Edited by author 07-31-2006 12:22 AM
Yeah, Sanjay aka saiexposed420, we're all familiar with your sordid history too, i.e. admitting downloading child porn after I found your posts on ajesus porn site and lying about working for the Internet Watch Foundation. not to mention how you have continuously harassed Sai devotees for YEARS. Unfortunately for you this is ALL documented in saisathyasai.com so you can lie all you want about your perversions but your own words are now documented for the whole world to see.

The fact remains that MOST of the anti-Sais, like Sanjay, have major mental problems as a result of alcohol/drug abuse. The truth is coming out now about them and they are throwing hissy fits like you see Sanjay doing here. Sanjay's partner in crime, Tony O'Clery has been reduced to hiding behind other usernames spewing more of his foul-mouthed sexual perversions and lies that he is so well-known for. Joe has been documenting this on another blog so people can see how warped O'Clery is. These are the wackos that are attacking Sai Baba.


http://tony-oclery-exposed.blogspot.com/20...ality-disorder.html

Looks to me that Lisa De Witt's article (/m188), when first published online, was deemed so ridiculous that nobody bothered to even look at it. Even though it is right in front of me here, I haven't looked at it. That is because I am familiar with LDW's history and I know from experience that she very rarely states documented facts, does not address any of the pertinent issues, and is simply regurgitated propaganda. With a generous dash of conspiracy theory to spice up the meal.

Anyway, I wanted to state something for the record. As well as Gerald Moreno stating his inconsistent and contradictory propaganda everywhere, he has also been claiming that the Alaya Rahm court case was a failure. In this connection, I'd like to copy here a response to this point that I made elsewhere, just in case Moreno tries to play the same tricks here.


--------------------------------

Even funnier watching both Gerald Moreno and Lisa De Witt drive themselves up the wall about how the Alaya Rahm court case was a "failure".

How exactly was it a "failure"?

A "failure" can only be called as such if Alaya lost the case or if it was thrown out of court for some reason.

Neither of these things happened. Rather, Alaya SELF-DISMISSED (get that? SELF-dismissed) his case for extremely reasonable legal reasons; namely that the Sai Organisation is actually not an "organisation" and is thus not culpable for any legal claims made against it as such. This is an extremely embarrassing exposé for the Sai "Organisation" and will be a lot of fuel to our fire for years to come.

There is no question of the case being stood up for scrutiny because things did not get that far. This are just meaningless speculations and guesswork by devotees whose brains have melted. How can it be possible to speculate about a court case that never happened, much less declare it to be a "failure"?

We even know of how certain Sai leaders have been scrambling around writing letters to everybody to explain their NEW position with regards to legal culpability. But that's another story. :-)

In the meantime, expect Gerald Moreno and Lisa De Witt to continue their rabid drivel about a "failed" court case when it was anything BUT a failure. :-)

Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

Exbaba.com revising history and making more excuses
by Lisa De Witt
©2006LisaDeWitt

In a long-overdue statement regarding the failed Alaya Rahm lawsuit, Exbaba.com & Co. has managed once again to try and rewrite history and deceive those who are not familiar with the legal issues.

In their opening statement they claim,
"The case was heard by Judge John M.
Watson of the Superior Court, County of Orange, California, on April 28th, 2006.'"

Apparently someone forgot to inform the author of this article that the case was NOT heard by the judge because it was dismissed in April, more than two weeks before the trial was to start.

As if this weren't bad enough, the title of this article shows Exbaba.com & Co. cannot even get the name of the organization they are writing about correct! Yet, how critical Exbaba.com & Co. are of others perceived faults, oversights and indiscretions. However, this grand oversight is not surprising to those who know how sloppy this group has been with their historical facts.

Exbaba.com & Co. go on to state that the Rahm's attorney made the following statement.

"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."

So, we are led to believe that Brelsford, a competent, experienced child abuse attorney FINALLY realized after a year long investigation or only as a result of a deposition that the Sathya Sai Baba Society was merely a bookstore and not an organization which could be sued? Holy Batman, what a revelation! Now they are hiding behind bookstores!

However, if one reads Kreydick's March 16 deposition, one might surmise that the Rahms led Brelsford to believe that the Sathya Sai Baba Society had paid for Alaya's trip to India and when the truth came out that Kreydick, a then family friend of the Rahm's had paid for the trip, Brelsford was left with egg on his face and no where to go but through the exit door..

