You Think Ya Know
But You Have No Idea!Analyzing Bob Atchison’s Lies…
Today on AA Legends Forum:
Mike posted: Updated
There is a big difference in criminal stalking and harassment and being the victim of a Hate Crime, compared to keeping track of what someone is saying about you. Not to mention trying to set the record straight at locations such as Legends, or other locations that have been designated as proper to discuss such things according to net-etiquette, (That is a sort of “pull” P.R. campaign where those who have an interest can come of their own free will to be informed, as compared to the go-out-and-bring-the-word-to-the-world missionary/cult zeal approach that was threatened by “Vapors” and which Bob Atchison actively has done.)
I bring this up as we do hear a lot via the “under ground” about this and the denials that any of what we have claimed in regards to those associated with Bob Atchison / Pallasart (specifically Bob, but just to cover all the bases as a few verbal rumors implied more) is true, how the documents are fakes, frauds, and how in general none of it is true.Let’s look at a few of the skirmishes dealing with the Oma vs. Bob war. Then ask yourself --- So who is really telling the truth, who is the real victim, and who is the real underdog…?
On August 16, 2004 - In a letter to Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc and Bob Atchison’s Attorney, L. Matthews Attorney, David Slater representing Oma Hamou, Enigma Films & The Sarskaia Foundation wrote:
"… I have a right to marshal the evidence supporting our claims against Mr. Atchison and Pallasart. This is a necessary condition precedent to the taking of Mr. Atchison’s deposition and I do not intend to informally request his cooperation again. It is fair to say that we have been extremely patient and afforded every possible accommodation to your client in an effort to complete document discovery. Our responses to discovery were detail, truthful and complete. On the other hand, his responses have been evasive, incomplete and in some instances, simply untruthful. Obviously, I need to proceed on the premises that he will not be forthcoming or cooperative in this phase of the case and I will act accordingly…” (ed. Emphasis added) See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit030.pdf
Imagine trying to raise venture capital or trying to get a loan from the bank and someone calls them up and tells them don’t trust this person, he’s a fugitive and a con artist. If you read back on earlier posts here you will find substantially these same claims as I will mention later on, and please note that this was something that “Vapors” threatened here on Legends to do to Oma Hamou back in May.
Back in 2003 Bob Atchison created Pallasart’s “Tangled Affairs of Oma Hamou, Enigma Films and The Sarskaia Foundation”. During the initial filing of Bob Atchison’s lawsuit against Oma Hamou, probably while Mr. Atchison was reading the “Cease & Desist Letter” from Oma’s attorney it appears that he dismissed it. As there was continued contact with business associates of Ms. Hamou; informing them in so many words 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 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 thought of.
In a letter to Mr. Atchison, dated October 13, 2003, Attorney, David Slater writes:“…I have demanded that you cease and desist from your extensive communications and statements to various persons and entities dealing with Ms. Hamou and refrain from physically harassing her. I do not refer to mere heated statements made in an isolated manner in the context of a common contractual dispute. Your actions are well beyond what would normally be expected in a dispute between businesspersons. You have contacted numerous people over a number of years conveying self serving, false malicious and oppressive statements regarding Ms. Hamou. She has every right to inform these persons that your defamatory comments will be challenged by my office.
The single, salient point in your response to my letter of October 8, 2003 is that you refuse to cease and desist from the communications and conduct of which I have complained. I have a proposal.
