Bob Atchison Branded A Liar?
Bob Atchison Branded A Liar?
On AA Legends...
Mike Newson posted:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Perjury
is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a very serious crime as it could be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
The rules for perjury also apply to witnesses who have affirmed they are telling the truth. Affirmation is used by a witness who is unable to swear to tell the truth. For example, in the United Kingdom a witness may swear on the Bible or other holy book. If a witness has no religion, or does not wish to swear on a holy book, the witness may make an affirmation he or she is telling the truth instead.
The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the intention (the mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (the actus reus).
In some countries such as France, suspects cannot be heard under oath and thus do not commit perjury, whatever they say during their trial.
Harassment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior. When the term is used in a legal sense it refers to behaviours that are found threatening or disturbing, and beyond those that are sanctioned by society. In societies which support free speech, only the more repetitive, persistent and untruthful types of speech qualify legally as harassment. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantaging to the victim.
Types of harassments
Mike Newson posted:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Perjury
is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. Perjury is considered a very serious crime as it could be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law provides for a prison sentence of up to five years, and is found at 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
The rules for perjury also apply to witnesses who have affirmed they are telling the truth. Affirmation is used by a witness who is unable to swear to tell the truth. For example, in the United Kingdom a witness may swear on the Bible or other holy book. If a witness has no religion, or does not wish to swear on a holy book, the witness may make an affirmation he or she is telling the truth instead.
The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1).Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the intention (the mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (the actus reus).
In some countries such as France, suspects cannot be heard under oath and thus do not commit perjury, whatever they say during their trial.
Harassment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment
Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behavior. When the term is used in a legal sense it refers to behaviours that are found threatening or disturbing, and beyond those that are sanctioned by society. In societies which support free speech, only the more repetitive, persistent and untruthful types of speech qualify legally as harassment. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantaging to the victim.
Types of harassments
There are a number of harassments that fall into this category.
Bullying
Harassment that can occur on the playground, school, in the workforce or any other place. Usually physical and psychological harassing behavior perpetrated against an individual, by one or more persons.
Gang Stalking This is a psychological attack that can completely destroy a persons life while leaving little or no trace to identify the perpetrators. It's a combination of organized harassment and mobbing except it takes place outside in the community, and targets are stalked and harassed 24/7 by citizen gangs.
Psychological harassment This is humiliating or abusive behavior that lowers a person’s self-esteem or causes them torment. This can take the form of verbal comments, actions or gestures. Falling into this category are harassment's such as workplace mobbing, and gang stalking which is a form of community mobbing and organized stalking combined.
Stalking The unauthorized following and surveillance of an individual, to the extent that the persons privacy is unacceptably intruded upon, and the victim fears for their safety.
Cyber-bullying From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying[/url
Cyber bullying (cyber-bullying, online bullying) is the use of electronic information and communication devices such as e-mail, instant messaging, text messages, blogs, mobile phones, pagers, instant messages and defamatory websites to bully or otherwise harass an individual or group through personal attacks or other means, and it may constitute a computer crime. Cyberbullying is willful and involves recurring or repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text.
According to R.B. Standler (2002) [1] bullying intends to cause emotional distress and has no legitimate purpose to the choice of communications. Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send e-mail to someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. Cyberbullying may also include threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e., hate speech)
Bullying
Harassment that can occur on the playground, school, in the workforce or any other place. Usually physical and psychological harassing behavior perpetrated against an individual, by one or more persons.
Gang Stalking This is a psychological attack that can completely destroy a persons life while leaving little or no trace to identify the perpetrators. It's a combination of organized harassment and mobbing except it takes place outside in the community, and targets are stalked and harassed 24/7 by citizen gangs.
Psychological harassment This is humiliating or abusive behavior that lowers a person’s self-esteem or causes them torment. This can take the form of verbal comments, actions or gestures. Falling into this category are harassment's such as workplace mobbing, and gang stalking which is a form of community mobbing and organized stalking combined.
Stalking The unauthorized following and surveillance of an individual, to the extent that the persons privacy is unacceptably intruded upon, and the victim fears for their safety.
Cyber-bullying From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying[/url
Cyber bullying (cyber-bullying, online bullying) is the use of electronic information and communication devices such as e-mail, instant messaging, text messages, blogs, mobile phones, pagers, instant messages and defamatory websites to bully or otherwise harass an individual or group through personal attacks or other means, and it may constitute a computer crime. Cyberbullying is willful and involves recurring or repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text.
According to R.B. Standler (2002) [1] bullying intends to cause emotional distress and has no legitimate purpose to the choice of communications. Cyberbullying can be as simple as continuing to send e-mail to someone who has said they want no further contact with the sender. Cyberbullying may also include threats, sexual remarks, pejorative labels (i.e., hate speech)
Issues specific to cyberbullying
Certain characteristics inherent in these technologies increase the likelihood that they exploited for deviant purposes (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). Personal computers offer several advantages to individuals inclined to harass others. First, electronic bullies can remain “virtually” anonymous. Temporary email accounts and pseudonyms in chat rooms, instant messaging programs, and other Internet venues can make it very difficult for individuals to determine the identity of aggressors. Cyberbullies can hide behind some measure of anonymity when using the text-message capabilities of a cellular phone or their personal computer to bully another individual, which perhaps frees them from normative and social constraints on their behavior. Further, it seems that cyberbullies might be emboldened when using electronic means to carry out their antagonistic agenda because it takes less energy and courage to express hurtful comments using a keypad or a keyboard than with one’s voice. Additionally, cyberbullies do not have to be larger and stronger than their victims, as had been the case in traditional bullying. Instead of a victim being several years younger and/or drastically weaker than his bully, victim and cyberbully alike can be just about anyone imaginable.
