Webs of deceit? Or just the pattern of the Big Lie?

Tonight on AA Legends Mike Newson posted:

A “Historian” is one who deals with events that happened in the past, that is time itself and when things happen in time are critical to a Historian, Right?

Or as Wikipedia defines it: An historian is a person who studies history. The term is often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline. The process of historical analysis is a difficult one, involving investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts, and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened. ...

Also before we really get started there is a concept of infallibility and completeness in an often used “influence” that needs to be corrected. Many of us seem to have this opinion that the “Internet” holds all knowledge and information available. In fact the Internet is but a recent addition to our culture. “Starting in the early 1980's and continuing to this day, the Internet grew beyond its primarily research roots to include both a broad user community and increased commercial activity.” Ref: http://www.isoc.org

When one looks at how recent an addition that the World Wide Web really is, with its birth only a decade or so ago, then one is forced to realize that it is not “the repository of all knowledge,” and that just because something is not found on the Internet that does not mean that it never happened. Remember that in science one can not prove or disprove the existence of something based on the lack of evidence. Yet this appears to be the favored method to influence the minds of those who Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison wish to sway to their point of view.

By sway to their point of view I specifically mean the usage of Propaganda Techniques and emotion to control and influence those reading these Hate-Oma web sites and Blog’s. I hope that by educating those who read my words that they will understand the patterns of deception and the weaving of truth and lies, stirred well with emotions to create this pattern of propaganda of hate that is used against Oma and those of us who have defended her.

I recall to mind, my own words of not long ago, “In reading Bob Atchison’s court mandated documents (depositions, transcripts and such, as I have been doing recently) I have noted some trends that I find interesting. I picture a “Historian” as one with a sharp mind for times, events, names and such. Yet when one reads Bob Atchison’s words in these documents --- I find that on occasion he is sharp as a tack, snapping off first and last names of many people in what seems to be machine gun like fashion, yet on other events, events that one would expect to have been emotionally charged, and thus memorial, situations --- he could not remember what happened. On some questions he waffled in his answers, as he “could not remember.” Some of these situations we have noted that he said one thing one time and something different at a different time. Was the difficulty in remembering caused by trying to remember which story he had told who?

For instance in the Murder-for-Hire incident, “we” have found that to some people Bob Atchison claimed that he was so afraid that he went to get and received a restraining order against not only Oma Hamou but the hit man. He also claimed that the police told him of this plot. Yet in looking at the records, we find a pattern of communication talking about a commonality of experiences shared by Bob Atchison and the “hit man” prior to phone communication being established. And then after much phone communication, Bob called the police to report the “plot.” He even stated that he had gone to the police as he feared the “hit man” yet, when you look at the three months of association with this claimed “hit man” you find a history of Pallasart even going so far as to register a domain name for this person and the intent to create a web site for them. Yet “he says” he got a restraining order against him????? No restraining order was ever found to have existed, and the police and other agencies involved dismissed the complaint.”

Using the famous “way-back-machine” lets have “Sherman” move our point of view to some recent events and go back in time from there so that as one becomes educated in the events then one can understand the “Why” of both sides.

There was only the continuing of an old familiar pattern when both Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein refused Oma Hamou’s ‘Cease and Desist’ letter regarding the Oma Hamou Reality Blog, which was also posted as a comment on the Blog itself and afterwards removed from that Blog and all ability for leaving future comments blocked, as well as having been posted and acknowledged by no less that Rob himself on Legends – On August 26, 2006
RobMoshein posted: "...I want no communication from you directly whatsoever, nor does Mr. Atchison…"

When one looks at the legal timeline that the Attorney Dave Slater prepared in respect to prosecuting Bob Atchison, Pallasart and Rob Moshein in Enigma, Sarskaia and Oma’s lawsuit against them one discovers that this isn’t the first time that Bob Atchison and Pallasart have avoided and hid from those attempting to arrange to serve them with pleadings and papers.