Without conceding the assertions set forth in my letter, I propose that you promptly enter into an agreement with my client to refrain the future from contacting or communicating with the persons and entities referenced in my earlier letter or from threatening Ms. Hamou, directly or indirectly. I will set forth in injunctive form and present to the court. The injunction will specifically state that you do not admit any of the misconduct alleged by my client. The injunction will be temporary in nature and be in place only during the course of this litigation. If we prevail, it will be made a permanent injunction. If you prevail, you may request of the Court that it be dissolved completely. The benefit to everyone is that it will likely simplify and, to some extent, accelerate the trial of this case…” (ed. Emphasis added)See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit076.pdf
On October 14, 2003 Mr. Atchison replied: “…You appear to miss one salient piece of reality here, so allow me to clarify. I can not “cease and desist” from conduct I have not done. I can not “refuse to cease and desist” from conduct I have not done. I have repeatedly stated your allegations are untrue and false yet you thunder on about them otherwise. As for your ridiculous proposal of an “injunction”, it is utterly impossible for me to agree to submit to an injunction against vague yet serious allegations of actions that I have not done…” (ed. Emphasis added) See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit077.pdf
On November 13, 2003, as if part of a continuing conversation, Bob Atchison writes regarding Father Markell: “…Can you tell me what Oma has said about Father Markell? What things would I have her clear up. I know she has made claims about him sexually and stealing money from her. I remember she said she gave Markell $180,000 and that he stole it. She has also said that he abused her sexually. If you could fill me in on this from your perspective (or perhaps ask him) that would help me make sure I cover it all. Perhaps you could find out just what she really did (pay for) at the Fedorovsky…” (ed. Emphasis added)
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit103.pdf
And while you are reading this exhibit, ask yourself when was the last time you saw an email program present data in the format provided in the “reply?” So what was the real order of the data is this a continuation of communications or as it makes you feel from the header the first one? Just what is really happening other than what was presented made you think? Are there more messages surrounding this one?On or about June 24, 2005 Rob Moshein wrote to a Greg & Penny:"...So he (Bob Atchison) sued her and did tell people that he thought her film project was a scam after she went to Russia and accused Father Markel at the FS for stealing money from her..." See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit055.pdf
Okay, for now let’s take a look at what Rob Moshein wrote to a Greg & Penny – he says that Bob Atchison did tell people that he thought Oma’s film project was a scam. Let’s take a look at what Mr. Atchison said in his Second Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory No. 5 (i):
Certain business dealing of Ms. Hamou in Russia were a scam.
Response: Plaintiff (Mr. Atchison) does not recall ever making this statement to anyone.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit035.pdf
Well let’s just look at one issue, Father Markell. When I was told the Father Markell story from Bob Atchison personally, it was that Oma Hamou took out a loan and skipped leaving Father Markell to pay for it, and as such he had to sell his home and was now homeless. They have said this story for years that Oma was bad because she seduced Father Markell, tricked him into cosigning for a loan and then left him holding the bag so to speak and how the bank forced this “Monk” to sell off his St. Petersburg flat just so that he could repay the loan that it had made to Oma.As always, the sword was much sharper on the back swing where it hit Father Markell, a Monk who has sworn celibacy, and who had to go before his superiors and defend himself. But in this case not only did Bob Atchison attempt to use a Monk as a weapon, but his story changed, so which is it? Did Oma seduce Father Markell, or did he abuse her sexually? Better still just how much money was involved $60,000 or $180,000? And did Father Markell steal it, or did Oma run off with it to the USA? Now on the good side Father Markell did appear before his superiors and was absolved of any possible wrong doing, simply because none of it ever happened. And all along, Bob Atchison "denies" the conduct described in Attorney Dave Slater’s letter...
