HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  60 MINUTES  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  MARTIN  MORGAN  RAMBAM  RONEN  KLAUSNER  DUNN  KUHL  DUKES  LA JUSTICE
Why did you drag Mr and Mrs Rombom
into
Rambam v Prytulak?
"SHE HAD TO ACTUALLY GO ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY THAT SHE HAD NEVER BEEN A PROSTITUTE, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT." — Steven Rambam testifying about Mrs Rombom
  15 June 2003
Steven Rambam (AKA Steven Rombom)
Pallorium, Inc
PO Box 155 — Midwood Station
Brooklyn, New York
USA      11230


Steven Rambam (AKA Steven Rombom):

The allegations concerned only your birth father and mother, and not Mr and Mrs Rombom

The only two statements that I have ever seen which allege that your father may have been a Mafioso and your mother may have been a prostitute are reproduced below, and originally appeared on the Internet at the URLs cited.  Both assume that you were adopted by Mr and Mrs Rombom, and both clearly indicate that it is your birth father (and not Mr Rombom) who may have been the Mafioso, and that it is your birth mother (and not Mrs Rombom) who may have been the prostitute:

        a.    "Rombom was adopted at birth by Jewish parents.  His mother was not Jewish and he never converted to the Jewish religion.  He is not a Jew and know one knows what his ethnic background is!!  The names of his mother and father are missing from his original birth certificate.  Rumor has it that his birth mother was a prostitute who became pregnant by a man she could not even identify, and she gave birth to Steve then gave him up almost immediately."
Steven Rambam complaint quoting allegedly defamatory material in his earlier law suit against Mordechai Levy and the Jewish Defense Organization.  Originally, but no longer, at www.jdo.org/bam5.htm.  The error "know one" is, obviously, in the original.

Adopted shortly after his birth by Jews, Rambam allegedly tried to stab the woman who adopted him and was confined to a mental institution.  RAMBAM'S mother might have been Jewish, however, in one of Kinky Friedman's books, RAMBAM claims Italian ancestory.  With no evidence his mother was Jewish, RAMBAM is not considered a Jew.  Rambam never converted.  In fact, RAMBAM never grew up among the Jews of Brooklyn.  Instead, he was committed to mental institutions from age 7 to 16.  Already violent and mentally ill, growing up in an institutional environment turned RAMBAM into a cunning psychopath.  Evidence also suggested that "a bad seed" was planted in RAMBAM'S birth mother's womb.  She was rumored to be a prostitue who got knocked up by a Mafioso, but there is no way of telling.  Basically, RAMBAM is a deep cover gentile who has the Jewish community convinced he is a Jew when in reality he is not.
Excerpt from the erstwhile Informer Profile Page web site, formerly at  infoseek.go.com/?win=_search&sv=M6&qt=rambam&oq=&url=http%3A//www.rambam-steve.com/&ti=STEVE+RAMBAM.COM+HIGH+LEVEL+SNITCHES&top=
The errors "ancestory" and "prostitue" are in the original.

I entered the picture when I pointed out to Irving Abella (Rambam-Abella Fifty Confessions Hoax) that your claim of having tape-recorded fifty Canadians confessing to Nazi war crimes should have been subjected to particular verification because you suffered from a bad reputation, in support of which recommendation I quoted three Internet sources demonstrating just how bad your reputation was, and one of these three was the Informer Profile Page quotation that is reproduced immediately above.

However, you misrepresent the allegations of Mafia membership and prostitution as being directed against Mr and Mrs Rombom

Then in your 03-Oct-2002 Rambam v Prytulak BC271433 testimony, you perpetrate fraud on the court by pretending that the above allegations of Mafia membership and prostitution were directed not at your birth father and mother, but at Mr and Mrs Rombom.  More specifically, you supported the following four propositions, where I have added bold color to a keyword within each proposition to facilitate locating it within your testimony, and have indicated the frequency with which each keyword occurred within the quoted segments of testimony:

Your denial that you were adopted clarifies that whenever you speak of your "mother" you mean Mrs Rombom, and from which it follows also that the "mother" who you claim testified in court must have been Mrs Rombom.  It follows also from your denial of being adopted that when you state that your father could not have been a member of the Mafia, you refer to Mr Rombom.