“Sherman” set the way back machine to November 25, 2003.

http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/BobAtchisonEvadesService.pdf

Going even further back in time to 2002. Oma after hearing from colleagues in the United States and abroad about the things that Bob Atchison was doing and saying about Oma, she filed a lawsuit against them in Los Angeles, California. Bob did not appear in court but filed a pleading in pro se arguing that the state of California had no jurisdiction over him since he lived in Texas and the courts agreed. California law dictates that a company such as Pallasart could not represent itself in pro se, so Bob had to get an attorney there in California.

According to Oma’s attorney’s letter dated April 11, 2003:

Quote: “…Accordingly, even though my client has been injured financially as a result of your client’s actions, my client decided to not to pursue any legal action at this time. Consequently, she dismissed her state action without prejudice so as to preserve all of her rights in the event your client resumes to defame her character in the future…”

http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/OmaHamouSuespallasartBobAtchisonLA.pdf

If you read the entire letter you find that Bob Atchison essentially denies saying all the things that later on in Oma Hamou’s Texas Civil lawsuit was shown did happen. From the onset of all this mess Bob Atchison’s credibility was and still is an issue. Attorney Dave Slater says in his letter to Bob dated October 3, 2003: “...Indeed, I intend to challenge each and every allegation you have raised and test your veracity under oath…” and as the record bears out Bob Atchison's testimony is devoid of credibility --- one only needs to look at and compare his statements in the court transcripts, police reports and his oral deposition.

http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/LawyeradmonishedBobAtchison.pdf

Just as in Oma Hamou’s earlier case against Bob Atchison in California for basically the same stuff that she later turned around and sued in Texas we find despite what was represented by Oma’s attorney letter dated April 11, 2003 that Bob had not / has not / did not, or in any manner slowed or scaled back his daily efforts to stalk, intimidate, harass Oma and both Rob Moshein and he lack the capacity to restrain themselves.

Here again is another prime example of Bob Atchison telling no less than Oma’s attorney of record at that time that he is innocent of any wrongdoing against Oma yet the letters he popped out of his computers to business associates and such, as well as his exhibits that he provided to the courts under oath that such were true and correct shows again a pattern of disregard for the truth.

In a letter to Mr. Atchison, dated October 13, 2003, Attorney, David Slater writes:

Quote: “…I have demanded that you cease and desist from your extensive communications and statements to various persons and entities dealing with Ms. Hamou and refrain from physically harassing her. I do not refer to mere heated statements made in an isolated manner in the context of a common contractual dispute. Your actions are well beyond what would normally be expected in a dispute between businesspersons. You have contacted numerous people over a number of years conveying self serving, false malicious and oppressive statements regarding Ms. Hamou. She has every right to inform these persons that your defamatory comments will be challenged by my office.

The single, salient point in your response to my letter of October 8, 2003, is that you refuse to cease and desist from the communications and conduct of which I have complained. I have a proposal. Without conceding the assertions set forth in my letter, I propose that you promptly enter into an agreement with my client to refrain the future from contacting or communicating with the persons and entities referenced in my earlier letter or from threatening Ms. Hamou, directly or indirectly. I will set forth in injunctive form and present to the court. The injunction will specifically state that you do not admit any of the misconduct alleged by my client. The injunction will be temporary in nature and be in place only during the course of this litigation. If we prevail, it will be made a permanent injunction. If you prevail, you may request of the Court that it be dissolved completely. The benefit to everyone is that it will likely simplify and, to some extent, accelerate the trial of this case…”
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit076.pdf

Bob Atchison then responded in a letter dated October 14, 2003:

Quote: “…You appear to miss one salient piece of reality here, so allow me to clarify. I can not “cease and desist” from conduct I have not done. I can not “refuse to cease and desist” from conduct I have not done. I have repeatedly stated your allegations are untrue and false yet you thunder on about them otherwise. As for your ridiculous proposal of an “injunction”, it is utterly impossible for me to agree to submit to an injunction against vague yet serious allegations of actions that I have not done…”

http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit077.pdf

Despite the fact that later the court would eventually deny Oma’s Attorney’s Motion to examine Bob Atchison’s computers --- at one time, way before a Motion was filed Bob agreed to allow his company and his personal computer to be forensically examined. Of course as we all know he later changed his mind.

