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

[Excerpts from Oma Hamou's Affidavit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: OmaHamou.com

LA Times Recent Article on Defmation & Prior Restraint

State supreme court moves to limit speech
State justices for the first time rule that defendants can be barred from making defamatory statements in the future.

By Maura Dolan, Times Staff WriterApril 27, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO — In a significant development in free speech law, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state courts may silence people who have defamed others.Ruling in the case of a 58-year-old Newport Beach woman who accused a local bar of serving tainted food and making sex videos, the high court said a judge may order Anne Lemen to stop repeating false and scurrilous statements that were found by a trial court to be defamatory.

The decision marked the first time the state high court has approved barring defendants in defamation cases from making statements in the future. Judges typically punish defamation by ordering defendants to pay damages.The dissenters in the 5-2 ruling warned that the court was authorizing a prior restraint on free speech, a legal concept rooted in English common law. "To forever gag the speaker — the remedy approved by the majority — goes beyond chilling speech," Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote.

"It freezes speech." Because violating such an order could mean fines or jail, the prospect may "deter a person from speaking at all," Kennard wrote.But the majority said a narrow order against further defamation was constitutional."

An injunction issued following a trial … that does no more than prohibit the defendant from repeating the defamation is not a prior restraint and does not offend the 1st Amendment," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.

A lawsuit by Aric Toll, who owns the Village Inn on Balboa Island with his parents, triggered the decision.Toll said Lemen was driving his customers away by videotaping them and telling outrageous lies about his business.He said Lemen told others that he had Mafia connections and had attempted to kill her.Toll's plight elicited sympathy from some of the justices at oral arguments, a factor that probably influenced Thursday's ruling.

"Every ruling is affected by the facts of the case, and that is why hard cases make bad law," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court. "But when it comes to the burdens with respect to 1st Amendment protection, this is a pretty significant step."

Toll, 41, said he was "very happy" about the ruling. He said he had spent about $100,000 pursuing his case against Lemen, who describes herself as a Christian evangelist and owns a home next door to Toll's business. "She is capable of a lot of damage, and she just doesn't let up," Toll said.

D. Michael Bush, who represented Lemen at trial, said he was disappointed. Bush described Lemen as "emotionally vulnerable" and called the case "a human tragedy."

"She is ill-equipped to handle herself in a public manner," he said, asking that she not be contacted by the media.The concept of prior restraint came into the public lexicon with such major cases as the Pentagon Papers and Nazis' seeking to march in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Ill.

The prohibition against prior restraint originally applied only to the news media, the court said. The idea was that requiring the media to obtain permission to publish something because it allegedly would be libelous would stifle the free expression at the heart of a democratic society. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, in her dissent, said it was "unescapable" that prohibiting Lemen from making certain statements in the future violated the Constitution.

" 'A free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand,' " she wrote, quoting from a 1975 U.S. Supreme Court precedent. "

'It is always difficult to know in advance what an individual will say, and the line between legitimate and illegitimate speech is often so finely drawn that the risks of freewheeling censorship are formidable.'

"The permanent injunction against Lemen specifically prohibits her from saying that the Village Inn distributes illegal drugs, encourages lesbian activities, participates in prostitution, serves as a whorehouse, sells alcohol to minors, makes sex videos, serves tainted food and is involved in child pornography.The order also prevents Lemen from videotaping the bar and its customers within 25 feet of the business and from initiating contact with bar employees.

A Court of Appeal upheld the limitations on filming but struck down as unconstitutional the prohibitions on contacting employees and making the disparaging statements.Although the state high court agreed that the order was overly broad, it said that a so-called gag order may be permissible if it is narrowly written. Specifically, the court said the order should have been directed only at Lemen. It had applied to "her agents, all persons acting on her behalf or purporting to act on her behalf and all other persons in active concert and participation with her.

"The majority also said the order should ensure that Lemen can make whatever complaints she likes to government agencies and should not flatly stop her from contacting Village Inn employees anywhere, anytime and on any subject.

Bush, Lemen's attorney, said he intends to fight restrictions on Lemen's speech when the case returns to Orange County for a modified order. He said he and Lemen have not yet decided on whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who argued the appeal to the state high court, said he was pleased the court struck down the existing order against Lemen and insisted that future orders should be written narrowly and apply only to specific statements and only after trials."So if a narrow injunction is crafted, Lemen cannot repeat these specific statements, but she can go out and say other things about the Balboa Village Inn," Chemerinsky said.

