The Cult surrounding the Alexander Palace in Russia
THE CULT SURROUNDING THE ALEXANDER PALACE IN RUSSIA
Updated
Today on AA Legends Mike Newson posted:
Talk about dense, or is it a planned and orchestrated agenda?
These are smart people, the “Pallasart” group, I can not believe that “they” are “dense” so that leaves one alternative, a planned and orchestrated attack on Oma Hamou for some specific agenda, the “How” is words, the “Why” is still unknown. Let’s look at the most recent entry at “That Blog” and gaze back in time to see if it is possible to put together the puzzle of Why and possibly by some “reverse engineering” see into the heart and souls of the participants, the conclusions I’ll leave to you the reader…
Them? They? Pallasart? Well the participants in this war of words are legion, so I have grouped them by camp: "We" (the royal "We" of those of us who stand behind and support Oma Hamou and her dreams (Enigma Films and other companies. Most of “us” have worked for or with Oma Hamou, but this camp includes friends and fellow travelers.) I am probably the leader of the defense, although not the leader of the group in any sense. Just that I am more prolific in my words, so you will probably read more from me than anyone else. Versus --- the ones who have attacked her and us. (They fired the first salvo, “we” defended.) --- Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart ("Them") that is Bob Aitcheson and Robert Moshein (two different people but one in intent when it comes to Oma Hamou) of Pallasart (Bob’s Company or Cult depending on who you talk to…) plus those who believe in Bob Atchison’s story about Oma Hamou and who act out on that belief in word or deed.
Yep “They” still keep trying to say that what was --- IS. I thought that "historians" understood the concept of History? That is that things have a duration in time? Historical events / situations start at specific times and end at specific times. That what was once upon a time is not necessarily what is now.
I believe that what “They” recently said on “That Blog” (Oma Hamou Reality – but which has little reality in it. Sure it contains some facts that are true, but the way it has been written, as in the past, twists those facts into conclusions that are false, and as such the Blog taken as a whole creates a false image of Oma) confirms that no matter what:
“They” will strive to continue to believe what they want.
These are smart people, the “Pallasart” group, I can not believe that “they” are “dense” so that leaves one alternative, a planned and orchestrated attack on Oma Hamou for some specific agenda, the “How” is words, the “Why” is still unknown. Let’s look at the most recent entry at “That Blog” and gaze back in time to see if it is possible to put together the puzzle of Why and possibly by some “reverse engineering” see into the heart and souls of the participants, the conclusions I’ll leave to you the reader…
Them? They? Pallasart? Well the participants in this war of words are legion, so I have grouped them by camp: "We" (the royal "We" of those of us who stand behind and support Oma Hamou and her dreams (Enigma Films and other companies. Most of “us” have worked for or with Oma Hamou, but this camp includes friends and fellow travelers.) I am probably the leader of the defense, although not the leader of the group in any sense. Just that I am more prolific in my words, so you will probably read more from me than anyone else. Versus --- the ones who have attacked her and us. (They fired the first salvo, “we” defended.) --- Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart ("Them") that is Bob Aitcheson and Robert Moshein (two different people but one in intent when it comes to Oma Hamou) of Pallasart (Bob’s Company or Cult depending on who you talk to…) plus those who believe in Bob Atchison’s story about Oma Hamou and who act out on that belief in word or deed.
Yep “They” still keep trying to say that what was --- IS. I thought that "historians" understood the concept of History? That is that things have a duration in time? Historical events / situations start at specific times and end at specific times. That what was once upon a time is not necessarily what is now.
I believe that what “They” recently said on “That Blog” (Oma Hamou Reality – but which has little reality in it. Sure it contains some facts that are true, but the way it has been written, as in the past, twists those facts into conclusions that are false, and as such the Blog taken as a whole creates a false image of Oma) confirms that no matter what:
“They” will strive to continue to believe what they want.
“They” will attempt to find the most derogatory concepts possible to describe Oma and those around her.
“They” will denigrate anything presented to say that what they claim is reality is not accurate. That is that any evidence that supports Oma Hamou is faked, false, and meaningless --- even if “they” provided it
“They” will denigrate anything presented to say that what they claim is reality is not accurate. That is that any evidence that supports Oma Hamou is faked, false, and meaningless --- even if “they” provided it
"They" will denigrate anyone who attempts to support Oma Hamou or has opposing view points..
or " They" take it out of context and twist it around to force it through a series of “logic” steps that have no sequential logic to them in order to ridicule the evidence and/or the person who said the comment. Not to mention that the author(s) are masters of the art of misdirection!
In the past “they” have expressed the feeling that Oma Hamou must be “stopped” --- shredded to pieces --- and in general it seems that they want to (and succeeded in) “F” up Oma’s life and all those around her as they have stated about others besides Oma (That is she is not the only one to have suffered at their hands/words although it appears that she has suffered the most.) It appears that causing as many people as possible to hate Oma and those around her is a primary goal of "Pallasart." To give you some background about this “war” --- back in 2003 Bob Atchison created Pallasart’s first “Tangled Affairs of Oma Hamou, Enigma Films and The Sarskaia Foundation” a web page that purported to display evidence that Oma was this “evil” person; that she was a con artist, Enigma had no film project and she was a fugitive who had conned Father Markell, a priest in Russia. He also actively sought out and communicated by mail and voice to get this story about Oma out. He didn’t limit himself to just her business associates but potential business associates and even contacted banks, members of Oma’s Church, her friends, the US government the police and it appears anyone else he even thought of.
The basic line of defense by “them” so far against what “we” have said --- as our defense turned into offense. (Which is good tactics even in a verbal war. That is, it is time to show that the situation is not just one of their-story-about-Oma-is-not-true, but who it is behind the story. What are they deep inside. Can you trust what they say. And pose the biggest question of all --- Why?) SO what is this defense that they have used?
In the past “they” have expressed the feeling that Oma Hamou must be “stopped” --- shredded to pieces --- and in general it seems that they want to (and succeeded in) “F” up Oma’s life and all those around her as they have stated about others besides Oma (That is she is not the only one to have suffered at their hands/words although it appears that she has suffered the most.) It appears that causing as many people as possible to hate Oma and those around her is a primary goal of "Pallasart." To give you some background about this “war” --- back in 2003 Bob Atchison created Pallasart’s first “Tangled Affairs of Oma Hamou, Enigma Films and The Sarskaia Foundation” a web page that purported to display evidence that Oma was this “evil” person; that she was a con artist, Enigma had no film project and she was a fugitive who had conned Father Markell, a priest in Russia. He also actively sought out and communicated by mail and voice to get this story about Oma out. He didn’t limit himself to just her business associates but potential business associates and even contacted banks, members of Oma’s Church, her friends, the US government the police and it appears anyone else he even thought of.
The basic line of defense by “them” so far against what “we” have said --- as our defense turned into offense. (Which is good tactics even in a verbal war. That is, it is time to show that the situation is not just one of their-story-about-Oma-is-not-true, but who it is behind the story. What are they deep inside. Can you trust what they say. And pose the biggest question of all --- Why?) SO what is this defense that they have used?
It is “They (meaning we who support Oma) are lying, that evidence is faked!)
Why even their own documents are accused of being faked when they are shown to support Oma or go against “them.” And this is when their own documents were provided by “them” to the court and sworn to be true and accurate. So either the document was faked, and they lied to the court (as well as presented fabricated evidence to the court) or they lied about the situation, either way the trust-ability factor is tossed out the window.
For instance, on January 21, 2006 on Pallasart’s “Alexander Palace Time Machine” Forum, the Forum Administrator posted this statement, (excerpted) “That scurrillous website … is essentially all slander and fiction, including a supposed memo which was faked.…”
The key point in that quote is , “a supposed memo which was faked.” First as you will discover as you read deeper, this is a standard response by “them”, “it is fake” and second, the memo in question is one which Bob Atchison provided to the Texas courts under an oath of true and correct. And was Bate stamped by the Texas courts as having come from Bob’s own hand, yet they claim “Fake” at the drop of a hat when things do not go their way.
Now you have a glimmering of understanding as to why I was hesitant to put up that Invoice for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a document that is part of Oma Hamou’s prior lawsuit against Bob Atchison and Pallasart. Just as “we” been have reluctant to show other such documents, because of the typical reaction to denigrate any such evidence.
Example: if you were a long time Legends visitor then you will remember the episode where we showed a photo of a pass to the second Energy Summit in Russia, and were accused of “Photoshopping” it, even though an independent third party web document repository showed that it had been in existence since the energy summit took place . From what I’ve been told neither Pallasart or Bob Atchison could prove that Oma Hamou had “never” participated in the Energy Summit, it was just their word while Oma had substantial proof that once again illustrated these two entities and their associates didn’t care what the evidence was, the first line of defense was --- it is a fake! So again you see that “they” attempt to discredit anything that is provided in substantiation of any part of what they claim is not “reality.”
Are “they” experts at twisting words? Well when you read “That Blog” and see the opening paragraph, the one that poses the question that is normally the main theme? You would expect an answer right? They pose the opening thought in such a way as to make you think that they disagree with the thought, and then present an argument to denigrate something else, and never respond to the original thought, yet you are left feeling that some how they did, you tell me --- are they experts at propaganda techniques?
QUOTE OHR BLOG: More Oma Hamou Reality - poor Miss thang.
OK! So, Oma Hamou says we are "intentionally misleading" you dear readers, and we are "falsifying" or "manipulating" the evidence...
First notice the denigration of Oma Hamou as “Miss Thang,” so that your immediate thought of her are one of ridicule. Now in the Principles of Propaganda we learn that one of the prime methods is to misdirect, so the thought is planted in your mind that they are not "intentionally misleading" as they are rebutting the concept, then the text goes on to talk about any thing and everything except - are they or are they (meaning those of us who defend Oma) not being "intentionally misleading" as in:
QUOTE OHR BLOG: More Oma Hamou Reality - poor Miss thang.OK! So, Oma Hamou says we are "intentionally misleading" you dear readers, and we are "falsifying" or "manipulating" the evidence...