In your first statement below, your opening reference is to Mordechai Levy:

AFTER HE WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON, HE AND ANOTHER CONVICTED FELON PUT UP A WEBSITE -- UH-H-H -- CONTAINING STATEMENTS SUCH AS -- UH -- UNTRUE STATEMENTS (NOD OF THE HEAD), SUCH AS: MY FATHER WAS IN THE MAFIA.  MY MOTHER WAS A PROSTITUTE.  UH-H-H -- I HAD SPENT EIGHT YEARS IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION.  I WAS A HIGH-LEVEL GOVERNMENT INFORMANT.  TRULY RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS.
Steven Rambam testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court, Rambam v Prytulak BC271433, 03-Oct-2002, p. 7, lines 22-28.

Q.      IS THERE ANY MATERIAL IN THIS, IN EXHIBIT 1, THAT IS DEFAMATORY?
A.      YES, IT'S DEFAMATORY, ALMOST IN ITS ENTIRETY.  UM-M-M -- FOR EXAMPLE, UH -- JUST -- JUST READING THROUGH IT IN THE BRIEFEST, UH -- MOST CURSORY WAY POSSIBLE, SAYS I WAS ADOPTED.  NOT TRUE.  THAT I TRIED TO STAB THE WOMAN WHO ADOPTED ME.  WHICH IS NOT TRUE ON MANY LEVELS.
            I'M NOT ADOPTED AND I NEVER TRIED TO STAB ANYONE.  THAT I WAS CONFINED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION.  AND THAT'S TRUE.  UH -- THAT MY MOTHER WAS NOT JEWISH -- (INTERRUPTED)
Q.      YOU SAY THAT "THAT'S TRUE"?
A.      NOT TRUE.
Q.      OKAY.
A.      DID I SAY "TRUE"?
Q.      YOU -- YOU DID.
THE COURT:      ALL RIGHT.
            SO THE ADOPTED IS FALSE -- (INTERRUPTED)
THE WITNESS:      I -- LET -- LET ME -- WAIT A MINUTE.
            SAY THAT AGAIN, SO -- IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
THE COURT:      ALL RIGHT.
MR. KURTZ:      (LAUGHTER).
THE WITNESS:      MY APOLOGIES.  I NEED TO SPEAK A LITTLE SLOWER.
            IT SAYS THAT I'M VIOLENT AND MENTALLY ILL.  THAT IS NOT TRUE.  THAT MY MOTHER WAS A PROSTITUTE -- TURNING THE PAGE.  THAT MY MOTHER WAS A PROSTITRUTE [SIC] -- UH -- MY -- (PAUSE) -- PROSTITUTE.  NOT TRUE.
            AND I -- AND I EMPHASIZE THAT MY MOTHER WAS --DISTURBINGLY IS FORCED TO TESTIFY AT THIS EARLIER.  AND ACTUALLY, SHE -- UH -- UH -- SHE HAD TO ACTUALLY GO ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY THAT SHE HAD NEVER BEEN A PROSTITUTE, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT.
Steven Rambam testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court, Rambam v Prytulak BC271433, 03-Oct-2002, p. 10, line 1 to p. 11, line 8.  Questions are asked by Rambam lawyer, Gary Kurtz.  "PROSTITRUTE [SIC]" is in the original.

JUST THE KEY POINTS, YOUR HONOR, CALLING MY MOTHER A PROSTITUTE; MY FATHER IN THE MAFIA; CLAIMING I'M AN INFORMANT; CLAIMING THAT I WAS IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION; AND CLAIMING I -- I'M ADOPTED; THAT I TRIED TO STAB EITHER MY MOTHER OR MY FOSTER MOTHER, ALL OF THESE ARE ABSOLUTE FANTASIES, YOUR HONOR.  NOT AN IOTA OF TRUTH IN ANY OF THAT.
Steven Rambam testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court, Rambam v Prytulak BC271433, 03-Oct-2002, p. 12, lines 3-9.