Pallasart’s Web Site Oma Hamou Report dot org:
Rob Moshein posted on this (AA Legends) forum: Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:18 pm
“…Also, be quite clear, Pallasart Web Ventures has nothing at all to do with my webiste where these are parked. check the whois on the site, it is my personal property, registered in my name and paid for with my own money. You will have a long and pointless row to hoe trying to somehow suggest otherwise…”
Justin then posted: Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject:
According to "them" (Bob & Rob this IP does not belong to Pallasart. So take the time and prove to yourself that the IP in question belongs to Bob / Pallasart. In your Window’s Start menu there is a command you can click called “RUN” In the pop up window that pops up, when you click RUN, type in the word (without the quotes) “CMD” In the window that pops up, after you type in CMD and click OK, after the Drive Prompt similar to c:\> type in “tracert” a space and the domain name or IP address that you want to check as in the example below type in “tracert alexanderpalace.org”
And you get back something like this (I’ve removed the first part of the trace as it was not important to anyone here): Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. tracert alexanderpalace.org Tracing route to alexanderpalace.org [ 216.30.130.99] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1184 ms 85 ms 86 ms p6-0-0.RAR1.Dallas-TX.us.xo.net [65.106.0.13] 12 90 ms 90ms 162 ms p4-0-0.MAR1.Austin-TX.us.xo.net [65.106.4.166] 13 94 ms 94 ms 93ms fe0-0.CLR3.Austin4-TX.us.xo.net [64.1.2.7] 14 102 ms 94 ms 102 ms pallasartwebdesign-pallasartwebdesign-psr1273537.z119-89-67.customer.algx.net [67.89.119.246] 15 95 ms 96 ms 96 ms macmail.pallasweb.com [216.30.130.99] Trace complete.
Now a check of 216.30.130.99 shows up on http://www.whois.sc (another Whois service is http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/index.jhtml, please chose any whois service as the answer is the same on all of them) as: 216.30.130.99
Whois History: 6 records stored Record Type: IP Address IP Location: United States - Texas - Austin - Allegiance Telecom Companies WorldwideReverse IP: Web server hosts 12 websites (reverse ip tool requires free login)Reverse DNS: macmail.pallasweb.com.Now doing the reverse look up on the 12 websites, whois.sc returns: 12 domains found on 216.30.130.99 Showing all 12. Websitewww.(removed by myself).comwww.Alexanderpalace.comwww.Alexanderpalace.org9 more domains found... IP’s are sometimes assigned by blocks and we have verified the block of IP’s assigned to Pallasart.
Rob Moshein posted: Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject:
Which proves only that I use my personal computer to access the internet courtesy of the Internet access of Pallasart. That's no different than wanting to hold America Online repsonsible for people who access the internet from aol, or to be more accurate, holding Oma/Justin/Jim responsible for anything they post from Adelphia in Los Angels, IP of 68.67.139.145. Also, that is VERY out of date. That was a freehosting.com site which has nothing to do with the current site. Pretty hard to make any connection using two year old information that is irrelevant to where this images are currently hosted.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit071.pdf - Mike Newson's Affidavit
Wait a moment...
During Bob Atchison’s Oral Deposition and in other court documents, Bob Atchison claims that he had no participation or knowledge of Oma Hamou Report dot org, yet he boasted to the Police not only did he create it but he did it so he could warn others about the character of Oma Hamou. Understandably, his reasons for lying to the court was because he didn’t want to get caught doing the very thing that he was told not too.
One of several police complaints Bob Atchison filed against Oma Hamou states: "...Atchison has created a web site warning others about Hamou's character..." notice the date,June 16, 2004
See: http://www.omahamou.com/DOC/BobAtchisonsStatementToThePolice.jpg Note: This is the only police report that we are able to provide. The rest of them will have to wait publication until they have been introduced in court but know this that there are several that say the same/similar thing. It was originally posted on OmaHamou.com's forum in 2004.
In yet another court document Bob Atchison’s sworn Affidavit dated March 5, 2005 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”… Luckily for Oma Hamou the police didn’t rely on an absolute liar.
Yet, despite his statements to the police Bob Atchison copped the attitude of "I don't know nothing..." during the lawsuit with Oma in court documents Bob Atchison "denied" any participation or knowledge of Pallasart’s Oma Hamou Report dot org.
See: Bob Atchison’s Oral deposition: http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/Atchison11105.pdf Pages 142-145.)
The Oma Hamou Report dot org site eventually was registered in the name of Mr. Atchison’s room mate, Rob Moshein. 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 a lot of people and some people despise Oma because of the outrageous statements made by both Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein. Many people have been enraged by what was told to them by Bob Atchison and Pallasart, some people threatened to harm Oma while others acted out their threats of harm. They did this because they believed Bob Atchison, their friend or mentor was telling them the truth. But was he?