“Sherman” set the way back machine to FEB. 10, 2005

http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/MatterofBobAtchisonsPallasartcomputers21020053.pdf

Setting the way back machine even further back in time to January 15, 2004 so that you can see that what I am referring to are not isolated events, but rather continuing patterns. Attorney Dave Slater wrote to Bob Atchison’s attorney:

Quote: “…I am quite doubtful that a settlement is possible because, frankly, any settlement must be designed and documented so as to ensure that Mr. Atchison completely and finally ends his malicious conduct in all its forms. From my dealings with him and a review of his prior conduct, I do not expect that he can let go of this obsession… It may sound like amateur psychology, but I think this exchange invigorates him and I expect that he will be reluctant to agree to be enjoined from such conduct and, if he does agree, I am not at all sure he will be able to resist temptation…”

Just one day before this letter was written “Gilbert MacDuff” published on a Russian city website:

Quote: “…The Pushkin Chamber protects this liar and convicted criminal. What does it say about them? What does it say about your town???....There is no film…AMERICA KNOWS THAT OMA HAMOU IS NOTHING, NO ONE AND CERTAINLY JUST A CRIMINAL….."

http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit088.pdf

In Bob Atchison’s oral deposition
(http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf Page 35 Line 23) he says that MacDuff is Rob Moshein --- remember he says this under oath, yet here on Legends Rob claims he has never used that name or the name “Tonya Hoochie.” Who knows who did what, the way Bob Atchison / Rob Moshein have posted messages using various web names but one thing is for sure one of them had the audacity to post Oma Hamou’s US social security number on the web.

In a letter to a 14 year old girl Rob Moshein informs her that “Bob has said I may answer your questions as best I can given the legal situation…”

http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit110.pdf

Bob Atchison knew and Rob Moshein knew pursuant to a court order that ROB couldn’t, yet he did it anyway:

A Texas judicial ruling was rendered on the side of Oma Hamou, Enigma Films and The Sarskaia Foundation with respect to their lawsuit against Bob Atchison, Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc and Rob Moshein:

Quote: “The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.”

http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/ApplicationRestrainingOrderAgainstRobMoshein.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf
http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf

The point is that Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein are one and the same in intent. In 2003-2004 Rob was listed on the web as being a part of Bob’s company, Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit002.pdf When Bob purchased his home in Austin he waited many years before apparently deciding to gift Rob in half ownership of their residence and place of business.

The bottom line is this: Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein appears to be extremely able in the effective use of “the Big Lie” as well an ability to “fabricate on the fly,” if you will. They have cast horrible aspersions against not only myself and Oma Hamou but all kinds of members of the Russian State – Museum Preserve, the Russian Orthodox Church, the World Monuments Fund and others who, I’ve been told by Oma through her own experience, were undeserving thereof. Bob/Rob’s lies have been devastating and constitute the kind of outrage and travesty, which seems to me, tarnishes every person who knows of it.

For instance on “That Blog” of Rob/Bob’s the most recent topic appears to be that Oma says she is something that she is not.

Quote OHR BLOG: "...Oma Hamou's "bio" on her website was written by a "Tricia Walters". Google searches, phone calls, and general investigation reveal no published author, writer or columnist of this name..."

Tell me since when does someone have to be a, “Published Author, Writer or Columnist” to write? More interestingly is that a Google search has become the final authority? Yet the first version of Google was only released on the Stanford University Web site in August of 1996, a lifetime of only ten years and a few months at this date. The lack of something does not prove its existence or absence.

However, in this case a quick search of Google using “Tricia Walters” does pull up several writers, or instances of the same person, who have written and that are documented as having done so on Google. So the usage of “none” can only be considered as an attempt to sway the minds of That Blog’s readers with propaganda techniques that is out right lies, as in the Big Lie.