Second, electronic forums lack supervision. While chat hosts regularly observe the dialog in some chat rooms in an effort to police conversations and evict offensive individuals, personal messages sent between users are viewable only by the sender and the recipient, and therefore outside the regulatory reach of the proper authorities. Furthermore, there are no individuals to monitor or censor offensive content in electronic mail or text messages sent via computer or cellular phone. Another problem is the increasingly common presence of computers in the private environments of adolescent bedrooms. Indeed, teenagers often know more about computers and cellular phones than their parents and are therefore able to operate the technologies without worry or concern that a probing parent will discover their experience with bullying (whether as a victim or offender).
Fraud From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain, although it has a more specific legal meaning, the exact details varying between jurisdictions. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not best described in this way. Not all frauds are hoaxes - electoral fraud, for example. Fraud permeates many areas of life, including art, archaeology and science. In the broad legal sense a fraud is any crime or civil wrong for gain that utilises some deception practiced on the victim as its principal method.
DefinitionIn criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them — usually, to obtain property or services from him or her unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.
In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud - the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct - and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses. Journalistic fraud implies a similar notion, the falsification of journalistic findings.
Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, phone, and the internet (computer crime and internet fraud).
Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of making a false representation of a fact susceptible of actual knowledge which is relied upon by another person, to that person's detriment.
Think about this:
Bob Atchison told friends, his then attorney and in court documents under oath, (oath is on your ‘honor’ you are telling the truth) that he had nothing to do with Oma Hamou Report dot org yet the record clearly shows that he and he alone created several websites about Oma, such as – “The Tangled Affairs” and the “Oma Hamou Report” which had secret links from Pallasart’s Alexander Palace Time Machine to the domain name of Oma HamouReport.tripod.com, OmaHamouReport.FreeWebSiteHosting.com which we were able to actually get a hard copy of the Free WebSiteHosting.com report which proved it was created using an IP from one of the computers that Pallasart owns.
Yet when we review the police reports from California and in Texas which includes his statements he made as well as to the FBI he tells them “proudly” that he, Bob, created Oma Hamou Report to warn people about the character of Oma Hamou. "... Atchison has created a web site warning others about Hamou's character..." notice the date, July 16, 2004
See: http://www.omahamou.com/DOC/BobAtchisonsStatementToThePolice.jpg
In yet another court document Bob Atchison’s sworn Affidavit dated March 5, 2005
No. 6: "...With regard to “The Oma Hamou Report”, I have no involvement with it whatsoever. I have never read the Oma Hamou Report, nor have I ever written anything on or about The Oma Hamou Report. I did not learn of its existence until late summer or early fall of 2004 when my attorney told me about it due to the present litigation.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit013.pdf
In a letter dated July 9, 2004 sent to Author/Historian Peter Kurth, Bob Atchison wrote: “…I know this website must really set her off, but she has brought it on herself…”
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit050.pdf
Bob Atchison’s response to Mr. Kurth concerning this web site is telling to say the least, “she brought it on herself”… Luckily for Oma Hamou the police didn’t rely on the word of Bob Atchison.Yet, despite his statements to the police, Bob Atchison copped the attitude of "I don't know anything…" http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf Pages 142-145.
It’s apparent that there have been many people who have been given a radical misconception about Oma Hamou's lawsuit with Bob Atchison, Rob Moshein and Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. Bob’s lies have influenced a lot of people and some people despise Oma because of the outrageous statements made by both Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein. Many people have been enraged by what was told to them by Bob Atchison and Pallasart, some people threatened to harm Oma, while others acted out their threats of harm. They did this because they believed Bob Atchison, their friend or mentor was telling them the truth. But was he? Why do they hide behind fake names when they attack people, not only Oma but well known authors such as Penny and others. We’ve also notice Rob/Bob have removed offline the only page that was up on Oma from their Oma Hamou Report dot org site about her going to a dinner party and meeting the Queen of England instead they’ve replaced it with an index page. An index page that takes the reader to Oma Hamou Reality Blog. A forensics computer expert witness who will be testifying at court will say Rob violated the court restraining order way back when and with the current events that have happened this year alone, the record shows Bob/Rob are dangerously obsessed with Oma Hamou.
