Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Bob Atchison Forgery...

Updated!
ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES OF FORGERY COMMITTED BY BOB ATCHISON
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us The definition of "Forgery", in criminal law is the willful fabrication or alteration of a written document with the intent to injure the interests of another in a fraudulent manner. Typical examples of forgery are making insertions or alterations in otherwise valid documents and appending another's signature to a document without permission. In the United States forgery ordinarily is a state crime; but to send forged documents through the post office may constitute the federal crime of mail fraud.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Bob Atchison represented to the court and law enforcement the above document represented a true copy of the invoice sent to Enigma Films, it was not. Oma Hamou testified at trial that the e-mails which appear underneath the “alleged” invoice were altered and/or she did not create.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

This is a true representation of the the document sent to Enigma by Pallasart on July 13, 2000

ONE YEAR LATER

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Having been recently hospitalized with a severe upper respiratory illness Oma Hamou was forced to represent herself because the court had denied her Motion for a continuance. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/Plaintiff_s_Reurged_Motion_for_Continuance.pdf

Excerpt from Oma Hamou's affidavit (6):

"...Prior to, and after being in the hospital, per the instructions by the treating physician at the local hospital, I spent a majority of my time in bed. (See Exhibit A) When the court denied both my then counsel, Mr. Boyce Brown Reid of the law firm of George & Brothers, LLP and my Motion for a continuance filed in pro se I was suddenly forced in one day to attempt to prepare an adequate defense. To better illustrate the sense of panic I felt on the morning of the 27th, not only was I ill with a high temperature but we had Voir Dire, which is creating the jury, and by noon we were ready to start trial. I had less than one hour to ‘literally’ run back to my hotel, pull exhibits together and have exhibit boards prepared all by the time court resumed that afternoon..."

At trial both Bob Atchison and his attorney testified the above invoices identified as "Pallasart" were invoices for a previous debt belonging to Ms. Hamou's company, Enigma which resulted in a lawsuit.

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..."
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
According to the State of Texas other than the then present lawsuit case No. GN303141 between Atchison and Hamou no other lawsuit existed between the two.



Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Excerpt from Oma Hamou's Affidavit:

17. During trial, I wanted to enter into evidence documents which supported my testimony that this alleged debt, “if at all” legitimate, didn’t belong to Mr. Atchison as an individual but to his web design company, Pallasart. Secondly, that the documents would also support the fact that Mr. Atchison had attempted to extort additional money from me by removing my company’s Internet page and replacing it with a page containing my home address. Despite my assertions to the contrary, both Mr. Atchison and his attorney stated the “alleged” debt owing to Mr. Atchison was not connected to Mr. Atchison’s web design company, Pallasart. They further asserted that in 2001 a lawsuit had been filed involving my motion picture company, Enigma Films, and Pallasart; and that this dispute had been settled.

18. I objected strongly to this representation made by both Mr. Atchison and his attorney because it was “pure fiction…a totally made up lie.” I informed the court that indeed this was a lie, which could easily be verified by a telephone call to the Travis County District Clerk’s office. Instead the court relied upon the representations made by Mr. Atchison and his attorney.

30. On or about September 10, 2001, Mr. Atchison despite having been paid in full for a 10 page web-design and services, acting as CEO of Pallasart, removed my web site and replaced it with a blank page which listed my home address. He did this because I refused to pay him on Invoice 2000-343 (See Exhibit E). In a letter to Mr. Atchison dated the same date of September 10, 2001, I expressed a great deal of hostility, frustration and disappointment towards the fact that my home address was suddenly posted on the web. I apologize to this court for the offensive language expressed in my letter to Mr. Atchison.

31. After several heated faxes, telephone calls and emails exchanged from both Pallasart and my office for the sake of my family’s emotional and physical well being, I agreed to settle Invoice #2000-343 for $5,000.00.

32. Both Mr. Atchison and his attorney have tried to pass off Pallasart’s “Settlement Invoice” #2000-580 as being some other dispute owing to Pallasart by Enigma. Mr. Atchison “personally” knew that this statement was false yet under oath he said this. As evidenced by Mr. Edward’s letter to me dated on September 10, 2001 the only outstanding invoice owing to Pallasart was Invoice # 2000-561 for web hosting services. Enigma did not contract additional services with Pallasart.

33. The “settlement” Invoice 2000-580, dated 9/10/2001, which more accurately would be described as extortion, was that Pallasart agreed it would remove my home address from the web for the price of $5,000. Far from the “settlement” of a legitimate invoice this was an act of extortion. I agreed to the terms. This was not for any service rendered; it was in exchange for removing a threat to my safety and the safety of my family. One of many unbelievable moments of this trial was when Mr. Atchison tried to pass this “extortion invoice” as being a settlement of some debt that Enigma owed Pallasart. I continue to be shocked by the distortions and lies perpetrated on me by this man and his company and by the fact he has, so far, gotten away with it.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Enigma Contracted Bob Atchison's Company, Pallasart to design a 10 page website which it"alleges" it did not receive.Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The Amex Statement reflect payment was received on behalf of Enigma for the purchase of the "Kuchumov Photographs" yet reading the trial transcripts Bob Atchison testify he had not provided Oma Hamou the photographs nor had he returned Enigma's script.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The court records indicate not only did Pallasart receive payment in full for the design of a web site as well as the "Kuchumov Photographs" but web hosting services which Pallasart provided to Enigma.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

On November 28, 2000 according to the above Invoice Pallasart faxed to Enigma reflects payment for Web Hosting Services.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

According to the Amex statement Pallasart was paid $4, 540.00 yet on August 30, 2001 it attempted to defraud Enigma out of an additional funds. According to court documents Pallasart's contract with Enigma's states for $50 per month it would provide web hosting services. Court records also reveal that Bob Atchison contacted financial institutions and told them not to trust Oma Hamou as Enigma had no film project and Ms. Hamou was a fugitive. His statements were proven to be false and/or misleading.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

AN INTERESTING LETTER....

