Notice now the people who "are" this woman. They act on her behalf, with her full knowledge, permission and consent, and write on a website which is her own name and which she owns. Thus, while they "pretend" "she" has nothing to do with it, by their own words, she is fully and solely responsible for what they say and do.
Added May 1:
For those who keep saying I merely "claim" to be a wine expert, well, I don't need to "claim" what is true. Don't take my word for it, the following article was on the front page of the Food & Drink section of the Austin American Statesman just two days ago, Wednesday April 29:
http://www.austin360.com/food_drink/content/food_drink/stories/2009/04/0429outsidethebox.html
May 9: She now claims I have "created my own PR". Actually, this is not true. That woman "created her own PR" by paying a PR company to distribute a Press Release, riddled with untruths, most particularly "her film is fully funded". Her film was in fact only "Possibly funded". She also claimed an office address in Russia, but she only would have HAD the office there IF she restored the building, which she did NOT, thus she had no office at the address she claimed. Just the "possiblity" of an office. Unlike her, I have not asked for any press. Rather, the Media (press, Television and internet) have all approached ME for my expertise in the Wine business for the last THIRTEEN YEARS. My blog is out there for people to read, free. If they find value in it, great. It is gratifying that many people do find my blog of value, and many in the wine industry particularly. This is in fact the only reason I post here, to protect my professional reputation and to attempt to address, correct, and to show why the insane negative libelous false propaganda this woman and her cronies publish virtually daily on the website bearing her name is in fact nothing more than her sour grapes at being tossed out of several courts with her claims, and the fact that Law Enforcement has ignored her claims as well as being baseless. An acquaintance I asked, who is in Law Enforcement told me that they can't say "your reports are ridiculous", so instead they say "we are too busy to get to this right now, but we will as soon as we can." Which is, of course, the same thing.
"Mike Newson" if he "is" real, since he offers up only his "word" wrote:
Anyway according to Rob's thinking and comments then he must be responsible for the following comments, which can only be said to exist for the purpose of intimidation --- We know where you are, and what you are doing... We are tracking you and can come get you anytime we want... One should take strong notice of these comments as it really goes to show the true agenda that Rob has.. Do you SEE the propaganda? Where in this blog are the words: "we are tracking you" "we can come get you anytime we want" "We know who you are"...etc.? You don't.
What you DO see are my words from day one: I have said virtually nothing about her since she nonsuited her claims. LET me repeat that, I HAVE MADE NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS about her on the open internet for some three years now. As for a stalker, well, I have no clue where this woman is, where she lives, and frankly I don't WANT to know, nor can I care less. In the words of one of her attorney's, Dave. S. "the faster that woman is in my rearview mirror the happier I'll be" (yeah I have the email he said that to me in.). I WISH NO CONTACT WITH OR FROM THIS PERSON. The one letter sent to me by her I refused as further evidence I want nothing to do with her. Its a bit hard to stalk someone when you don't even know where they live, not to mention that I don't even care enough to even bother. I do NOT wish this person ill, or harm. Frankly, I do not care. The less I hear about her, the better. That said, no one should ever be subjected to harm or danger. I DO NOT WISH THIS PERSON HARM, nor have I advocated, wished, nor advised anyone to harm her. Such allegations are baseless, wrong and defamatory.
READ THESE WORDS AGAIN. They are clear, concise and do not need "interpretation."
As to what motivates this woman, well:
as early as November 11, 2004 "Justin Edwards" wrote: We won't know when until probably next week when to upload the timeline presentation, as the law enforcement are investigating stalking, harassment, fraud, forgery, tampering with evidence and some other things that are holding things up. So we need to wait until the law enforcement people say we can. ... We don't want to taint the criminal investigation."
August 2006 her cronies were writing in full headlines "Oma Hamou wants Bob Atchison to go to Jail...I can tell you this, that Oma Hamou works night and day towards getting Bob Atchison put in jail. She wants him to go to jail. " and still August 2006, under her own name "with respect to Bob Atchison I want the court to order him to be put in jail for the crimes that he has perpetrated on the court (perjury & fraud) and on me" and here is something she herself wrote, under her own name:
November 26, 2007 "you were put on notice of my intent to file criminal charges against Bob Atchison, Rob Moshein and Pallasart Web Venture, Inc. ... the fact that you have been put on notice of the pending litigation."
This is her stated objective. Judge her statements accordingly in that light.
Again, on her own website on Sunday, February 24, 2008:
I hate him. I am not sorry to admit this. The man is a criminal and a complete fraud. I want him to go to jail. and on March 17, 2008:
I will not rest until Bob Atchison, Pallasart and Rob Moshein are held accountable for the crimes they've perpetrated against me. Despite what Rob Moshein published on the web about this matter, prosecutors have assured me a verdict based on 'amongst other things' fraud can be overturned and the person perpetrating the fraud can go to to jail and/or be convicted of having committed the crime.