Let’s analyze Bob’s lies to his friends…
Bob Atchison has claimed that he is “good friends” with people such as the author/historian Peter Kurth and on the surface there is no reason for anyone to doubt his sincerity. But real friends would never lie as obviously Bob did… In one of several letters that Bob wrote to Mr. Kurth in 2004 he “denies” any knowledge of the Oma Hamou Report dot org site yet he acknowledges this about it: “…I know this website must really set her off but she has brought it on herself…”
That “libelous” website as with all the other sites “watching Oma,” including the “new” blog about Oma contains spurious, incorrect, poorly researched, and intentionally misleading content. His letter to Mr. Kurth has Bob playing the martyr role to the hilt – I believe he is a consummate actor as his letter wasn’t genuine but apperantly/merely an attempt to elicit sympathy. Bob Atchison writes: “…I didn’t realize this plot for as real as it was and involved more people…”
Let’s dwell on his words for a moment…
Excerpts from Oma Hamou Affidavit:
Evidence provided by Mr. Atchison though our request for “Production of Documents” shows that on June 17, 2004 Mr. Atchison was contacted by a Patricia…. There is nothing contained within this email communication that refers to a ‘Murder for Hire Plot’. See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit040.pdf
Upon receipt of this letter Mr. Atchison sent back a reply and requested a telephone number for Patricia … – obviously she provided a telephone number but we simply don’t know how it happened because Mr. Atchison never provided us with that information. We have no idea as to how many other emails or communications were sent that he did not provide to us. The next communication that we know of is one where (again) he selectively ‘cut & pasted’ from an email that Patricia … sent to him later that same evening. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit045.pdf
Upon examination of Mr. Atchison’s phone records, to the L…’s, it is apparent that from June 17, 2004 at 10:16 AM until 11:25 AM Mr. Atchison attempted to call Patricia … on 12 separate occasions. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit046.pdf
As the phone logs show on the 13th attempt, at 11:25 AM, Mr. Atchison was successful in making a connection and spoke with one or more of the L…’s for approximately 17 minutes. Mr. Atchison appeared to have lost the connection to his call with the L…’s and at 11:43 AM reestablished that connection which lasted approximately 27 minutes longer. From the time of the first call with the L…’s it took one hour (1) and four (4) minutes until Mr. Atchison contacted the Austin Police Department to report that his life was in danger – “The Murder for Hire Plot.” Considering the time from the first email to the point at which the police were first called one has to wonder, if this was really a true plot to murder Mr. Atchison, why did it take so long to get down to the important things? Mr. Atchison’s phone records reflect that on June 17, 2004 at 12:29 PM he contacted the Austin Police Department who sent out a patrol car to his home.
Officer Alfredo Delvalle took Mr. Atchison’s statement at 12:36 PM. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit047.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit048.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit049.pdf
O.k. we know Bob Atchison called the Austin Police Department on June 17, 2004 and after he conned me into taking Oma’s personal website offline Justin put it back on the web. Bob turns around and sends a letter to Lycos basically issuing the same threat as he told me but also there appear to be misleading and un-true statements, shall we take a look at his letter dated June 24, 2004: See: http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/BobAtchisonsLiesLycos.pdf
“…I have been contacted by a man who alleges he was offered money to by Oma Hamou to come to Austin and kill me three weeks ago. He is cooperating with law enforcement officials in California and Texas who are investigating this and he is providing me with a signed affidavit documenting it. This is A SERIOUS CRIME…”
Let’s analyze this first part: It had only been 7 days (not 3 weeks ago) from the time Bob received a letter from a Patricia, a letter mind you that doesn’t say anything about Oma hiring her or her husband in a murder for hire plot. He also claims the alleged hit man was providing him with a signed affidavit – this never occurred and the police never got one either. Bob goes on to say…
“…If you host her pages which are filled with hate messages against me and is used by her to destroy me you will acting as an accessory in her murder plot. I will do everything possible to protect myself from this attempted murder plot. You will be involved in the case. I am demanding that you not host her pages as they violate your own policies…”
How ironic isn’t it that Bob Atchison creates so many websites on Oma to destroy her -- he published on the web Oma was a fugitive from justice (she wasn't), published her home address and US social security number yet whines about her site? I can tell you that her site wasn’t created to destroy Bob but to counter what he was putting up on the web as being true when in fact it wasn’t. Like Lycos, when I talked with Bob he told me that I was “also” an accomplice in this murder plot because, as he saw it, I designed and created a website for Oma to counter his attacks, and if I had not she would not still be around. When you take a closer look at the affidavits sworn by Bob Atchison about “so and so” or “such and such” event one finds that much of what he says is “pure fiction” -
In Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s request for Disclosure dated January 18, 2005, page 5 Bob Atchison states the following: “…Mr. Newson also told Mr. Atchison that he (Mr. Newson) told Ms. Hamou that she should contact Mr. L… to carry out her desire to harm Mr. Atchison…”
Bob’s disclosure 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 for hire plot that I would confess to the victim (in this case Bob) that “I” was responsible for telling Oma that I knew someone who could kill Bob is ludicrous, and only serves to show how he takes the least fact and twists it into saying what he want it to mean, with no regard for truth, but with full intent to sway the listener to his point of view no matter what. See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit062.pdf
In Bob Atchison’s letter Mr. Kurth, with reference to the “Murder for Hire Plot” he writes: “…Oma is in a panic mode as the police are involved – she’s out of control and completely unpredictable…I don’t feel like I am in immediate danger anymore, but the Oma’s unpredictability is a wild card. I have come to the conclusion she (Oma) won’t stop until she’s locked up – I am sorry to say it. I know this website must really set her off, but she has brought it on herself…” (Emphasis added)
Of course he knew wasn’t in any real danger he made it all up or more precisely he conspired with others in a scheme to get Oma arrested. Similar to Vapors aka PYLES said when he contacted the police in Los Angeles and in Oregon claiming Oma was involved in some woman’s disappearance and identity theft etc.
May 1, 2006, Vapors posted: “…By the way . . . I am an occasional poster on the Alexander Palace website -- and one who has had a run-in or two with Mr. Moshein. Other than that, I have no connection with Pallasart, never having met or corresponded with Mr. Atchinson.” (Emphasis added)
Yet the police reports indicate Vapors aka PYLES told them he was working with Bob Atchison in creating a web site about Oma Hamou who he called “a grifter” and a lot more – so again we find that Bob Atchison conspired with others against Oma Hamou.