First notice the denigration of Oma Hamou as “Miss Thang,” so that your immediate thought of her are one of ridicule. Now in the Principles of Propaganda we learn that one of the prime methods is to misdirect, so the thought is planted in your mind that they are not "intentionally misleading" as they are rebutting the concept, then the text goes on to talk about any thing and everything except - are they or are they (meaning those of us who defend Oma) not being "intentionally misleading" as in:
Looking at the next line of “That Blog”
QUOTE OHR BLOG: The bottom of the page has a "copyright" dated 2003. Oma Hamou left this bio up on the web and this statement is still there today! Now, the statement is out there that OMA HAMOU IS A MEMBER of that organization long after the period covered by her SO-CALLED PROOF...
(Notice specifically the phrase “SO-CALLED PROOF” also notice the all caps, Now consider this in the context of Propaganda Techniques, as an exercise for the student --- Why?)
First most people would tend to believe that an invoice is proof that at that point in time she was a member, nothing “so-called” (a denigrating phrase) about it, either it is or is not. And frankly if I had published every single invoice from the beginning through renewal for her whole active time with that organization it would not have made a single bit of difference. It seems that this is proof that what has been said since day one of this "war" verbally and then was taken to the web at Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org, to end at its latest incarnation on “That Blog” --- that no matter what we present or say it is not going to change "their" tirade about Oma. Obviously considering that the original statement from “them” was that she never was a member, which I have now disproved, similar to how I disproved that “their” comments that she “never” had done anything for the Alexander Palace is false - a fact which they now reluctantly admit while denigrating what she did do. Most people would at least say “Oh, that creates a element of doubt” as to the accuracy of the original statement, but NO, “they” pick it apart as if to disprove the evidence or ridicule it into insignificance, all typical principles of propaganda.
Before I go into depth on this I want to say 'again' unlike Rob Moshein who has claimed to have Bob Atchison's permission to speak on his behalf. I do not speak for Oma Hamou and I don't have her permission to do so. The only person who does is her attorney. And as a reaffirmation, as it still seems to be the working thought over there in the other camp of this war that I am Oma --- I am a real person (some what of a "White Knight" but still ;) ) and I am not Oma.
I’ve taken time previously to show in detail that Rob Moshein’s stated method to determine who was who using his “stalking” images on Legends (Oh, and if you look closely you will find the same IP stalking by images hosted by “Pallasart” in use at “That Blog.”) To determine who a person is by looking at IP's is flawed as “they” started with a false assumption, and therefore the result explicitly yields false conclusions. Not to mention that it was about like trying to shoot a black bat on a black moonless night. Simply put I am me, myself, not Oma Hamou. I have no idea as to what agenda they have to keep saying that everyone who defends Oma must really be her, unless there is some sort of sinister purpose behind it.
I will try to substantiate all my claims by backing them up with the source documents via links. This seems to be required as the standard response from Bob/Rob is to the effect of – I never said/did that! (or it is fake.) You should also be aware of the significance of what this “war” is about. It is not petty bickering between two people. This is about activities which can be classified as criminal; Perjury, Fabrication of evidence, Filing of false police reports, Stalking, Harassment, Hate of a group of people and the incitation of hate and actions against that group and a host of other things that are criminal in nature.
In general "we" (the royal "We" of those of us who stand behind and support Oma and her dreams) have found that the basic theme of Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart ("Them") against Oma has been that since she had problems much more than a decade ago (16 plus years ago) by writing some bad checks while on the run with her children from an abusive husband and that (according to “Them”) ever since she has been and still is a “violent” criminal. Rob Moshein has had business debt from the failure of His "Cellar" which I heard is in the same range of debt that they claim Oma Hamou's business has --- yet it is OK for him but not for Oma. Not to mention what Bob’s company Pallasart’s been doing all this time with a defunct business, nor mentioning the fact that he runs an import/export business out of his home and hasn’t appeared to have been on top of paying taxes and such.
They can do something, but if Oma Hamou did something similar then it just shows how evil she is, which is a basic concept that has been associated through and with all the various "skirmishes" of this war of words. Which to me it seems to be a one-sided situation where Oma was trying to build her dreams and a raging green jealousy gripped Bob and he had to stop her from doing what he could not do. We have in general responded to words and actions by "them" both on the web and as reported as having been said about "us." (Typically in recent times this has been via posts on Legends, as a trusted third party, kind of like Switzerland. – Thank you Anastasia...) In general I have tried not to react but rather respond. However, I have to admit to the weakness of being human so I have not always reached that ideal. I feel that most people would excuse my reaction especially if you heard some of the sick and contrived stories that “they” came up with about my “relationship” with Oma Hamou and shared with some of the “inner circle.”
I have also heard back that not everyone totally understands why I use "Denigrate" rather than ridicule, attack, or other similar phrases - so here is the definition of the word according to Merriam Webster:
1 : to attack the reputation of : DEFAME
2 : to deny the importance or validity of : BELITTLE
Back to “That Blog”
QUOTE OHR BLOG: The bottom of the page has a "copyright" dated 2003. Oma Hamou left this bio up on the web and this statement is still there today! Now, the statement is out there that OMA HAMOU IS A MEMBER of that organization long after the period covered by her SO-CALLED PROOF...(Notice specifically the phrase “SO-CALLED PROOF” also notice the all caps, Now consider this in the context of Propaganda Techniques, as an exercise for the student --- Why?)
First most people would tend to believe that an invoice is proof that at that point in time she was a member, nothing “so-called” (a denigrating phrase) about it, either it is or is not. And frankly if I had published every single invoice from the beginning through renewal for her whole active time with that organization it would not have made a single bit of difference. It seems that this is proof that what has been said since day one of this "war" verbally and then was taken to the web at Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org, to end at its latest incarnation on “That Blog” --- that no matter what we present or say it is not going to change "their" tirade about Oma. Obviously considering that the original statement from “them” was that she never was a member, which I have now disproved, similar to how I disproved that “their” comments that she “never” had done anything for the Alexander Palace is false - a fact which they now reluctantly admit while denigrating what she did do. Most people would at least say “Oh, that creates a element of doubt” as to the accuracy of the original statement, but NO, “they” pick it apart as if to disprove the evidence or ridicule it into insignificance, all typical principles of propaganda.
Before I go into depth on this I want to say 'again' unlike Rob Moshein who has claimed to have Bob Atchison's permission to speak on his behalf. I do not speak for Oma Hamou and I don't have her permission to do so. The only person who does is her attorney. And as a reaffirmation, as it still seems to be the working thought over there in the other camp of this war that I am Oma --- I am a real person (some what of a "White Knight" but still ;) ) and I am not Oma.
I’ve taken time previously to show in detail that Rob Moshein’s stated method to determine who was who using his “stalking” images on Legends (Oh, and if you look closely you will find the same IP stalking by images hosted by “Pallasart” in use at “That Blog.”) To determine who a person is by looking at IP's is flawed as “they” started with a false assumption, and therefore the result explicitly yields false conclusions. Not to mention that it was about like trying to shoot a black bat on a black moonless night. Simply put I am me, myself, not Oma Hamou. I have no idea as to what agenda they have to keep saying that everyone who defends Oma must really be her, unless there is some sort of sinister purpose behind it.
I will try to substantiate all my claims by backing them up with the source documents via links. This seems to be required as the standard response from Bob/Rob is to the effect of – I never said/did that! (or it is fake.) You should also be aware of the significance of what this “war” is about. It is not petty bickering between two people. This is about activities which can be classified as criminal; Perjury, Fabrication of evidence, Filing of false police reports, Stalking, Harassment, Hate of a group of people and the incitation of hate and actions against that group and a host of other things that are criminal in nature.
In general "we" (the royal "We" of those of us who stand behind and support Oma and her dreams) have found that the basic theme of Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart ("Them") against Oma has been that since she had problems much more than a decade ago (16 plus years ago) by writing some bad checks while on the run with her children from an abusive husband and that (according to “Them”) ever since she has been and still is a “violent” criminal. Rob Moshein has had business debt from the failure of His "Cellar" which I heard is in the same range of debt that they claim Oma Hamou's business has --- yet it is OK for him but not for Oma. Not to mention what Bob’s company Pallasart’s been doing all this time with a defunct business, nor mentioning the fact that he runs an import/export business out of his home and hasn’t appeared to have been on top of paying taxes and such.
They can do something, but if Oma Hamou did something similar then it just shows how evil she is, which is a basic concept that has been associated through and with all the various "skirmishes" of this war of words. Which to me it seems to be a one-sided situation where Oma was trying to build her dreams and a raging green jealousy gripped Bob and he had to stop her from doing what he could not do. We have in general responded to words and actions by "them" both on the web and as reported as having been said about "us." (Typically in recent times this has been via posts on Legends, as a trusted third party, kind of like Switzerland. – Thank you Anastasia...) In general I have tried not to react but rather respond. However, I have to admit to the weakness of being human so I have not always reached that ideal. I feel that most people would excuse my reaction especially if you heard some of the sick and contrived stories that “they” came up with about my “relationship” with Oma Hamou and shared with some of the “inner circle.”
