Edited by author 07-26-2006 08:09 PM
ermm,sage,could you be more specific ,please,what do you mean by associated?

LOl, Exposananda wants Tony to fill him on the details...

If proof comes from a liar and testimony from a theif, then perhaps justice will come from following the money rather then sex. What US citizen first paid to bring another US citizen Alaya to Baba?

If you were part of the Kreydick family, Sage, then you should have Known Kreydick's father was living at Sai Baba's ashram until 1999 where he passed away. If you were really suspicious of foul play then you would have filed a missing person report so I find your claim VERY suspicious. What is also very suspicious is that you just happen to turn up here at the "perfect time" to cast your aspersions. Why, as a supposedly "irate" family member who claims to have knowledge of Kreydick's alleged mob connections, weren't you voicing your concerns to the police prior to this Sage? Why didn't you care to protect your own family members prior to this? Why now, almost a decade later, when it suits the anti-Sai agenda and you can hide behind an anonymous name? Whoever you are (probably Tony O'Clery), you better hope Kreydick doesn't sue you.

Would any subtantiated untruths in the video deposition be subject to U.S. prejury laws?

"John was cremated quickly. Mary is buried in the Elmwook Park Cemetary Il. Walter had 9 siblings, these stories are legends...unsolved mysteries, told and retold... perhaps miscommunications over the generations."


*rolls eyes*

You're also probably Hedi

The fact remains that Alaya Rahm had every opportunity to take his case to trial and testify that Kreydick lied or was being untruthful. He did not. Instead of challenging Kreydick in any way, Alaya chose voluntariy to self-dismiss his case against the Sathya Sai Baba Society with "prejudice". No one has shown that Kreydick was untruthful or anything he said was a lie. Instead, we have someone using a fake name (i.e., "Sage") who is making all sorts of claims anonymously and under the guise of a psudeonym. If anyone has anything to hide, it is "Sage".

It is also important to point out the following:
1) Not even one single affidavit was submitted on Alaya's behalf.
2) Not even one single deposition was taken on Alaya's behalf.
3) Not even one single witness was identified to the court on Alaya's behalf.

If anyone has been shown to be untruthful, it was Alaya. Putting aside Alaya's numerous contradictory testimonies, the Rahm Family never had the integrity to come forward and discuss Alaya's sexual promiscuity and his (admitted) decade-long daily use of illegal street drugs. All these years, the Rahm Family never divulged the fact that Alaya never saw a therapist for his alleged "sexual abuse trauma". Alaya admitted to the court that he suffered no mental or emotional trauma that would have warranted him seeing a therapist or doctor of any kind!

"Sage" can come in here making all sorts of claims against the Kreydick family but she/he cannot refute Kreydick's testimony one bit. Since "Sage" is obviously aware of Alaya's failed lawsuit, one would think that she/he would have come forward to defend Alaya when it really mattered, not after the fact and after Alaya self-dismissed his own lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society.

Click Here For A Full Response To The Rahm Family & JuST

Love fosters peace,
Peace nourishes truth,
Truth confers bliss and
Bliss is God.

Edited by author 07-28-2006 10:23 PM
Time to get a few facts right (re /m178):

>> The fact remains that Alaya Rahm had every opportunity to take his case to trial and testify that Kreydick lied or was being untruthful. He did not. Instead of challenging Kreydick in any way, Alaya chose voluntariy to self-dismiss his case against the Sathya Sai Baba Society with "prejudice". No one has shown that Kreydick was untruthful or anything he said was a lie. <<

Here is what is written in the Joint Statement by JuST and the Rahm Family (/m158):

"In the case Alaya Rahm brought against them, the directors presented a witness - Lewis Kreydick, a US citizen and staunch Sai devotee who often lives near Sai Baba. Kreydick is so obviously prejudiced in favor of Sai Baba that his mostly conjectural ‘testimony’ was without probity. For example, it could easily be contested by expert psychologists who can readily explain why an abuse survivor can produce the sort of smiles that Kreydick describes of Alaya after the period in which he (Alaya) spoke of Sai Baba’s sexually abusing him many times."

What nobody says is that the deposition taken from Lewis Kreydick is exactly that, a deposition. It was simply "taken" from authorised law agents and was not heard in court according to my information. Consequently there is no question of Alaya/the Rahms refuting Kreydick's viewpoint because they had no opportunity to do so.

The other thing that nobody says is that the case was self-dismissed. Joe108 would like to tell people that this self-dismissal is connected to the taking of Kreydick's deposition. It is not. The two events were pure coincidence and nothing else. To say otherwise is to knowingly submit DISINFORMATION. The real reason why the case was dismissed is as follows (/m158):

"We were successful at the demurrer stage in establishing that a duty would be owed by the Society in the event they sponsored and/or endorsed the trips that Alaya went on when he was abused by Sai Baba. As it turns out, the Society is not the "hub" of all of Sai Baba's corporate activities. Rather, the Society, pursuant to declarations under penalty of perjury, confirmed they are a bookstore...nothing more. Accordingly, we do not have the necessary factual requirements to establish liability on the Society/Book center." - W. Brelsford, Alaya's attorney.