Second, electronic forums lack supervision. While chat hosts regularly observe the dialog in some chat rooms in an effort to police conversations and evict offensive individuals, personal messages sent between users are viewable only by the sender and the recipient, and therefore outside the regulatory reach of the proper authorities. Furthermore, there are no individuals to monitor or censor offensive content in electronic mail or text messages sent via computer or cellular phone. Another problem is the increasingly common presence of computers in the private environments of adolescent bedrooms. Indeed, teenagers often know more about computers and cellular phones than their parents and are therefore able to operate the technologies without worry or concern that a probing parent will discover their experience with bullying (whether as a victim or offender).
Fraud From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain, although it has a more specific legal meaning, the exact details varying between jurisdictions. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not best described in this way. Not all frauds are hoaxes - electoral fraud, for example. Fraud permeates many areas of life, including art, archaeology and science. In the broad legal sense a fraud is any crime or civil wrong for gain that utilises some deception practiced on the victim as its principal method.
DefinitionIn criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them — usually, to obtain property or services from him or her unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.
In academia and science, fraud can refer to academic fraud - the falsifying of research findings which is a form of scientific misconduct - and in common use intellectual fraud signifies falsification of a position taken or implied by an author or speaker, within a book, controversy or debate, or an idea deceptively presented to hide known logical weaknesses. Journalistic fraud implies a similar notion, the falsification of journalistic findings.
Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, phone, and the internet (computer crime and internet fraud).
Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of making a false representation of a fact susceptible of actual knowledge which is relied upon by another person, to that person's detriment.
Think about this:
Bob Atchison told friends, his then attorney and in court documents under oath, (oath is on your ‘honor’ you are telling the truth) that he had nothing to do with Oma Hamou Report dot org yet the record clearly shows that he and he alone created several websites about Oma, such as – “The Tangled Affairs” and the “Oma Hamou Report” which had secret links from Pallasart’s Alexander Palace Time Machine to the domain name of Oma HamouReport.tripod.com, OmaHamouReport.FreeWebSiteHosting.com which we were able to actually get a hard copy of the Free WebSiteHosting.com report which proved it was created using an IP from one of the computers that Pallasart owns.
Yet when we review the police reports from California and in Texas which includes his statements he made as well as to the FBI he tells them “proudly” that he, Bob, created Oma Hamou Report to warn people about the character of Oma Hamou. "... Atchison has created a web site warning others about Hamou's character..." notice the date, July 16, 2004
See: http://www.omahamou.com/DOC/BobAtchisonsStatementToThePolice.jpg
In yet another court document Bob Atchison’s sworn Affidavit dated March 5, 2005
No. 6: "...With regard to “The Oma Hamou Report”, I have no involvement with it whatsoever. I have never read the Oma Hamou Report, nor have I ever written anything on or about The Oma Hamou Report. I did not learn of its existence until late summer or early fall of 2004 when my attorney told me about it due to the present litigation.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit013.pdf
In a letter dated July 9, 2004 sent to Author/Historian Peter Kurth, Bob Atchison wrote: “…I know this website must really set her off, but she has brought it on herself…”
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit050.pdf
Bob Atchison’s response to Mr. Kurth concerning this web site is telling to say the least, “she brought it on herself”… Luckily for Oma Hamou the police didn’t rely on the word of Bob Atchison.Yet, despite his statements to the police, Bob Atchison copped the attitude of "I don't know anything…" http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf Pages 142-145.
It’s apparent that there have been many people who have been given a radical misconception about Oma Hamou's lawsuit with Bob Atchison, Rob Moshein and Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. Bob’s lies have influenced a lot of people and some people despise Oma because of the outrageous statements made by both Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein. Many people have been enraged by what was told to them by Bob Atchison and Pallasart, some people threatened to harm Oma, while others acted out their threats of harm. They did this because they believed Bob Atchison, their friend or mentor was telling them the truth. But was he? Why do they hide behind fake names when they attack people, not only Oma but well known authors such as Penny and others. We’ve also notice Rob/Bob have removed offline the only page that was up on Oma from their Oma Hamou Report dot org site about her going to a dinner party and meeting the Queen of England instead they’ve replaced it with an index page. An index page that takes the reader to Oma Hamou Reality Blog. A forensics computer expert witness who will be testifying at court will say Rob violated the court restraining order way back when and with the current events that have happened this year alone, the record shows Bob/Rob are dangerously obsessed with Oma Hamou.