MY MOTHER HAD TO GO ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY THAT SHE WAS NOT A PROSTITUTE.
Steven Rambam testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court, Rambam v Prytulak BC271433, 03-Oct-2002, p. 19, lines 12-13.

BUT NOBODY WANTS TO SAY, GEE, I READ A WEBSITE THAT SAYS THAT YOU ARE A FORMER MENTAL PATIENT, A TERRORIST; THAT YOU HIT PEOPLE IN THE HEAD WITH BASEBALL BATS; THAT YOU CAN'T BE TRUSTED; AND YOUR MOTHER WAS A PROSTITUTE; AND YOUR FATHER IS IN THE MAFIA; AND THAT'S WHY I'M NOT HIRING YOU.
Steven Rambam testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court, Rambam v Prytulak BC271433, 03-Oct-2002, p. 26, line 26 to p. 27, line 3.

Why, then, did you deny allegations that had never been made?

No one who reads the single original allegation that your birth father may have been a Mafioso will come away with the impression that it is Mr Rombom who is being discussed.  And no one who reads the two original allegations that your birth mother may have been a prostitute will come away with the impression that it is Mrs Rombom who is being discussed.  You knew this, your lawyer, Gary Kurtz, knew this, the Judge in Rambam v Prytulak, James R. Dunn, knew this — and yet you all three participated in dragging Mr and Mrs Rombom's names through Rambam v Prytulak, with none to protest that the Romboms didn't belong and with none to point out the absence of justification for invading their privacy.

Worse than that, in some earlier proceedings — presumably the ones in New York — you claim to have put Mrs Rombom through the pain of calling her as a witness to testify that she had never been a prostitute, when in fact no one had ever alleged that she had been.  I wonder whether you first had to fool her into believing that someone had indeed accused her of having been a prostitute?  What a reckless and cruel thing to do to the woman who nurtured and raised you!  I can only imagine that you became mesmerized by the easy money that you thought you saw in suing people for defamation, and wanted to ensure the sympathy of judge and jury by parading in front of them an old woman suffering from the alleged defamation alongside yourself.  It is a scheme so primitive and so transparent, that it is impossible of success — and so the mystery which cries out for explanation is how you got away with it in that earlier New York litigation, and how you got away with it before Judge James R. Dunn in Rambam v Prytulak.

One of several answers that presents itself has ominous implications — that answer being that the quality of reasoning that is sometimes accepted by lawyers and judges and juries is exemplified in the following mangled syllogism: defendant's statements somewhere contained the words "mother" and "prostitute," here is a mother weeping that she is not a prostitute, for which weeping someone must pay — so let's lynch the defendant.

You may not be getting the best legal advice

You should be aware that you have no cause of action against me for quoting your testimony as I did above, because anything said in court can be repeated by anyone:

Prior to the recognition of any constitutional privilege to defame, it was clearly recognized to be in the public interest that information be made available as to what takes place in certain kinds of judicial, legislative, and other public proceedings.  Therefore, a qualified privilege of a special kind was recognized under which a newspaper or anyone else might make such a report to the public.  The privilege rests upon the idea that any member of the public, if he were present, might see and hear for himself, so that the reporter is merely a substitute for the public eye — this, together with the obvious public interest in having public affairs made known to all.
Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Fifth Edition, West Publishing Company, 1984, p. 836.

You should also be aware that you have no cause of action against me for quoting the two passages above which clarify that the original allegations of Mafia membership and prostitution had been made not against Mr and Mrs Rombom, but against your birth parents — no cause of action for the reason that I have the strong interest of keeping you from seizing my property, which affords me the qualified privilege of interest of publisher (on top of which, the first of these two quotations also happens to come from a court document):

Roughly similar to the privilege of self-defense or the defense of property is the privilege which attaches to the publication of defamatory matter for the protection or advancement of the defendant's own legitimate interests.  Thus he may publish, in an appropriate manner, anything which reasonably appears to be necessary to defend his own reputation against the defamation of another including, of course, the allegation that his accuser is an unmitigated liar and the truth is not in him.  [...]  A similar privilege extends to the protection of his other interests of any importance.
Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Fifth Edition, West Publishing Company, 1984, pp. 825-826.