Several online documents put Brelsford's alleged statement into question. The Sathya Sai Book Center does operate under the umbrella of the Sathya Sai Baba Society which is a non-profit corporation, NOT a bookstore.

According to a statement on sathyasai.org web site,

"The Sathya Sai Book Center of America is the official wholesale and retail distributor of Sathya Sai Baba literature in the United States, as authorized by Sathya Sai Baba in 1969. The Book Center operates within the jurisdiction of the Sathya Sai Baba Society, a non-profit corporation registered in the State of California."

The Sathya Sai Baba Society is also a vehicle set up to receive donations as evidenced by a recent online obituary.

"Donations may be made to the Sathya Sai Baba Society 305 West 1st Street Tustin California 92780, in William Altmann's name."

In an article titled, Hindu Diaspora and Religious Philanthropy in the United States,
Priya Anand describes the function of the Sathya Sai Baba Society.

"Members and devotees who wish to donate funds to projects in India are directed to the Sathya Sai Baba Society, a nonprofit corporation registered in the State of California. "The Sai organization does not solicit funds" says Mr Bob Bozzani, president of the Sathya Sai Baba Society of America. "However if anybody of their own accord wishes to donate money, we do not turn them away." The society is registered as a nonprofit with 501C(3) status and provides 100% tax exemptions to individuals who choose to donate money to the society, but this is not publicized. Any cash or checks received by the society are immediately sent to the Sathya Sai Central Trust..."

So one can easily see from online documents that the Sathya Sai Baba Society is not "just" a bookstore. It appears that Exbaba.com & Co. are attempting to distract from the fact that the Society could NOT be held liable for Alaya's trips because they, in FACT, had NOTHING to do with those trips.

But the excuses don't end there. Then Exbaba.com & Co. go on to state,

"No court found Alaya's allegations to be false. Simply, the suit could not continue on a technicality, and the claims of sexual abuse stand irrefutably true, just as before. The Sathya Sai Organization could take legal cover behind its bookstore."

In another attempt at reverse logic, the Exbaba crew conveniently forget that no court has EVER found the allegations to be "irrefutably" true and due process is the legal standard to be met, NOT media hype and propaganda from the questionable quarters that Exbaba & Co. live and breathe for. Their "believe me because I said so" mentality doesn't wash in the REAL world.

Then Exbaba.com & Co. attempt to go back into the past and rehash the usual unsubstantiated claims with much hand wringing, mudslinging and excuses as to why they are oh-so-powerless to find their way into a courtroom. They state,

"The Sathya Sai Organization has set itself up to avoid legal accountability and full public scrutiny. There is no legal entity in the United States against which a lawsuit demanding responsibility of Goldstein and other key directors of the Sathya Sai Society of America can be brought. The Organization's leaders will not truly investigate or let the lower echelon leadership and the rank-and-file members know the nature and seriousness of the accusations against Sai Baba. "


It seems to me that Exbaba.com & Co. has set itself up to avoid legal accountability and FULL public scrutiny. Exbaba.com & Co. just can't seem to get it through their heads (and stop trying to mislead the public while they are at it) that it is NOT the organization's duty to investigate "itself" regarding criminal allegations. That is law enforcement's job. It is the accuser's RESPONSIBILITY to file a criminal complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Not only that but ANYBODY can file a lawsuit against ANY person as long as they are within the statute of limitations, which most of the accusers AREN'T (due to their OWN suspicious negligence).

We are also led by Exbaba.com & Co. to believe that those in the Sai Baba organization are not being informed as to the allegations when we know this is patently false. How can those in the organization NOT know about the allegations when they have been called, email-bombed and sent letters from the mob of anti-Sai activists hungry for blood? On one hand, Exbaba..com & Co. are continually bragging and ranting about how membership has declined due to their "very successful" international media campaign yet now we are supposed to believe, "nobody in the org" is being informed. Will somebody PLEASE make up their mind?

The rest of the article is more of the same mudslinging, "feel-sorry-for-us-we-are-so powerless-against-the-fraud" and the big bad "ignorant" Indian government, racist-smelling drivel and propaganda from the powerless Exbaba.com & Co..

And finally, Exbaba.com & Co. attempts, once again, to gain sympathy by bringing up "poor" Alaya, the now 27 year old man who was "so traumatized" by Sai Baba that, after his interview at the age of eighteen, he begged for more interviews and went out giving public speeches lauding Sai Baba's love and spiritual powers. Alaya was so "traumatized" he even wrote Sai Baba a love poem.