Let’s analyze Bob’s lies to his friends…
Bob Atchison has claimed that he is “good friends” with people such as the author/historian Peter Kurth and on the surface there is no reason for anyone to doubt his sincerity. But real friends would never lie as obviously Bob did… In one of several letters that Bob wrote to Mr. Kurth in 2004 he “denies” any knowledge of the Oma Hamou Report dot org site yet he acknowledges this about it: “…I know this website must really set her off but she has brought it on herself…”
That “libelous” website as with all the other sites “watching Oma,” including the “new” blog about Oma contains spurious, incorrect, poorly researched, and intentionally misleading content. His letter to Mr. Kurth has Bob playing the martyr role to the hilt – I believe he is a consummate actor as his letter wasn’t genuine but apperantly/merely an attempt to elicit sympathy. Bob Atchison writes: “…I didn’t realize this plot for as real as it was and involved more people…”
Let’s dwell on his words for a moment…
Excerpts from Oma Hamou Affidavit:
Evidence provided by Mr. Atchison though our request for “Production of Documents” shows that on June 17, 2004 Mr. Atchison was contacted by a Patricia…. There is nothing contained within this email communication that refers to a ‘Murder for Hire Plot’. See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit040.pdf
Upon receipt of this letter Mr. Atchison sent back a reply and requested a telephone number for Patricia … – obviously she provided a telephone number but we simply don’t know how it happened because Mr. Atchison never provided us with that information. We have no idea as to how many other emails or communications were sent that he did not provide to us. The next communication that we know of is one where (again) he selectively ‘cut & pasted’ from an email that Patricia … sent to him later that same evening. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit045.pdf
Upon examination of Mr. Atchison’s phone records, to the L…’s, it is apparent that from June 17, 2004 at 10:16 AM until 11:25 AM Mr. Atchison attempted to call Patricia … on 12 separate occasions. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit046.pdf
As the phone logs show on the 13th attempt, at 11:25 AM, Mr. Atchison was successful in making a connection and spoke with one or more of the L…’s for approximately 17 minutes. Mr. Atchison appeared to have lost the connection to his call with the L…’s and at 11:43 AM reestablished that connection which lasted approximately 27 minutes longer. From the time of the first call with the L…’s it took one hour (1) and four (4) minutes until Mr. Atchison contacted the Austin Police Department to report that his life was in danger – “The Murder for Hire Plot.” Considering the time from the first email to the point at which the police were first called one has to wonder, if this was really a true plot to murder Mr. Atchison, why did it take so long to get down to the important things? Mr. Atchison’s phone records reflect that on June 17, 2004 at 12:29 PM he contacted the Austin Police Department who sent out a patrol car to his home.
Officer Alfredo Delvalle took Mr. Atchison’s statement at 12:36 PM. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit047.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit048.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit049.pdf
O.k. we know Bob Atchison called the Austin Police Department on June 17, 2004 and after he conned me into taking Oma’s personal website offline Justin put it back on the web. Bob turns around and sends a letter to Lycos basically issuing the same threat as he told me but also there appear to be misleading and un-true statements, shall we take a look at his letter dated June 24, 2004: See: http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/BobAtchisonsLiesLycos.pdf
“…I have been contacted by a man who alleges he was offered money to by Oma Hamou to come to Austin and kill me three weeks ago. He is cooperating with law enforcement officials in California and Texas who are investigating this and he is providing me with a signed affidavit documenting it. This is A SERIOUS CRIME…”
Let’s analyze this first part: It had only been 7 days (not 3 weeks ago) from the time Bob received a letter from a Patricia, a letter mind you that doesn’t say anything about Oma hiring her or her husband in a murder for hire plot. He also claims the alleged hit man was providing him with a signed affidavit – this never occurred and the police never got one either. Bob goes on to say…
“…If you host her pages which are filled with hate messages against me and is used by her to destroy me you will acting as an accessory in her murder plot. I will do everything possible to protect myself from this attempted murder plot. You will be involved in the case. I am demanding that you not host her pages as they violate your own policies…”
How ironic isn’t it that Bob Atchison creates so many websites on Oma to destroy her -- he published on the web Oma was a fugitive from justice (she wasn't), published her home address and US social security number yet whines about her site? I can tell you that her site wasn’t created to destroy Bob but to counter what he was putting up on the web as being true when in fact it wasn’t. Like Lycos, when I talked with Bob he told me that I was “also” an accomplice in this murder plot because, as he saw it, I designed and created a website for Oma to counter his attacks, and if I had not she would not still be around. When you take a closer look at the affidavits sworn by Bob Atchison about “so and so” or “such and such” event one finds that much of what he says is “pure fiction” -
In Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s request for Disclosure dated January 18, 2005, page 5 Bob Atchison states the following: “…Mr. Newson also told Mr. Atchison that he (Mr. Newson) told Ms. Hamou that she should contact Mr. L… to carry out her desire to harm Mr. Atchison…”
Bob’s disclosure 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 for hire plot that I would confess to the victim (in this case Bob) that “I” was responsible for telling Oma that I knew someone who could kill Bob is ludicrous, and only serves to show how he takes the least fact and twists it into saying what he want it to mean, with no regard for truth, but with full intent to sway the listener to his point of view no matter what. See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit062.pdf
In Bob Atchison’s letter Mr. Kurth, with reference to the “Murder for Hire Plot” he writes: “…Oma is in a panic mode as the police are involved – she’s out of control and completely unpredictable…I don’t feel like I am in immediate danger anymore, but the Oma’s unpredictability is a wild card. I have come to the conclusion she (Oma) won’t stop until she’s locked up – I am sorry to say it. I know this website must really set her off, but she has brought it on herself…” (Emphasis added)
Of course he knew wasn’t in any real danger he made it all up or more precisely he conspired with others in a scheme to get Oma arrested. Similar to Vapors aka PYLES said when he contacted the police in Los Angeles and in Oregon claiming Oma was involved in some woman’s disappearance and identity theft etc.
May 1, 2006, Vapors posted: “…By the way . . . I am an occasional poster on the Alexander Palace website -- and one who has had a run-in or two with Mr. Moshein. Other than that, I have no connection with Pallasart, never having met or corresponded with Mr. Atchinson.” (Emphasis added)
Yet the police reports indicate Vapors aka PYLES told them he was working with Bob Atchison in creating a web site about Oma Hamou who he called “a grifter” and a lot more – so again we find that Bob Atchison conspired with others against Oma Hamou.