The Priest, Bob Atchison & Oma Hamou
Excerpts from Oma Hamou's Affidavit
118. At trial Mr. Atchison admitted under cross examination that, with regards to establishing a museum inside of the Alexander Palace, he had only attended a few meetings in St. Petersburg which were opened to the general public. Yet moments before he had dramatically told the jury that he was The “Catalyst” in getting the Russian government to open a museum inside the Alexander Palace. (About the same thing as someone attending a grass roots political meeting and then claiming that only because of them the President had been elected.) The reason why I am calling attention to Mr. Atchison’s dramatic statement of being the hero who was the “Catalyst” behind the Alexander Palace is to demonstrate his megalomaniac personality traits, which when combined with a hideous obsession about me, has resulted in his attempting to destroy every aspect of my personal and professional life. 119. The Russian Orthodox Church has been fully aware of Mr. Atchison’s accusations leveled against both Archimandrite Markell and myself. Additionally, Enigma is bound by its word and signature to honor its contracts as set forth its Agreements with the Russian Orthodox Church regarding its film project and as a matter of great personal honor to me. See http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit102.pdf
120. In a letter dated November 13, 2003 Mr. Atchison sent to a Vladimir N. he writes:
“…Can you tell me what Oma has said about Father Markell? What things would I have her clear up. I know she has made claims about him sexually and stealing money from her. I remember she said she gave Markell $180,000 and that he stole it. She has also said that he abused her sexually. If you could fill me in on this from your perspective (or perhaps ask him) that would help me make sure I cover it all. Perhaps you could find out just what she really did (pay for) at the Fedorovsky…”
See http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit103.pdf
121. In “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure” dated January 18, 2005 Mr. Atchison makes the following statement:
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit60.pdf
“…Since Father Markell left the Fedorovsky Cathedral, Mr. Atchison no longer has any contact information for him. Mr. Markell was the Archimandrite of the Fedorovsky cathedral. Mr. Atchison introduced Ms. Hamou to Father Markell because Ms. Hamou promised to provide the funds necessary to restore the Fedorovsky Cathedral. Father Markell baptized Ms. Hamou. Ms. Hamou told Mr. Atchison that Father Markell had taken $180,000 from her and that she had the signed a receipt for it. But Father Markell stole her money. Nadia told Mr. Atchison that Ms. Hamou told Father Markell that he needed to sign the receipt for $180,000 in advance so she could get the money for the Fedorovsky Cathedral, that he did sign the receipt, but that Ms. Hamou never forwarded the money as promised..."
As I stated previously and during my testimony at trial, Mr. Atchison did not introduce me to any Church official of the Russian Orthodox Church. He did not introduce me to Archimandrite Markell. His claims regarding my statements about Archimandrite Markell are self-serving and not true as I have never said this. Mr. Atchison is well aware that Archimandrite Markell is still the current dean of the Fedorovsky Cathedral. Pallasart and its associates including but not limited too, a woman by the name of ‘Christine’ who is well aware of this fact.
122. I was baptized inside the “Fedorovsky Cathedral” located in the City of Pushkin, Russia by Archimandrite Markell and nothing is more sacred to me, other than my children, than my faith and Oath to the Russian Orthodox Church. Mr. Atchison made these false statements in “knowing” disregard of the truth, and my rights, to increase his reputation, standing and his own fame as a historian of the Alexander Palace in Russia thereby growing his own business and increasing his personal wealth. Mr. Atchison posted several statements on Pallasart’s “Alexander Palace Time Machine’s” forum all directed towards Enigma and its participation in the restoration of the Fedorovsky Cathedral.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit104.pdf
123. For years Mr. Atchison has ‘used’ my Church and faith as a weapon against me. A big lie is much easier to tell than a small one. As it historically has been easily believed. Mr. Atchison has concocted and spread a mosaic of completely false and defamatory statements without the consent of any of the targets of this defamatory language, with the express malice, intent and design to harm the Church, Enigma films, the Sarskaia Foundation, and myself. The information that Mr. Atchison has repeated, in regards to what I “supposedly” did to this Russian priest, as truth to law enforcement, financial institutions, government entities, and to others through out the world is a lie. This is the lie of the century and has to be the top lie that pains me greatly, because Mr. Atchison used my church and my faith as a weapon against me in his assault and worse was that people throughout the world wrongly judged me.