For five full years, yet no "prosecutions", no "litigations", no "investigations", but yet she still makes the claims regularly. But, she claims she is not "obsessed".
Notice that on July 13 2006:This afternoon (she) sent several letters out by email and by regular mail to several people as a preliminary and necessary step of the pending litigation...The police believe in the criminal complaint that (she)'s filed against Bob and Pallasart and everyone says that she's got a great civil case against them....I do plan to file a civil lawsuit against you and Pallasart in the near future and have been cooperating with law enforcement in my criminal complaint against your company and yourself.. on August 30, 2006: at least one District Attorney / Attorney General was significantly shocked/concerned by the total effort documented in the 200 plus pages of documents submitted by (her) to various law enforcement agencies, and that were verified by their officers/agents and turned over to them that they are willing to prosecute. we know that this is going to go to court --- as that is what Oma Hamou is devoted to right now. I can tell you this, that Oma Hamou works night and day towards getting Bob Atchison put in jail. She wants him to go to jail. ... well we all (Oma’s friends and former employees of Enigma and such) have absolute confidence in the lead lawyer. We’ve been patiently waiting to file the next round of briefs until the attorneys get all the transcripts in, which I’m told will be sometime next week, with any luck. I know that we have been expecting this to happen for some time, but the court reporter has been awfully busy with other trials that put our request on the back burner. Tell you what, when the brief gets filed (3 briefs) we will publish on this forum their links so people can read and judge for themselves.
Five full years later, despite the numerous "promises" and "assurances", and unnamed "lawyers", the "pending litigations" and "criminal investigations" never materialized. Statutes of Limitations are now long passed.
But, she says she is not obsessed.
One of my favorites is from 2006: September 17, 2006 "Mike Newson" wrote: "As to Oma, I know for a fact, she is busy reviewing transcripts, police reports and such because as I understand it they’ve got less than 3 weeks to file that pleading and the clock is ticking. I also know that her criminal complaint is being taken seriously and since I personally have provided Affidavits and such I know that it is real.
September 26, 2006"Mike" wrote Two Harvard graduates and members of Mensa and a few other groups that are even more rarified and difficult to belong to are working with her towards this next civil suit and are not in the least concerned with the objections that Rob has raised." I have the web pages downloaded. Did anything ever happen? Nope, and I showed why, legally. She at least now admits begrudgingly I was correct that all applicable Statues of Limitations had long passed. Guess I must be smarter than "Two Harvard Graduates and members of Mensa!"
yet she claims she is not obsessed.
9-27-2006, published on the net, speaking to me personally: "This is going to court and to trial, make no mistake; all the Court Transcripts are now complete... Expect something to be filed within 10 days, as the legal team has to finish fine tooth combing the remaining pages of transcripts first. But it is going to happen, and then the world will see who is telling the truth" Well, its a whole lot longer than ten days.
Yet, she claims she is not "obsessed"
"They" now want you to believe "she" is suddenly NOW going to "Federal Court" to "overturn" the Texas Court verdict against her. "Briefs" are yet again being filed.
There is NO jurisdiction on Federal Court to overturn a State judgment that was never appealed. Further, even if there "were" jurisdiction, Federal Courts are required to follow the particular State Statute of Limitations. Texas Law shows the Statute of Limitations is long passed.
Here is applicable case law:
Under the doctrine of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), a federal court in a diversity action must apply the controlling substantive law of the state. In Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945), the Supreme Court held that state statutes of limitations are substantive laws and must be followed by federal courts in diversity actions. In Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520 (1949)
cited in 720 F.2d 1230 CAMBRIDGE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Co., Maryland Casualty Co. and New
Hampshire Insurance Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CLAXTON, GEORGIA, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee,
United States Court of Appeals, No. 82-8755.
Eleventh Circuit. Dec. 5, 1983
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Slander and Deception continues...
The woman and her cronies (there is no other term than that which fits) continue their personal attacks upon me and others. Once again, IF this woman would cease these attacks, I would have no reason to keep posting here to defend myself from her public litigation and slander of my name and reputation. Sadly, she encourages, aids and abets this behavior, rather than act within the law, and yet claims she is a victim.
They continue to litigate in public, because they refused to bring any real claims to a legitimate Court of Law when they had the chance. NOW, they wish to act as their own Judge/Jury/Executioner, by making these claims in public and calling themselves "justified". Look up the meaning of "vigilante" particularly the part about "without recourse to lawful procedures"...