Bob Atchison's company, Pallasart paid for the domain name registration "omahamouchurchscam.com" ostensibly for the alleged “hit man” in the murder for hire plot digging deeper we found that the registrar showed the alleged hit man requesting the domain be released (deleted) from registration stating 'he had not registered it". http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit059.pdf This site would be dedicated to how Oma used (presumably) the Russian Orthodox Church and had conned one of its priest, a Father Markell into co-signing for a loan, a loan mind you that never existed. All this is reminsence of the present day events where here on Legends Vapors aka PYLES an associate of Pallasart went out of his way to contact the police and tell them 'amongst other things' he was working with Bob Atchison on creating yet another website about Oma.
Some of the police reports which Bob made about Oma contained references that Oma looked like a Muslim or of Arabic decent and the reason why she wanted a NGO (Non Governmental Organization) status for Sarskaia under the United Nations was because she wanted to get a ground pass which the FBI as indicated sent this complaint to the Los Angeles Homeland Security Unit. http://www.omahamou.com/DOC/BobAtchisonsStatementToThePolice.jpg
The only reason why Oma wanted to even attempt to get an NGO status with the UN was because Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein sent letters to the California Attorney General's Office and other law enforcement agencies and government informing them that Oma was a fraud, a fugitive and Enigma had no film project, Sarskaia had no projects in Russia and Oma was using the name of the church and Alexander Palace as a front to con people out of their money. So in at least one of the police reports Bob's complaint isn't just about someone hiring someone to kill him but now is at the very least an attempt to have Oma classified as a potential "terrorist" and that simply by making that accusation it bounced this complaint that she was a terrorist with a huge criminal background to the top of the heap. This report was sent to the Homeland Security Unit in Los Angeles , California which concluded in their investigation that Oma Hamou was not a terrorist and the Los Angeles DA rejected prosecuting Bob's complaint against Oma for lack of evidence on October 28, 2004.
All this because Oma wants to make a film about Nicholas II, because she helped some small church in Russia and the Alexander Palace and hope that her projects will continue to promote international goodwill and economic prosperity?
Now had the police/FBI not conducted a thorough investigation well I think you know what would’ve happened – and in the end Bob Atchison didn’t want this evidence to be brought out in trial during Oma’s counterclaims and wanted a quick exit thus he was willing to sign a public apology and agree to a permanent restraining order and pay one U.S. dollar in damages to Oma. Remember at this juncture it wasn’t about money to Oma….
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit108.pdf
In reading all these court documents and police reports it would seem that they paint a picture about Bob Atchison of a self-obsessed, demanding, selfish, whining man. The sheer scale of his self delusion is scary. I and many others on Legends here have felt thoroughly sickened by the time we finished raking through this self-serving rant by either Bob Atchison, Rob Moshein or one of Pallasart’s associates.
Bob has played every trick in the book where Oma Hamou is concern I mean let’s face it he has called banks up and told them she conned some priest in Russia, she conned JP Morgan, she was a fugitive they shouldn’t believe because she has no film project, she did nothing for the Alexander Palace or Father Markell's church. Remember, I wrote that Bob wrote letters to her friends, organizations and government agencies in Russia and here in the States about his story on Oma?
Well in some of Bob Atchison’s letters he would use a false pretence to get his foot in the door. Let me give you an example here is a letter he wrote to the Women in Film organization http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/BobAtchisonLiesWomenInFilm.pdf in this letter he tells them that Oma’s foundation site, Sarskaia is soliciting contributions for a film project and asks if she was a member. Sarskaia has never solicited any money for any film project yet Bob claims that it did just like he claimed so many other things about Oma was true when in fact it wasn't. http://www.askcache.com/webcp?q=oma+hamou+and+women+in+film&t=oma%2Bhamou%2B%3Fand%2Bwomen%2B%3Fin%2Bfilm&r=oma%2Bhamou%2Band%2Bwomen%2Bin%2Bfilm&cache=00*3qsthdwtictsd&qlang=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wif.org%2Finfo_page.cfm%3Fid%3D14&page=1&o=0&l=dir&ws=1
Bob Atchison committed perjury inside of a court room, he committed fraud, fabricated evidence and so much more but worse, he has proven himself to be a man of no honor or integrity and he has proven through his letters to Mr. Kurth and others that he will use you and manipulate you for his devious purposes. At the beginning of this “novel” I used terms which one can easily find the meaning on the web these are a few of the same causes of action which in the coming days will be filed against Bob Atchison and his companions at Pallasart. We all hope that the US Attorney’s Office and State offices will go after Bob Atchison for the crimes he has perpetrated against Oma Hamou --- Rob statements published on this forum shows that he believes whole heartedly that he and Bob have done no wrong.
Insert: Robert Atchison v. Oma Hamou Jury Trial TranscriptsPage 91 line 13:
Matthews: There was a prior suit between these two people in California and then there was another prior suit in Texas. The one in California that Ms. Hamou filed was dismissed. The prior lawsuit here in Texas was settled, and that had to do with Mr. Atchison’s former business partner and the web design company that they own together. That matter was resolved and that suit was dismissed.
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/bobatchisonjurytrialtranscript91tu7.jpg
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/lawsuitsagainstpallasartxi3.jpg
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/enimgalawsuitintexaslu7.jpg
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/enimgrfilmslawsuitintexasef3.jpg
The question is, would the jury have awarded the present judgment in favor of Bob Atchison had they viewed evidence to the contrary?