I have also heard back that not everyone totally understands why I use "Denigrate" rather than ridicule, attack, or other similar phrases - so here is the definition of the word according to Merriam Webster:
1 : to attack the reputation of : DEFAME
2 : to deny the importance or validity of : BELITTLE
Back to “That Blog”
But let’s look at this latest Blog entry in even more detail, the piece of text in question is an “Article” written by a specific person. That is, it is not some on going statement of what Oma Hamou is now. But rather, what she was when this was written. Which from the copyright date appears to be in the year 2003, and could have been written sooner, as I don’t have a specific date of creation. Remember I am not Oma, I just hate to see what has been done to her - done to anyone else --- like “you” for instance. (Don’t believe it could happen to you, well just ask Olga, Penny or any one of a host of people, some of who ended up on Legends and were conducting a online group therapy session until Rob Moshein, et. al. came and ripped it all to shreds, if you take the "wrong" side / thought / opinion you to will see the other side of the public persona of Pallasart. If you can access the AP Forum, take notice of the roasting that one member is getting right now about his views on Alexis, son of the last Russian Czar, Nicholas II, and see if what is happening there is not similar to what happened here.) Any way getting back on track, no one that I know of goes back and alters a, say - Life Magazine of 1930ish era. So again they take their obsessive and fixated point of view and warp things to say what they want it to say.
“That Blog” said, “Oma Hamou left this bio up on the web and this statement is still there today!” and I found this example of Life Magazine on the web also, but I feel that it is probably out of date. So shall we contact the publisher and have them remove it from the web? Shells, for that matter, I corrected Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison time after time, Oma and/or any of her attorneys corrected them in “Cease and Desist” letters, “they” still left inaccuracies up in what was styled to be an on-going active dynamic report, rather than a static article that required a retraction or addition to modify its concepts. Besides, is not a Historian supposed to understand the concept of History?
And I think that also covers this comment, “However, Oma Hamou thru Mouthpiece boyfriend Mike Newson at least ADMITS that "she is not now a member". Notice the tap dancing here? Why is the "bio" not dated specifically?” However, it is instructive to note some things, notice (Propaganda Techniques) the emotionally laden phrase “Mouthpiece boyfriend” with its negative connotations as well as the implications that what I say is not objective as I am a “boyfriend” with it’s implications of sexual involvement to reinforce what has been said by “them” previously and currently, which is reported to be even nastier than what was posted on Legends according to members of the Pallasart “inner circle” who keep us informed as to what is going on inside Bob little inner clique (Cult?).
This whole first section of the latest entry in “That Blog” is an excellent example of the usage of Yellow Journalism techniques of Propaganda. As to should the Bio be specifically dated? I suspect that 99.999% of the population, at least those who are reading objectively without an agenda to destroy Oma, would take the copyright date which “That Blog” specifically stated that “they” had read and recognized as not being 2006, to mean that they noticed that the page had a copyright in the past, and was not current. Logically their whole argument makes no sense. They say that the fault of the article is that it has no date, but that the copyright date of 2003 shows that it was published in 2003 and “left” up since then? Yet at the same time “they” try to make the article current in 2006 and denigrate evidence that shows that, at minimum, that at one point she was a member, which blew apart their instance that she “Never” was a member. It feels to me that if they allow any one point of theirs to be proven false then their whole house of cards about Oma Hamou will come crashing down around their heads.
Are they “unable” to stop? Is this behavior a part of their being?
Did you notice in my last missive that after Oma Hamou attempted to sue Bob Atchison in California that Oma’s attorney’s letter said that it appeared that Bob had stopped his behaviors? Yet what do we find not long after? Back to the same old patterns of behavior.
Did you notice in my last missive that after Oma Hamou attempted to sue Bob Atchison in California that Oma’s attorney’s letter said that it appeared that Bob had stopped his behaviors? Yet what do we find not long after? Back to the same old patterns of behavior.
It appears that destroying Oma is a stronger obsession than even restoring the Palace is or as the Attorney Dave Slater said in his letter to Bob Atchison:
QUOTE ATTORNEY DAVE SLATER: I again point out that I would much prefer dealing with an ethical adversary bound by the Rules and Cannons of Ethics than with someone who simply makes it up as he goes along.
In excerpts from a letter to Bob, written on December 4, 2003 - Attorney Dave Slater wrote:
QUOTE ATTORNEY DAVE SLATER: “Your idea of discovery is not to marshal evidence to prepare for trial or to streamline the issues in controversy. You appear to view it as a way to inflict maximum harm and discomfort upon your adversary. I have no doubt you will have some explanation for the cat and mouse games you played with service of the pleadings and discovery I referenced above and your mysteriously inability to receive faxes when you knew I was attempting to send you documentation that were not welcomed by you. It is amazing to me that you frustrate my attempts to serve documents upon you and contemporaneously, complain about my handling of the discovery process. You may consider this tactic clever but it will not change the outcome of the case. With respect to your childish references to my “bullying” and “threatening” conduct, Mr. Atchison, I again point out that I would much prefer dealing with an ethical adversary bound by the Rules and Cannons of Ethics than with someone who simply makes it up as he goes along. I am not bullying or threatening you by strict adherence to the Rules or by insisting that we put in writing any deviation from them. Just because you use these terms often does not mean that they will somehow give you a leg up at trial. If you recall, the reason we do not communicate by telephone is that during our first and only telephone conversation I had to hang up on you because you could not control your temper...
In the last legal skirmish “they” were unable to produce one piece of evidence to back up their words, yet you should have seen Rob Moshein’s face, from what was described to me as to how he looked when he was in court and saw the evidence that was being brought in, well lets just say that there was a reason that the courts hand wrote this phrase on the Temporary Restraining Order against Rob, and his saying the things that are still being said against Oma even today, ”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.”
In excerpts from a letter to Bob, written on December 4, 2003 - Attorney Dave Slater wrote:
QUOTE ATTORNEY DAVE SLATER: “Your idea of discovery is not to marshal evidence to prepare for trial or to streamline the issues in controversy. You appear to view it as a way to inflict maximum harm and discomfort upon your adversary. I have no doubt you will have some explanation for the cat and mouse games you played with service of the pleadings and discovery I referenced above and your mysteriously inability to receive faxes when you knew I was attempting to send you documentation that were not welcomed by you. It is amazing to me that you frustrate my attempts to serve documents upon you and contemporaneously, complain about my handling of the discovery process. You may consider this tactic clever but it will not change the outcome of the case. With respect to your childish references to my “bullying” and “threatening” conduct, Mr. Atchison, I again point out that I would much prefer dealing with an ethical adversary bound by the Rules and Cannons of Ethics than with someone who simply makes it up as he goes along. I am not bullying or threatening you by strict adherence to the Rules or by insisting that we put in writing any deviation from them. Just because you use these terms often does not mean that they will somehow give you a leg up at trial. If you recall, the reason we do not communicate by telephone is that during our first and only telephone conversation I had to hang up on you because you could not control your temper...
In the last legal skirmish “they” were unable to produce one piece of evidence to back up their words, yet you should have seen Rob Moshein’s face, from what was described to me as to how he looked when he was in court and saw the evidence that was being brought in, well lets just say that there was a reason that the courts hand wrote this phrase on the Temporary Restraining Order against Rob, and his saying the things that are still being said against Oma even today, ”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.”
---Judges just don’t hand write such stuff, not unless they have a very good reason to.
Notice how point after point has fallen as being untrue about Oma as you go back in time and look at the variations in "their" story over time? Consistency of patterns over time should be sufficient for those without an agenda of hate to realize that the over all story about Oma is false, fluffed up, contrived, propagandized, and in general created specifically to support an agenda of Hate towards one group:
Notice how point after point has fallen as being untrue about Oma as you go back in time and look at the variations in "their" story over time? Consistency of patterns over time should be sufficient for those without an agenda of hate to realize that the over all story about Oma is false, fluffed up, contrived, propagandized, and in general created specifically to support an agenda of Hate towards one group:
The Oma Hamou and Father Markell story about their 'sexual" relationship and how she scammed him eventually causing the loss of his home because of Oma -- False and is no longer (that we know of) used.
Oma Hamou did NOTHING to restore any buildings in Russia or to provide any help --- False and now they say it was "insignificant" (Question --- is insignificant more than nothing? And just what besides words has Bob done since his "famous" phone call? Oh and what happened to the money he solicited over the web via his club the Alexander Palace Association to help in Russia? Remember in court documents under oath he said that this web club doesn’t exist and had not sent money to Russia with respect to restoring these buildings...)
Oma was convicted three times in Montana, two times in Utah (and if I remember correctly I believe that for a period they said Utah was three convictions) and also once in Wyoming --- for theft by deception and similar phrases (meaning that she wrote some checks that bounced.) Not to mention that she was a fugitive on the run from the law --- All of which statements were false or misleading and they knew it.
Think about it, how much hate and anger can be stirred up about what ”they” say is a “violent criminal” --- a fugitive from justice, a scammer, a grifter - someone convicted “many” times (the number kept changing upwards 5, 6, 7…), ” a depraved woman who deceived a priest with her female wiles, causing him to become homeless...
Compared to telling the tale of a young mother on the run from an extremely abusive relationship, (so extreme that the State Supreme Court eventually gave an opinion on it, in the young mother’s and the children’s favor.) She had very small children in her care. She wrote some checks in various states, while on the run, to care for those children. The checks bounced she admitted that she had written the checks because she had (that is she told the truth,) the courts gave her a suspended sentence and she made restitution. So which story is going to work the best to stir up the emotions of Anger and Hate, and which one to stir up the emotions of Pity? Yet they both tell the same story about the same woman. It is all in how the story is told. Currently when “they” talk about Oma they use the correct number of three total convictions, but still use the most derogatory possible description of bouncing a check. Of course for the purposes of generating hate, the more times that she was “convicted” and still a fugitive from the law “on the run” the better for their story. Not only that but she was a “Paroled” Felon, which is what “they” first said --- which is not true as the documents they quote from said “Probation” (Go look up the difference between the meaning of the words, "Parole and Probation" it is significant.) The more times and the nastier the “crime” sounds, the simpler it is to manipulate peoples’ emotions. Of course they used this history to paint a picture of Oma as a “violent” criminal with a life time of criminal activities --- although where the violent part came from I have no idea as Oma has never been convicted of a violent crime nor has she even been charged with committing a violent crime. Not to mention this myopia of things Historical as all this happened 16 plus years ago, and yet when they tell the story it is made to sound as if this all happened yesterday. So all of this is a Yellow Journalism twist on the facts to paint an emotionally charged image the whole of which is untrue.