Quote OHR BLOG: "...Read Ms. Walters’ article on Oma at: http://www.sarskaia.org/news-n-press/biography.html..."

Also notice the standard smoke and mirror approach of the Yellow Journalist style of propaganda technique, where That Blog says, "Oma is currently a member of the "California Attorneys for Criminal Justice" And then they respond with:

QUOTE OHR BLOG: “Some Oma Hamou Reality: WEELLLL kiddies, we called a California attorney who specializes in criminal law and asked him to look her up in their directory for us. Guess what? Yep, she is not listed currently as a member.”

OK, “Sherman” shall we set the way back machine again?

Lets just use some simple logic. This is a perfect example of the way that all of “their” logic with regard to Oma Hamou goes. I have come to believe that it is an intentional usage of propaganda techniques so that they can sway the emotions of those who they send to read this information and all of its brothers and sisters where ever and when ever they have been on the web over time since the first one appeared on Bob Atchison’s AlexanderPalace.org site. If you read my last missive you would have read about how there is a tendency to ignore specific facts that are pro Oma, or that would lessen the impact of what they “wanted” to say, such as not “seeing” the words “Other State” on one document. In this case these self styled Historians have again ignored the effects of time, which is the essence of History. So back when the article was written she was a member, now having come down the corridors of time she is not. By the way, 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. (As an aside: I should point out that any of the documents I put up such as the receipt from the CACJ were made a part of Oma Hamou’s previous lawsuit, which I have had plenty of time to go over, as Bob Atchison and Pallasart had published as a matter of fact statements on its Alexander Palace Time Machine and Oma Hamou Report dot org the same words repeated on the Blog… Trust me, you do not provide faked evidence to the courts where they will be examined under a microscope, not unless you want them and your veracity ripped to pieces.

So looking at an event that took place in the past and assigning it as a current event to today for verification, plus misreading the data and asking the wrong person to look in the wrong place, and stating that the results proved that she was never a member???? This is the result of “Historians” researching things? Or are such deliberate misstatements an attempt to control “your” mind?

Quote OHR BLOG: "...Oma Hamou and her "foundation" have done NOTHING NADA ZERO AND ZIP for any of these places in the last FIVE YEARS. This is hardly being "actively engaged", no?.."

Again notice the effect of time, what “was” versus what “is” now. And again looking at a historical document and assigning it to now, plus I gather that this lack of activity is on a par with Bob Atchison’s activities (or lack of them) since his phone call to stir up interest in repairing the Palace’s roof what? Eight years ago? There are an amazing number of items where Oma Hamou has been accused, and yet we find that Rob Moshein /Bob Atchison have done or are doing almost the exact same things. Have you noticed that it is somehow “wrong” for Oma to have done whatever, but it is absolutely OK for Rob/Bob to have done the same thing?

I know what Oma Hamou has been doing, which attempting to cope with what Bob Atchison has been doing to her life. I suspect that with Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein's obsession with Oma and the effects that it has had on her life, how they have to all intents and purposes shredded her life to pieces as Bob once threatened to do to her physically, with trips to Russia to stop her progress, and all the letters that you can read about on OmaHamou.com --- the ones that Bob provided, but at first denied that he had sent to anyone, to Oma’s Lawyer? Those letters and activities? Well given all that has transpired it is not surprising to me that nothing has happened since Bob entered the picture. (Again look at things over time, this is not a story that was frozen in time, it is dynamic and a fluid series of events over a period of time starting back at the beginning of this millennium.) In fact what Rob/Bob have accomplished is to lay low the entire group surrounding Oma. I doubt that any of us will ever fully recover from what was done to Oma and indirectly to the rest of us.

Now, what am I getting it at with all this?