I don't know about anyone else, but I could not STAND to be in the same room with my abuser after he molested me. I would run out of the building to get away from him.

Then Exbaba.com & Co. disingenuously state,
 
"Those who know Alaya and his family are satisfied that they have told the truth. Indeed, the penalty for lying to a court in the USA, a legal system which Alaya Rahm was every bit prepared to face, is severe!"

NOT everyone who "knows" Alaya and his family believe them. Many people who "know" them, such as Kreydick, do not believe them. I personally saw Al Rahm give a speech in the early-to-mid-nineties applauding Sai Baba for saving him from death in the Andies mountains. There is also a video of Al's talk (under the alias, Seral Rahm) being sold at Sai centers. Al and Marisa were selling their music tapes at the talk and Alaya was not there. I do not believe them because I have irrefutable direct personal experience that the Rahms have contradicted themselves. And WHERE is Alaya's deposition? I haven't seen it so I cannot be convinced that Alaya (or any other accuser) was prepared to face the consequences of lying. According to Exbaba.com & Co., not one of the accusers even made a deposition. We are supposed to take the word of accusers who claim to have such a strong case yet cannot even make it into a courtroom. Even I, a molestation victim (whose abuser is now deceased) at the age of thirteen do not believe Alaya. After almost four years of intensive research I do NOT believe ANY of the allegations withstand scrutiny.

Contrary to Exbaba.com & Co.'s hollow lip service regarding sensitivity toward molestation victims, this molestation victim has been harassed, vilified and lied to by Exbaba & Co.. for trying to tell the truth and nothing BUT the truth regarding the allegations set forth out of court by Sai Baba's accusers.

In order to believe Exbaba.com & Co., you not only have to revise history, you have to forget it completely.

References:

Alaya Rahm's Lawsuit vs Sathya Sai Society of America:
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex_baba/engels/articles/alayarahm.htm

A Scathing Response by Joe Moreno:
http://www.sai-fi.net/z-alaya-rahm.shtml

Alaya Rahm Dismisses His Own Lawsuit
Against The Sathya Sai Baba Society:
http://www.saisathyasai.com/Rahm-Public-Court-Records/

Edited by author 07-30-2006 01:59 AM
Re /m182:

>> 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. <<

Gerald 'Joe' Moreno (aka, "Joe108") should perhaps learn not to speak so presumptuously about my knowledge of the Alaya Rahm case. He would do well to realise that I and my colleagues are in full knowledge of the Rahm case, given that we are in touch with all parties concerned namely the Rahm family and their attorney, W. Brelsford.

While we're on that subject I think it's about time Moreno came clean and publicly disclosed his sources if he wishes to make this an issue, in the interests of informing the public.


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

An extremely silly thing to say. My post (/m181) was clearly addressing the issues brought up in /m178 and nothing else. I personally have no interest in reading any "separate threads" (where Moreno is simply posting repetitions of his own articles as published before on his website) when we are all here to discuss it here.


>> 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). <<

Moreno is engaging in deception. Notice that he started the above paragraph with, "Regarding Sanjay's comment" and then proceeds to quote a passage from the JuST statement! Moreno would do well not to carelessly mix up comments and source material, given his mind-numbing pedantry for proper sourcing in other areas of the Internet.

Regarding the point at hand, Moreno either has an insufficient knowledge of psychology or he is just deliberately playing dumb. The fact that Alaya Rahm claims not to have suffered psychological trauma or the fact that no psychologist examined him has nothing to do with the salient facts of the case. The scope of psychology is broader than people may think, and certainly exceeds in it's insights into the human mind beyond just "trauma". For example, one may wonder why Alaya continued to visit Sai Baba and wish for more experiences when he was being sexually abused (a question that has been asked many times). Psychologists, specifically trained abuse support workers, would be able to sufficiently explain this.

If Moreno or anyone else wishes to make a serious case using psychological reasoning, he/they would do well not to conveniently forget the Added complications that arise regarding Sai Baba's numerous declarations about his own divinity and also the effect that this has on his followers. For that matter, if Moreno and others wish to defend Sai Baba, they had better be prepared to explain the effect of these queer paradigms on the mind of a 16-18 year old (Alaya's age range during the abuse) what to speak of Sai Baba's own threatening behaviour and demands for forced secrecy. What does Moreno think of the effect all all these combined factors may have on the mind of a 16-18 year old boy?

No, scratch that. Moreno's opinion will be irrelevant considering that does not hold a psychological qualification of any form.