Excerpts are from Oma Hamou’s Affidavit: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/affidavit.pdf
25. Mr. Atchison’s presented to this court an invoice dated July 13, 2000 of a balance of $13,859.99 for “purported consulting services” provided to Enigma between the months of April 13 through June 16, 2000, which he purports is a true copy thereof. (See Exhibit 16) Mr. Atchison knew that this was not and is not a true copy of the actual invoice Enigma received.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit016.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit017.pdf
26. This “alleged debt” and the proposed trip to Russia were memorialized in my letter to Mr. Atchison following a rather disturbing email he had sent to one of my colleagues. (See Exhibit 8 & 18) This is certainly not the only instance of mischaracterizing events or falsifying records by Mr. Atchison in connection with the events made the subject of this lawsuit including but not limited to his participation in the conspiracy to concoct the ‘murder for hire plot’ which implicated me, as will be demonstrated herein.
27. One day later Enigma entered into a contract with Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc for the design of a ten (10) page website for four thousand dollars ($4,000.00). This web design and hosting service was paid in full on October 10, 2000.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit019.pdf
28. In or about May 2000, Mr. Atchison designed and created a one page “Intro page” to Enigma’s film project. As implied by Michael Edwards’ letter to me, dated September 6, 2000, I dealt primarily with Mr. Atchison and although I did on occasion communicate with Mr. Edwards I really didn’t start to interact with any other associate of Pallasart until I returned from my trip abroad in or about August 2001.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit020.pdf
29. During trial, I stated when I was presented with the original invoice dated July 13, 2000 that I told Mr. Atchison I wasn’t going to pay him because the trip to Russia had been canceled. Mr. Atchison and I exchanged heated words by way of telephone calls and other communications. This was often the pattern of behavior when Mr. Atchison’s apparent alter ego would kick in because of some inexplicable state of mind which would cause him to blurt out these irrational thoughts such as calling me the “devil” and so forth. Because Mr. Atchison has told me on more than one occasion that he often contemplates suicide I often found myself taking the posture of not totally ignoring his letters or telephone calls but instead by attempting to throw soothing oil on his anxieties.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit018.pdf
30. On or about September 10, 2001, Mr. Atchison despite having been paid in full for a 10 page web-design and services, acting as CEO of Pallasart, removed my web site and replaced it with a blank page which listed my home address. He did this because I refused to pay him on Invoice 2000-343 (See Exhibit E). In a letter to Mr. Atchison dated the same date of September 10, 2001, I expressed a great deal of hostility, frustration and disappointment towards the fact that my home address was suddenly posted on the web. I apologize to this court for the offensive language expressed in my letter to Mr. Atchison.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit021.pdf
31. After several heated faxes, telephone calls and emails exchanged from both Pallasart and my office for the sake of my family’s emotional and physical well being, I agreed to settle Invoice #2000-343 for $5,000.00.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit017.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit022.pdf
32. Both Mr. Atchison and his attorney have tried to pass off Pallasart’s “Settlement Invoice” #2000-580 as being some other dispute owing to Pallasart by Enigma. Mr. Atchison “personally” knew that this statement was false yet under oath he said this. As evidenced by Mr. Edward’s letter to me dated on September 10, 2001 the only outstanding invoice owing to Pallasart was Invoice # 2000-561 for web hosting services. Enigma did not contract additional services with Pallasart.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit023.pdf
Insert: Here is an excerpt of Pallasart’s fax 9/10/2001: “Oma, per our discussion an invoice of the outstanding balance related to the consulting performed last year is attached. Please send the payment for the work as well as the payment for the Hosting Services to Bob Atchison, 101 Laurel Lane , Austin , Texas 78705 ….”
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit022.pdf
Insert: Robert Atchison v. Oma Hamou Jury Trial TranscriptsPage 91 line 13:
Ms. Matthews: There was a prior suit between these two people in California and then there was another prior suit in Texas . The one in California that Ms. Hamou filed was dismissed. The prior lawsuit here in Texas was settled, and that had to do with Mr. Atchison’s former business partner and the web design company that they own together. That matter was resolved and that suit was dismissed.
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/bobatchisonjurytrialtranscript91tu7.jpg
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/lawsuitsagainstpallasartxi3.jpg
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/enimgalawsuitintexaslu7.jpg
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/enimgrfilmslawsuitintexasef3.jpg
33. The “settlement” Invoice 2000-580, dated 9/10/2001, which more accurately would be described as extortion, was that Pallasart agreed it would remove my home address from the web for the price of $5,000. Far from the “settlement” of a legitimate invoice this was an act of extortion. I agreed to the terms. This was not for any service rendered; it was in exchange for removing a threat to my safety and the safety of my family. One of many unbelievable moments of this trial was when Mr. Atchison tried to pass this “extortion invoice” as being a settlement of some debt that Enigma owed Pallasart. I continue to be shocked by the distortions and lies perpetrated on me by this man and his company and by the fact he has, so far, gotten away with it.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit017.pdf
34. Despite my act of good faith of having sent this money by way of Federal Express (Exhibit 24) Pallasart refused to remove my home address. Due to Pallasart’s “act of bad faith” on September 14, 2001, as 9/11 had caused the package to be delayed in its delivery, I instructed Fed Ex to return my check.