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The Reality of Bob Atchison and Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc

This morning on AA Legends Mike Newson posted:
The Reality of Pallasart and Bob Atchison
Tuesday Update!

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

As Dave Slater wrote in his brief to the court:

"...From 2001 to the present date: Bob Atchison and Pallasart, in combination and conspiracy, have communicated in print or verbally and have otherwise published to third parties a mosaic of defamatory claims without the consent of any of the targets of this defamatory language, and with express malice, intent and design to harm Oma Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation.

Both Bob Atchison and Pallasart's defamatory statements are of the kind calculated to cause harm to Oma Hamou in her profession and ability to earn. Because Oma Hamou is a motion picture executive, she is dependent upon worldwide public acceptance of her films. Losing the respect and enthusiasm of a substantial segment of the movie going public, would cost her very substantial sums. These defamatory statements are also intended to and do disparage the business standing, reputation and products of Enigma and the Charitable undertakings and projects of The Sarskaia Foundation.

These defamatory statements constitute statutory libel and statutory slander which tend to injure the reputation of Oma Hamou, expose her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and tend to expose her to financial injury, as well as impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation by exposing her to public hatred and ridicule. In addition to the foregoing, the defamatory statements of Pallasart and Bob Atchison constitute slander per se in that such statements were false, made without legal justification, published to third parties and referenced an ascertainable person. Said statements were, in the alternative, slanderous per quod and resulted in special damages suffered by Oma Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation..." http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/2nd%20Amended%20Counterclaim1.pdf

Here on Legends the author/historian Peter Kurth wrote: “…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…”

Mr. Kurth is right, most people would prefer to have never known all the sordid stories published on the web and represented as being true by Pallasart and Bob Atchison concerning Oma Hamou, Enigma and Sarskaia in the form of the written word printed on the web and in letters sent to business associates, financial institutions, and government officials. As well as telephone calls made by Pallasart and its President/Founder Bob Atchison about Oma Hamou. More to the point in my mind is WHY? That Blog (you know the one that is once again connected to “Pallasart” on Google’s blog spot, and to the inner circle Rob Moshein admits he did it yet on the Blog he hides behind yet another alias) says in its most recent disgorgement of hate towards Oma:

OHR BLOG: “Why do this? Well, this Oma Hamou chica makes a whole bunch of vague, nebulous statements and claims, starting with Oma Hamou herself writing "I am a motion picture producer relying on the respect and enthusiasm of a substantial segment of the movie going public." june 2004 ( see: http://web.archive.org/web/20041016010323/http://www.omahamou.com/June252004.htm). SO, since she is putting herself before the public, she is now a "public figure" and the public has a right to ask questions about her experience and reputation "as a Motion Picture Producer" and the public has a right to GET ANSWERS to those questions and investigate her assertions. Thats what we're doing here. Notice how Oma Hamou calls legitimate investigation into her background "stalking" or "harassment" or "libel". Hey babe, you don't want people asking questions, then DON'T go public with your claims. Easy as that...”

Rob Moshein submitted a Motion to the Court the main thrust of his argument was based on Oma Hamou being a “public figure” therefore his actions towards her were appropriate but the courts didn’t agree with his way of thinking and denied his Motion. Rob has graced all of us here on Legends with the same arguments which is now repeated on the Blog *snickering* http://omahamou.com/PDF/RobMosheinRequestSummary.pdf &
http://omahamou.com/PDF/HAMOUANSWERMOSHEINSUMMARY.PDF

Well somehow I don’t find a reason in that statement (on the OHR Blog) to justify all the effort and money that has been expended over many years to “cut” her down to size, to remove her as competition. Which seems to be the main attempt. Oh and the reference that was quoted on That Blog from archive.org is worth reading as it starts out, “Bob Atchison and Pallasart Web Venture's campaign of defamation has been well planned and relentlessly executed. Bob Atchison and his associates have and continue to post libelous statements about my projects, my affiliates and myself on the Internet. Bob Atchison has published libelous material on Pallasart's website. He and his associates, (LABloodhound) incessant efforts to damage my reputation and livelihood reveal an obsessive and irrational pattern of behavior that is well beyond any notion of decency and constitutes an ongoing violation of my rights.” The main point of the web page that was quoted is about Pallasart’s campaign of defamation, yet That Blog only attacks Oma Hamou, never a word about is what the “famous historian” (does that make him a public figure?) Bob Atchison done appropriate or not?

In answer to the That Blogs primary assertion --- No, while the public may want “to ask questions about her experience and reputation ‘as a Motion Picture Producer’” The public never has had a “right to GET ANSWERS to those questions…” or even ask those questions in the first place. About the only one who has a right to ask any such questions are those who are financing any effort by Oma Hamou to produce a film, or those who are considering working for her. The public must judge by the results. But they have no “right” to invade anyone’s privacy. So other than as a vigilante effort Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart have no right to do what they have done. Certainly they have never offered any valid justification for what they have done to Oma. While on the other hand a quick perusal of the information presented and the way it is presented loaded with emotionally charged yellow journalism propaganda statements does seem to have one and only on objective. That is, as Dave Slater said it is intended to, “express malice, intent and design to harm Oma Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation. And while I could tear what they say on That Blog apart point by point I will just lump the majority of it in with all the other misleading and/or false (libelous) statements that have been stated by “Pallasart” in the past. And in essence cast it out into the void to freeze to death by being ignored as more of the same worthless rhetoric, and as such no worth. And while answers have been given in the past, they obviously were not the ones that “They” wanted. So if even a cease and desist letter which they at That Blog” obviously have read did not make any change in what was said, then why take the time to say it again? And it is not the investigation into her background that is a problem, it is the publication of false and misleading statements about her that is the problem. That having been said, lets focus on the reality of the whole picture.

History has taught us that Oma isn’t the first person to have been assaulted by these two why many people have also been the target and their careers almost ruined because of what Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein and their followers have done to them.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us In a letter June 20, 2004 Peter Kurth writes:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Note: All of the images that either Justin or myself have published on this forum are documents which are a part of the previous litigation between Bob/ Oma and/or can be found on Oma’s own website.