124. In October 2000, I met Archimandrite Markell, a priest from Russia and the current dean of the Fedorovsky Cathedral. A cathedral which Enigma has participated along with other organizations and individuals in its restoration efforts. When I met Archimandrite Markell I gave him two cashier checks totaling $10,000 to pay for ongoing work that Enigma had commissioned on the cathedral. See http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit105.pdf
Later in December of the same year, I received an email from this priest that said that my cashier’s checks were no good and some of the workers had threatened him. Upon receipt of this letter I immediately sent additional money to cover the immediate expenses. See http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit106.pdf
When I arrived in St. Petersburg, Russia January 2001, both Archimandrite Markell and I went to the bank where I demanded to know what happened to my money. The cashier at the window told me in front of this priest that he had deposited the checks only one week ago and that he had collected the funds. I was stunned but never the less I continued to participate in the cathedral ’s restoration efforts.
On July 12, 2004 the Elders of my Church explained to me that the deception regarding the cashier’s checks and Archimandrite Markell lay not with him, but in his inability to understand what a cashiers check meant. Upon his return from New York City in 2000 presented these checks to someone in Russia who told that the ‘cashier checks’ were worthless, hence they remained inside of his desk for two months.
The Elders also explained that Mr. Atchison had told many people in Russia that I was a ‘fugitive from justice’ and that Enigma had no film project and I would be arrested and never allowed to travel back to Russia. This information caused a great deal of anxiety and torment, and problems in of itself because Enigma has legitimate contracts with the Church.
Source: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/affidavit.pdf
At one time both Mr. Atchison & Mr. Moshein appeared to be willing to settle Oma Hamou's lawsuit against them and Pallasart for $1 U.S. Dollar, a permanent injunction & a public apology. There were negotiations back and forth however the breakdown in negotiation did not occur because of the wording of the apology. The fact these men were "willing" to do this speaks for itself and is documented through the correspondences of the attorneys.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit108.pdf
The priest, a Father Markell presides over Fydorovsky cathedral, a relatively small church in Pushkin, Russia was used by Bob Atchison in attacking Oma Hamou. Bob Atchison did not ask this priest if any of what he claims (wink…wink) was told to him concerning this priest and Oma Hamou was true or not. Bob Atchison holds himself out to be a historian, in his imagination a historical figure (at least in his mind
See: http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/boydream.html
See: http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/aboutbob.html) should have but didn’t ask the priest if the information told (wink…wink) to him was true. According to the 2004 Los Angeles Police Department and the Austin Police Department reports concerning Mr. Atchison's statement to them, Oma Hamou conned the financial institution in Moscow, JP Morgan into giving her a loan based on the signature of this priest, Father Markell and the bank eventually forced the priest to sell his St. Petersburg's flat. When the police asked Bob Atchison if he had any proof of this allegation and his other allegations against Oma Hamou such as him accusing her of “identity theft” etc, he said “No”.
Murder for Hire – Fabricating Evidence
Excerpts from Oma Hamou Affidavit:
Evidence provided by Mr. Atchison though our request for “Production of Documents” shows that on June 17, 2004 Mr. Atchison was contacted by a Patricia…. There is nothing contained within this email communication that refers to a ‘Murder for Hire Plot’.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit040.pdf
I would also like to bring to the courts attention that in Mr. Atchison’s “Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure and Request for Production of Documents Numbers 3, 3, 8 and 9” Mr. Atchison’s attaches what appears to be a letter dated June 20, 2004 from him to me. Underneath his letter he ‘cuts & pastes’ what appears to be my response to his letter when in truth and in fact I never received this email because his email has been blocked from Enigma’s email account.