Oh yes, we can’t forget about the newest stuff ---
Oma was “NEVER” a member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice - proven false.
Oma's "Bio" should have been “dated” - proven false by their own words.
Oma was convicted three times in Montana, two times in Utah (and if I remember correctly I believe that for a period they said Utah was three convictions) and also once in Wyoming --- for theft by deception and similar phrases (meaning that she wrote some checks that bounced.) Not to mention that she was a fugitive on the run from the law --- All of which statements were false or misleading and they knew it.
Think about it, how much hate and anger can be stirred up about what ”they” say is a “violent criminal” --- a fugitive from justice, a scammer, a grifter - someone convicted “many” times (the number kept changing upwards 5, 6, 7…), ” a depraved woman who deceived a priest with her female wiles, causing him to become homeless...
Compared to telling the tale of a young mother on the run from an extremely abusive relationship, (so extreme that the State Supreme Court eventually gave an opinion on it, in the young mother’s and the children’s favor.) She had very small children in her care. She wrote some checks in various states, while on the run, to care for those children. The checks bounced she admitted that she had written the checks because she had (that is she told the truth,) the courts gave her a suspended sentence and she made restitution. So which story is going to work the best to stir up the emotions of Anger and Hate, and which one to stir up the emotions of Pity? Yet they both tell the same story about the same woman. It is all in how the story is told. Currently when “they” talk about Oma they use the correct number of three total convictions, but still use the most derogatory possible description of bouncing a check. Of course for the purposes of generating hate, the more times that she was “convicted” and still a fugitive from the law “on the run” the better for their story. Not only that but she was a “Paroled” Felon, which is what “they” first said --- which is not true as the documents they quote from said “Probation” (Go look up the difference between the meaning of the words, "Parole and Probation" it is significant.) The more times and the nastier the “crime” sounds, the simpler it is to manipulate peoples’ emotions. Of course they used this history to paint a picture of Oma as a “violent” criminal with a life time of criminal activities --- although where the violent part came from I have no idea as Oma has never been convicted of a violent crime nor has she even been charged with committing a violent crime. Not to mention this myopia of things Historical as all this happened 16 plus years ago, and yet when they tell the story it is made to sound as if this all happened yesterday. So all of this is a Yellow Journalism twist on the facts to paint an emotionally charged image the whole of which is untrue.
Oh yes, we can’t forget about the newest stuff ---
Oma was “NEVER” a member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice - proven false.Oma's "Bio" should have been “dated” - proven false by their own words.
And so on and so on --- the point is that there is a pattern of "their" story about Oma Hamou being proven false to the point that “they” have changed their story over time and yet they still strive to say the same things about her. So considering the number of times that we have shown that "they" (Rob/Bob and even Vapors aka PYLES) have outright lied to you, for instance: Rob Moshein said on Legends that he never used the name Gilbert McDuff, yet his own “Admissions” in court documents as well as Bob's said that he had. (Remember this is a sworn to the court as true document.) Bob said in court under oath during his trial with Oma in that there was a previous lawsuit in Texas, yet the Texas court records said that was false --- so the jury awarded Bob the judgment against Oma based on the oath he took before he took the stand and uttered the first lie out of his mouth and based on evidence he submitted which was fabricated and on and on... One point proven false should be enough to cast doubt, while a pattern of such shows a definite trend, and if you have been reading my words long enough - I think “we” have established a definite pattern of “them” twisting the truth, if not fracturing it. Enough such that it should cause most people to at least doubt the veracity of the source.
One definition for "Insanity" is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.
It almost makes no sense to try to show “them” that what they believe is at all incorrect. I tried for years to get them to change their claims about how many convictions that Oma Hamou had way back when she was on the run with small children from an abusive relationship and wrote some bad checks. As well as many other inaccuracies that allowed them to paint a bleak picture of Oma, and denigrate me. They were told what the correct information is and yet “we” saw no signs of change, unless their nose was really rubbed in it such as the court episode, when they finally changed the number of convictions. Simply put, if it does not match up with what they want to say about Oma Hamou and friends then it is false, fake or insignificant --- that is they “will” say what they want and nothing we (or for that matter even the courts) can say / do / or provide will change what they feel in their hearts. Remember Oma had “proven to the courts a "likelihood of success’ in her claims against Pallasart, Rob/Bob based on the merits of her case.” So frankly this and all of my articles are written not for “them,” but for those who are still wondering just what this is all about. Although person by person what Rob Moshein /Bob Atchison does/says pushes one more person to the edge, whereupon they look at this “war” a second time, but this time with an open heart and mind It is to you that this is dedicated.
It almost makes no sense to try to show “them” that what they believe is at all incorrect. I tried for years to get them to change their claims about how many convictions that Oma Hamou had way back when she was on the run with small children from an abusive relationship and wrote some bad checks. As well as many other inaccuracies that allowed them to paint a bleak picture of Oma, and denigrate me. They were told what the correct information is and yet “we” saw no signs of change, unless their nose was really rubbed in it such as the court episode, when they finally changed the number of convictions. Simply put, if it does not match up with what they want to say about Oma Hamou and friends then it is false, fake or insignificant --- that is they “will” say what they want and nothing we (or for that matter even the courts) can say / do / or provide will change what they feel in their hearts. Remember Oma had “proven to the courts a "likelihood of success’ in her claims against Pallasart, Rob/Bob based on the merits of her case.” So frankly this and all of my articles are written not for “them,” but for those who are still wondering just what this is all about. Although person by person what Rob Moshein /Bob Atchison does/says pushes one more person to the edge, whereupon they look at this “war” a second time, but this time with an open heart and mind It is to you that this is dedicated.
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
Back when the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Rob Moshein was in full effect, Rob said that Bob Atchison had told him to say something to someone. That meant that Rob was saying and doing things specifically in direct violation of the restraining order. Even the way that he went about removing the Oma Hamou Report dot org site, and how images were left up, while the rest was just blocked, and after seeing how they selectively blocked specific IPs from the AP forum the question is, was that site just as selectively blocked?
Then we have Data Lounge and how “someone” (and yes that site cooperated in telling us what IP and other identifying information was used to create those posts) posted about Oma Hamou and provided a link back to a web archive of the Oma Hamou Report dot org, and this was during the period when the TRO was in effect. So again a thumbing of the nose at the law was not an unusual event. I could pick event after event, but this is enough to see a pattern. Simply put, the court said NO! But Bob said “do it” and that command apparently took precedence over the courts. (Not an unusual occurrence in Cults) That is, what Bob wanted was overwhelmingly more important than what the legal system instructed was proper behavior.
Next “That Blog “ told us:
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
Back when the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Rob Moshein was in full effect, Rob said that Bob Atchison had told him to say something to someone. That meant that Rob was saying and doing things specifically in direct violation of the restraining order. Even the way that he went about removing the Oma Hamou Report dot org site, and how images were left up, while the rest was just blocked, and after seeing how they selectively blocked specific IPs from the AP forum the question is, was that site just as selectively blocked?
Then we have Data Lounge and how “someone” (and yes that site cooperated in telling us what IP and other identifying information was used to create those posts) posted about Oma Hamou and provided a link back to a web archive of the Oma Hamou Report dot org, and this was during the period when the TRO was in effect. So again a thumbing of the nose at the law was not an unusual event. I could pick event after event, but this is enough to see a pattern. Simply put, the court said NO! But Bob said “do it” and that command apparently took precedence over the courts. (Not an unusual occurrence in Cults) That is, what Bob wanted was overwhelmingly more important than what the legal system instructed was proper behavior.
Next “That Blog “ told us:
QUOTE OHR BLOG: Part 2: Oma Hamou (via her usual fictional mouthpiece boyfriend Mike Newson) asked "why would someone ask a California Attorney who specializes in “criminal law” to verify if Oma’s name appears in a directory of lawyers (as it appears from what was written is where they looked) when one she isn’t an attorney and two --- the article in question specifically reads: “Oma is a member of the California Attorney’s for Criminal Justice” an organization based out of San Francisco.Sigh, I don’t know why I bother to dig into this, this, this “mess” of words. But in some ways it has become personal, after all “they” attack me as well as Oma. It may be one person at a time, but the feed back I get is that people are listening to me, and one by one are being swayed because of what I say, and even more impressive, is that from what they have learned from me that they see in what “Pallasart” says and write, that I am correct. That there is an obsessive behavior, not to mention a conspiracy and Oma is not the only target although she seems to be the primary focus.
For instance --- One well known personality on Legends, and even more so elsewhere, posted on Legends very recently:
QUOTE PLK: “…I'd like to see the AP board bring back their experts -- these all deserted them in floods, once they understood that there was a little CULT going on. One thing that all of us have learned on the Romanov circuit is to be very, very wary of cults -- by that I mean all those people who go into trances talking to the spirit of the empress (which, come to think of it, is a really dumb idea -- for heaven's sake, if you're going to be communing with a dead Romanov, you'd do better going back to Catherine the Great -- the LAST person you'd want advising you is Alexandra, but I think this is also part of the cult, that is, "proving" that Alexandra was "misunderstood." So damn misunderstood than an entire nation fell around her. It's kind of like Bush and Laura, you know? Nothing but good intentions, and nothing but disaster in every direction. They'll be "martyrs" too, one day, you mark my words!) …
Pk...
Continuing on, again we see in this statement, “Oma Hamou (via her usual fictional mouthpiece boyfriend Mike Newson)” the fictional part does more than “imply” that I am not a real person, and the whole thing is simply an attempt to denigrate me, to make what I say insignificant. That is if “they” can destroy in the minds of “their” readers my realness, to denigrate me, to ridicule me, to make me small and insignificant that what I say is of no worth and/or that it must be Oma who is writing this.I’ve said previously that stupidity, whether intentional or real get’s me very upset, and sometimes you react rather than respond. With that in mind let’s readdress my original thoughts when I first read this entry into “That Blog”...