Had you been privy to competent legal advice prior to your testimony, you would have been warned, in the first place, not to pull the stunt of dragging Mr and Mrs Rombom into a law suit in which they had no place.  You would also have been cautioned that if you did, you might expect that your fraud would be exposed to public view, as it has been above, and you would have been cautioned that you might well expect the question of your parentage to receive wider publicity than it had before, and with you having stripped yourself of all right to complain.  In other words, any competent lawyer would have told you that if you intended to rob someone, you should expect that your victim might cry out that he was being robbed, and you should not expect afterward to make much headway suing your victim for discomposing you with his noise.  You have been attempting to rob me for a year and a half now, and one of the lessons you will learn is that Western justice does not silence the victim so as to permit the robber to continue his efforts in private.

You have no reputation capable of being damaged

Imagine that when John Doe is accused of being a serial killer and of not paying his parking tickets, he sues for defamation on the ground that he does pay his parking tickets.  The paradox of his law suit is that in consenting to the greater accusation of being a serial killer, he admits that he has no good reputation capable of being damaged by the lesser accusation of which he complains.

You consent to the very serious charge that your career is founded on the Fifty-Confessions Hoax, but you wager that I will not go to the expense of substantiating some trivial details of allegations concerning your parentage.  But what reputation does your law suit attempt to defend given that you consent to having been a leading participant not only in the Fifty-Confessions Hoax, but also in the following fuller list of your adult hoaxes and adult misrepresentations?


Stop whining, get a life

What do the following seven people have in common?  The small drawing on the upper-right is a representation of the Biblical figure Jephthah, judge and mighty warrior whom God is said to have used to drive back the Ammonites (Judges 11:1-33), which gives away the answer to people who know their Bible.

Louis ARMSTRONG Charlie CHAPLIN JEPHTHAH
Jean GENET
Robert GUILLAUME Richard PRYOR Charles MANSON


The answer is that all seven are sons of prostitutes.  Their significance here lies in the fact that even the four that are so famous as to be known by almost everybody are not also known for being the sons of prostitutes.  The reason is that the information is of no interest.  It is rarely repeated because it is of no interest.  When it is heard, it tends to be forgotten because it is of no interest.  The several outstanding careers evident among them were not hindered by their being sons of prostitutes.  The one despised among them — Charles Manson — is not all the more execrated because he is the son of a prostitute.  Actor Robert Guillaume wears it as a badge of honor — his memoir starts out "I'm a bastard, a Catholic, the son of a prostitute, and a product of the poorest slums of St. Louis," and these are also the first words he reads to his audience, and with these words he gains his audience's respect and trust, because it is universally granted that no one is responsible for his origins, and everyone is able to rise above them.

Thus, questions of your parentage are of no interest.  That the questions are raised cannot hurt you.  How the questions are answered cannot hurt you.  There exists an allegation, believed by many, that Jesus Christ is the son of a prostitute, but his stature is unequalled on earth.  This trick of pretending to be injured by allegations concerning your birth props up your frivolous and vexatious litigation which in the end brings you neither respect nor remuneration.  If you are losing business in your work as private investigator, seek the explanation in your mendacity, not in your paternity.  You cannot lose clients because of allegations concerning your origins; you can lose clients for attempting to enrich yourself by dragging Mr and Mrs Rombom into the spotlight to answer charges against their integrity that have never been made.




Lubomyr Prytulak
HOME  DISINFORMATION  CHRC  60 MINUTES  PEOPLE  ABELLA  COTLER  FARBER  MARTIN  MORGAN  RAMBAM  RONEN  KLAUSNER  DUNN  KUHL  DUKES  LA JUSTICE