Toll's lawyer, J. Scott Russo, describing himself as "ecstatic," said he would seek a new order with the modifications suggested by the court." This was absolutely the best we could have hoped for," Russo said.

Contact Info: maura.dolan@latimes.com
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-speech27apr27,1,1003742.story?track=rss

This case presents similar issues raised in the Bob Atchison versuses Oma Hamou saga. It seems the letter between the two attorneys (Matthews & Slater) bear out Mike Newson statement: at one time both Atchison and Moshein were willing to execute the below documents, too

bad it didn't happen.

Source: AA Legends & OmaHamou.com

NO. GN303141
ROBERT ATCHISON
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
§

§

V.
§
345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

OMA HAMOU
§

Defendant.
§
OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

AGREED ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

This case was heard the _______ day of _______, 2005. The parties appeared and announced ready for trial. The Court finds that the parties have agreed to the requested relief, that relief being that Oma Hamou, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff in this action and The Sarskaia Foundation and Enigma Films, Inc. Intervenors and Third Party Plaintiffs in this action, are entitled to a permanent injunction against Third Party Defendant, Robert Atchison. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that Robert Atchison, Third Party Defendant in this action is permanently enjoined from communicating with or disseminating to any person or entity, either directly or indirectly, for any purpose whatsoever, any statement, information, or depiction concerning or related to Oma Hamou, Enigma Films, Inc., Enigma Royal Films, LLC, Enigma Royal Films, Inc. or The Sarskaia Foundation, save and except only for the Statement of Robert Atchison attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part of this Order.

ORDERED that Robert Atchison, Third Party Defendant in this action is permanently enjoined from directing others or going within two-hundred (200) yards of any of Oma Hamou’s place of residence or that of Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation’s place of business.

ORDERED that Robert Moshein, Third Party Defendant in this action is permanently enjoined from communicating with or disseminating to any person or entity, either directly or indirectly, for any purpose whatsoever, any statement, information, or depiction concerning or related to Oma Hamou, Enigma Films, Inc., Enigma Royal Films, LLC, Enigma Royal Films, Inc. or The Sarskaia Foundation, save and except only for the Statement of Robert Atchison attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and made a part of this Order.

ORDERED: that Robert Moshein, Third Party Defendant in this action is permanently enjoined from directing others or going within two-hundred (200) yards of any of Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation’s place of business.

ORDERED: that Robert Moshein, Third Party Defendant in this action is permanently enjoined from directing others or going within two-hundred (200) yards of Hamou’s residence.

ORDERED: that, in addition to any other remedies available to Oma Hamou, Enigma Films, Inc. and The Sarskaia Foundation, said parties shall be entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $5,000, in the aggregate, for each communication or act of dissemination of any information, statement or depiction in violation of this Order upon an offering of proof of said violation and a finding of this court of said violation, provided, however, that the aforestated remedy of the imposition of liquidated damages shall be cumulative and shall not impair or limit the rights of Oma Hamou, Enigma Films, Inc. and The Sarskaia Foundation to other and further relief, including but not limited to contempt, injunctive relief and damages in excess of or in addition to liquidated damages upon a showing of proof in support thereof.

ORDERED: that, for purposes of this Order, each day that the internet is used as an instrumentality to communicate or disseminate any statement, information or depiction in violation of this Order shall constitute a separate violation of this Order.

Signed this ________ day of _________, 2005.

_______________________________
Judge Presiding

NO. GN303141
ROBERT ATCHISON
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
§
§

V.
§
345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

OMA HAMOU
§

Defendant.
§
OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

STATE OF TEXAS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF TRAVIS

WHEREAS, Robert Atchison (hereinafter “Atchison”) initiated the above cited cause on or about August 21, 2003 (hereinafter “the Lawsuit”) against Oma Hamou (hereinafter “Hamou”) asserting that a Hamou was indebted to Atchison as a result of certain commercial dealings with her and,
WHEREAS, Oma Hamou, Enigma Films, Inc. and The Sarskaia Foundation intervened in the Lawsuit and, thereafter, joined as third party defefendants, Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc. (hereinafter “Pallasart”) and Robert Moshein (hereinafter “Moshein”) asserting that Atchison was indebted to Hamou as a result of certain commercial dealings with him and further, asserting various other wrongdoing on the part of Atchison and his business Pallasart, and

