convictions.
Bob Atchison provided this person and others with the telephone number of one of Pallasart’s associates who is considered to be in a higher social status both professionally and personally who he claimed would back up what he said. And they did. Now none of what Bob said was true but his conversation with this person and others alike in turn affected Oma both personally and professionally some people even threatened her to harm her simply because they believed what Bob was saying.
Remember when Rob came on Legends and said that he had spoken with the court reporter?
Quote: Rob Moshein: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:12 pm on AA Legends...
"...Sigh, poor delusional Oma/Michelle (and where IS miss justine?) ….AND, why is
it that the VERY nice lady court reporter told me that no one, I repeat NO ONE has asked for Court transcripts of the trial you lost or related hearings?? Hmmmm??? Glad to provide the name and phone to anyone who emails me from a real address. given the typical hysteria Oma goes thru, no need to subjet the poor woman, but then IF the real court reporter HAD been contacted, well you would know her anyway, right OMA? ta ta psycho sockpuppets..."
Not only do we have the court reporter’s word that what Rob reported on this forum about having spoken to her was a lie we also have her affidavit.
You make up your own minds, what are they (Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart) trying to hide, and can what they say be trusted when it comes to Oma Hamou, Sarskaia or Enigma or even myself and others. I have said that Bob (Pallasart) committed perjury, that his businesses affairs is not on the up and up but I’ve back it up with documentation. (Think about this, is it logical that every time Bob/Rob/Pallasart gets caught that the offending documentation that backs up the statement was faked? Better still why is it that when ever anything happens to Bob, it is never his fault but someone else’s? Once sure, it is possible, but how many times does the same situation have to occur before one wonders if this is not a pattern of behavior?)
Quoting Rob Moshein: “Just to make sure that should anyone attempt some sort of libel litigation out of harassment I can prove nobody actually reads this.”
Is this an admission from Rob Moshein that one, he knew what he was publishing was harassment because this was his and Pallasart’s main objective of having thrown the first salvo here on Legends about Oma Hamou? Sure sounds like it to me. So with this in mind, two, could it be that the Blog shares this same mentality? After all notice the similar writing techniques expressed here on Legends by Rob/Pallasart on its Oma Hamou Report as well as some of the posts made here on Legends… .
For example Bob testified under oath that I said to him:
“…Mr. Newson also told Mr. Atchison that he (Mr. Newson) told Ms. Hamou that she should contact Mr. Lupoli to carry out her desire to harm Mr. Atchison…”
I replied in an affidavit, “Bob’s statement to the court is “pure fiction…a totally made up lie” I have never said this. To think that if I was approached and told that I was an accomplice to a murder plot that I would confess to the victim that “I” was responsible for telling Ms. Hamou that I knew someone who could kill Bob is ludicrous, and only serves to show how Bob takes the least fact and twists it into saying what he wants it to mean, with no regard for truth, but with full intent to sway the listener to his point of view no matter what…”
Thank God for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies who checked Bob’s story out about the murder for hire plot and discovered the real evidence such as taking phone records between the alleged hit man, Pallasart, Bob Atchison, communications between these three and Enigma and discovered Bob created the entire incident – I think he’s nuts!
My use of the term "nuts" is not meant to in any way denigrate or belittle anyone with mental illness. In fact, I take mental illness very seriously. I used to worry that Bob was a misguided zealot, but that's all. Now I wonder if he's a dangerous, misguided zealot.
Under oath Bob Atchison also testified that Father Markell the priest/monk in Russia was no longer at the Fedorovsky Cathedral but he knew this wasn’t true and then we’ve also got Rob who committed perjury ---
Other people were also slandered/libel during the previous lawsuit some people who are considered by Pallasart’s “Alexander Palace Time Machine” as being, and I quote, “close friends of Bob’s” well under oath Bob said that they told him “xyz” about Oma, Enigma or Sarskaia but again, like in my case and others these very same people say he’s lying --- and the letters Bob submitted to the court which he claimed was from his “close friends” about Oma, well, those same people also say those emails were altered and were not a true copy of what was sent to Bob. So like I said, law enforcement calls this act “forgery” Bob submitted to the court and to law enforcement documents which he claimed was a true copy when in fact it is not. I'll be happy to provide the link to the PDF so ALL of you can read what Bob Atchison testified under oath (again “under oath” is your word of honor) maybe some of you will find your names mentioned in court documents having said something you didn’t say – let me know…
As for OHR Blog as Peter Kurth stated: “…About this whole "Oma" thing I can't comment, except that the only people who really care about it are the ones being sued for libel -- so they have to have some kind of "defense" -- and you tell `em I said so…”
Lastly, numerous ‘cease and desist letters’ have been sent to Pallasart, Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein which have been returned unopened and Rob snidely remarked words to the effect that quite frankly they don’t give a damn what Oma has to say to them, they are going to do whatever they damn well pleased.
So now back to That Blog, it doesn't contain a legal disclaimer and continues to make bold statements which aren’t true. Pallasart’s images, which it continuously posts as point of reference, such as the Dunn & Bradstreet are documents which Pallasart does not own and is a document which was tossed out of court by Bob’s own attorney when she amended his pleading (filed in pro se) against Oma back in 2003. And the latest image from Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report is part of a document which has never been made public until Rob published it here on Legends---
As the Thanksgiving holiday winds down and Christmas is being thrust upon us I am thankful for many things, my family, good friends, and I hope that your holiday was just blessed as mine has been.
In closing I am reposting for court purposes once again Oma’s Cease and Desist Letter to Pallasart, Bob/Rob and That BLOG.
August 11, 2006
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.
Source: http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/OmaHamouLetterBobAtchison81306.pdf, http://www.sarskaia.org/news-n-press/news20030923b.html & AA Legends, Oma Hamou.com, Pallasweb.com and documents pertaining to Bob Atchison v. Oma Hamou and her counterclaims against him, Pallasart and Rob Moshein Texas Case No. GN303141.
The definition of "Forgery", in criminal law is the willful fabrication or alteration of a written document with the intent to injure the interests of another in a fraudulent manner. Typical examples of forgery are making insertions or alterations in otherwise valid documents and appending another's signature to a document without permission. In the United States forgery ordinarily is a state crime; but to send forged documents through the post office may constitute the federal crime of mail fraud. 
