The Oma Hamou Reality Blog

It's The Reason Why They Lie

In his Face the Nation Commentary, Bob Schieffer criticizes the level of pandering and spin that has become a staple of modern American politics. He chides the candidates, saying:

"My bet is not many people believe any of them, because frankly, we’re not that dumb. What annoys me is that these candidates seem to think we are.”

They certainly do, because we are. But not in the way you would think. We just can't remember the truth once we've heard the lie. According to this study, Why debunking myths is difficult:

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flyer to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views, and labeled them "true" or "false." Among those identified as false were statements such as "the side effects are worse than the flu" and "only older people need flu vaccine."

When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flyer, however, he found that, within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual. Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC. The psychological insights yielded by the research, which has been confirmed in a number of peer-reviewed lab experiments, have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

Those on Bob Atchison's Team must have been on to this study years ago. This would explain why they so freely dissemble and spin, even when the truth can so easily be discerned afterwards. It doesn't matter, because for most people, the lie will be remembered as true, not the earlier reality. In fact, the article discusses this very issue:

This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept. 11 attacks and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may help keep it alive.

* * * *

Research on the difficulty of debunking myths has not been specifically tested on beliefs about Sept. 11 conspiracies or the Iraq war. But because the experiments illuminate basic properties of the human mind, psychologists such as Schwarz say the same phenomenon is probably implicated in the spread and persistence of a variety of political and social myths.

The research does not absolve those responsible for promoting myths in the first place. What the psychological studies highlight is the potential paradox in trying to fight bad information with good information. The research is painting a broad new understanding of how the mind works. Contrary to the conventional notion that people absorb information in a deliberate manner, the studies show that the brain uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. Clever manipulators can take advantage of this tendency.

And I suppose -- in part at least -- that explains why those on Oma Hamou's Team have had such a hard time of it. Because those on Bob Atchison's Team is willing to spin and twist the truth with the greatest of ease, it is left to those on Oma Hamou's Team to try to explain the "reality" or the truth. Once the idea is planted, it's roots are difficult to eradicate. Trying to explain or correct the facts later just doesn't work. Add to this the fact that those on Atchison's Team are expert at the spin, repeat & spin again cycle, so the wrong concept is really embedded in our minds. The Inquirer's conclusion bears this out:

The research also highlights the disturbing reality that, once an idea has been implanted, it can be difficult to dislodge. Denials inherently require repeating the bad information.

JUST A FEW EXAMPLES OF THE LIES ON OMA HAMOU REALITY BLOG WHICH THEY CLAIM IS FROM PUBLIC RECORDS, CONVERSATIONS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, ETC:

The California Better Business Bureau http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2007/02/image-hosted-by-imageshackus.html

The REAL Time Line of Events that led to Oma (Hamou) Demian's Criminal Convictions: http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2006/10/bob-atchisons-friend-man-going-by-web.html

Source: http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

Video via Crooks and Liars)
Tags: Commentary, Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer, Politics, Video

The folks over at Enigma asked if we would post this message:

If you are one or know anyone who has had a false police report filed against you, or have been libeled, defamed, harassed, stalked or threatened by either Bob Atchison, Rob Moshein individually or in association with their web site the Alexander Palace Time Machine, please send us an email with your contact information to enigmafilms@aol.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

Sources: http://www.restate.ru/news/25298.html & http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2006/11/cult-surrounding-alexander-palace-in.html & http://alexanderpalaceobsession.blogspot.com/2006/12/tonight-on-aa-legends-mike-newson_26.html

Rumour Has It....

In partnership with the Russian authorities one of its native sons, Shalva Chigirinsky has elected to invest a substanitial amount of money towards the conservation/preservation of the Alexander Palace in Pushkin, Russia. It is anticipated work will be completed in 2010. Once again, it is the Russians who step up to the plate, not Bob Atchison who rumour has it, is despised amongst the Russian authorities connected to this palace.

Bob Atchison "Whines" about being called names by the Director of the State Museum-Preserve, Dr. Ivan Sautov....

Concerning the restoration of the Alexander Palace I would have to agree with Mike Pyles a/k/a "Tsarfan" published statement on Atchison's Russian History forum:

"...I would argue that being the last resident does not make one necessarily the most important resident. Alexander I and Nicholas I (whose favorite residence was the Alexander Palace) were more important historically than Nicholas II, whose real claim to fame was marrying for love instead of policy, bringing hemophilia into the Russian royal family, isolating the monarchy from the stanchions of its support among the nobility and military, and losing the throne.Nor do I think that preserving the Alexander Palace as Nicholas and Alexandra knew it contributes that much to our understanding of their lifestyles. We have vastly more photographic evidence of their lifestyles than of their immediate predecessors', as well as more letters, diaries, and memoires. Also, Nicholas and Alexandra simply adapted the Alexander Palace as best they could to their needs and desires. If one wants really to understand them in their preferred domestic settings, it is better to study Livadia, which was entirely their own creation, or the New Palace (which is being rebuilt, I believe), in which they lived far more than is generally recognized. In fact, they were often resident at the New Palace when officially reported to be at the Alexander Palace.Most Russians rightly focus on the entire history of their monarchy, paying more attention to the accomplishments of Peter I and Catherine II than to the failures of Nicholas II. Hence the palaces associated with the glories of the Russian monarchy -- Peterhof, the Winter Palace, the Catherine Palace, Pavlovsk -- justifiably get the money, the attention, and the crowds.The real claim to fame of the Alexander Palace is not that it was the last residence of Nicholas and Alexandra, but that it is one of the world's jewels of neo-classical architecture. It is the unfortunate association of the Alexander Palace with Nicholas and Alexandra and the fetishistic association of the building with their melodramatic fates that has obscured the real role of the palace as a document to one of Russia's greatest architects and the patrons of superb taste who engaged him.I, for one, would love to see the Alexander Palace returned as much as possible to the masterpiece Quarenghi built. And the Concert Hall was the largest space he created there, being the terminus of a magnificent suite of neoclassical parade rooms that had no equal in that style in Russia . . . or anywhere else of which I know..."

And...

"...Truth be told, part of the reason I would prefer the restoration of the Concert Hall is that I just do not find the private lives of Nicholas and Alexandra appealing . . . largely because I think their succumbing to their private needs and desires had so much to do with the destruction of the Russian monarchy and the passing of these magnificent buildings from venues of human activity into sterile museum space -- or worse. This is distinctly at odds with the fact that I literally froze when standing in front of Monomakh's Cap, realizing it had once crowned the head of Peter the Great. I'm as capable of a fetishistic bout as the next person and, just as with the next person, it seizes me when it involves something associated with someone I admire and leaves me cold when the object is associated with someone I abjure.Oh, well . . . no one is going to ask me what to do with the Alexander Palace in any case...."

And we thought it was over...

Today on AA Legends Mike Newson Published:

Now I know what a cold sweat feels like, that shiver down the spine, shortness of breath, that sudden chill of terror and fear. I had a weird experience --- Have you ever had one of those times when you met up with a friend, said "hello" and then parted after shopping or whatever and then met up again with the same friends at say the movies right after and then you meet them after the movie at the ice cream parlor? (Having never discussed what your plans were?) Some times events like this happen, but when you see someone out of the corner of your eye, and your recognition kicks in as I know them but yet I don’t?

And then they vanish, only to reappear again out of the corner of your eye again and then in another place, and then another, well your mind can play tricks on you. And then when you meet up again in still another place and you know what has happened to Oma Hamou and the threats made against yourself!!!

Only this time your mind says that’s Rob Moshein as they walk towards you… Well every freak out circuit in my body triggered. Now I have an idea of how Oma has felt. One author described it as a little mouse with cold wet feet running up and down their spine… It turned out to be no one who knew me, just a guy about the same build as Rob and with his beard as seen in some photos, just close enough that I sort of recognized them but couldn’t. But what if this was true, what if they did stalk me in person or hire someone to? Do you have any idea of how that concept feels?

I have said enough in the past that I don’t need to continue to repeat what I have said. Let it stand that I again issue a denial of having had sex with Oma. I again say that what they have published is libel and again ask that they remove said libel from the web.

Any way when you read what that Blog says about me and Oma, (and that they are not Rob Moshein/Bob Atchison or anyone of the Pallasart group) yet they ”know” that I am cheating on my wife with Oma, which implies that they have seen this, which would mean that they are stalking us in person not just cyber stalking… I wonder who else is so consumed with Oma Hamou that they would take all this time to find and publish a blog on just her? And then be so upset at me for defending her against what Rob/Bob/Pallasart has said about her that they would continue to personally attack me?

Of course we all know that Rob/Bob denied any involvement with all the previous Hate-Oma sites and events such as publishing her Social Security number on the web or hiding behind names like Gilbert MacDuff or Tonya Hoochie, they denied it right up to when they appeared in court… Look at the continued patterns of behavior, not just on this current Hate-Blog but in the past ones and even currently on the AP Forum.

“They” say “We are NOT any single person they say we are. We are NOT in contact with nor in any way affiliated with any of them either.” Yet one of the emails that were posted by this blogger (WatchTower) was from a document ROB MOSHEIN submitted to the court and one “we” did not published, so where did they get it if they are not in contact with them?

Anyhow, lots of people have offered their support and friendship to those of us who do support Oma and many of them are considered REAL HISTORIANS in Russian history even some of the living descendants of Czar Nicholas II.