Information about The California Attorney for Criminal Justice can be found at http://www.cacj.org
"That Blog" wrote:
OHR BLOG: "...Query you should ask Oma Hamou Miss Thang: Was Oma Hamou a member of this organization during the period of 2003, 2004 and early 2005 when that statement was being made to the public? Back in 2003 Pallasart published for the first time on its Alexander Palace Time Machine web site Oma had ”never”been a member of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice” and repeated the same information on its Oma Hamou Report dot org site. (If you call the CACJ organization you would know that Oma had been a member of this organization since October of 2000.) Remember during the time of 2003 Bob was popping out letters from Pallasart’s computers and making telephone calls to business associates saying all sorts of things about Oma which weren’t true and admonishing those organizations who choose to ignore his/Rob’s diatribe.
This is just one of many well documented letters to one of Oma’s business colleagues I pulled from Oma’s lawsuit with Bob, Rob and Pallasart. Bob Atchison and Pallasart’s LA Bloodhound from its Oma Hamou Report dot org site. Notice at the bottom of Bob’s letter to the one of Oma’s business associates he informs them: “I have contacted the US State Department who told me they will advise the US Embassy in Moscow regarding this….” Yet the US State department informed Oma’s attorney that none of its representatives had ever said this to Bob --- so why make the statement as if it had happened? Although, IF the US State Department Talked with / Agreed with “BOB ATCHISON” then certainly “whoever” should also believe…
Bob called the US State Department after he viewed a letter on Sarskaia’s website that said:
Unbeknownst to Bob and his people, Oma had been invited to participate in the second Energy Summit by both the Russian and US government which involved the Alexander Palace and some other buildings. Often Oma’s projects and her name were in the press and on television which made Bob extremely jealous - remember Bob filed his original lawsuit against Oma in August of 2003 claiming she had slandered him in the Russian press yet he couldn’t offer one shred of evidence that this had happened. Not one Russian newspaper or elsewhere linked his name with Oma, Enigma or Sarskaia yet he claimed it had happened in court documents but in truth it never did, and “they” could show no evidence to support this claim.
I won’t You can’t make me…“That Blog” once again mentions the 2000 Dunn & Bradstreet report that purports to identify Oma as the person who made that initial report. Let's talk about that for a moment shall we?
Anyone can call Dunn & Bradstreet over the phone and say that they are 'so and so' with 'so and so' company and set up an account - that doesn't mean the information is true. Pallasart and Bob Atchison were unable to prove that Oma Hamou had been the person who made the report. From what I remember, when this report was first published on the AP site it was the first time Oma had even became aware of its existence. Subsequently, communications from Oma's attorney (notice the word attorney) were sent to D&B which in turn corrected the information.
Despite being told by Dunn & Bradstreet to remove it from the web altogether both Pallasart and Bob Atchison flat out refused. And instead published it once again on “their” Oma Hamou Report dot org site and now we find Pallasart's image of the D&B report on That Blog. (Another Stalking Image? As Rob can not track who comes to visit the Blog otherwise.)
Bob Atchison was told to remove Pallasart's image of the Dunn & Bradstreet report off the web as they (Pallasart) didn't have permission to publish it, nor do they own the intellectual property rights to it ... but as we've seen 'over and over' their obsession was too strong to comply.
During Bob's Oral deposition dated January 11, 2005 page 134 line 5 through line 13 he denies any communication from Dunn & Bradstreet.
Question: All right. And Dunn & Bradstreet, the credit reporting agency, did you discuss Ms. Hamou with them verbally or in writing?
Answer: I just pulled their website from their the document from there. I never spoke to anybody there.
Question: So you never spoke to a representative of Dunn & Bradstreet. Correct?
Answer: No
Question: And you never communicated with them in writing?
Answer: No.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit079.pdf
But Oma's attorney, Dave Slater knew this wasn't true because of the existing communications that proved otherwise.
Let’s look at this point, plus I want to bring to attention to some constant themes regarding this Dunn & Bradstreet report:
2003 - Pallasart’s first website on Oma featured under “Other Links” on its Alexander Palace Time Machine Front page stated the following:
“Without doubt, Oma Hamou was not at all truthful in her report to Dunn & Bradstreet. In fact, her biography on her website claims she is a member of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice despite the showing by D&B that she lied”
May 31, 2004 on Tripod, Lycos and Freewebhosting sites Bob Atchison created Oma Hamou Report which stated:
“Without doubt, Oma Hamou was not at all truthful in her report to Dunn & Bradstreet. In fact, her biography on her website claims she is a member of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice despite the showing by D&B that she lied...”
Seems Pallasart was lying when it claimed Oma Hamou was never a member of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Bob Atchison told his attorney that he didn’t create Oma Hamou Report dot org and he swore under oath in court that he had no knowledge of this site and in fact hadn’t seen it until later that fall of 2004 yet the IP record logs from Freewebhosting shows that someone using Pallasart’s computers created that OMA HAMOU REPORT.
We know from Bob’s statements to law enforcement that he and he alone created Oma Hamou Report dot org.
So when was/is Bob telling the truth?
Using some legal jargon I’ve read in recent pleadings that I think hits the nail on the head on at least the conspiracy allegation: Pallasart and each of them, Bob Atchison /Rob Moshein have singly and together in combination and in concert, conspired to defame and destroy Oma Hamou. Acting in accordance with a methodical, organized and coordinated campaign of deceit and deception, Pallasart and Bob have intentionally sought to discredit and injure Oma, without legal justification or excuse.
Bob conspired with others to harm Oma.
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 creating the website 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 Hamou Report. tripod dot com, Oma Hamou Report. Free Web Site Hosting dot.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. So who was it? Rob or Bob? There are not that many choices considering the IP.
When we review the police reports from California and in Texas which includes his statements he made to them 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
Yet in court document related to Oma’s lawsuit against Pallasart, Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein in Bob’s sworn Affidavit dated March 5, 2005 state:
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” as if to say, so what!
Bob conspired with others to harm Oma.
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 creating the website 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 Hamou Report. tripod dot com, Oma Hamou Report. Free Web Site Hosting dot.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. So who was it? Rob or Bob? There are not that many choices considering the IP.
When we review the police reports from California and in Texas which includes his statements he made to them 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
Yet in court document related to Oma’s lawsuit against Pallasart, Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein in Bob’s sworn Affidavit dated March 5, 2005 state:
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” as if to say, so what!
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.
So based on the above, did Bob Atchison have anything to do with the creation of these websites? That is which of his statements was true? If any were????
Creating an Atmosphere of Hate…
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 many people and some people despise Oma because of the outrageous statements made by both Bob and Rob. Many people have been enraged by what was told to them by Bob/Pallasart, some people threatened to harm Oma, while others acted out their threats of harm. They did this because they believed Bob, their friend, hero, or mentor was telling them the truth. But was he?
As far as his statements to the police and testimony in court and documents it would appear that Bob Atchison is devoid of any credibility -
Bob Atchison "fabricated" evidence some of which was used during his trial with Oma and some which he gave to law enforcement when they were investigating his criminal complaints against Oma - complaints which were ALL dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Bob conspired with others such as the P.R. person out of Washington D.C. who told one of Oma Hamou’s business associates that Oma was a fugitive on the run and had ripped off a priest in Russia he said this, according to his letter, because Bob had told him. Bob even published on the web that Oma was a fugitive and tried to get FOX's America’s Most Wanted to capture Oma by informing them and law enforcement that Oma would be coming to Austin to meet with her attorney and that they could get her then. And when that didn’t work out the way he had hoped he sent a letter to the law enforcement people and said the same thing but of course Oma wasn’t a fugitive, nor did she have all those convictions or warrants out for her arrest as he claimed she did. In fact very little of the horrible and distorted picture they paint of her is true.
QUOTE PLK: "… 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 would seem that in reality the vision that “they” see in Oma is but a reflection of the reality found inside them selves.
People believed Bob Atchison (He could charm the spots off of a leopard) and were so convinced that Oma had conned a Russian priest of the Russian Orthodox Church into cosigning for a nonexistence loan with the financial institution JP Morgan and had made this poor priest homeless that at least one of these listeners came to Oma’s place of work and confronted her and threw her up against the wall. All because he really thought she had done what Bob claimed she did. In one police report Bob told a detective that Oma had done all this stuff to a priest in Russia and the detective asked him (it’s in the report) do you have any proof that Oma did this? Bob’s answer was No, but I’m working on it… But of course he couldn’t offer a shred of evidence that any of what he said was true because it wasn’t. And there are more incidents, but that’s for the courts. However, I do want to talk about two more; One was when Bob created the claim about someone who claimed Oma Hamou owed him some money, that Oma had hired the other person to murder
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 many people and some people despise Oma because of the outrageous statements made by both Bob and Rob. Many people have been enraged by what was told to them by Bob/Pallasart, some people threatened to harm Oma, while others acted out their threats of harm. They did this because they believed Bob, their friend, hero, or mentor was telling them the truth. But was he?
As far as his statements to the police and testimony in court and documents it would appear that Bob Atchison is devoid of any credibility -
Bob Atchison "fabricated" evidence some of which was used during his trial with Oma and some which he gave to law enforcement when they were investigating his criminal complaints against Oma - complaints which were ALL dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Bob conspired with others such as the P.R. person out of Washington D.C. who told one of Oma Hamou’s business associates that Oma was a fugitive on the run and had ripped off a priest in Russia he said this, according to his letter, because Bob had told him. Bob even published on the web that Oma was a fugitive and tried to get FOX's America’s Most Wanted to capture Oma by informing them and law enforcement that Oma would be coming to Austin to meet with her attorney and that they could get her then. And when that didn’t work out the way he had hoped he sent a letter to the law enforcement people and said the same thing but of course Oma wasn’t a fugitive, nor did she have all those convictions or warrants out for her arrest as he claimed she did. In fact very little of the horrible and distorted picture they paint of her is true.
