Bob Atchison the Teflon Con?

We don’t need rules to know lying is wrong, but it is worse when an attorney does it, because they hold peoples lives in their hands. The evidence concealed by both Atchison and his attorney undercut Hamou's arguments. By lying to cover it up, Bob Atchison tried to conceal the truth. He wanted a banner, justice be damned.

[Excerpts from Oma Hamou's Affidavit]

35. Enigma’s attorney, Simone Riccobono was enlisted to assist in getting my home address removed off the web, the return of my property and or a complete refund of Enigma’s money. My attorney made it clear that we were not going to pay anything towards the 7/13/2000 Invoice 2000-343 (See http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit017.pdf) and that if they didn’t remove my home address from the web that we would sue them. Pallasart did in fact remove my home address and in a letter dated September 14, 2001 Pallasart told my attorney that Mr. Atchison and the company had decided on “an alternative arrangement to move past this unpleasant situation”…and would like “a Mutual Release between Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. and its principals and Enigma Royal Films and its principals.”

http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit025.pdf

36. Despite what Mr. Atchison represented to this Court, far from not being involved in any settlement agreement between Pallasart and Enigma he was “actively” involved in the process. My attorney took the time to draft a “Mutual Settlement Agreement and Release” which was sent back to Pallasart. (See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit026.pdf) Several drafts were passed back and forth when suddenly Mr. Atchison had a change of mind and the last draft received from Pallasart reflected a change in paragraph 3: (See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit027.pdf)

“The parties understand and agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Atchison does not release any claims he has or may have against Enigma in connection with the film project “As A Matter of Honour.”

37. Enigma refused to accept Pallasart’s “amended” changes, thus no settlement agreement was ever reached. In a letter dated December 14, 2001, Mr. Riccobono, attorney for Enigma wrote:

“…Because of the rejection of our initial released offer and the changes made, my client has instructed me not to go forward with any other release changes or release at all. My client is now of the opinion that she has paid for the products and demands it back in its entirety without the necessity of any release. Should this not be met immediately, that is within 10 days of this writing, a lawsuit will be filed for the appropriate materials and all attorney fees resulting there from. As this matter is not for negotiation, there is no need to follow this letter with any communication other than the complete satisfaction of that demanded for…” (See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit028.pdf).

38. I sent a letter dated December 18, 2001 to Mr. Atchison regarding; Pallasart’s breached web hosting/ design agreement, unlawfully retained property and a demand for its return and cease and desist. (See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit029.pdf)

38. During this litigation, in a letter dated October 5, 2004 from my Attorney, Dave Slater, to Mr. Atchison & Pallasart’s attorney, Lauren Matthews, page 3 paragraph 2 reads:

“…With respect to the repeated references to the purported settlement agreement between the parties, please be advised that this claim is false and known to be false by your client. Yet again I inform you, there is no settlement agreement. Indeed, one was prepared, at a cost of $5,000 in attorneys’ fees, on behalf of my client for execution. Your client refused to execute the proposed agreement, ergo, there is no settlement agreement. Your client knows this to be true. He cannot produce a mutually executed copy because one does not exist…”

(See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit030.pdf)

39. In my personal experience with Mr. Atchison he has slipped out of culpability like a “Teflon Con.” During trial, in one of Mr. Atchison’s more noteworthy lapses in coherence, as an example is in the way he mischaracterized this event by testifying under oath that “a settlement agreement had been reached and he had no involvement in the settlement process.” As evident by Mr. Edward’s letter to my California attorney dated September 14, 2001, this statement is not true (See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit025.pdf):

“…My partner and I have discussed this issue in depth and have decided on an alternative arrangement to move past this unpleasant situation…”

40. Mr. Atchison and Pallasart are indistinguishable in truth and in fact. He remains not only an integral part of Pallasart’s day-to-day operations but its President. Pallasart is a relatively small web design company a little “one horse operation” run out of Mr. Atchison’s home. Had such a settlement agreement truly been accomplished then why during trial did Mr. Atchison testify that he was still in possession of Enigma’s property and admitted he hadn’t given Enigma’s the historical photographs for which Pallasart was paid handsomely for? And why did he not exhibit the completed documents in court proving that such an agreement had been executed?

41. During trial Mr. Atchison presented to the court an invoice dated July 13, 2000. As stated previously, this is not a true and correct copy of the invoice I received from Pallasart. Likewise, underneath this purported invoice is a series of emails, which he purports, is my admission of the “alleged” consultation debt owed to him, which Mr. Atchison represents to this court as a true and correct copy of a series of emails that he purports is my admission of the “alleged” consultation debt owed to him. This is not a true and correct copy of the invoice that I received from Pallasart nor is it a true and correct copy of the emails, which have been purported to be written by me.

Source: OmaHamou.com