WHEREAS, Robert Atchison and Pallasart and Hamou and Hamou’ s Businesses desire to fully and finally settle and compromise each and all of the parities claims, demands, liabilities or actions of any kind or character, against the other, known or unknown, existing now or at any time previous to this settlement;

NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:

1. Atchison and Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses agree that a final agreed judgment, in form and substance identical to that set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be entered by the court within ten (10) days of the date of the mutual execution of this settlement agreement, which judgment shall award damages payable by Atchison to Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses in the amount of $1.00 for defamation of Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses. The Judgment will not be published or otherwise conveyed directly or indirectly, to any third party by Robert Atchison without the prior written consent of Oma Hamou. Upon entry of the Judgment, all bonds posted in this case shall be redelivered to Oma Hamou.

2. Atchison and Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses agree that a Permanent Injunction, in form and substance identical to that set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be entered by the court within ten (10) days of the date of the mutual execution of this settlement agreement, which Permanent Injunction shall enjoin Atchison from publishing or making statements concerning Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses as provided in Exhibit B.

3. Each of the respective parties to this Agreement shall be responsible for payment of all attorneys’ fees and costs of court incurred by them and shall not be liable to any other party hereto for payment of said fees and costs.

4. Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses, in consideration of Atchison’s covenants herein, including but not limited Atchison’s promise to fully and faithfully comply with the Permanent Injunction described in Exhibit B hereto, does hereby RELEASE and forever DISCHARGE Atchison, his agents, servants and representatives, and Pallasart and its’ agents, servants, and representatives from any and all claims, causes of action, debts, demands, obligations, liabilities and suits whatever, of any kind or character, whether known or unknown, in any manner and in any capacity claimed, owned, held or possessed by Hamou or Hamou’s Businesses, or their agents, servants, representatives, successors or assigns, whether or not any such claim, cause of action, debt, demand, obligation, liability or suit was raised in the Lawsuit. This release of liability by Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses is intended to be all inclusive and comprehensive and is intended to finally settle and dispose of any and all claims, causes of action, debts, demands, obligations, liabilities and suits whatever, of any kind or character, whether known or unknown, that do or may exist in favor of Hamou and/or Hamou’s Businesses against Atchison and Pallasart. However, nothwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein, in the event that Hamou or Hamou’s Businesses shall obtain a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction that Atchison has violated the Permanent Injunction, without regard to the amount, if any, of any damages, if any, suffered by Hamou or Hamou’s Businesses as a result of such violation, then, in such event, the release given by Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses shall be void, ab initiio, and shall be without force or effect and, further, the parties agree that any and all applicable statutes of limitation that may or do impair, limit or bar any claim or cause of action released hereunder by Hamou or Hamou’s Businesses shall be waived by Atchison and that Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses shall have the right but not the obligation to refile any claim or cause of action hereinabove released for a period of six (6) months from the date of the entry of the judgment or order of the court finding the aforementioned violation of the Permanent Injunction and Atchison agrees that, with respect to any such refilled claim or cause of action he shall in no event raise a defense of limitations or laches.

5. Atchison, in consideration of the covenants herein of Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses, does hereby RELEASE and forever DISCHARGE Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses and all of her and her Businesses’ agents, servants and representatives, successors and assigns from any and all claims, causes of action, debts, demands, obligations, liabilities and suits whatever, of any kind or character, whether known or unknown, in any manner and in any capacity claimed, owned, held or possessed by Atchison, or his agents, servants, representatives, successors or assigns, whether or not any such claim, cause of action, debt, demand, obligation, liability or suit was raised in the Lawsuit. This release of liability by Atchison is intended to be all inclusive and comprehensive and is intended to finally settle and dispose of any and all claims, causes of action, debts, demands, obligations, liabilities and suits whatever, of any kind or character, whether known or unknown, that do or may exist in favor Atchison against Hamou or Hamou’s Businesses.

6. Atchison and Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses agree that the parties are free to publish and distribute, without restriction or limitation, a signed statement of Atchison identical in form and substance to Exhibit “C” attached hereto and made a part hereof. Atchison agrees that he shall publish the aforementioned statement, completely and without editorial comment or amendment, and the Permanent Injunction on the Alexander Palace website (www.alexanderpalance.org) for a period of one-hundred twenty (120) consecutive days from the date of the entry of the Permanent Injunction.