Key words: “…My guess is he (Bob Atchison) will stop at nothing to destroy her, and would have done the same to me—believe me, he was well along the road—had the DNA tests of 1994 not (temporarily) given him a little breathing room…”

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

In a recent letter dated August 6, 2006 someone else wrote:

“…I have to tell you that I've had a pretty interesting week. I've spoken to Bob Atchison several times -- which is unusual…Anyway, long and short of it is he's pretty damned freaked out by what's going on here (Legends), and he watches obsessively. He's asked me to intercede with you guys…I did have a very bad time with them and the treatment I received on their board. They weren't interested in helping out a "friend" then, and guess what? I'm not interested in helping them out now. I told them that you guys had never, ever been anything other than perfectly friendly, helpful and pleasant people. This is my experience with you, and I see no reason to accept anyone else's as more valid. In fact, after my first conversation with Bob (last Sunday), I have to say that I really saw the nature of the beast. I refused to give in to his various demands -- not only concerning you guys, but also concerning Helen…, who has apparently threatened to sue him if he kicks her off his board -- and he went from zero to crazy in nothing flat. I've never seen anything like it. Before he slammed the phone down, he promised to "fuck with me" if I ever fuck with him -- and that he'll write what he "really thinks" …publish it in the NYTimes. The last thing I heard from him telephonically was Friday or Saturday when he called to apologize and tell me that Helen… told him some long story about Oma paying for someone's abortion (Amanda something?), which had something to do with Oma paying for Helen's ticket to St. P'burg. I didn't really get it, but sometimes it's hard to understand where Bob's going – he gives partial information, and then "can't remember" the rest. And I'm not at all sure what this had to do with me -- unless I'm supposed to think that Oma is a dreadful person because she helped out some poor girl in a bad situation. He obviously has no idea how much of a liberal I am ...I can understand your being loathe to part with any of Oma's information…my-brother-the-lawyer ran a low-income divorce clinic in downtown LA, we'd occasionally get threatening calls from people who were heading down to fuck us up or kill us or something. And then there's be a pause on the line.... and they'd ask us where we were. And we'd say, "We're just not going to help you fuck us up, asshole. Off you go to find out yourself. I told Bob the same thing about Rob going over to Anastasia D...'s place -- why on earth would anyone answering the door to a strange man confirm the residency of anyone, let alone a single woman? That's Robert Bardo territory. If any strange and unexpected visitor knocks on my from door, my husband will deny knowing me. And persistence will result in a call to the police and a possible beating with the aluminum baseball bat we keep behind the door. You cannot be too careful these days -- though you do have to be sensible. Anyway -- keep on keeping on..."

And there’s more from the previous lawsuit but at least this gives an indication of the bullying tactics incorporated and used by Pallasart and Bob Atchison against anyone they perceive is an enemy. The only difference here is this: none of these people have suffered great financial and emotional hardships as Oma Hamou has at the hands of Pallasart and Bob Atchison. Take this morning, That Blog appears to be the same as what was written on yesterday, but it’s not, and we’ve got the hard copy, today they flat out accuse Oma of being a prostitute, in the same vein as Pallasart publishing on the web Oma looked like a Hollywood Drag Queen. While I am on a roll, Pallasart published on its Oma Hamou Report, which has been repeated on the “Blog” of how Oma refuses to say just what exactly she has done in the entertainment industry. Other than interviews she’s given to the press and/or the exception of a court room setting no one has asked her -- in the trial transcripts this question was asked by Bob’s own attorney and she answered it.

There are numerous things that are ridiculous but I as an individual not representing Oma Hamou or Enigma or Sarskaia but as a friend of hers will point out only a few things.

OHR Blog states:

“…An old dude in the Northridge area of the valley (you know, where they make all the porno vids...) named "Jim Sproul" wrote this: "I have been working closely with Oma Hamou for the past 3 years-- The normal credentials Oma has regarding the making of the film As a Matter of Honor are: Established, long standing, loyal contacts in the industry; experience in the industry ...Initially, I thought I wanted to date Oma. She has **P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y**!!... Oma has vested millions into her projects, I have given her over $150,000 just for the temporary relief from her compelling needs to continue and take the next step.
see: http://web.archive.org/web/20041025000255/http://www.omahamou.com/Omahamou+forum.htm

In regards to That Blog’s latest, Jim asked me to post this for him:

“…So you figured all that out from absolutely nothing. I wonder if your readers are aware of the staggering conclusions that you can draw about them from an equal lack of information. I guess the only reason your not calling each and every one of your readers a whore is that you haven’t taken the time to think about them., You really, really need something to do with your life (in the interim before you go to prison) might I suggest something commence rant with your staggering deductive and interpolative abilities might I suggest head rocket scientist at JPL or perhaps microwaving burgers at McDonalds. You really need to get back on your meds does the word making an “Ass” out of yourself mean anything to you?”

The actual statement quoted on OHR Blog from Jim was:

”I have been working closely with Oma Hamou for the past 3 years-- The normal credentials Oma has regarding the making of the film “As a Matter of Honor are: Established, long standing, loyal contacts in the industry; experience in the industry; she has an outstanding degree of creativity in her approaches. She is like water melting ice, no crevice no matter how small will escape her and she will work every avenue until it serves its purpose. Oma is not normal in this regard, she ranks in the highest and rarest percentile in the fabulous amount of creativity, resourcefulness, and sheer will she brings to her efforts on a daily basis.