This was just another one of his ‘cutting and pasting’ of emails together making it appear as a whole. In reality, I was responding to the “alleged hit man’s wife” who had sent me a taunting Instant Message on my AOL account. Apparently, it made her happy that she had scared me because she sent a copy on to Mr. Atchison. At the time I thought that it was either Mr. Atchison or Mr. Moshein playing one of their sick mind games with me. It is painfully obvious that these people loved to torture me. After this woman logged off, believing that it was either Mr. Atchison or Mr. Moshein, I sent a separate email to LABloodhound and copied it to Mr. Atchison.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit041.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit042.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit043.pdf
Mr. Atchison presented to law enforcement and to this Court several emails which he represented was a true copy of both Mr. Sproul’s and my responses to his emails in regards to the murder for hire plot implicating me (that he and others concocted) First of all, Enigma has blocked its AOL account from receiving any email communication from Mr. Atchison and he knew this. He also knew Mr. Sproul’s personal email address because he had sent letters to him in the past. In view of the serious implications these emails could have ‘ultimately’ achieved --- I could’ve been placed under arrest, thus achieving Mr. Atchison threat to do all that he could to make sure I was locked up behind bars for a very long time. This is very frightening to learn that someone hates so much that they would be willing to do anything to achieve this end. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit044.pdf
Upon receipt of this letter Mr. Atchison sent back a reply and requested a telephone number for Patricia … – obviously she provided a telephone number but we simply don’t know how it happened because Mr. Atchison never provided us with that information. We have no idea as to how many other emails or communications were sent that he did not provide to us. The next communication that we know of is one where (again) he selectively ‘cut & pasted’ from an email that Patricia … sent to him later that same evening. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit045.pdf
Upon examination of Mr. Atchison’s phone records, to the L…’s, it is apparent that from June 17, 2004 at 10:16 AM until 11:25 AM Mr. Atchison attempted to call Patricia … on 12 separate occasions. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit046.pdf
As the phone logs show on the 13th attempt, at 11:25 AM, Mr. Atchison was successful in making a connection and spoke with either Patricia or John … for approximately 17 minutes. Mr. Atchison appeared to have lost the connection to his call with the L…’s and at 11:43 AM reestablished that connection which lasted approximately 27 minutes longer. From the time of the first call with the L…’s it took one hour (1) and four (4) minutes until Mr. Atchison contacted the Austin Police Department to report that his life was in danger – “The Murder for Hire Plot.”
Considering the time from the first email to the point at which the police were first called one has to wonder, if this was really a true plot to murder Mr. Atchison, why did it take so long? Mr. Atchison’s phone records reflect that on June 17, 2004 at 12:29 PM he contacted the Austin Police Department who sent out a patrol car to his home.
Officer Alfredo Delvalle took Mr. Atchison’s statement at 12:36 PM. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit047.pdf &http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit048.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit049.pdf
In a letter dated July 9, 2004 sent to Author/Historian Peter Kurth, with reference to the “Murder for Hire Plot” Mr. Atchison wrote:
“…Oma is in a panic mode as the police are involved – she’s out of control and completely unpredictable…I don’t feel like I am in immediate danger anymore, but the Oma’s unpredictability is a wild card. I have come to the conclusion she (Oma) won’t stop until she’s locked up – I am sorry to say it. I know this website must really set her off, but she has brought it on herself…” http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit050.pdf
It is interesting to note that on this very day, that Mr. Atchison sent Mr. Kurth this letter, he contacted the FBI because “allegedly” he claimed to them “that he was afraid for his life” even though he just told Mr. Kurth that he didn’t feel he was in any type of danger. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit051.pdf
Source: Oma Hamou.com – Affidavit of Oma Hamou http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/affidavit.pdf
During this time Mr. Atchison filed numerous police reports in Los Angeles and in Austin as well as on a Federal level. In one report it alleges Oma Hamou looked like a Muslim or of Arabic decent and that the reason why she wanted a NGO (Non Governmental Organization) status for Sarskaia under the United Nations was because she wanted to get a ground pass?