Further, they claim perjury was committed at the trial she lost, and that they intend to "pursue" the "crime". LET THIS BE CLEAR: Nobody committed "perjury" and nobody "forged documents". She has done NOTHING to prove them. She makes these allegations and threatens they are being "pursued". Yet again, just like when she claimed that the judgment against her was going to be "set aside", they did not bother to read the applicable law and statutes. Just as she was WRONG then, she is wrong now. "Perjury" in Texas has a statute of limitations of two years, running from the time the act was committed. The applicable limitations period for aggravated perjury in Texas is two years. Ex parte Tamez, 4 S.W.3d 854 at 856.
She or her crony/alter ego wrote: hahahaha no Rob, go back to law school better yet Rob call the State Attorney General’s Office or O.k. um the County Attorney asked them could Bob be criminally prosecuted for lying and perjury in the last case I did. I spoke to someone at the Texas Attorney General's office (who don't have jurisdiction, but answered my question anyway). I am correct. The Statute of Limitations has long since passed. I confirmed this with a criminal attorney who practices in Austin. The same answer came from a District Court Judge I know.
The trial in question took place September 27, 2005. Thus, any claim for the alleged "perjury" MUST have been brought before September 2007, some full NINETEEN MONTHS ago. The truth is the woman's threats are, yet again, empty. The truth is, she makes these claims, she has the burden of proof to DO SOMETHING to prove them legally and does NOTHING except attempt to prove them "true" by "saying so..."
So, the continuing truth is that she never HAS done anything about her threats and claims, her threats are empty and meaningless, and I hope that readers can see this obvious fact for themselves:
She claims "imminent" arrest for me and others...after literally years, nothing happens.
She claims "criminal investigation" about me and others. After years, the specific law enforcement agencies all claim I certainly "would know" of any investigation, YET NOTHING happens.
She claimed she would "overturn" judgments against her, but avoided actually DOING anything, but still made the meaningless threats as if it was "imminent"
She claims threats of pursuing "perjury" long AFTER the period to bring such a claim under the law. Yet makes the threats as if "imminent".
She has valid legal judgments against her which, in so many words, she says she REFUSES to comply with.
NOTICE her continued refusal to acknowledge and co-operate with the law, her continued refusal to comply with Courts...and yet plays the victim.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL TELL YOU ABOUT THIS WOMAN?
I also want to bring forward evidence to demonstrate the truth behind this woman and her cohorts and cronies. Here is just one recent example of a barely coherent, ranting, vulgar tirade, by someone who freely admits to an alcohol abuse problem and who is fully ignorant about Texas law and "perjury". Judge the words here as to the type of person who would write them publicly and the character of that person. Ask yourself what does it say about the writer and his character? More important, what does it say about this woman herself who claims this person as her "champion" and permits such tirades on her own website bearing her own name. Would YOU associate publicly with this writer?:
Post by Snoopy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:42 am
No, I don't believe Alexandra & Nicholas are saints they were people who made a lot of mistakes and let their children die because of their mistakes, no I don't think these two people are heroes and I don't like Alexandra. I do wonder what this dead woman who Bob worships must think of this man who says she told him to hurt my friend, when I have had too many drinks I think this dead woman is a bitch for doing this then I have to stop and think "What am I talking about?" she didn't tell him this, this is his words Not Hers, he says this dead woman told him in a dream to do whatever it took to hurt my friend, this did not happen. I read the letter from the church people to Oma they did not tell anyone Oma was the devil's mistress, they did not call her names, their priests did not do any thing Bob Atchison says they did or said against my friend Oma yet Bob says they did. Who do I believe the church not some --- who has proven time and time again he doesn't know how to tell the truth. Look at the lies he told about Father Markell yet in court he couldn't prove shit just that his shit stunk, real nice person this Bob Atchison is?
Sandman, yes, Rob rubbed it in Oma's face in all of our faces when he said it was too late for Oma to do anything about setting aside Bob's judgment, so what if Bob lied and his attorney lied and he used forged documents Oma couldn't do anything about it. But that's not true because criminally Bob could be held accountable even Bob after all these years you sicko because you and your people keep on doing shit and causing other crazy people to hurt my friend because you pretend what you say about Oma and the church and repeating what was told to you by Marcus Demian is the truth, uh-huh, my friend got hurt you told someone you were glad she got hurt that you thought the world would be better off without my friend living in it. That person is willing to testify against you my friend was hurt because of words you and your lover Rob published on the web as being the truth about her life.