Very simply, the Sai "Organisation" is un-sueable and can practically get away with anything under the excuse that they are simply a bookstore.


Kreydick?

Al Rahm: "...why would he [Alaya] mention anything to Kreydick, who Sai Baba himself once removed from the Rahms’ visiting group? Sai Baba told us that Kreydick was spreading stories about our family and that we should not associate with him any longer. Sai Baba later banned Kreydick from the Ashram."

That says it all. Sai Baba himself discredits his own defense witness. :-) Imagine if that was stated in court! :-D


>> It is also important to point out the following:
1) Not even one single affidavit was submitted on Alaya's behalf.
2) Not even one single deposition was taken on Alaya's behalf.
3) Not even one single witness was identified to the court on Alaya's behalf. <<

Right. And the truth of the matter (/m158):

"Among others ready to testify to the court was the former Mrs Diane Payne - USA. Hislop mentioned her in the letters he wanted kept secret that describe her having written to him alleging Sai Baba’s sexual abuse of her then teenage son in the 1970’s. Her child was then a student at Sai Baba’s College at Whitefield, near Bangalore. Again because important depositions were not able to be heard in court, Mark Roche, who formerly had long-term close ties with the most important leaders of the Sai Organization in the USA, was unable to testify. He appeared in the BBC television documentary ‘The Secret Swami’ (2004): In his BBC interview, Mr Roche spoke of Sai Baba’s forcing oral sex on him in 1976 when Roche was very young. He was also prepared to state under oath that he had told Sai Baba’s foremost overseas leader, Dr John Hislop, well before 1980, that Sai Baba had sexually abused him."

And..

"Yet another strong witness standing by to verify these letters was Dr Timothy Conway, of Santa Barbara, USA, a former respected leader in the Sai Organization. It is a veracity which the Society’s directors could not, under oath (unless they perjured themselves) deny, for they were indeed among the recipients of these letters."

There is no use in listening to the lies and disinformation put out by Sai Baba's groupies. To be a great Sai devotee, you have to learn to read between the lies.

Sanjay Dadlani (aka, "Sai Baba Exposed") is totally ignorant about Alaya's court case and is basing his information on faulty information dispersed by the Rahm Family and JuST.

Sanjay has not refuted anything I have posted on my separate thread regarding this matter.

Regarding Sanjay's comment:

For example, it could easily be contested by expert psychologists who can readily explain why an abuse survivor can produce the sort of smiles that Kreydick describes of Alaya after the period in which he (Alaya) spoke of Sai Baba’s sexually abusing him many times.

It is amusing that Anti-Sai Activists claim that Kreydick's testimony "could easily be contested by expert psychologists". Notably, in pretrial discovery, Alaya Rahm claimed that he had suffered no psychological trauma that would have required medical or psychiatric care. Furthermore, Alaya identified no psychologist who had ever examined him! So it does not appear that there were any "expert psychologists" who were prepared to support or defend Alaya's position (scans coming soon).

Regarding Sanjay's comment:

"We were successful at the demurrer stage in establishing that a duty would be owed by the Society in the event they sponsored and/or endorsed the trips that Alaya went on when he was abused by Sai Baba. As it turns out, the Society is not the "hub" of all of Sai Baba's corporate activities. Rather, the Society, pursuant to declarations under penalty of perjury, confirmed they are a bookstore...nothing more. Accordingly, we do not have the necessary factual requirements to establish liability on the Society/Book center." - W. Brelsford, Alaya's attorney.

The Rahms (based on their own admission) were not novices to the Sai Organization. To the contrary, Al Rahm claimed three decades of membership, including holding important regional positions in the Sai Organization in the USA. If the Society was truly a "bookstore", Al Rahm would have known this. Brelsford accepted Alaya's case and pursued it for sixteen months. Surely an experienced trial lawyer would have been able to ascertain that the Society was a "bookstore" within a few days/weeks time. It obviously took Brelsford sixteen months to find this out even though the Rahms were fully familiar with the Sai Organization and the Society! The claim that lawsuit was dropped because the Society is a "bookstore" is an excuse, and a poor one at that. It took Brelsford 16 months to realize he did "not have the necessary factual requirements to establish liability on the Society/Book center"!