7. Other than as set forth within this Agreement, Hamou agrees that she will not, in her individual capacity or through Hamou’s Businesses make any statements about Atchison or Pallasart in the future. Atchison understands and agrees that Hamou must undertake a series of communications directed to the public in general and, particularly, directed to interested third parties concerning the subject matter of the Lawsuit in an effort to rehabilitate her reputation and that of Hamou’s Businesses. Atchison further understands and agrees that such communications shall be unfettered and that Hamou will necessarily refute various allegations and statements previously made by Atchison and will assert that various allegations are false, misleading or otherwise factually in error.

8. Atchison agrees he will either not direct others to do so or go within two-hundred (200) yards of any of Hamou, Enigma and The Sarskaia Foundation’s place of business. Atchison also agrees that he will neither direct nor go within two-hundred (200) yards of Hamou’s residence.

9. The foregoing represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the settlement of the Lawsuit. This Agreement may not be modified by the parties hereto unless such modification is in writing and signed by all parties to this Agreement.

10. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. In the event of a breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that any claim or action asserting such breach may be filed in the then current county of the state in which either Hamou or Atchison is domiciled, provided, however, that nothing herein shall operate to impair or limit the ability of the parties to file an action in any venue available under law and shall in no manner impair or limit the remedies of Hamou and Hamou’s Businesses to enforce, by contempt or otherwise, the Permanent Injunction entered by the court in connection with this settlement.

EXECUTED THIS _____ day of _________________________, 2005.


The Sarskaia Foundation

By:______________________________

Title: _____________________________

Enigma Films, Inc.

By: _________________________________


Title: _____________________________


Enigma Royal Films, LLC

By: _______________________________


Title: _____________________________


Enigma Royal Films, Inc

By: _______________________________


Title: _____________________________


Pallasart Web Ventures, Inc


By: _______________________________


Title: _____________________________


____________________________
ROBERT ATCHISON

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ATCHISON

The undersigned, Robert Atchison, issues this public statement in connection with the lawsuit, Cause No. GN303141; Robert Atchison, Plaintiff, v. Oma Hamou Defendant; In the District Court, 345th Judicial District of Travis County, Texas (“Lawsuit”).

The lawsuit has been settled and I have agreed to issue this public statement in connection with this settlement. I have also agreed to be made subject to a Permanent Injunction which has been entered by the court in connection with this settlement.

In the past, I have made statements concerning Oma Hamou, the Sarskaia Foundation, Enigma Films, Inc., Enigma Royal Films, LLC, Enigma Royal Films, Inc. and the film, “As A Matter of Honour.” These statements have dealt generally with allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Ms. Hamou and certain commercial debts purportedly associated with Ms. Hamou’s filmmaking activities. These statements have been communicated by me to the general public via the internet and to various third parties such as governmental organizations, prospective lenders, industry professionals and other third parties in private conversations and written communications.

Statements that I have made both verbally and in written form concerning Ms. Hamou and her related organizations and entities regarding the aforementioned subject matters have been false and misleading. I have agreed pursuant to the Permanent Injunction entered in the Lawsuit to no longer make any statements regarding Ms. Hamou or any of the previously mentioned organizations, other than referring to the fact there was a lawsuit, it was settled, and this statement, and I have agreed that any statements by me relating the fact that there was a lawsuit and that it was settled will only be communicated together with the complete text of this statement.

Further, I agree to publish this statement and the Permanent Injunction on the Alexander Palace website (www.alexanderpalance.org) for a period of one-hundred twenty (120) consecutive days the date of the entry of the Permanent Injunction.

Most particularly I wish to publicly state that I recognize that two topics I have commented upon have caused particular distress for Ms. Hamou and I wish to speak directly to those matters.

Firstly, I have no personal knowledge or information which would support in any manner the unsubstantiated allegation that Ms. Hamou or her associates or colleagues attempted to hire a third party to harm or murder me, Robert Atchison. It is my understanding that the law enforcement authorities investigating this matter have closed their files based upon an absence of evidence to support these allegations. I have no reason to believe that there has ever been any substance or merit to these allegations.

Secondly, with respect to the various statements made by me or made by others and republished by me regarding Father Markell of St. Petersburg, Russia and The Fedorovsky Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia, I wish to publicly state that I have no personal knowledge that Ms. Hamou took any action that made Father Markell “homeless”, that she seduced him or otherwise had any inappropriate relationship with him or that Father Markell was required to or did repay a loan to J. P. Morgan Bank on behalf of Oma Hamou or any of her related entities and, thirdly, I acknowledge that Ms. Hamou did undertake restoration efforts for The Fedorovsky Cathedral and the Alexander Palace.