QUOTE PLK: "… 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 would seem that in reality the vision that “they” see in Oma is but a reflection of the reality found inside them selves.
People believed Bob Atchison (He could charm the spots off of a leopard) and were so convinced that Oma had conned a Russian priest of the Russian Orthodox Church into cosigning for a nonexistence loan with the financial institution JP Morgan and had made this poor priest homeless that at least one of these listeners came to Oma’s place of work and confronted her and threw her up against the wall. All because he really thought she had done what Bob claimed she did. In one police report Bob told a detective that Oma had done all this stuff to a priest in Russia and the detective asked him (it’s in the report) do you have any proof that Oma did this? Bob’s answer was No, but I’m working on it… But of course he couldn’t offer a shred of evidence that any of what he said was true because it wasn’t. And there are more incidents, but that’s for the courts. However, I do want to talk about two more; One was when Bob created the claim about someone who claimed Oma Hamou owed him some money, that Oma had hired the other person to murder Bob because she wanted to end HIS (Bob’s) lawsuit against her.
There were major flaws in the story such as the phone records of Bob Atchison and the alleged hit man, their correspondences were all such that the FBI, HOMELAND SECURITY, US MARSHALLS and the local police departments in LA and Austin all agencies which Bob had called and cried wolf. They all dismissed the claims after these different agencies thoroughly investigated Bob’s claims. Law enforcement dismissed it because based on the evidence and even carefully looking at the all the evidence including some fabricated evidence -- they ALL stated there was no evidence of any crime. But had they just taken Bob’s “evidence” and word --- Oma would have been arrested and prosecuted for a crime that never happened, sort of like how Bob claimed that Oma got some priest in Russia to cosign for a loan --- it never happened! Not only this but that hit man? Well Pallasart registered a site in his name (Oma Hamou Church Scam) that they were going to create about Oma, sounds like “they” were really “scared” of him….
During recent events, one of Bob Atchison’s friends (he told the police that he was working with Bob) came on this forum and issued serious threats to Oma Hamou, a man who hid behind the name of “Vapors,” a.k.a. H. Michael Pyles... Vapors posted here on Legends that he was an ex-police officer out of North Carolina but that state has verified that it has no record of him being an officer. While attending Duke University he was a member of the campus security and while he did get a degree in law, the DC bar where he claims he is licensed to practice does not show his membership. He is listed on the web as the HR person for a major hedge Fund. The stuff he said about all his tight connections with various police agencies and what they said was all false. And yes we know a lot about him, home address, work address, all sorts of things as he went to the police and made such wild claims about Oma that they verified him to see if what he said was trust worthy. Notice any trends here?
Another poster who identifies him/herself as Olgafan posted:
QUOTE: Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject:
QUOTE: Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject:
"...I don’t understand why you consume so much energy on Oma Hamou’s “dirty past”, while you never suffered any personal offense from her. If one digs up someone’s past, you can always find some dirt. You are like Karl Rove digging up John McCain’s wife’s history of alcoholic drug addict. No one should do that. Even if my wife is an ex-stripper, I wouldn’t want someone to inform me about it. Do you actually know someone who donated or invested his/her own money to Oma’s foundation? If you have money to investigate the Oma’s past, you should invest that money to something positive...."
Vapors aka PYLES then responded: I take personal offense at Hamou's using Russian history websites to support her grifts by trying to put the spit shine on her foul antics. As for donating money to something positive, I find putting a stop to her grifts on these sites sufficiently positive to warrant the investment of my time and money. Young people visit these sites in the formative stages of their interest in Russian history. It might not bother you that they would encounter a seedy grift passing itself off as the noble advancement of historical restoration and cultural advancement, but it does bother me. I'll spend my money my way. You spend yours your way.
Vapors aka PYLES then responded: I take personal offense at Hamou's using Russian history websites to support her grifts by trying to put the spit shine on her foul antics. As for donating money to something positive, I find putting a stop to her grifts on these sites sufficiently positive to warrant the investment of my time and money. Young people visit these sites in the formative stages of their interest in Russian history. It might not bother you that they would encounter a seedy grift passing itself off as the noble advancement of historical restoration and cultural advancement, but it does bother me. I'll spend my money my way. You spend yours your way.
Jealousy?
Thinking about Vapors reaction, and then how Bob Atchison has reacted --- could jealousy be at the heart of this? Having to share the Palace with Oma Hamou?
An example (one of many illustrations) where Hamou's "Sarskaia Site" can be found on the web along side Bob Atchison's Alexander Palace Time Machine:
Russian Empire
The Sarskaia Foundation - Aims to preserve of cultural heritage in Russia. Current projects include the rehabilitation of the city of Pushkin's historic core
A link to the page that features Sarskaia is found http://6go.biz/dwodp/index/Regional/Europe/Russia/Society_and_Culture/History/Russian_Empire/]HERE with the Google cached version found http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KCRMiGTdgvUJ:6go.biz/dwodp/index/Regional/Europe/Russia/Society_and_Culture/History/Russian_Empire/+sarskaia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=26
Thinking about Vapors reaction, and then how Bob Atchison has reacted --- could jealousy be at the heart of this? Having to share the Palace with Oma Hamou?
An example (one of many illustrations) where Hamou's "Sarskaia Site" can be found on the web along side Bob Atchison's Alexander Palace Time Machine:
Russian Empire
The Sarskaia Foundation - Aims to preserve of cultural heritage in Russia. Current projects include the rehabilitation of the city of Pushkin's historic core
A link to the page that features Sarskaia is found http://6go.biz/dwodp/index/Regional/Europe/Russia/Society_and_Culture/History/Russian_Empire/]HERE with the Google cached version found http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KCRMiGTdgvUJ:6go.biz/dwodp/index/Regional/Europe/Russia/Society_and_Culture/History/Russian_Empire/+sarskaia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=26
So here we have a prime example of why jealousy might be exhibited 'just because' one of Oma's company’s is listed in search engines under the topic of Russian History...
As I look at the situation it seems to me that the very thing Pyles, et. al. (Pallasart) have accused Oma and Enigma & Sarskaia of doing is the very thing that Bob Atchison's Alexander Palace Time Machine and his 'small' web design company, Pallasart Web ventures, Inc has been doing all these years --- yet no one until NOW has noticed - take a look.
Definitions:
Grift Pronunciation: 'grift Function: transitive verb Etymology: grift, n., perhaps alteration of graft slang : to obtain (money) illicitly (as in a confidence game)
So lets look at some past activities that “They” indulged in, remembering that Bob under oath said that he had sent nothing to Russia…
The Alexander Palace Association
http://web.archive.org/web/19990224204506/http:/www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/apaspr98.html
Ask yourself why couldn’t Bob Atchison offer one piece of evidence that would’ve showed where all these people who gave money to him for his web club believing that their money would be sent to help restore the Alexander Palace or Father Markell’s church, the Fedorovsky Cathedral? Still why does Bob and Pallasart still represent on the web that it had sent the money that people gave them, when in court documents under oath Bob admitted that “no money was ever sent” ?
So what about Bob’s Company being forfeited and unable to conduct business as normal, yet they did in the face of what the State said that they could do…
BOB ATCHISON’S WEB DESIGN COMPANY - PALLASART WEB VENTURES, INC.
SUBCHAPTER F. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES
171.251. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES. The comptroller shall forfeit the corporate privileges of a corporation on which the franchise tax is imposed if the corporation: …
171.2515. FORFEITURE OF RIGHT OF TAXABLE ENTITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
(a) The comptroller may, for the same reasons and using the same procedures the comptroller uses in relation to the forfeiture of the corporate privileges of a corporation, forfeit the right of a taxable entity to transact business in this state.
(b) The provisions of this subchapter, including Section 171.255, that apply to the forfeiture of corporate privileges apply to the forfeiture of a taxable entity's right to transact business in this state.
SUBCHAPTER G. FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
(This is why Bob Atchison/Pallasart lost his charter.)
171.301. GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. It is a ground for the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority if:
(1) the corporate privileges of the corporation are forfeited under this chapter and the corporation does not pay, within 120 days after the date the corporate privileges are
forfeited, the amount necessary for the corporation to revive under this chapter its corporate privileges; or …
Now it is possible to revive a dead corporation, as Bob revived his company this month (October 17, 2006).
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/PallasartReinstatement.pdf
171.312. REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. A corporation whose charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state is entitled to have its charter or certificate revived and to have its corporate privileges revived if: …
171.314. CORPORATE PRIVILEGES AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE IS SET ASIDE. If the secretary of state sets aside under this chapter the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority, the comptroller shall revive the corporate privileges of the corporation.
This part is very interesting, notice the implications!
171.315. USE OF CORPORATE NAME AFTER REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. If a corporation's charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state and if the corporation requests the secretary to set aside the forfeiture under Section 171.313 of this code, the corporation shall determine from the secretary whether the corporation's name is available for use. If the name is not available, the corporation shall amend its charter or certificate to change its name.
http://web.archive.org/web/19990224204506/http:/www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/apaspr98.html
Ask yourself why couldn’t Bob Atchison offer one piece of evidence that would’ve showed where all these people who gave money to him for his web club believing that their money would be sent to help restore the Alexander Palace or Father Markell’s church, the Fedorovsky Cathedral? Still why does Bob and Pallasart still represent on the web that it had sent the money that people gave them, when in court documents under oath Bob admitted that “no money was ever sent” ?
So what about Bob’s Company being forfeited and unable to conduct business as normal, yet they did in the face of what the State said that they could do…
BOB ATCHISON’S WEB DESIGN COMPANY - PALLASART WEB VENTURES, INC.