Oh yes, did I say determination. I hear of investors who think she lost their investment. Oma hasn’t lost anything! Oma’s dictionary does not contain such words. Under such words as lose, give up, surrender, there are nothing but blank pages and curious lack of comprehension. In Oma’s mind it is not just a matter of succeed or die. There is no “or die” option! Some ambitious people have a compelling project; in Oma’s case it is more like a compelling project has a person. This goes beyond will and determination. This project is fundamental to her soul. She gets up in the morning thinking, planning, creating, working on it and continues until she goes to bed at night, dreaming about it. Initially, I thought I wanted to date Oma. She has **P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L-I-T-Y**!! Like the song says, and between it, good looks and enthusiasm --- she is adorable. Well, guess what a “date” with Oma looks like:

After about a year of asking, and being left hanging because she was working on her film project; she finally agrees; you go over to her house after work, I said AFTER work, and Oma, sitting at her computer says, “I’m sorry, I’m just finishing something up. Can you give me a minute…” 3 hours later she has said the same thing a number of times, each time with disarming sincerity… The good news is that if you do this a number of times she eventually may take you into her confidence and you can sometimes help her in the wording of letters etc. she is writing to bankers, Russian contacts and officials, American officials, the neighbor, the neighbor's dog and cat… Anybody and everybody who may be able to advance her project in some way. Right now, she is working on something with the Russian Government in order to facilitate her projects.

The area where Oma has no peer is in her absolute commitment. This is what makes her a good investment. People like me have taken all the risk. Oma lives, breaths, eats and sleeps her film project and Russian restoration projects, and that’s to say the least. Unlike others, Oma is not a person with a project; Oma is a project with a person. Oma has vested millions into her projects, I have given her over $150,000 just for the temporary relief from her compelling needs to continue and take the next step. Oma is like a warp in the space-time continuum, she has nothing, and she does nothing but pull in the materials she needs to accomplish her purpose.

I believe Oma would have succeeded but for the efforts of one jealous and determined saboteur named Bob Atchison. I don’t really know what motivates Bob. It looks like Bob translates his petty jealousy into a construct in his own mind as to what constitutes morality, decency and law in this fragile world. Perhaps it is that Oma threatens his legendary status in his own mind, so he is compelled to personify her as the root of all-evil.

I guess she is not the root of “all evil” because he has done the same thing to other responsible dedicated people who have the audacity to disagree with him. An example is several authors who believe Anna Anderson is Anastasia, and she survived the assassination of Czar Nicholas ll and his family. Bob does not see it as a disagreement, but a vicious assault on the Holy Grail and has taken it upon himself in the name of all that is holy to discredit them. Who knows what motivates Bob Atchison? What is known is that he has been sabotaging Oma with a demonic and compelling need for years.

For (at least) two years his attacks were in secret as a coward in the dark, virtually unknown to Oma. That is, she would see some effect, someone turning against her, and hear it had something to do with Bob, but it is only in the last few months that his attacks have been revealed as the determined, extensive and coordinated assault that they are. Through it all, through all the disappointment and heart-ache and man killing distress, Oma hasn’t wavered from her goal, she worked each day, and night to make any and every bit of progress she could possibly make. Oma has taken on a daunting task with conviction I would not expect to see in a single lifetime, she has taken plenty of steps to complete a Journey of a thousand miles, but on top of the extraordinary effort, this guy Bob puts up stone walls to try to stop her at every opportunity. Oma’s answer before she understood the source was to get out the hammer and chisel, proceeding to cover her one thousand miles a fraction of an inch at a time.

Now that Bob has been revealed, Oma has much more effective means in the testimony on numerous people who have revealed Bob Atchison for what he is, whatever that is. Oma works constantly to one end always determined and always creative. Oma has one value in life that supercedes all others: “Make this movie, restore these buildings ”. She will make this movie and she will make it a success!” http://www.omahamou.com/Omahamou%20forum.htm

OHR Blog also says:

“…The Oma Hamou Reality: Oma Hamou has a SCRIPT called "As A Matter of Honour whcih Oma Hamou developed from her novel of the same title.". First problem in the real world:
"As A Matter of Honour" is the title of a novel published not by Oma Hamou, but rather by Lord Jeffrey Archer in 1986. A call to Lord Archer's current US publishers, St. Martin's Press revealed that their legal department has not granted Oma Hamou or Enigma Films the right to use this title for a motion picture, and would take all necessary
legal steps to ensure it was not so used…”

First Jeffrey Archer’s book is actually titled “A Matter of Honor” not “AS A Matter of Honour.” Now, while I’ve never worked on the development of a motion picture I have had reason to work with the Trade Mark Office of the United States. You can use a name that someone else has, if their product is in a different category. As in Athena is the name of a sewing machine, but that does not prevent a software program from using that name. Or how about that film in Canada called “A matter of Honour?” Still I had to chuckle on this one because what both Bob Atchison/Pallasart have represented to the public and now is repeated on that blog isn’t true, sure they make it sound like it, but in truth it is not. All film productions have to eventually submit to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) the title of its working film in order to obtain some sort of rating and approval. Once the working title is submitted to the MPAA it is submitted in its weekly reports which are generally sent to all the major studios and productions houses and if there is a conflict with the use of the title (in this case “As A Matter of Honour”) studios will submit what is called “protest” letters this goes back and forth until both sides reach a compromise and every one signs off. Usually all it takes is a brief synopsis of what your film is all about and almost (I did say almost) all cases the title is released. In Enigma’s case such letters were sent out back in 2000 and such releases were eventually obtained, I would imagine anyone “legit” in Hollywood or film making would say this is true since everyone has to go through this process.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

By now the vast majority of people realize when the topic of Oma Hamou comes up in association with “Pallasart” that Pallasart (Bob Atchison) is/are not telling the truth. And Rob Moshein falls under Pallasart no matter how much he tap dances around it and says he’s not a part of it. We know Pallasart listed him as their Billing Director – the guy who collects the money for some years. I believe, at least for my part, that I have successfully proven that Bob Atchison got up on the stand and committed perjury an event compounded when his attorney vetted this lie. Amongst other things, their testimony that a previous lawsuit being filed in the state of Texas involving Bob Atchison and Oma’s company was false and I believe that Bob knew it was --- thus a jury awarded a verdict in Bob’s favor.

