Consistently and Constantly Oma Hamou has been attacked on the Internet with libel and defamatory stories. The site from which this story comes as much or even more continued the pattern established by Bob Atichen and continued by Rob Moshein with a pattern of this story/site has nothing to do with Rob or Bob, but in every case it has been proven to be Bob/Rob --- plus Rob admitted to responsibility to all of them on his Blog. The danger is that all the sites and stories have been written in a manner to the uniformed it sounds true. Rob even now places his stamp of approval as to the veracity and accuracy of this story by his focusing attention to it from his Blog, and thus pulls the mantel of responsibility for it on his shoulders.

The court finds and concludes that third party plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this cause, that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent harm to Ms. Hamou. That unless injunction lies, third party plaintiffs (ed.: Oma, et. al.) will be without any adequate remedy at law, in that no amount of damages will be able to repair the loss of reputation to the parties.

Why? What motive? Is there an agenda? Is there a Motive Operandi behind the actions? Why the vitriol and sheer hate? Why the sheer inflexibility to admit to error and hard ass resistance to change, apology, and correction? Who are the players? How do the two sides compare, and what can you gain about the two sides from this knowledge?

What is it like to be the friend of someone who has been cyber stalked and bullied? Well you spend a lot of time letting them cry on your shoulder, watching them spiral down into despair, give up on themselves, warping into a stranger familiar of form but no longer who you once knew inside and in general do what many victims do and runaway from the issue, starting out to try to get the authorities to help, but the authorities are hamstrung by the lack of law that can help, after all this is mere words. You know sticks and stones can break my bones…

So what is the truth? Who is lying, who is exaggerating, who is the aggressor and who is the defender?

What goes through your head when in the movies/ TV the villain and/or terrorist kills someone and then makes their Jovian pronouncements YOU forced me to do that, I told you to not interfere, I told you I would kill her if you did not do what I asked. YOU KILLED HER by not doing what I said to do, YOU FORCED ME TO DO IT, so it is all - YOUR - fault…

What goes through your head? How do you feel about the character that just killed the hostage? Was the murder of the hostage really a valid response? How does it make you feel about the situation? How do you feel about the person who is being blamed for “forcing” the character to kill their hostage, did they really create a situation such that there was no choice but to kill? Should they be considered a victim of the terrorist just as much as the person killed? How do you think they feel inside, did the killer just psychologically rip the heart out of them? What about the person who was killed? More to the point, what do you think about the terrorist in terms of sociopath, psychopath, or being a serial bully? How do you think the person who was told that they were the reason that the hostage was killed is going to respond after the crisis is over? What about if target was not literally killed, but hurt badly in a CYBER ATTACK, is there any difference between a Cyber Attack and a physical attack?

Repeated bullying, often over a period of years, results in symptoms of Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

When called to account for the way they have chosen to behave, the bully instinctively exhibits this recognizable behavioral response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include Trivialization ("This is so trivial it's not worth talking about...") and the Fresh Start tactic ("I don't know why you're so intent on dwelling on the past" and "Look, what's past is past, I'll overlook your behavior and we'll start afresh") - this is an abdication of responsibility by the bully and an attempt to divert and distract attention by using false conciliation. Imagine if this line of defense were available to all criminals ("Look I know I've just murdered 12 people but that's all in the past, we can't change the past, let's put it behind us, concentrate on the future so we can all get on with our lives" - this would do wonders for prison overcrowding).

b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly and seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive counter-attack of counter-criticism or counter-allegation, often based on distortion or fabrication. Lying, deception, duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are the hallmarks of this stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behavior. Often the target is tempted - or coerced - into giving another long explanation to prove the bully's allegation false; by the time the explanation is complete, everybody has forgotten the original question.

c) Feigning victimhood: in the unlikely event of denial and counter-attack being insufficient, the bully feigns victimhood or feigns persecution by manipulating people through their emotions, especially guilt. This commonly takes the form of bursting into tears, which most people cannot handle. Variations include indulgent self-pity, feigning indignation, pretending to be "devastated", claiming they're the one being bullied or harassed, claiming to be "deeply offended", melodrama, martyrdom ("If it wasn't for me...") and a poor-me drama ("You don't know how hard it is for me ... blah blah blah ..." and "I'm the one who always has to...", "You think you're having a hard time ...", "I'm the one being bullied..."). Other tactics include manipulating people's perceptions to portray themselves as the injured party and the target as the villain of the piece. Or presenting as a false victim. Sometimes the bully will suddenly claim to be suffering "stress" and go off on long-term sick leave, although no-one can quite establish why. Alleged ill-health can also be a useful vehicle for gaining attention and sympathy. By using this response, the bully is able to avoid answering the question and thus avoid accepting responsibility for what they have said or done. It is a pattern of behavior learned by about the age of 3; most children learn or are taught to grow out of this, but some are not and by adulthood, this avoidance technique has been practiced to perfection

Unless you have experienced this living in fear every moment of every day you just cannot comprehend other than in a non visceral way what life is like to live in fear every moment, to have your whole life destroyed because of the words of your stalkers. ...frequent bouts of uncontrollable crying. Frequent trips to the doctor and a general break down of one’s health. You look over your shoulder even when there is nothing there; you see the whole world through the glasses of paranoia. You doubt your friends and wonder what day are they going to turn on you, there is no one to turn to, and you are alone. You move frequently just in general fear of being found because your stalker has made it very clear that they want you dead and they don’t care how it happens as long as it does happen. You are so preoccupied with what they are going to do or say next that it is impossible to accomplish anything else. Yes a cyber stalker is in some ways even more terrifying than a physical one.

When one reads the comments that Rob encourages in his Blog, one is forced to walk away with several impressions, the main is how they ridicule and belittle Oma. The question is why do they do this? Is it because if they can inhumanize her then she is open to destruction and no one will care. That is they incite action against her because of their words and story about her. Leading someone to the point that as Oma “deserved” it because of the way she uses men that they raped her (all the while flagellating her with words from Bob’s story that they found on the web) to teach her a lesson. We find no retraction of Bob/Rob's story, no apology, and we find by his own word, that he still on occasion has publicly incited the continued demonization of Oma and continually incited this in private ever since the judge told him to cease and desist. Rob's hands drip red…

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

These defamatory statements constitute statutory libel and statutory slander which tend to injure the reputation of Oma Hamou, expose her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and tend to expose her to financial injury, as well as impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation by exposing her to public hatred and ridicule.