Sandman's Post on Oma Hamou.com

http://omahamou.com/oma/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18&start=45

Throughout this whole ordeal one point has stood out above all others. You have to be very careful in reading Rob Moshein’s words. He does have a way with words, when you read his statements, the way he says things lead you to believe one thing, while the real meaning is different. I also have to stand back and “admire” (in a word smith way) his and Bob Atchison’s ability to take a portion of a fact and add on to it and twist it around until they have taken you down the garden path to a conclusion that is not supported by the facts. Not only are their conclusions not supported but typically the facts are only stated and never documented. Yet, such is their skill that one believes the whole chain of thoughts right up to and including the conclusion that twists the whole construct of words into a falsehood.

At least Oma Hamou in the past, as now, when she found that she had made a mistake has admitted and corrected herself, while we have spent yards and yards of words correcting “them” (Rob/Bob, et. al.) and they just keep saying the same things. Even now what I am reading in Rob’s comments leads me to believe that in spite of all that Oma has provided to show that her points are valid and documented, that because she made one recent mistake on a number, that the WHOLE of Oma’s words are false. Yet even though those on Hamou's side have shown point, after point, after point, all backed up with documentation to demonstrate that what he claims in regard to Oma is not correct --- he still writes as though “HE” should be believed. Although he does not provide the transcripts or other documentation confirming specific events --- we are expected to believe what he said on the strength that he said it.

Mike Newson, Hamou's attorneys and others have seen firsthand how Oma goes to “pieces” while under their guns. Such that she has said things without fully thinking them through, more of a reaction rather than a response. Such as the recent error on the two judges. What I like about her is that in such instances she humbly accepts the corrections and admits to the mistake. Throughout this verbal war, she has been on the defensive, which is probably never been clearer than in the recent skirmish. She is defending herself by showing that what they claimed is not the complete truth, attempting to create doubt in their conclusions.

The largest basis for their claims is “because Fact X is true, and Fact Y is true (and because “I” {images of greatness and trust are implied in how they do this} am the one saying it), then my false conclusion is also Truth (with a capital T)” thus you should believe me and everything I say. One of their standard methods is to denigrate anyone who opposes them. As in Oma must be telling lies as she was convicted of writing bad checks once. Thus even the Judge KNEW that she was telling lies, and Rob Mosehin gives the impression that just because the lawyer at George & Brothers, LLP who presented the testimony is associated with this known “Hardened Criminal” that the lawyer is not to be believed either. I love how he writes such that HE KNOWS what was in the mind of the judge, as in this statement “Her failure to appear was one reason among others why Judge Livingston denied the Continuance Motion.” Again it is as if since the previous words had some truth, then you must believe this statement of conclusion also.

Another example is this line, “WHEN ASKED TO PRODUCE MEDICAL RECORDS TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM OF ALLEGED "ILLNESS", SHE COULD NOT.” (The underline and emphasis was added by Oma.) The implication was Oma was there and the Judge asked her and she was unable and in fact COULD not document her claim of bad health, with the inference that she was lying as she was never sick in the first place and that's why the court didn't believe her attorney. Which conclusion, as you read the rest of the statement, is encouraged by the writer.

When you dig a bit you notice that he is in effect saying that Oma was present and could not produce the evidence as she was not and had not been sick. Yet the facts do not support the conclusion. Also notice the negative connotations throughout. There is never any attempt to be an impartial story teller; in every case the intent is to put the most negative slant possible on any situation involving Oma Hamou.

Source: OmaHamou.com/oma, Pallasart's Oma Hamou Report