Mike Newson: I have not had sex with Oma Hamou

Today on OmaHamou.com Mike Newson posted:

OK let’s look at a few things here:

First I commented, to “Frank,

“From your earlier comments it seems that you understand that Bob lied under oath, and committed perjury as you said, “O.k you've proven Bob used forged documents and lie in court to win….” Yet you said that, “Bob Atchison is a good person.” so does this mean that you personally endorse lying to the courts? Is what you are saying that “your” hero uses lies and deception and yet you think this is acceptable behavior?”

And it seems as if the response was, “Bob has spoken the truth about Oma who cares about his lawsuit, I don't, no one does,” So I guess this does mean that Frank approves and endorses lying to the court and lying in general (the ends justify the means), so if that is the case we now know how he thinks and who he is inside. What I don’t get is that we have shown point after point, (and Sandman archived all of this on to his blog) where Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein, et. al. were wrong, misstated, drew the wrong conclusion, lied, made it up, or just plain committed libel, depending on the point.

The few points of fact in their story have been acknowledged, and even then most of these facts about Oma Hamou’s past that are “negative” have been explained in such a manner that most people in the world today understand the circumstances and are willing to make allowances. When we did make a mistake in recollection, or misunderstood something, all of us who have defended Oma have acknowledged that and corrected it.

For the most part, with some exceptions when exceptionally provoked, our responses have been calm, measured and logical. We have pointed out the errors using documented evidence to support out points, (rather than the empty rhetoric that the other side has used) and have shown a trend and tendency in those who hate Oma to use fabrication and a use of propaganda techniques in their methods, and in their attacks.

We have also shown an inability to change their story no matter how many times we correct them, and no matter what the evidence is that we used to show the truth. We have also shown a disregard for the law, an attitude that they are above the law, and a vigilante attitude of being judge, jury, and executioner. The scariest part of the whole story is how people like Frank keep popping up believing with true religious fervor in Bob’s original story.

Are these people real or are some of these people Bob or a close disciple using a fake web alias, as they have in the past? Is the current hate-Oma blog really done by Rob or Bob as the similar writing style and emotional involvement (and such) suggests or is it someone else? The intense emotions that they exhibit that mimic those of Bob/Rob (they are one) make one wonder.

But in reality it does not matter, and in fact it supports Oma’s position in regard to the danger that is represented by Bob that Bob was able to gather people like this to rally round the hate-Oma flag. Also think about the symptoms of a sociopath that we have published from time to time that they tend to stay behind the scenes and control others to do their dirty work, all the while showing to the rest of the world a façade of normalcy and charm.

Last the words that Frank used, would lead one to believe that in spite of his words that he spoke the truth, that actually he personally had not yet seen the “porn” movies of Oma. Thus at the time he wrote, he wrote libel. He said, “I will be posting them here in the next few days (ready Oma for the world to see you like this, I know I am ready…” which to me says that he has not yet seen them, if he had it would not take days to get them and post them.

What is it that drives someone to behave like this? How are some people able to be controlled to do such things. Is this part of a Cult power as we have wondered about in the past, or is this the power of a sociopath?

Oma has said in the past that she was a model, and part and parcel of the modeling world is that one’s body is a tool of the trade. So yes there are photos that show her breasts, her bare back and such. But she tells me that she never did any sex acts, and I believe her. Her hey-day was before the time of the Internet, and as such she suffered even more so the fleeting fame that goes along with modeling. Like a mayfly, the typical model briefly burns bright before their flame is extinguished and the next one’s time comes. And in the days before the Internet existed this was even truer, as once the magazine was tossed, the images were tossed.

And while we are on the subject, I have stated point blank that there has never been any type of sexual activity between Oma and I. I have not had any sexual contact, what so ever, with her let alone committed adultery with her. Not even taking the definition of President Clinton and what he considered sexual contact in mind or any kind of weaseling of any term or in any manner of speaking. Simply put we have not had any type of sexual contact. And as such, given that you knew this as I have stated it previously before and after your posts, I demand an immediate retraction and apology, of your recent distasteful and hurtful comments on what should have been a great day marking a significant achievement in the current world. The evidence in emails that Bob/Rob pass around to substantiate their claim of this activity between Oma and I is malicious and false. It was created in the heat of the moment as leverage to force me into abandoning Oma and leave her to the wolves. I was threatened to have letters delivered to each of my neighbors stating this sexual alliance with Oma if I did not leave her to the “wolves.”

To my dishonor I did abandon her for a time.

That we continued our relationship afterwards and the fact that I remained married for many more years after this event should speak volumes as the falseness of the accusations. “They” continue to use it to day to cause harm, to denigrate me as a viable source of information and to in general cause hurt, in spite of having been informed of the falsity of the claim, a demand to cease and desist and a knowledge of the hurt and damage that they have caused.

I wonder what Frank will do if he can not substantiate his Oma-as-porn-star claims, where does that leave him? What does that say about all of Bob’s story about Oma?

Source: http://omahamou.com/oma/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21&start=30