Bob Atchison created a web site on the Alexander Palace Time Machine about why you should hate Oma Hamou but took it down when his attorney got involved in the case. However, I’d say that his obsession to harm Oma was so strong that next he created Oma Hamou Report on various free hosts such as Freewebshosting and Tripod in spite of legal counsel. Now despite his denial in court documents under oath, Bob again under oath told law enforcement in Los Angeles, Texas and the FBI, Homeland Security and the US Marshall’s office that he and he alone created Oma Hamou Report. Yet other of his words say that he did not even know about the sites. The question comes down to a simple and often repeated theme. When can you believe him?

Quote: Rob Moshein October 2, 2005: "…Just to make sure that should anyone attempt some sort of libel litigation out of harassment I can prove nobody actually reads this..."

So here we have Rob Moshein admitting that he came on this forum for no other purpose but to harass and intimidate those of us who defended Oma Hamou and others here, and he engaged the assistance of some of his friends from Pallasart’s forum. One in particular stands heads and shoulders above the rest, a “H. Michael Pyles” who told the police that “he was working with Bob Atchison on creating a web site about Oma. Pyles also took it one step further and accused Oma of committing crimes and publishing it here on this forum. Crimes such as identity theft and being involved with a missing person – things which Bob himself long time ago had told the police and other "alleged" crimes. The ‘only’ one difference that sets Bob Atchison apart from Pyles (besides the money) is that he didn’t tell the police Oma was involved in the disappearance of any person. Pyles accusations and alleged statements told to him by police officers and published here on this forum turned out to be fabricated and designed to harm Oma, to incite hate, that is -- a lie.

A wide variety of things have been concocted, created, or misinterpreted about Oma Hamou such as how Bob Atchison conspired and concocted a murder for hire scheme in which he told the police that Oma had hired a man to kill him (these are the words he told the police) because he sued her and she wanted to end his lawsuit. Now, of course this wasn’t true, as at the same time Bob had sued Oma she had filed her own counterclaims against him but can you see the obsession?

Quote Jim: "Rob, Again I have a problem with your accusations about Oma, …. It always strike me that you accuse Oma of things she never did and are completely out of her character while, surprise, your accusations describe your actions with great accuracy. You should consider through your blind hatred that it is yourself and not Oma that you hate.

Here’s a question for you: If you tell the truth and Oma lies why is it that she accurately annotates her comments for all to see and verify, for the most part using documents that Bob supplied to the courts, and your supposed verified facts lead most people that say “what the heck is he talking about?” One of several examples, the police officer you quote on Oma Hamou Reality blog who you quoted as saying it was a shame the statue of limitations had expired so she couldn’t nail Oma. Well, I personally called and spoke with that police officer and she simply said that she had completed her investigation and saw no cause to pursue the matter.

You must have found great success for your “Big Lie” strategy on the Internet, however I think soon both Bob and you will find it horrifying as to how your irrational hatred stands up to legal scrutiny in court. Your tactics haven’t changed, your M/O is still “attack” and if that doesn’t work, attack some more. I feel that you will go down attacking --- but you will go down, legally by your own words and actions."

And in a total different direction regarding Bob Atchison’s lawsuit one has to ask would the jury have awarded the present judgment in favor of Bob Atchison had they viewed evidence to the contrary?

Quote Bob Atchison’s Attorney Matthews: "...There was a prior suit between these two people in California and then there was another prior suit in Texas. The one in California that Ms. Hamou filed was dismissed. The prior lawsuit here in Texas was settled, and that had to do with Mr. Atchison’s former business partner and the web design company that they own together. That matter was resolved and that suit was dismissed..."

That is, when you look at the evidence it appears that not only did Bob Atchison commit perjury but so did his attorney.

Quote Rachel: " I’ve always felt Mr. Atchison should be trusted as much as a fox in the henhouse. What the attorney did along with Mr. Atchison is completely incomprehensible and insulting to the courts. Attorneys are, first of all, officers of the court and owe it their highest duty. This duty imposes an obligation on all attorneys to be truthful in their dealings with both opposing counsel and the court. Our legal system depends on the truthfulness of the testimony of witnesses and false testimony strikes at the very heart of the administration of justice. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

Personally I expect what I say to be challenged in court, not just refuted on the web. Which is one of the reasons I try to explain why I say what I do and back it up with documentation like I have, why I use so many links to back up my words rather than the empty use of rhetoric to influence, sway and control via emotion.