The only reason why Oma wanted to even attempt to get an NGO status with the UN was because Bob Atchison and Rob Moshein sent letters to the California Attorney General's Office and others informing them basically Oma was a fraud, Enigma had no film project, Sarskaia had no projects in Russia and that Oma was using the name of the church and Alexander Palace as a front to con people out of their money and stuff. Similar to the kind of things alleged against Oma, Enigma and Sarskaia here on this forum by Rob Moshein, Vapors and other associates of Pallasart and of course Bob Atchison.
So at least in one of the police report Bob's complaint isn't just about someone hiring someone to kill him but now is at the very least an attempt to have Oma classified as a potential "terrorist" and that simply by making that accusation it bounced this complaint that she was a terrorist with a huge criminal background to the top of the heap. This report was sent to the Homeland Security Unit which concluded their investigation that Oma Hamou was not a terrorist and the Los Angeles DA rejected prosecuting Bob's complaint against Oma for lack of evidence on October 28, 2004.
All this because Oma wants to make a film about Nicholas II, because she helped some small church in Russia and the Alexander Palace and hope thather projects will continue to promote international goodwill and economic prosperity?
What Lies…?
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit055.pdf During the previous lawsuit brought by Oma Hamou, Enigma Films and Sarskaia against Bob Atchison he claimed in court documents Father Markell was no longer a priest at the Fydorovsky Cathedral. He knew this was a lie as Father Markell has been the head priest of this church since the late 1980’s. When you take a closer look at the affidavits sworn by Bob Atchison about “so and so” or “such and such” event one finds that much of what he says is “pure fiction”
In Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s request for Disclosure dated January 18, 2005, page 5 Bob Atchison states the following:
“…Mr. Newson also told Mr. Atchison that he (Mr. Newson) told Ms. Hamou that she should contact Mr. L… to carry out her desire to harm Mr. Atchison…”
Mr. Atchison’s above statement to this court regarding this statement that I made to him 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 for hire plot that I would confess to the victim (Mr. Atchison) that “I” was responsible for telling Ms. Hamou that I knew someone who could kill Mr. Atchison is ludicrous, and only serves to show how Mr. Atchison takes the least fact and twists it into saying what he want it to mean, with no regard for truth, but with full intent to sway the listener to his point of view no matter what.
See: http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit062.pdf
So if Bob Atchison could lie about what I said, just think how many other people has he has falsely accused doing and saying things they never said or did including Father Markell and Oma Hamou. During Bob Atchison’s Oral Deposition and in other court documents, Bob Atchison claims that he has no participation or knowledge of Oma Hamou Report dot org, yet he boasted to the Police not only did he create it but he did it so he could warn others about the character of Oma Hamou. Understandably, his reasons for lying to the court was because he didn’t want to get caught doing the very thing that he was told not to.
During Oma's previous lawsuit with Bob/Rob and Bob's company Pallasart, a Motion for Application of Restraining Order was presented to the court on 2/7/2005. Note the Judge’s handwritten note above the Order states:
“Said restraining order shall restrain Robert Moshein from operating and shall require the removal of the website www.omahamoureport.org , and further, shall restrain defendant (Rob Moshein) from secreting or destroying any evidence relevant to the claims of third party plaintiffs”.