>> 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. <<

Moreno deceptively quotes the JuST statement and attributes it to me again. Moreno then goes on to make his point in different ways. Regarding this particular point, Moreno should be aware that not everyone is aware about the incorporation status of their employ, nor is there any reason why they should be aware. To make it clearer, there is no reason why every employee of the Coca-Cola company or McDonald's (for example) should be privy to details regarding the incorporation status of their company, nor is there any reason why they should be aware. Unlike McDonald's or Coca-Cola, the Sai Organisation is not a company that provides food or entertainment to the public (unless you count distribution of vibhuti and weekly bhajans as sources of entertainment, as I do). We all know that the Sai Organisation's function is simply to operate weekly, monthly or bi-monthly gatherings by which devotees and followers of Sai Baba can congregate to sing bhajans, do seva and other things like Bal Vikas classes for the children. That is a conservative estimation of the Sai Organisation's function and rarely does anything unusual take place.

Consequently, the fact that Al Rahm held several important positions (which, funnily enough, Moreno does not specify) leads us to wonder what exactly his role was in the Organisation, what to speak of the fact whether he should be privy to details regarding the Organisation's incorporation. This is an incredibly facile argument from Moreno. I am surprised that such a point would even be brought forward for presentation.


>> Surely an experienced trial lawyer would have been able to ascertain that the Society was a "bookstore" within a few days/weeks time. <<

I must say that I find it absolutely hilarious that Moreno now questions Brelsford's "experience" as a trial lawyer when it is convenient for him. For the record, it should be known that Moreno has all along (until now) been referring to Brelsford's "experience" as a trial lawyer in the manner of taunting. When Moreno was gushing about the "failure" of the Rahm case, he repeatedly made reference to Brelsford's experience as a trial lawyer and insinuated that Brelsford knew that the case was "weak", which is why the "experienced lawyer" advised Alaya Rahm to self-dismiss his case.

Now, after the Sai Organisation has been publicly humiliated and embarrassed with the information that it is nothing but a bookstore and not an international organisation as previously thought (implying that they can get away scot-free with anything using the "we are just a bookstore" excuse!), Moreno consistently avoids addressing this point and instead tries to deflect attention to why the Rahm's didn't know this and why Brelsford didn't know this, even making a complete turnabout and questioning Brelsford's experience! Funny that!

In reply, we can say that it is nothing to do with Moreno. :-) After all, he is not a trial lawyer, nor is he a legal representative, nor has he ever presented himself as being knowledgable about the legal process in general. It is not necessary for him to be privy to the details of the case. Moreno might do well to question his own sources, namely the ones who fed him all the information in the first place. :-)


>> The claim that lawsuit was dropped because the Society is a "bookstore" is an excuse, and a poor one at that. <<

Moreno's opinion is not acceptable or relevant in a court of law. :-) The fact remains that the Sai Organisation is de facto "un-sueable" precisely because it is a bookstore and nothing more. It does not matter if the Rahms knew this. It does not matter if Brelsford took sixteen moths to discover this (according to Moreno, which is a lie). What does matter is that the Sai Organisation does not appear to be a proper legal entity by which any abuses effected within it, from it or by it can make them answerable for said abuses in a court of law! And that is a poor show.

The question now shifts to the premise of how and why the Sai Organisation is more or less allowed to get away with anything scot-free by using the "we are just a bookstore" excuse. What a cynical ploy by the Sai Organisation; to avoid hard questions being asked about why the directors of the Organisation (Hislop et al) did nothing at all when they were informed about Sai Baba's alleged sexually abusive behaviour as far back as the early 1980s as well as many other hard questions, they worm their way out of court with a chorus of "we are just a bookstore".

This itself goes to show how much respect the Sai Organisaiton has for the law. After all, if all the parties were innocent and had nothing to hide, there should have been no problem about all this coming out in court. Running scared.


>> 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 ... 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? <<

It is not our problem if Moreno didn't know if Payne, Roche and others were identified as witnesses to the court. One may well ask the same question as to why it took the Sai Organisation sixteen months to find a witness for the defendant, namely Lewis Kreydick. Let's not fight with phantoms here when Moreno tries to obfuscate the issue with pseudo-intelligent language. The exact same reasoning can be applied to the legal moves of the Sai Organisation: Why did it take sixteen months for the Sai Org. to declare Lewis Kreydick as a witness for the defence and/or take his deposition?