SUBCHAPTER F. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES
171.251. FORFEITURE OF CORPORATE PRIVILEGES. The comptroller shall forfeit the corporate privileges of a corporation on which the franchise tax is imposed if the corporation: …
171.2515. FORFEITURE OF RIGHT OF TAXABLE ENTITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE.
(a) The comptroller may, for the same reasons and using the same procedures the comptroller uses in relation to the forfeiture of the corporate privileges of a corporation, forfeit the right of a taxable entity to transact business in this state.
(b) The provisions of this subchapter, including Section 171.255, that apply to the forfeiture of corporate privileges apply to the forfeiture of a taxable entity's right to transact business in this state.
SUBCHAPTER G. FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
(This is why Bob Atchison/Pallasart lost his charter.)
171.301. GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. It is a ground for the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority if:
(1) the corporate privileges of the corporation are forfeited under this chapter and the corporation does not pay, within 120 days after the date the corporate privileges are
forfeited, the amount necessary for the corporation to revive under this chapter its corporate privileges; or …
Now it is possible to revive a dead corporation, as Bob revived his company this month (October 17, 2006).
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/PallasartReinstatement.pdf
171.312. REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE. A corporation whose charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state is entitled to have its charter or certificate revived and to have its corporate privileges revived if: …
171.314. CORPORATE PRIVILEGES AFTER FORFEITURE BY SECRETARY OF STATE IS SET ASIDE. If the secretary of state sets aside under this chapter the forfeiture of a corporation's charter or certificate of authority, the comptroller shall revive the corporate privileges of the corporation.
This part is very interesting, notice the implications!
171.315. USE OF CORPORATE NAME AFTER REVIVAL OF CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY. If a corporation's charter or certificate of authority is forfeited under this chapter by the secretary of state and if the corporation requests the secretary to set aside the forfeiture under Section 171.313 of this code, the corporation shall determine from the secretary whether the corporation's name is available for use. If the name is not available, the corporation shall amend its charter or certificate to change its name.
Notice that the very name of the corporation was taken away if its charter was forfeited.
So if the name of the corporation was taken away, how could they continue to do business in the name of the corporation? Not to mention that Texas law said that they no longer had the right to conduct business as normal for Pallasart “Inc.”? And if so, why did they continue to do so ignoring the law?
We know that Bob Atchison’s company Pallasart has been conducting business as usual since it's Charter was removed, taking money from consumers and representing that it is an up and up corporation, legitimate --- when in fact it wasn't. We know that he did this in 2004 – so it’s not like its his first time or that no one attempted to educate him that what he was doing was fraudulent and against the law. I wonder how Bob is going to tap dance around that one - Oh I know, he's going to pretend, "I didn't know" but it's not going to work:)
Lets look elsewhere now
While I could point out many things about Rob Moshein’s Admissions under oath I will merely point out the highlights.
By the way I am only posting snippets of what Rob admitted/denied in official court documents. If he claims that those words aren't his words, or Rob denies that he wrote the words "Admit" or "Deny," I will be happy to provide the link from Oma's site so all can read just exactly what he admitted to under oath by his own hand. Remember that right here on Legends that Rob Moshein stated that the Oma Hamou Report was personally his own. Of course Bob told the police that it was his / Pallasarts. However, lets look at the following in the light of Rob’s claim of ownership
In Texas Oma Hamou sued Bob Atchison, Pallasart & Rob Moshein Cause No. GN303141
Robert (Rob) M. Moshein’s Admissions:
34. That you stated that Oma Hamou was extradited to the state of Montana. DENY
The Oma Hamou Report dot org site states: “NEW: Hamou was arrested again in San Diego on July 9, 1997 as a Fugitive from Justice for violation of her Montana parole. San Diego Case CD129280. She was jailed for one month until extradited back to Yellowstone Montana on August 15”
If Rob Moshein didn’t publish this then Bob Atchison did, (or maybe it was Rob/Bob/Pallasart?) nevertheless as we’ve seen here on Legends - Rob states as a matter of fact that Oma had been extradited back to Montana. So could it be that at the time he made this admission under oath that it wasn’t him that published it (possibly it was Bob who did it) but later Rob was convinced otherwise? That is, just what “tap dance” is going on here?
80. That you have used an alias or pseudonym in communicating to persons via the Internet regarding Enigma, Sarskaia or Hamou. ADMIT
94. That you stated that you have sent “Instant Messages” to Enigma, Sarskaia and Oma Hamou. ADMIT
95. That you stated that you worked for Pallasart as the director, billing & Accounting. [b]DENY
Then why did Pallasart list his name as an employee on this website?
So if the name of the corporation was taken away, how could they continue to do business in the name of the corporation? Not to mention that Texas law said that they no longer had the right to conduct business as normal for Pallasart “Inc.”? And if so, why did they continue to do so ignoring the law?
We know that Bob Atchison’s company Pallasart has been conducting business as usual since it's Charter was removed, taking money from consumers and representing that it is an up and up corporation, legitimate --- when in fact it wasn't. We know that he did this in 2004 – so it’s not like its his first time or that no one attempted to educate him that what he was doing was fraudulent and against the law. I wonder how Bob is going to tap dance around that one - Oh I know, he's going to pretend, "I didn't know" but it's not going to work:)
Lets look elsewhere now
While I could point out many things about Rob Moshein’s Admissions under oath I will merely point out the highlights.
By the way I am only posting snippets of what Rob admitted/denied in official court documents. If he claims that those words aren't his words, or Rob denies that he wrote the words "Admit" or "Deny," I will be happy to provide the link from Oma's site so all can read just exactly what he admitted to under oath by his own hand. Remember that right here on Legends that Rob Moshein stated that the Oma Hamou Report was personally his own. Of course Bob told the police that it was his / Pallasarts. However, lets look at the following in the light of Rob’s claim of ownership
In Texas Oma Hamou sued Bob Atchison, Pallasart & Rob Moshein Cause No. GN303141
Robert (Rob) M. Moshein’s Admissions:
34. That you stated that Oma Hamou was extradited to the state of Montana. DENY
The Oma Hamou Report dot org site states: “NEW: Hamou was arrested again in San Diego on July 9, 1997 as a Fugitive from Justice for violation of her Montana parole. San Diego Case CD129280. She was jailed for one month until extradited back to Yellowstone Montana on August 15”
If Rob Moshein didn’t publish this then Bob Atchison did, (or maybe it was Rob/Bob/Pallasart?) nevertheless as we’ve seen here on Legends - Rob states as a matter of fact that Oma had been extradited back to Montana. So could it be that at the time he made this admission under oath that it wasn’t him that published it (possibly it was Bob who did it) but later Rob was convinced otherwise? That is, just what “tap dance” is going on here?
80. That you have used an alias or pseudonym in communicating to persons via the Internet regarding Enigma, Sarskaia or Hamou. ADMIT
94. That you stated that you have sent “Instant Messages” to Enigma, Sarskaia and Oma Hamou. ADMIT
95. That you stated that you worked for Pallasart as the director, billing & Accounting. [b]DENY
Then why did Pallasart list his name as an employee on this website?
A Tap Dance by the Master? Or lies?
Yahoo shows on searching:
Websites for Wholesalers and Distributors - Pallasart Design Studios
Vice President, Programming and Software Development. Rob Moshein. Director, Billing & Accounting. Max Sonesta. Director, Content Management ...
Vice President, Programming and Software Development. Rob Moshein. Director, Billing & Accounting. Max Sonesta. Director, Content Management ...
(The site is no longer active, but a whois check verifies that it is owned by Bob.)
http://www.texaswebdesigner.com/
http://www.texaswebdesigner.com/
Archive.org has Rob listed as being the “Billing Department” of Pallasart in this page in its archives: http://web.archive.org/web/20030207072612/www.pallasweb.com/about.html
The next year Pallasart has promoted him to “Director, Billing & Accounting”
http://web.archive.org/web/20031002143949/www.pallasweb.com/about.html
Or you can view a PDF of an Archived page show Rob as a member of Pallasart http://www.omahamou.com/LastChapter/RobMosheinPallasweb1.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20031002143949/www.pallasweb.com/about.html
Or you can view a PDF of an Archived page show Rob as a member of Pallasart http://www.omahamou.com/LastChapter/RobMosheinPallasweb1.pdf
104. You published Oma Hamou’s social security number on the Internet. DENY
But it was someone using the name of Gilbert MacDuff, the same MacDuff who sent harassment messages to Enigma who did in fact post Oma Hamou’s US social security number on the web. On Legends here, Rob Moshein flat out denied ever using the alias “Gilbert MacDuff” or "Tonya Hoochie” but said he knew who did.
119. You have stated that Oma Hamou was convicted of fraud and theft by deception in the state of Utah . DENY
In the above letter to the California Attorney General’s Office he states the very thing he denied under oath. This letter was and is a part of the court record in Oma’s lawsuit against Rob Moshein, Bob Atchison and Pallasart Case No. GN303141.
It would appear through Rob’s own letters to law enforcement and such about Oma Hamou that as an officer of the court (he is a licensed attorney though not active) Rob Moshein deliberately and unabashedly committed perjury.
Continuing on:
QUOTE ANASTASIA D: May 16, 2006 "...I don't see it as libel. I see it as you being exposed for the scum sucking lying son of a bitch you are. It's not libel if it's the truth..."
That sums up pretty much how we all feel about Rob Moshein /Bob Atchison and their lies…
QUOTE ROB MOSHEIN: April 21, 2006 "...OH, just a little genuine info on your beloved "Ms Hamou", I will GLADLY email you copies of ANY document you want supporting anything here: "Oma Ashkenazy Demian" (aka "Oma Demian") was convicted in the State of Utah, Coalville District Court Division 2, Case number 1338 of the Felony crime of "Theft By Deception" in violation of Utah Criminal Statue 76-6-405, and was sentenced on January 13, 1992 for this crime..."