My specific reference to the above two topics (regarding an allegation that Ms. Hamou attempted to harm or murder me and the comments regarding The Fedorovsky Cathedral and Father Markell) are not intended to diminish in any way my full and complete retraction of any false or misleading statements I have made in the past regarding Ms. Hamou and the aforementioned entities and organizations. It is simply that I understand that the allegations associated with these two topics have been most offensive to Ms. Hamou.

In no manner do I wish to impede the production of the film, “As A Matter of Honour” or do or say anything that could possibly reflect poorly on her commendable and worthwhile effort to restore any historical monuments in Russia. I wish Ms. Hamou the best in these endeavors. I sincerely regret any harm or damage suffered by Ms. Hamou, personally, or suffered by any of the organizations and entities affiliated with her, or any person associated with this lawsuit. Again, to the extent that any of my previous statements have caused Ms. Hamou concern, embarrassment, or humiliation, I am truly sorry.

­­____________________________ ____________
Robert ATCHISON Date

Source: AA Legends & OmaHamou.com

Statement From Oma Hamou
April 25, 2007

My life for the past six years has consisted of having my reputation and all of my efforts to make a living, let alone a normal life, destroyed by the obsessive, inexplicable, incessant and personally devastating attacks from a man I barely knew --- and to say the least I wish I never knew. That man is Bob Atchison and his host of co-conspirators, such as; Rob Moshein, Mike Pyles (a person who I’ve never even met or spoken to) and others including several aliases used by the above individuals.

People who know me spent the first years of this conflict exasperated with me for wanting to reconcile and forgive. I wanted to let bygones, be bygones --- in spite of the fact he had already damaged me and my projects to the tune of 2 ½ million dollars plus the loss of a 20 million dollar loan.These cruel and depraved individuals launched a merciless and unrelenting attack on me to the extent that I have spent the last years literally in fear and hiding, facing daily terror and distress.

Despite my sending several cease and desist letters as well as the attorney having sent cease and desist letters not to mention a court restraining order that was issued against Pallasart and Rob Moshein they have shown nothing but contempt for all pleas and demands and even protective orders.These disturbed individuals have concocted a multitude of schemes against me; including using forged documents and making false allegations to law enforcement, all in an effort to have me imprisoned, notwithstanding the fact that they have already imprisoned my soul and destroyed my life. No matter what revenge they ravish on me personally they are utterly unsatisfied and seek to have me physically imprisoned by whatever false accusation they can come up with in their wild and devious imaginations. Fortunately due to due diligence, the police have determined that there was no basis to their continual accusations and that it is I who has been victimized by some very unscrupulous people.

Let me give you an example of some of the attacks of these depraved individuals --- stated briefly and not completely:

* Posted my US Social Security Number on the web.
* Posted my home address on the web.
* Posted information on file with the California DMV office (which is illegal)
* Used forged documents against me in court and submitted forged documents to the police.
* Committed perjury in court.

* Launched campaigns to discredit me to dissuade financial institutions, government agencies and others from assisting me in my endeavors.

* They have given false testimony against me to the courts, police, the public and not just given false testimony but unrelentingly pursued the prosecution of this false testimony in an attempt to wreak any and all damage upon me that they could.

* They have conspired with others to harm me.

* They have instigated violence against me including being threatened with firearms and being physically thrown up against the wall.

* They have stalked me to discover my home and sanctuary seeking through a multitude of ways (the least of which is analyzing IP addresses that hit a imbedded image) to find my person --- based on the past, one is forced to ask for what reason do they want to find my physical self? What harm do they intend once they find me?

* Bob and his web company Pallasart defrauded me out of large sums of monies.

And this is by no means a complete list as they have done anything and everything they could think of in their devious and highly creative minds for a period of six years.

Bob Atchison used the court system to extort money from me, money that I don’t owe him.

At trial in his civil litigation against me both him and his attorney represented to the court that Bob’s company, Pallasart Web Ventures had sued my company Enigma Films and my references to documentation was from a prior lawsuit which had been settled previously. This was a lie!

Not only that --- Bob Atchison submitted forged documents to attain his verdict against me.