35. Enigma’s attorney, Simone Riccobono was enlisted to assist in getting my home address removed off the web, the return of my property and or a complete refund of Enigma’s money. My attorney made it clear that we were not going to pay anything towards the 7/13/2000 Invoice 2000-343 and that if they didn’t remove my home address from the web that we would sue them. Pallasart did in fact remove my home address and in a letter dated September 14, 2001 Pallasart told my attorney that Mr. Atchison and the company had decided on “an alternative arrangement to move past this unpleasant situation”…and would like “a Mutual Release between Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. and its principals and Enigma Royal Films and its principals.”
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit025.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit017.pdf[/url
Insert: Robert Atchison v. Oma Hamou Cause No. GN303141
Jury Trial Transcripts:Page 124: Line 9 - 14
THE COURT: Mr. Atchison, what was the $5,000 for?Mr. Atchison: I - - Michael Edwards worked with her on her bills that she had with Pallasart. She had websites and we did marketing for her, the company did. Michael Edwards dealt with her directly. I was not involved in that - - in that part at all.
http://www.omahamou.com/Images/bobatchisonperjuryqd7.jpg
Insert: Here is an excerpt of Pallasart’s fax 9/10/2001: “Oma, per our discussion an invoice of the outstanding balance related to the consulting performed last year is attached. Please send the payment for the work as well as the payment for the Hosting Services to Bob Atchison, 101 Laurel Lane , Austin , Texas 78705 ….”
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit022.pdf
36. Despite what Mr. Atchison represented to this Court, far from not being involved in any settlement agreement between Pallasart and Enigma he was “actively” involved in the process. My attorney took the time to draft a “Mutual Settlement Agreement and Release” which was sent back to Pallasart. Several drafts were passed back and forth when suddenly Mr. Atchison had a change of mind and the last draft received from Pallasart reflected a change in paragraph 3:
“The parties understand and agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Atchison does not release any claims he has or may have against Enigma in connection with the film project “As A Matter of Honour.” http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit027.pdf
37. Enigma refused to accept Pallasart’s “amended” changes, thus no settlement agreement was ever reached. In a letter dated December 14, 2001, Mr. Riccobono, attorney for Enigma wrote:
“…Because of the rejection of our initial released offer and the changes made, my client has instructed me not to go forward with any other release changes or release at all. My client is now of the opinion that she has paid for the products and demands it back in its entirety without the necessity of any release. Should this not be met immediately, that is within 10 days of this writing, a lawsuit will be filed for the appropriate materials and all attorney fees resulting there from. As this matter is not for negotiation, there is no need to follow this letter with any communication other than the complete satisfaction of that demanded for…”
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit028.pdf
38. I sent a letter dated December 18, 2001 to Mr. Atchison regarding; Pallasart’s breached web hosting/ design agreement, unlawfully retained property and a demand for its return and cease and desist. (See Exhibit 29)
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit029.pdf
39. During this litigation, in a letter dated October 5, 2004 from my Attorney, Dave Slater, to Mr. Atchison & Pallasart’s attorney, Lauren Matthews, page 3 paragraph 2 reads:
“…With respect to the repeated references to the purported settlement agreement between the parties, please be advised that this claim is false and known to be false by your client. Yet again I inform you, there is no settlement agreement. Indeed, one was prepared, at a cost of $5,000 in attorneys’ fees, on behalf of my client for execution..."
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit030.pdf
40. In my personal experience with Mr. Atchison he has slipped out of culpability like a “Teflon Con.” During trial, in one of Mr. Atchison’s more noteworthy lapses in coherence, as an example is in the way he mischaracterized this event by testifying under oath that “a settlement agreement had been reached and he had no involvement in the settlement process.” As evident by Mr. Edward’s letter to my California attorney dated September 14, 2001, this statement is not true (Exhibit 25):
“…My partner and I have discussed this issue in depth and have decided on an alternative arrangement to move past this unpleasant situation…”
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit025.pdf
41. Mr. Atchison and Pallasart are indistinguishable in truth and in fact. He remains not only an integral part of Pallasart’s day-to-day operations but its President. Pallasart is a relatively small web design company a little “one horse operation” run out of Mr. Atchison’s home. Had such a settlement agreement truly been accomplished then why during trial did Mr. Atchison testify that he was still in possession of Enigma’s property and admitted he hadn’t given Enigma’s the historical photographs for which Pallasart was paid handsomely for? And why did he not exhibit the completed documents in court proving that such an agreement had been executed?
42. During trial Mr. Atchison presented to the court an invoice dated July 13, 2000. As stated previously, this is not a true and correct copy of the invoice I received from Pallasart. Likewise, underneath this purported invoice is a series of emails, which he purports, is my admission of the “alleged” consultation debt owed to him, which Mr. Atchison represents to this court as a true and correct copy of a series of emails that he purports is my admission of the “alleged” consultation debt owed to him. This is not a true and correct copy of the invoice that I received from Pallasart nor is it a true and correct copy of the emails, which have been purported to be written by me.
25. Mr. Atchison’s presented to this court an invoice dated July 13, 2000 of a balance of $13,859.99 for “purported consulting services” provided to Enigma between the months of April 13 through June 16, 2000, which he purports is a true copy thereof. (See Exhibit 16) Mr. Atchison knew that this was not and is not a true copy of the actual invoice Enigma received.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit016.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit017.pdf
If Bob Atchison went out of his way to destroy you as he has done to Oma Hamou – stalked and harassed you as has been done against Oma
What would you do?
posted by Sandman at 6:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home