Rob Moshein’s statement is word for word the same as is reported on Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org and now on that Blog.
126. You have stated that a photograph of Oma Hamou looks more like a West Hollywood Drag Queen than a Russian Empress. ADMIT
Rob’s comments were in reference to the below photograph of Oma Hamou.
135. That you have used the alias or pseudonym, “Gilbert MacDuff” in communicating to persons via the Internet. ADMIT
This would confirm Bob’s testimony in his oral deposition http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf - page 35 - Rob claimed on Legends that he hasn’t used the name Gilbert MacDuff but knew who did. Could that person be Bob Atchison? If Rob Moshein didn’t publish Oma’s social security then who did? Bob Atchison? We know that someone in December 2003 using one of Pallasart’s computers posted this message on the web, as we have that site’s IP record. Rob Moshein also published here on Legends a ‘So What’ if Oma’s US social security number was published because Pallasart’s associate PYLES revealed it is just one of many that she has ’so it’s no big deal. (Which came first, all the people using Oma’s S.S. number, or Rob (Gilbert McDuff) publishing it on the web?)
137. That you have blocked and prevented certain Internet Protocol’s associated with Enigma, Sarskaia and Oma Hamou from viewing LaBloodhound website. DENY
What about the Oma Hamou Report?
From 2005 until today’s date November 9, 2006 on the Internet Archive Site it featured only three versions of Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org, as of today’s date there are six different versions. This is the same site that a court in Texas rendered a judicial ruling:
”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.”
The same court specifically demanded that Rob Moshein remove Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org off the web:
“Said restraining order shall restrain Robert Moshein from operating and shall require the removal of the website http://www.omahamoureport.org and further shall restrain defendant from secreting or destroying any evidence relevant to the claims of third party plaintiffs”
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
From 2005 until today’s date November 9, 2006 on the Internet Archive Site it featured only three versions of Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org, as of today’s date there are six different versions. This is the same site that a court in Texas rendered a judicial ruling:
”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.”
The same court specifically demanded that Rob Moshein remove Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org off the web:
“Said restraining order shall restrain Robert Moshein from operating and shall require the removal of the website http://www.omahamoureport.org and further shall restrain defendant from secreting or destroying any evidence relevant to the claims of third party plaintiffs”
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf
Bob Atchison is the heart of Pallasart. Bob has admitted in his oral deposition that he and he alone can make technical changes to his "Alexander Palace Time Machine" baby so as in 2004 – 2005 and present Bob has blocked IP’s associated with Enigma, Sarskaia so that these various entities can’t view Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org a website created and designed to harm Oma Hamou.
My question is Why?
What are they attempting to hide by blocking specific IP’s.
What are they attempting to hide by blocking specific IP’s.
What sinister motives drive these actions?
So bringing it all back into focus:
This cartoon is a miniature of this whole “war” and a miniature education into how Propaganda Techniques can sway the public. Oma is the Luck Duck who gets attacked and hurt in the first frame. Then we have “Them” trying to sway public opinion by the use of propagandized P.R. techniques. But it is what is going to happen in the end that is significant. Just what will be the judgment of those who do investigate what is really going on. Is “their” story about Oma honest? Or has it been twisted into a Big Lie (see Propaganda Techniques at Wikipedia)? What is the heart and soul behind and inside “them”? Who are “they” really - deep inside? And the biggest question of all WHY?
Did Bob Atchison commit perjury - BIG TIME?
Did Bob Atchison fabricate evidence which he gave to law enforcement in their criminal investigation on Oma on his "bogus" (all of his reports lacked any evidence or merit) and to the courts?
So bringing it all back into focus:
This cartoon is a miniature of this whole “war” and a miniature education into how Propaganda Techniques can sway the public. Oma is the Luck Duck who gets attacked and hurt in the first frame. Then we have “Them” trying to sway public opinion by the use of propagandized P.R. techniques. But it is what is going to happen in the end that is significant. Just what will be the judgment of those who do investigate what is really going on. Is “their” story about Oma honest? Or has it been twisted into a Big Lie (see Propaganda Techniques at Wikipedia)? What is the heart and soul behind and inside “them”? Who are “they” really - deep inside? And the biggest question of all WHY?
Did Bob Atchison commit perjury - BIG TIME?
Did Bob Atchison fabricate evidence which he gave to law enforcement in their criminal investigation on Oma on his "bogus" (all of his reports lacked any evidence or merit) and to the courts?
Did Bob Atchison commit fraud?
Did Pallasart commit fraud?
Was there Criminal stalking?
Was there Criminal harassment?
Was there Conspiracy?
Have Bob Atchison /Rob Moshein been truthful?
The evidence that I have seen is such that if I were on the jury I would vote that Bob Atchison is guilty. I know that Oma Hamou wants him to go to jail. I know various law enforcement units are investigating her complaints. Just because Rob/Bob say they aren't doesn't mean it’s true. Sometimes investigations can take several months, even years.
One thing is for certain Oma Hamou is going to file another civil lawsuit against them and is continuing to participate daily with law enforcement so that Bob will go to jail for the crimes he’s perpetrated against her and on the courts.
As was said in one of my earlier “novels” a word that “they” use try to denigrate what I write, but which I proudly accept as a banner to wave, --- It would seem that in the heart of Bob Atchison that he never thought that the Police would ever back Oma Hamou to the point of providing her with not only the reports but notes and such on what was told to them. Or that he ever thought that various comments would ever be gathered in one location so that people could compare what was said at different times and places. He also never counted on any of his peers ever seeing the sinister side of his persona that is he deliberately lied to them never thinking that any of them would ever doubt his credibility, but they do. Many people now support Oma Hamou’s arduous fight for justice which she says is her best revenge. Sure it not simple to wade through all the exhibits to verify for yourself that what was said is what is contained in those court exhibits, and that indeed at different times and places different things were said. And one has to understand “their” fierce desire to keep the public from learning the truth and seeing with their own eyes the disparate statements. This is not in accordance with even the most rudimentary concepts behind the “Big Lie,” The Big Lie only works when people are denied the facts, and or are lead in such a manner that they never exert the effort to discover them for themselves.
No matter how you slice it the bottom line it goes back to the fact that Oma Hamou alleges that Bob Atchison has and did commit perjury and fabricate evidence submitted to the police and to the court to manipulate them.
And it worked to a point as we saw during Bob’s lawsuit with Oma where a jury awarded him a judgment in his favor based on the representations both he and his attorney had made (which were false) and the evidence he submitted as being a true and correct copy.
An attorney from one of Austin's Top law firms, representing Enigma/Sarskaia and Oma stated in his affidavit:
"...After a limited review of available pleadings and after discussing the case with Ms. Hamou it appears that her counterclaims and third party claims and those of intervenors Enigma Films, Inc. and the Sarskaia Foundation are meritorious as further evidenced by the fact that the Court granted a temporary injunction ( restraining order) in their favor against the other parties indicating a probability of success on the merits..."
Did Pallasart commit fraud?
Was there Criminal stalking?
Was there Criminal harassment?
Was there Conspiracy?
Have Bob Atchison /Rob Moshein been truthful?
The evidence that I have seen is such that if I were on the jury I would vote that Bob Atchison is guilty. I know that Oma Hamou wants him to go to jail. I know various law enforcement units are investigating her complaints. Just because Rob/Bob say they aren't doesn't mean it’s true. Sometimes investigations can take several months, even years.
One thing is for certain Oma Hamou is going to file another civil lawsuit against them and is continuing to participate daily with law enforcement so that Bob will go to jail for the crimes he’s perpetrated against her and on the courts.
As was said in one of my earlier “novels” a word that “they” use try to denigrate what I write, but which I proudly accept as a banner to wave, --- It would seem that in the heart of Bob Atchison that he never thought that the Police would ever back Oma Hamou to the point of providing her with not only the reports but notes and such on what was told to them. Or that he ever thought that various comments would ever be gathered in one location so that people could compare what was said at different times and places. He also never counted on any of his peers ever seeing the sinister side of his persona that is he deliberately lied to them never thinking that any of them would ever doubt his credibility, but they do. Many people now support Oma Hamou’s arduous fight for justice which she says is her best revenge. Sure it not simple to wade through all the exhibits to verify for yourself that what was said is what is contained in those court exhibits, and that indeed at different times and places different things were said. And one has to understand “their” fierce desire to keep the public from learning the truth and seeing with their own eyes the disparate statements. This is not in accordance with even the most rudimentary concepts behind the “Big Lie,” The Big Lie only works when people are denied the facts, and or are lead in such a manner that they never exert the effort to discover them for themselves.
No matter how you slice it the bottom line it goes back to the fact that Oma Hamou alleges that Bob Atchison has and did commit perjury and fabricate evidence submitted to the police and to the court to manipulate them.
And it worked to a point as we saw during Bob’s lawsuit with Oma where a jury awarded him a judgment in his favor based on the representations both he and his attorney had made (which were false) and the evidence he submitted as being a true and correct copy.
An attorney from one of Austin's Top law firms, representing Enigma/Sarskaia and Oma stated in his affidavit:
"...After a limited review of available pleadings and after discussing the case with Ms. Hamou it appears that her counterclaims and third party claims and those of intervenors Enigma Films, Inc. and the Sarskaia Foundation are meritorious as further evidenced by the fact that the Court granted a temporary injunction ( restraining order) in their favor against the other parties indicating a probability of success on the merits..."
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/Plaintiff_s_Reurged_Motion_for_Continuance.pdf
Let me repeat what that lawyer said in conclusion:
Let me repeat what that lawyer said in conclusion:
"…it appears that her counterclaims and third party claims and those of intervenors Enigma Films, Inc. and the Sarskaia Foundation are meritorious…"
Photo Source: Oma Hamou.com, AA Legends
posted by Sandman at 8:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home