Snoopy
They continue to litigate in public, because they refused to bring any real claims to a legitimate Court of Law when they had the chance. NOW, they wish to act as their own Judge/Jury/Executioner, by making these claims in public and calling themselves "justified". Look up the meaning of "vigilante" particularly the part about "without recourse to lawful procedures"...
Further, they claim perjury was committed at the trial she lost, and that they intend to "pursue" the "crime". LET THIS BE CLEAR: Nobody committed "perjury" and nobody "forged documents". She has done NOTHING to prove them. She makes these allegations and threatens they are being "pursued". Yet again, just like when she claimed that the judgment against her was going to be "set aside", they did not bother to read the applicable law and statutes. Just as she was WRONG then, she is wrong now. "Perjury" in Texas has a statute of limitations of two years, running from the time the act was committed. The applicable limitations period for aggravated perjury in Texas is two years. Ex parte Tamez, 4 S.W.3d 854 at 856.
She or her crony/alter ego wrote: hahahaha no Rob, go back to law school better yet Rob call the State Attorney General’s Office or O.k. um the County Attorney asked them could Bob be criminally prosecuted for lying and perjury in the last case I did. I spoke to someone at the Texas Attorney General's office (who don't have jurisdiction, but answered my question anyway). I am correct. The Statute of Limitations has long since passed. I confirmed this with a criminal attorney who practices in Austin. The same answer came from a District Court Judge I know.
The trial in question took place September 27, 2005. Thus, any claim for the alleged "perjury" MUST have been brought before September 2007, some full NINETEEN MONTHS ago. The truth is the woman's threats are, yet again, empty. The truth is, she makes these claims, she has the burden of proof to DO SOMETHING to prove them legally and does NOTHING except attempt to prove them "true" by "saying so..."
So, the continuing truth is that she never HAS done anything about her threats and claims, her threats are empty and meaningless, and I hope that readers can see this obvious fact for themselves:
She claims "imminent" arrest for me and others...after literally years, nothing happens.
She claims "criminal investigation" about me and others. After years, the specific law enforcement agencies all claim I certainly "would know" of any investigation, YET NOTHING happens.
She claimed she would "overturn" judgments against her, but avoided actually DOING anything, but still made the meaningless threats as if it was "imminent"
She claims threats of pursuing "perjury" long AFTER the period to bring such a claim under the law. Yet makes the threats as if "imminent".
She has valid legal judgments against her which, in so many words, she says she REFUSES to comply with.
NOTICE her continued refusal to acknowledge and co-operate with the law, her continued refusal to comply with Courts...and yet plays the victim.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL TELL YOU ABOUT THIS WOMAN?
I also want to bring forward evidence to demonstrate the truth behind this woman and her cohorts and cronies. Here is just one recent example of a barely coherent, ranting, vulgar tirade, by someone who freely admits to an alcohol abuse problem and who is fully ignorant about Texas law and "perjury". Judge the words here as to the type of person who would write them publicly and the character of that person. Ask yourself what does it say about the writer and his character? More important, what does it say about this woman herself who claims this person as her "champion" and permits such tirades on her own website bearing her own name. Would YOU associate publicly with this writer?:
Post by Snoopy on Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:42 am
No, I don't believe Alexandra & Nicholas are saints they were people who made a lot of mistakes and let their children die because of their mistakes, no I don't think these two people are heroes and I don't like Alexandra. I do wonder what this dead woman who Bob worships must think of this man who says she told him to hurt my friend, when I have had too many drinks I think this dead woman is a bitch for doing this then I have to stop and think "What am I talking about?" she didn't tell him this, this is his words Not Hers, he says this dead woman told him in a dream to do whatever it took to hurt my friend, this did not happen. I read the letter from the church people to Oma they did not tell anyone Oma was the devil's mistress, they did not call her names, their priests did not do any thing Bob Atchison says they did or said against my friend Oma yet Bob says they did. Who do I believe the church not some --- who has proven time and time again he doesn't know how to tell the truth. Look at the lies he told about Father Markell yet in court he couldn't prove shit just that his shit stunk, real nice person this Bob Atchison is?
Sandman, yes, Rob rubbed it in Oma's face in all of our faces when he said it was too late for Oma to do anything about setting aside Bob's judgment, so what if Bob lied and his attorney lied and he used forged documents Oma couldn't do anything about it. But that's not true because criminally Bob could be held accountable even Bob after all these years you sicko because you and your people keep on doing shit and causing other crazy people to hurt my friend because you pretend what you say about Oma and the church and repeating what was told to you by Marcus Demian is the truth, uh-huh, my friend got hurt you told someone you were glad she got hurt that you thought the world would be better off without my friend living in it. That person is willing to testify against you my friend was hurt because of words you and your lover Rob published on the web as being the truth about her life.
Snoopy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)