At the very least I feel that I’ve demonstrated the lengths that Bob Atchison and/or his followers will go, including but not limited to forgery (which I’ve been told by law enforcement is essentially what Bob Atchison did when he fabricated evidence and submitted it to the courts as a “true” copy.) Then there is stalking, harassing, threats, and calls to; financial institutions, law enforcement, government agencies, friends, and business associates. Not to mention that he will use your religious beliefs against you and in general slander/libel you “IF” they don’t like you.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us We've exposed Pallasart’s con in that for almost a year Bob Atchison has represented to the public via the web that his small web design company with all its accolades has been a legitimate Texas corporation with all the rights and privileges there of --- when in fact its corporate shield was literally taken away by the state of Texas. Knowing this Pallasart and Bob Atchison continued to “defraud” consumers who believed they were dealing with a valid corporation.

But this isn’t the first time that it has done something like this and then there is Pallasart’s web club the Alexander Palace Association which can be found on:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990224204506/http:/www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/apaspr98.html

Bob Atchison testified that no money was sent to Russia to restore Father Markell’s church or the Alexander Palace --- that’s why there was no need to produce those documents. However, on the web it says that the money Bob got was sent to the World Monuments Fund. If that was true then why couldn’t Pallasart or Bob Atchison himself produce one shred of evidence that would’ve supported this claim? So the million dollar question is where did all those people’s money go?

We’ve exposed that Bob Atchison has been for many years running an import/export business via through Pallasart such as but not limited, Pallasart’s “Amber Palace Galleries” which no one seems to be able to locate any official documentation on. Question, how come Bob/Pallasart hasn’t paid taxes to our government on shipments arriving through the US ports from Russia and elsewhere? I think the government would classify some of Pallasart’s indiscretions as falling under a white collar crime umbrella --- fraud, tax evasion, conspiracy, forgery, stalking, harassment and etc.

And then we’ve got people from all walks of life, some people who barely make a living, being asked to give money to Pallasart for Father Markell’s church or to support the costs involved to maintain Pallasart’s Alexander Palace Time Machine Forum - a software which by the way anyone can get for free because its an open source software which now many of its forum participants have discovered and started their own Russian forums.

Do I personally feel that people believe what I've published? Yes, because of what I have heard from them, but in the same breath I also know that people who don’t know Oma or may want to do business with her will, like in the past, do a web search by using “Google” or any other search engine and find all this stuff written by Pallasart and walk away with the wrong impression. As far as OHR Blog as Mr. Kurth stated:

“…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 does matter to Oma Hamou as it has for six years now affect her financially professionally and personally. In the last lawsuit Oma’s then attorney Dave Slater successfully showed this and I am certain this will once again be used against them.

On Pallasart’s current Oma Hamou Report dot org it reads:

“…We no longer provide this information on this website. However, elsewhere on the Internet appears to be providing similar information, and interested persons may wish to view that information. We, of course, can not vouch for, nor guarantee, the accuracy of this other website and provide this link only as a courtesy to interested parties. OmaHamouReality Blog…”

Notice the words “Providing similar information” and “provide this link as a courtesy..”

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us First a Judge in Texas told Pallasart’s employee (Rob Moshein was the then Billing Director) in a judicial ruling:

“Said restraining order shall restrain Robert Moshein from operating and shall require the removal of the website http://www.omahamoureport.org”

Also…

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

It is a well documented fact and one Oma’s attorneys (and probably one that the Prosecutors will use also) will show in court that Pallasart, Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein hide behind false names and had it not been for the fact that we were able to get IP log records they would’ve succeeded in being able to con the court and public by saying that Rob was the one who created Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org. But we did get the IP log records and we did one better we got Bob’s statements to the police where he admits that HE AND HE ALONE (not Rob) created Oma Hamou Report.

Getting back to what my original thought was --- of course Pallasart wouldn't "dare" repost its Oma Hamou Report site after all there was a judicial ruling on it. However, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't hide behind another false name , now would it?

For those who support that BLOG --- do you know the meaning of stalking, harassing, libel and slander?

Okay, Pallasart, on “your” BLOG (*snickering*) you claim police officers said “xyz” and all the other false or misleading statements that we’ve seen spewed forth here on Legends now published as a-matter-of-fact on your blog so you are going to have to prove every word you wrote. I know from the previous lawsuit, neither Rob or Bob or any other representative of Pallasart could prove that the words it published or said about Oma were true, all they could say was “Uh --- so-so told me, or that they did do their very best to make certain that what they said was true…” but you know what? The court didn’t buy their story last time and my guess is that it’ll be the same this next time around.

I feel compassion for Rob Moshein on so many different levels, strange as that may seem. Let me try to explain and wander off topic for a moment, Rob has an AOL account - go look up his name on its membership roster and you will find:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

I also found Bob Atchison’s comments on his “marriage” but the funny thing is during his previous lawsuit with Oma he said he had never been married --- so which story is true? http://web.archive.org/web/19971007023709/www.pallasweb.com/who.html From what I have seen, I would say, to Rob’s credit, that he is very committed in his relationship with Bob and as an act of love Bob put Rob’s name on the deed to their residence and place of business. But Bob’s testimony about his life partner, the love of his life paints Rob as a “moocher” and about the time that Bob filed his lawsuit against Oma, Rob was “unemployed” and was placing his resume on the web as his wine company went kaput.

http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf &
http://groups.google.com/group/austin.jobs/browse_thread/thread/1fde1627185bca97/7c27cc092cbff132?lnk=st&q=rob+moshein&rnum=42&hl=en#7c27cc092cbff132

Another friend and colleague of Oma Hamou’s, Mr. Davidson has been singled out and unmercifully slandered/libeled by Pallasart in its latest reincarnation OHR Blog. One of many unbelievable moments of the previous lawsuit was when Bob Atchison testified under oath that Mrs. Davidson told him these things --- “word for word” what appears in court documents now appears on that Blog. But as was pointed out in the previous litigation by way of “Affidavits” what Bob represented to the court as being true was false an outright lie. I guess Bob believed he could say whatever he wanted as none of these people would ever know/compare what he said.