I now find myself in unfamiliar territory. I am not and have never been a vengeful person. However, my nature has been so brutalized and so altered by their horrific and unwarranted assaults on me that I am making an exception. Don’t take this as if this is issued from the mouth of someone who is prone to seeking justice and or the demise of someone who has done evil. People who know me know this to be extremely out of character for me, but I believe it is just and right for at least some if not all of these individuals to be imprisoned for the crimes they have and continue unrelentingly to commit against me. They have proved by their actions that just being reprimanded by the courts is insufficient in getting them to change their ways. Having failed to modify their behavior by mere words then it is obvious that some escalated attempt to modify their behavior is required.

In my opinion, based on observed behaviors, Bob Atchison is a sociopath and so is Rob Moshein. I didn’t deserve any of what Bob Atchison and his co-conspirators have and continue to do to me and I can’t imagine who would deserve it, all I wanted to do was make a film dealing with Russian history and Czar Nicholas II.

Instead I found myself trapped in an underworld of history freaks whose fanaticism compels them to destroy anyone with the audacity to enter their realm which they seem to insist belongs to them exclusively and anyone wanting to enter must enter as their subjects. The incongruity here is that “their realm” is World History and you can’t touch it or they’ll rip you to shreds.

Thank you for your prayers and continued support.

Ms. Oma Hamou

Source: http://www.omahamou.com/ & http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2006/11/updatedone-of-many-examples-of-forgery.html

Fedorovsky Cathedral Pushkin, Russia -UPDATE

Lying to the public and law enforcement in the United States, Bob Atchison drags the name of a Russian priest, Father Markell through the mud in his smear campaign against Oma Hamou. Amongst other things, Atchison steadfastly claimed the priest co-signed a loan on behalf of Hamou with the Moscow branch of JP Morgan. This statement is substaniated by the multiple police reports filed against Hamou by Bob Atchison of the Alexander Palace Time Machine. It should be noted in every instance, Atchison filed a police report against Hamou the complaint was "dismissed" for lack of evidence and credibility.

The gold used to guild this church was not provided by either Atchison or Hamou but instead was donated by the government of Russia.

Oma Hamou & Father Gennady at St. Sophia Cathedral

Pushkin - Russia

Hamou's Orthodox Baptism inside Fedorvosky Cathedral

Photo Source: OmaHamou.com

OMA HAMOU'S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURTS IN TEXAS

Source: OmaHamou.com

In a letter dated November 13, 2003 Atchison writes a Russian resident:

“…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…” http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit103.pdf

In “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant’s Request for Disclosure” dated January 18, 2005 Atchison makes the following statement (remember folks he's stating these things under OATH):

“…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..." http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit60.pdf

INSIDE OMA HAMOU's AFFIDAVIT: "... As 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 Martin’ is well aware of this fact...

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. http://www.omahamou.com/pdf/affidavit/exhibit104.pdf
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...

An excerpt of reknown author/historian Greg King's letter to Rob Moshein dated July, 26, 2002:

"....I would simply add, to you, as a personal courtesy, and to those others of your ilk who profess such devotion to the Imperial Family and those who as so-called Christians speak of "Holy Royal Martyrs" might do well to practice a little of what the Christian Faith actually teaches. Have you spent much time in prayer, Rob? Have you considered how your actions affect others?

Have you given any thought to the effect of your words-as a person of faith-on others who will read this? Until those who identify themselves so strongly with their martyrs can demonstrate even the most remote semblance or attempt at humility and thoughtfulness will I feel inclined to take them seriously...Thank you to those who-be they devoted to the Imperial Family, regard them as saints, or merely consider themselves decent human beings-have read these threads and the words contained within and supported Penny and myself, and to those of you who may disagree violently with what you think may be said, but who have the ordinary consideration to behave in a restrained, adult manner..."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/thread/eec5a97aae08769e/6791c2a31a8640ba?lnk=st&q=Rob+Moshein&rnum=1#6791c2a31a8640ba

Athsion and his gang of "Web Thugs" sacrastically say, "...Yeah, Oma Hamou sounds really credible...."

QUOTE MIKE NEWSON: Well Yes the courts did believe OMA HAMOU when she asked for a restraining order against Pallasart's Oma Hamou Report dot org site and Rob Moshein and got it, law enforcement believed OMA when it investigated the claims made by Bob Atchison, Rob Moshein and their friend Mike Pyles---but they didn't believe them --- and a Judge said Oma had proven a likelihood of success on the merits of her Counterclaim against Bob/Rob/Pallasart so yeah, the people who count found her pretty credible!