Regarding Sanjay's reference to:

"Among others ready to testify to the court was the former Mrs Diane Payne - USA. Hislop mentioned her in the letters he wanted kept secret that describe her having written to him alleging Sai Baba’s sexual abuse of her then teenage son in the 1970’s. Her child was then a student at Sai Baba’s College at Whitefield, near Bangalore. Again because important depositions were not able to be heard in court, Mark Roche, who formerly had long-term close ties with the most important leaders of the Sai Organization in the USA, was unable to testify. He appeared in the BBC television documentary ‘The Secret Swami’ (2004): In his BBC interview, Mr Roche spoke of Sai Baba’s forcing oral sex on him in 1976 when Roche was very young. He was also prepared to state under oath that he had told Sai Baba’s foremost overseas leader, Dr John Hislop, well before 1980, that Sai Baba had sexually abused him...Yet another strong witness standing by to verify these letters was Dr Timothy Conway, of Santa Barbara, USA, a former respected leader in the Sai Organization. It is a veracity which the Society’s directors could not, under oath (unless they perjured themselves) deny, for they were indeed among the recipients of these letters."

I have already responded to this in full. Diana Payne and Mark Roche were never identified to the court as witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm). Attorney Brelsford would have had to identify Payne and Roche to the court as witnesses, so that either he (or the opposing attorney) could take depositions from them. In fact, no depositions (from any alleged witnesses) were taken on behalf of the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm). Nor were any alleged witnesses identified to the court on behalf of the plaintiff. How is it that a deposition was taken from Kreydick (on behalf of the defense), yet no depositions were taken on behalf of the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm)? Why is it that Diana Payne, Mark Roche and Timothy Conway were never identified to the court as witnesses by attorney Brelsford? Why is it that Payne, Roche and Conway failed to submit depositions on behalf of Alaya? Such being the case, the claim that "important depositions were not able to be heard in court" is a blatant distortion of the truth and amounts to nothing less than prevarication. Why doesn't Sanjay provide us with court documents to back up this lie from JuST? The records are now public record. Where are the depositions or references to Payne, Roche or Conway? I would like to see them.

Regarding Sanjay's comments:

What nobody says is that the deposition taken from Lewis Kreydick is exactly that, a deposition. It was simply "taken" from authorised law agents and was not heard in court according to my information. Consequently there is no question of Alaya/the Rahms refuting Kreydick's viewpoint because they had no opportunity to do so.

Kreydick's deposition was/is a sworn, signed, legal court record which was taken with Brelsford present and offering objections. This deposition was intended to be used in the court case that Alaya self-dismissed just prior to the trial being heard and not long after Kreydick's deposition was taken.

Regarding Sanjay's comments:

Very simply, the Sai "Organisation" is un-sueable and can practically get away with anything under the excuse that they are simply a bookstore.

Once again, the Rahms (based on their own admission) were not novices to the Sai Organization. To the contrary, Al Rahm claimed three decades of membership, including holding important regional positions. Certainly the Rahms were aware of the Sai Organization's structure and could name as defendants whomever they chose, and they did so. The Rahms also picked the jurisdiction and court that they filed in. Now, however, they claim they sued the wrong defendants in the wrong court and in the wrong country. No one can seriously rationalize that the Rahms (or their experienced trial lawyer) could have seriously believed that a USA court would have jurisdiction over Sathya Sai Baba as an individual defendant for events that were alleged to have occurred in India. If Alaya Rahm wanted to sue Sathya Sai Baba for money he needed to do so in India, not the USA. The actions against Sathya Sai Baba, Goldstein and the Sathya Sai Baba Society were not dismissed due to a "technicality". To the contrary, to have sued the wrong defendents in the wrong court and in the wrong country is an absurdity. So absurd, in fact, that it is incredulous that Alaya Rahm ever really intended to follow through with the suit. It appears that Alaya's lawsuit was a publicity stunt at best, judicial harrassment at worst.

Keep spinning Sanjay. Apparently, all you can do is repeat the lies dispersed by the Rahms and JuST like a trained parrot with no proof to back them up.

Exposing the SaiBabaExposed Author

QT - Joe108 <qtopic+29-FE68KidtskS@quicktopic.com> wrote: --QT------------------------------------------------------------- Reply by email or visit
http://www.quicktopic.com/29/H/FE68KidtskS
--------------------------------------------------------------- -

Joe108 has created a new topic, "Alaya Rahm And His Failed
Lawsuit Against Sathya Sai Baba", linked from the topic "Sathya
Sai Baba, 2005, who is he?". To join the conversation, use your
browser to go to:


http://www.quicktopic.com/37/H/HwXgZASjUguv


thanks joe, i subscribed.
   
  freestone


seen on a bridge overpass, in Rochester, ny 1970
..."AND THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU LAUGH"!

Freestone Wilson
freestonew@yahoo.com
weblog....
http://freestone.blogspot.com