Another example of the perjury Bob Atchison committed was when he testified that a police officer by the name of Scott Moss from the City of Napa had contacted him about Oma. But again there was one major flaw when attorney Dave Slater investigated Bob's claims it turned out not only had the City of Napa Police Department not called Bob but the address he submitted to the court "under oath" never belonged to the City of Napa Police Department. The Human Resource department for both the Petaluma Police Department and the Petaluma’s Sheriff’s Department never heard of this alleged officer “Scott Moss.” Does any of this sound familiar to what Rob and Vapors have published here on Legends?????

As Oma stated in an Affidavit to the court in the previous lawsuit: "...Throughout the previous lawsuit Bob presented false testimony that soiled the record. But it is truly extraordinary when you have perjury committed at trial. It undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Necessary to the foundation of the justice system is the fact that lying cannot be tolerated. Bob Atchison’s testimony and his lies are “collateral to the facts in dispute.” A verdict that rests upon such a corroded foundation cannot stand..."

This is swaying off topic….

In the fall of 2003, Oma traveled to Texas to meet with attorney Dave Slater unbeknownst to her Bob was trying to locate her and dissuade her from filing her counter lawsuit against him and his company by threatening to expose her for all the wrong he perceived she had caused to a priest in Russia, his friends and especially to him.

In a letter dated November 9, 2003 Bob sent Attorney Dave Slater this letter:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

And on November 10, 2003 the Attorney Dave Slater replied:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

As typical, Bob Atchison “ignored” the attorney’s letter and proceeded to contact the state of Wyoming to alert them of Oma Hamou’s whereabouts in Austin. He sent the officials in Wyoming faxes of what was purported to be debts belonging to Oma and told them all kinds of stories of offenses according to him she had committed against a priest in Russia and to all sorts of people all over the world. The only problem with Bob’s zeal to get Oma arrested was that she wasn’t a fugitive and Wyoming told him this (this information is included in the previous lawsuit) but either he didn’t believe them or he just didn’t care, in his eyes Oma was a fugitive and would always remain so. Pallasart published on the Alexander Palace Time Machine site that "...Oma Hamou is a fugitive from Justice in Wyoming...", imagine how this kind of statement impacted Oma's life professionally and personally. This is in the same vein as “Watch Tower’s” Blog (That Blog) where he alleges Oma was in porn and is/was a prostitute. (This is slander/libel and criminal.)

A couple months later as Oma Hamou was embarking to travel to Russia to participate in the 2003 Energy Summit one of her colleagues after viewing Pallasart’s web site about her contacted Bob who informed him that Oma had no projects in Russia, there was no film project, she wasn’t invited to participate in any Energy Summit, it was all a lie. Bob Atchison said amongst other things, Oma was a mentally disturbed woman who had hurt a priest in Russia and conned him into co-signing for a loan that she never paid back and that he (Bob) was trying to have her thrown in jail as she was a fugitive out of Wyoming with seven felony convictions.

Bob Atchison provided this person and others with the telephone number of one of Pallasart’s associates who is considered to be in a higher social status both professionally and personally who he claimed would back up what he said. And they did. Now none of what Bob said was true but his conversation with this person and others alike in turn affected Oma both personally and professionally some people even threatened her to harm her simply because they believed what Bob was saying.

Remember when Rob came on Legends and said that he had spoken with the court reporter?

Quote: Rob Moshein: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:12 pm on AA Legends...

"...Sigh, poor delusional Oma/Michelle (and where IS miss justine?) ….AND, why is
it that the VERY nice lady court reporter told me that no one, I repeat NO ONE has asked for Court transcripts of the trial you lost or related hearings?? Hmmmm??? Glad to provide the name and phone to anyone who emails me from a real address. given the typical hysteria Oma goes thru, no need to subjet the poor woman, but then IF the real court reporter HAD been contacted, well you would know her anyway, right OMA? ta ta psycho sockpuppets..."

Not only do we have the court reporter’s word that what Rob reported on this forum about having spoken to her was a lie we also have her affidavit.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

You make up your own minds, what are they (Bob Atchison/Rob Moshein/Pallasart) trying to hide, and can what they say be trusted when it comes to Oma Hamou, Sarskaia or Enigma or even myself and others. I have said that Bob (Pallasart) committed perjury, that his businesses affairs is not on the up and up but I’ve back it up with documentation. (Think about this, is it logical that every time Bob/Rob/Pallasart gets caught that the offending documentation that backs up the statement was faked? Better still why is it that when ever anything happens to Bob, it is never his fault but someone else’s? Once sure, it is possible, but how many times does the same situation have to occur before one wonders if this is not a pattern of behavior?)

Quoting Rob Moshein: “Just to make sure that should anyone attempt some sort of libel litigation out of harassment I can prove nobody actually reads this.”

Is this an admission from Rob Moshein that one, he knew what he was publishing was harassment because this was his and Pallasart’s main objective of having thrown the first salvo here on Legends about Oma Hamou? Sure sounds like it to me. So with this in mind, two, could it be that the Blog shares this same mentality? After all notice the similar writing techniques expressed here on Legends by Rob/Pallasart on its Oma Hamou Report as well as some of the posts made here on Legends… .

For example Bob testified under oath that I said to him:

“…Mr. Newson also told Mr. Atchison that he (Mr. Newson) told Ms. Hamou that she should contact Mr. Lupoli to carry out her desire to harm Mr. Atchison…”

I replied in an affidavit, “Bob’s statement to the court is “pure fiction…a totally made up lie” I have never said this. To think that if I was approached and told that I was an accomplice to a murder plot that I would confess to the victim that “I” was responsible for telling Ms. Hamou that I knew someone who could kill Bob is ludicrous, and only serves to show how Bob takes the least fact and twists it into saying what he wants it to mean, with no regard for truth, but with full intent to sway the listener to his point of view no matter what…”

Thank God for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies who checked Bob’s story out about the murder for hire plot and discovered the real evidence such as taking phone records between the alleged hit man, Pallasart, Bob Atchison, communications between these three and Enigma and discovered Bob created the entire incident – I think he’s nuts!