Letter Between Atchison's Attorney (Matthews) and Hamou's Attorney (Slater):

According to Mike Newson this document represents the final proposed Settlement Agreement which both Rob Moshein and Bob Atchison were willing to execute.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ATCHISON

The undersigned, Robert Atchison, issues this public statement in connection with the lawsuit, Cause No. GN303141; Robert Atchison, Plaintiff, v. Oma Hamou Defendant; In the District Court, 345th Judicial District of Travis County, Texas (“Lawsuit”).The lawsuit has been settled and I have agreed to issue this public statement in connection with this settlement. I have also agreed to be made subject to a Permanent Injunction which has been entered by the court in connection with this settlement.

In the past, I have made statements concerning Oma Hamou, the Sarskaia Foundation, Enigma Films, Inc., Enigma Royal Films, LLC, Enigma Royal Films, Inc. and the film, “As A Matter of Honour.” These statements have dealt generally with allegations of criminal conduct on the part of Ms. Hamou and certain commercial debts purportedly associated with Ms. Hamou’s filmmaking activities. These statements have been communicated by me to the general public via the internet and to various third parties such as governmental organizations, prospective lenders, industry professionals and other third parties in private conversations and written communications.

Statements that I have made both verbally and in written form concerning Ms. Hamou and her related organizations and entities regarding the aforementioned subject matters have been false and misleading. I have agreed pursuant to the Permanent Injunction entered in the Lawsuit to no longer make any statements regarding Ms. Hamou or any of the previously mentioned organizations, other than referring to the fact there was a lawsuit, it was settled, and this statement, and I have agreed that any statements by me relating the fact that there was a lawsuit and that it was settled will only be communicated together with the complete text of this statement.

Further, I agree to publish this statement and the Permanent Injunction on the Alexander Palace website (www.alexanderpalance.org) for a period of one-hundred twenty (120) consecutive days the date of the entry of the Permanent Injunction.

Most particularly I wish to publicly state that I recognize that two topics I have commented upon have caused particular distress for Ms. Hamou and I wish to speak directly to those matters.
Firstly, I have no personal knowledge or information which would support in any manner the unsubstantiated allegation that Ms. Hamou or her associates or colleagues attempted to hire a third party to harm or murder me, Robert Atchison. It is my understanding that the law enforcement authorities investigating this matter have closed their files based upon an absence of evidence to support these allegations. I have no reason to believe that there has ever been any substance or merit to these allegations.

Secondly, with respect to the various statements made by me or made by others and republished by me regarding Father Markell of St. Petersburg, Russia and The Fedorovsky Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia, I wish to publicly state that I have no personal knowledge that Ms. Hamou took any action that made Father Markell “homeless”, that she seduced him or otherwise had any inappropriate relationship with him or that Father Markell was required to or did repay a loan to J. P. Morgan Bank on behalf of Oma Hamou or any of her related entities and, thirdly, I acknowledge that Ms. Hamou did undertake restoration efforts for The Fedorovsky Cathedral and the Alexander Palace.My specific reference to the above two topics (regarding an allegation that Ms. Hamou attempted to harm or murder me and the comments regarding The Fedorovsky Cathedral and Father Markell) are not intended to diminish in any way my full and complete retraction of any false or misleading statements I have made in the past regarding Ms. Hamou and the aforementioned entities and organizations. It is simply that I understand that the allegations associated with these two topics have been most offensive to Ms. Hamou.

In no manner do I wish to impede the production of the film, “As A Matter of Honour” or do or say anything that could possibly reflect poorly on her commendable and worthwhile effort to restore any historical monuments in Russia. I wish Ms. Hamou the best in these endeavors. I sincerely regret any harm or damage suffered by Ms. Hamou, personally, or suffered by any of the organizations and entities affiliated with her, or any person associated with this lawsuit. Again, to the extent that any of my previous statements have caused Ms. Hamou concern, embarrassment, or humiliation, I am truly sorry.

­­____________________________ ____________

Robert ATCHISON Date

Source: AA Legends, Oma Hamou.com, AlexanderPalace.org

The Amazing 10,000 Mark!

How about that we're almost at the 10,000 mark on this blog? Okay, that's pretty amazing. Thank you all for reading... or at least clicking through a bunch of times.