That Blog (OHR) accused us using self serving documents? Maybe in a way, as most of my sources are sworn to be true documents, presented to the courts as true, I feel comfortable that what I say is what really happened in this history of the Oma Hamou vs. Bob Atchison conflict. I also feel that by trying to maintain my objectivity that I will be able to see the whole Elephant, and so those who read my words will feel comfortable that I do see with objectivity. That I try to educate and ask questions rather than control their (the publics’) thoughts. Honestly I know first hand the power of Bob Atchison’s to sway and make you believe him. However, if I can but chip one small chink into the armor of belief that he instills in his listeners then I have a chance to break the thrall with which he holds those who believe him. And with each person that happens to, one more person becomes free to find the true reality of this conflict. There are many more that read my words than what Rob would have us believe, thanks to someone who has moved my words off of Legends out to where they can read them without fear, as has been in the past, of Rob Moshein stalking them. I maintain my posting here as this way an independent third party holds my words in trust so that no one can accuse me of modifying them. I may be responding to items that the visitor to Legends does not see, but those stimulus’s to my writing something here do exist.

In closing lets set the way back machine once more. Here on Legends we’ve seen when Pyles implemented Oma Hamou in the disappearance of a Missing Person in Idaho how suddenly that woman’s name appeared at the top of Google search engine where it would not normally appear under normal conditions, and the search phrases that retrieved it was suspicious as in the case when Pyles and Rob Moshein hinted that Oma was the one that was dangerous and violently out of control, as her previous husband’s Appellate Brief to the Montana Supreme Court said, yet at the same time the positive things about Oma and that case did not show up on the web, such as what the Montana Attorney General had to say about the ex-husbands Appellate brief or the children’s attorney. Again Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison, so called historians, presented what they believed was the best propaganda to cause harm to Oma and to cause people to hate her. Suddenly, after comments about this were published on Legends, the ex-husband’s brief suddenly appeared at the top of Google’s search engine and the names of Oma’s children were listed on its search engine. What is wrong with this picture is that we’ve got a letter from the State of Montana that tells us that state legislation says it’s against the law to publicly name the child in question in a Youth In Need of Care Matter and that they (the state of Montana) had not done this – someone else did (of course we know who did this. As to the ex-husband’s Appellate Brief well the Montana Supreme Court cited that Oma Hamou had been a victim of domestic violence and her children had been abused by their father, unlike what Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison and “friends” have tried to arrange for “YOU” to believe. So what is reality? The violent out of control Oma as was “shown” in Legends because of the one document from Montana, or was it that she was really the one who was abused --- as the Montana State Supreme Court ruled?

The point to all this is the question of “How?” How is this able to happen, could it be that as webmasters, and clients of Google do they have some special equipment that gives them these special powers?
To me this pretty much sums up Bob/Rob’s psychological approach to things:

Excerpts from a letter to Bob written on December 4, 2003 by Attorney Dave Slater wrote:

“…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 and 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…”

Most people see the sweet side of Bob Atchison the “well I didn’t know” side. Oma told me that she has seen this “other side” of Bob like the Attorney Dave Slater saw, as have others such as when Bob threatened to F*** Up one persons life because he was upset. Which is the Real Bob Atchison? Again look for patterns, to find reality.

I leave you with this line from the 2004 film, "The Little Black Book"

By fall, I was ready to try again.
A little bruised. A little humbled.
And, hopefully, a little smarter.
I believe we write our own stories.
And each time we think we know the end...
... we don't.
Perhaps luck existssomewhere between...
... the world of planning,the world of chance...
... and in the peace that comesfrom knowing...
... that you just can't know it all.
You know, life's funny that way.
Once you let go of the wheel,you might end up...
... right where you belong.