My use of the term "nuts" is not meant to in any way denigrate or belittle anyone with mental illness. In fact, I take mental illness very seriously. I used to worry that Bob was a misguided zealot, but that's all. Now I wonder if he's a dangerous, misguided zealot.

Under oath Bob Atchison also testified that Father Markell the priest/monk in Russia was no longer at the Fedorovsky Cathedral but he knew this wasn’t true and then we’ve also got Rob who committed perjury ---

Other people were also slandered/libel during the previous lawsuit some people who are considered by Pallasart’s “Alexander Palace Time Machine” as being, and I quote, “close friends of Bob’s” well under oath Bob said that they told him “xyz” about Oma, Enigma or Sarskaia but again, like in my case and others these very same people say he’s lying --- and the letters Bob submitted to the court which he claimed was from his “close friends” about Oma, well, those same people also say those emails were altered and were not a true copy of what was sent to Bob. So like I said, law enforcement calls this act “forgery” Bob submitted to the court and to law enforcement documents which he claimed was a true copy when in fact it is not. I'll be happy to provide the link to the PDF so ALL of you can read what Bob Atchison testified under oath (again “under oath” is your word of honor) maybe some of you will find your names mentioned in court documents having said something you didn’t say – let me know…

As for OHR Blog as Peter Kurth stated: “…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…”

Lastly, numerous ‘cease and desist letters’ have been sent to Pallasart, Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein which have been returned unopened and Rob snidely remarked words to the effect that quite frankly they don’t give a damn what Oma has to say to them, they are going to do whatever they damn well pleased.

So now back to That Blog, it doesn't contain a legal disclaimer and continues to make bold statements which aren’t true. Pallasart’s images, which it continuously posts as point of reference, such as the Dunn & Bradstreet are documents which Pallasart does not own and is a document which was tossed out of court by Bob’s own attorney when she amended his pleading (filed in pro se) against Oma back in 2003. And the latest image from Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report is part of a document which has never been made public until Rob published it here on Legends---

As the Thanksgiving holiday winds down and Christmas is being thrust upon us I am thankful for many things, my family, good friends, and I hope that your holiday was just blessed as mine has been.

In closing I am reposting for court purposes once again Oma’s Cease and Desist Letter to Pallasart, Bob/Rob and That BLOG.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us August 11, 2006


Dear Mr. Atchison & Mr. Moshein:

It has recently come to my attention that you are (or have knowledge as to who is) the author of a new website about me called “Oma Hamou Reality Blog” (“Blog”). The purpose of this letter is to demand that you and/or the author of the Blog immediately ‘cease and desist’ from making false, defamatory and libelous statements concerning me on the Blog.

The statements on the Blog published or otherwise communicated to third parties concerning Enigma, Sarskaia and/or myself have been blatant fabrications, self-serving, and demonstrate a course of conduct calculated to harass and oppress. Such conduct exposes you and all involved to substantial liability. I strongly caution you to refrain from further such publications or other communications to third parties.

The information provided on Pallasart’s “Oma Hamou Report” (“OH Report”) and its Alexander Palace Time Machine’s the “Tangled Affairs of Hamou, Enigma & Sarskaia” (“AP Report”), together with the Blog, has been and remains libelous. The authors of these various sites should not infer, based on incomplete information or the absence of information, that certain events happened, or did not happen, in my life. Such fallacious, incomplete, incorrect, and deliberately libelous reports concerning me and my life imperil my existing economic benefits, resulting in substantial damages to me.

The fact that Mr. Moshein re-published on the Blog the same libelous verbiage which is displayed on the OH Report and on the AP Report is painful and humiliating. I had hoped that, in light of what you’ve already experienced during my prior lawsuit against you, and given the fact that you have been put on notice of the pending litigation that you would have stopped doing this kind of thing.

Significant efforts to educate you regarding the real facts have been put forth in the past, evidently with little effect. Nonetheless, I’ve decided to correct the inaccurate statements published on the Blog. In so doing, I, specifically request that untruths regarding my alleged criminal history be removed from the Blog, along with the following incorrect personal information, to which I make specific reference:

1. Oma was represented by the Public Defender's Office because she could not afford an attorney.

This is not true. I was able to pay for an attorney, but chose not to fight the extradition proceeding.

2. Oma was released in the interest of Justice as Wyoming refused to extradite her at that time.

This is not true. While incarcerated, I was able to fulfill and satisfy any and all obligations as
set forth by the court, by sending a cashier’s check to the District Attorney’s office. In turn, it was duly noted and the status of my probation from this state was terminated. As such, the state of Wyoming informed the state of California that it had no reason to proceed with the extradition hearings; therefore, I was released.

3. Oma was extradited back to Yellowstone Montana on August 15.

At no time was I was ever extradited to the State of Montana .

4. Oma Hamou's attorneys of Record, Foster Malish & Blair withdrew their representation of Oma Hamou during this litigation after showing the Court that Hamou had failed to pay them almost $20,000 in legal fees she had accrued and that she also failed to pay the retainer fee she had promised to pay them when they undertook representation. Again, the documentation from these attorneys show numerous promises to pay, which Hamou failed to keep.

I paid the law firm Foster, Malich & Blair its requested retainer fee.

5. Hamou also wrote bad checks on the same closed account to Wild West Productions, the director, and others involved in making the "trailer".

I was the director at this specific shoot. I have never issued a check to “Wild West Productions”.

6. Heard about this woman claiming to be a famous actress, movie producer, author, big model and now champion of Russian History. Mostly the info out there seems to involve her attacking other people.

I have never claimed to be a famous actress, or a big (i.e. famous) model, nor a champion of Russian History. I have never attacked anyone, and your statement about my having done so is false and/or misleading. Aside from the various web sites that you have created about me that contain complete fabrications about me (OH Report, AP Report, and Blog), there is no other information on the web that supports this statement.