The second restraining 2/14/2005 simply reinforced the Order issued on 2/7/2005. http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/ApplicationRestrainingOrderAgainstRobMoshein.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartOmaHamouSite050207.pdf http://www.omahamou.com/PDF/RestrainingOrderIssuedAgainstPallasartsOmaHamouSite.pdf
On January 21, 2006 on Pallasart’s “Alexander Palace Time Machine” Forum, the Forum Administrator posted this statement:
Dear Oscarwilde;
That scurrillous website (and frankly I'm sceptical about how you "found" it, since it does not appear in search engines) is essentially all slander and fiction, including a supposed memo which was faked. Mr. Atchison was hired as a historical consultant by someone who failed to live up to their contractual agreement (and who it turned out was a three time convicted felon for crimes of fraud and who owes almost $1 million in judgments to many other people). As a result he filed a lawsuit against them, which went to a jury trial, and he won the lawsuit. The defendant in the suit attempted to discredit Mr. Atchison by means of this same libel and slander to attempt somehow to force him to drop his lawsuit or perhaps as some sort of weird revenge. We ingore this garbage, as that is all it is - most especially considering the source...It appears that this new website is somehow linked to the loser of the lawsuit, as it is all the same old stuff, obviously just "sour grapes" from a poor loser who does not want t o pay the judgement and who is now in contempt of court and now subject to jail time in Texas for failing to pay sactions levied by the Court for their abuse of the legal process in the lawsuit. Please rest assured that Anatoly Kotchumov considered Mr. Atchison as a second son. The set of photographs he gave Bob was a duplicate copy set of the originals which are still at the AP, and the duplicates were Kotchumov's personal property. He never took anything from the palace. Bob was single handedly responsible for the American Express dontation to the palace for the new roof. Many many people in Tsarskoe Selo consider Bob a close personal friend. Disregard that scurrilous website.
http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit072.pdf
Excerpt from Oma Hamou Affidavit:
While the number of items that this statement (above) that could be analyzed are many. It is most interesting to note that after finding and looking at the website in question www.bobatchison.co.uk. (It seems that the European author hot linked his web site to my personal web site, and so we were able to trace and discover the identity of this site by looking at our web logs.) A few main points come to mind. The memo that appears to bother Pallasart and its associate is one which was a document that Mr. Atchison himself gave to us during the discovery process of this litigation.
In truth and in fact, the documents in question regarding Pallasart’s above statement was in response to our “Request for Production of Documents” so either the documents are legitimate as Mr. Atchison represented to this court and Pallasart’s Forum Administrator was mistaken by in his statement or Mr. Atchison misrepresented the truth. (See Exhibit http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit072.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit073.pdf & http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit074.pdf
The documents described in either Bob Atchison or Rob Moshein’s post on Pallasart’s, Alexander Palace Time Machine Forum concerns the previous litigation and Bob Atchison’s Response. Example, the Memo to John Stubbs by Bob Atchison dated July 2, 1997 was a document Mr. Atchison produced in accordance to the request of line 1 of http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit098.pdf
The same goes to the document concerning Mr. Kuchumov the former director of the Alexander Palace in Russia line 21 of http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit098.pdf The documents featured on http://www.bobatchison.co.uk/ are the same documents described above.
Both documents, the Bob Atchison Memo to a Mr. Stubbs and the Kuchumov document were documents that HE (and I do mean Robert {Bob} Atchison) through his attorney submitted in the discovery process. These two specific documents are BATE STAMPED or SEQUENTIAL PAGE NUMBER RANGE (Yes the word is Bate not Date, go ask Texas as I don’t know why, --- and look in the bottom right corner? Notice the P for Plaintiff? Meaning that Bob supplied this information to the courts?) if these documents are faked as the Forum Administrator of the Alexander Palace Time Machine states then Bob Atchison himself "faked" it or the statement that the FA made was simply an attempt to direct the focus elsewhere. (I think I have brought up the rules behind the “Big Lie” malaprop propaganda technique? If you are unaware of this please read more about the method at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie)
However, given the number of times that documents that were introduced on Legends were claimed by “Them” to be fakes or fraud, well it seems that such intent is a part of “their” mindset. It would seem that in the heart of Bob Atchison he never thought that the Police or anyone else would ever back Oma to the point of providing her with not only 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. Sure it was not simple to wade through all the exhibits to verify for yourself what was said in those court exhibits and that indeed at different times and places different things were said by Bob Atchison. One has to understand the 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 alleges throughout their previous litigation and during trial Bob Atchison perjured himself, that he fabricated evidence and submitted it to the police in its criminal investigation concerning his complaints against her and more…
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