7. Oma Hamou is a Convicted Felon, with a criminal record of at least three Felony Convictions for Fraud, Theft by Deception and Bad Checks.

My conviction in Utah was for writing a bad check. I was convicted in the state of Wyoming for writing a bad check. About the only thing you did get right was that I was convicted in the State of Montana for issuing a bad check. The information I’ve provided can be found on the link to the State of Montana ’s Criminal web site (which you provide on OH Report, AP, Report, and Blog). The State of Montana provides the proper verbiage concerning my convictions from the State of Utah and Wyoming by using the words, “Other State” and “Fraudulent check”. But instead you choose to continue to use the most defamatory words possible, ignoring the fact and substance of what I was really convicted of.

8. Oma Demain, AKA: OMA ASHKENAZY DEMAIN, OMA MCCONNEL, OMA ASHKENAZY, was convicted in Montana of the Felony crimes of:

1. OFFENSE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS, OTHER STATE, DOCKET: 3659, CODE: 260, by JUDGE: HUNTER OFFENSE DATE: 26-OCT-92 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 31-MAR-93 SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 31-MAR-93 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 120

2. OFFENSE: ISSUING A BAD CHECK OVER $150 DOCKET: 91-103, YELLOWSTONE CODE: 456316 by JUDGE: HOLMSTROM OFFENSE DATE: 01-OCT-91 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 01-APR-92 SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 01-APR-92 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 120

3. OFFENSE: FRAUDULENT CHECKS, OTHER STATE DOCKET: 1338 COUNTY: UNKNOWN CODE: 260 by: JUDGE: WILKINSON OFFENSE DATE: 18-JUN-91 COUNTS: 1 SENTENCE PRONOUNCED: 17-JAN-92 LEGAL TYPE: ORIGINAL SENTENCE SENTENCE EFFECTIVE: 17-JAN-92 SENTENCE TYPE: SUSPENDED NET SENTENCE (MONTHS): 36

I was never convicted in the State of Montana on numbers 1 and 3.

9. Found lots of recorded judgments and lawsuits against her on the web too.

The “purported” debts listed on both OH Report and Blog, respectively, are related to my companies and/or are not mine. The judgments obtained in my name by Boardrush, LLC and Robert D. Atchison were obtained fraudulently based on “false statements” and the work they claim that they did would have been done for my company, Enigma Films, and/or are not mine.

Please be advised of the current state of case law on this subject, as explained by the United States Supreme Court in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17-18, 111 L. Ed. 2d 1, 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2705-2706 (1990): …If a speaker says, “In my opinion John Jones is a liar,” he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker state the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications[.]

As Judge Friendly aptly stated: [It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words “I think” [Citation omitted] A defendant in a libel case is accountable and liable “for what is insinuated as well as for what is stated explicitly”. Kapellas v. Koffman, 1 Cal, 3 d 20, 33, 81 Cal. Rptr. 360 33 (1969). It is well established that “defamation by implication stems not what is literally stated, but what is implied. White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F. 2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (recognizing the possibility that a defamatory inference may be derived from a factually accurate news report)...Publication of incomplete and hence misleading information may give rise to liability for defamation since the incomplete presentation of facts may imply an actionable false assertion of fact. Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1180, 96 Cal.Rptr. 2d 136, 149 (2002): see also, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19. 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2706, 111 L. Ed. 1, 18 (1990) (incomplete facts still imply false assertions of fact): see also, Rodriguez v. Panayiotou, 314 F. 3d 979, 985 (9th Cir. 2002).

Despite the facts that (1) you were put on notice of my intent to refile my lawsuit against Bob Atchison and Pallasart Web Venture, and (2) you have consistently elected to snidely disregard the content of my letters to you, choosing instead to post snippets of them on the web, which served only to distort the true substance of said letters and advance your deliberate distortions of the truth, and (3) I have set forth legal arguments within this letter which are, to put in mildly, not in your favor, I request that, in this instance, you instead consider in good faith my request that you either (1) amend the current information being displayed on the Blog to reflect the truth, or, in the alternative, remove the Blog from the web altogether, or (2) if you are not the author of the Blog, that you ask the author of the Blog to either report the truth or, in the alternative, remove the Blog from the web altogether. If you fail to do so, and instead maliciously disregard this letter, you proceed at your own peril.

Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquished of my rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

Source: http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/OmaHamouLetterBobAtchison81306.pdf, http://www.sarskaia.org/news-n-press/news20030923b.html & AA Legends, Oma Hamou.com, Pallasweb.com and documents pertaining to Bob Atchison v. Oma Hamou and her counterclaims against him, Pallasart and Rob Moshein Texas Case No. GN303141.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The Cult surrounding the Alexander Palace in Russia

THE CULT SURROUNDING THE ALEXANDER PALACE IN RUSSIA

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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.
“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 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?
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.…”
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
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?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usQUOTE 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”

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usQUOTE 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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

“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. Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
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.”
---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:

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 ---

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usOma 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.
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:
Image Hosted by ImageShack.usQUOTE 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...
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us 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:
Image Hosted by ImageShack.usOHR 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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us



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…

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Bob called the US State Department after he viewed a letter on Sarskaia’s website that said:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usI 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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
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.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
We know from Bob’s statements to law enforcement that he and he alone created Oma Hamou Report dot org.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us 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?
The District of Columbia Bar
Another poster who identifies him/herself as Olgafan posted:

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.
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

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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

(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!
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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 ...
(The site is no longer active, but a whois check verifies that it is owned by Bob.)
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

104. You published Oma Hamou’s social security number on the Internet. DENY
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Rob’s comments were in reference to the below photograph of Oma Hamou.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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?)

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

137. That you have blocked and prevented certain Internet Protocol’s associated with Enigma, Sarskaia and Oma Hamou from viewing LaBloodhound website. DENY

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
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

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.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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..."
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/Plaintiff_s_Reurged_Motion_for_Continuance.pdf

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