>> 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. <<

Er... what connections does Moreno have with this case? I wouldn't be so sure that the prosecuting witnesses calling was a "lie", but what investment does Moreno have with this case that we should inform him of developments? If Moreno (correctly) claims that the court records are now a matter of public availability, why does he contradict himself by asking to see court records that are "supposedly" hidden from the public?

I can bet money that Moreno would like to see them! Unfortunately, he has no reason to be privy to the case details unless and until he firmly and publicly declares his interests and investment(s) in this matter. The fact that he claims not to be a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba despite spending an inordinate amount of time and energy in defending him brings up very serious questions as to his suitability as a candidate.


>> 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. <<

Unfortunately, Moreno is making a facile argument again. I never questioned Kreydick's deposition as a sworn statement nor did I question it's probably inclusion and reference in the forthcoming trial. At the risk of repeating myself, I simply made the point as follows (which I made after the passage that Moreno quotes above and which he did not address):

"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."

To put it simply, this refers to Moreno's insinuations that Alaya Rahm's case was "weak" and that he self-dismissed the case almost immediately after Kreydick's testimony was taken. The fact that these two events took place within a few days of each other does not confirm Moreno's insinuations, especially as we now know the real reason for the self-dismissal (the sliminess of the Sai Organisation's legal ploys).


>> Now, however, they claim they sued the wrong defendants in the wrong court and in the wrong country. <<

Pardon? Is Moreno getting a tad ahead of himself here? Where did the Rahms/JuST claim this?


>> 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. <<

First, let me invite Moreno to clarify his contradictions. He first taunted people that Brelsford was an experienced trial lawyer who could see the "weaknesses" in Alaya's case. Earlier in his post he appeared to question Brelsford's experience. Now he affirms Brelsford's experience yet again! Pardon me, but I do think that a person like Brelsford would be amused to see the dogs yapping at his heels in their ignorance of his capabilities. Moreno will have to make up his mind. He will have to pick a position and stick with it: Is Brelsford a knowledgeable and experience trial lawyer or not?

The other thing with this troubling passage is that Moreno doesn't seem satisfied with Brelsford's experience (or not, pending his clarification) but even goes so far as to question the judge as well! After all, Brelsford (in the joint statement between the Rahms and JuST) states thus:

“The lawsuit against Sai Baba (individually) was dropped because the judge indicated in the initial court appearance that he did not wish to see us pursue a case against an out- of-country defendant that is not a signatory to the Hague Treaty. Sai Baba lives in India. California does not have reciprocal jurisdiction rights against an out-of-country defendant and we cannot utilize California state subpoena powers against an out-of- country defendant not subject to the powers of the Hague Treaty without pursuing the Letters Rogatory process. That process takes several years to complete and there is no guarantee Sai Baba would even respond to service of a subpoena once a subpoena was served. Which complicates matters even more. And given Sai Baba's age, there is no guarantee he would even be alive at the time we finally could have perfected service of a complaint, let alone a deposition subpoena.”

Consequently, if Moreno has a problem with this then he would be best advised to take it up with the judge. Perhaps if he is extra-keen to put all these issues to rest once and for all in a court of law, he may make a stab at initiating the Letters Rogatory Process. Assuming that he has the qualifications to do so in the first place.


>> 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. <<

We can note here that this typical statement represents yet another change in Moreno's reasoning and arguments. After first boasting and bragging that he was in possession of the case information, here is a typical statement from him (May 3rd, 2006) where he cannot contain his excitement and smugness:

"And it is much more than 'out in the open'. It's 'out in the open', fully documented on PUBLIC court records. Ouch. It's going to hurt and this information is going to significantly impact the broadcasting and the publishing of articles against Sathya Sai Baba. You can't argue with a Self-Dissmal. Can't blame the judge. Can't blame the system. The blame invariably comes down to a lack of evidence and crediblity. This is a bitter pill that Anti-Sai Activists are going to have a hard time swallowing. The fact they have suppressed this information and are refusing to publish it on their sites and blogs is proof enough."

To make it clear, Moreno was clearly confident of himself one day before he had posted any information about the case. Putting aside the fact that we knew about the self-dismissal significantly earlier than he did, it is interesting to see Moreno boasting about how the information would "prove" that the case lacked evidence and credibility. He was clearly overjoyed that the case had gone through due legal process and had been "proved" ineffectual as far as Sai Baba is concerned.

Now, when it suits the fella, he turns around and complains that the case should not have occurred in the USA but in India! It is a mystery as to where he acquired this ideas, certainly not from us! It is merely a restatement of his colleagues' (Lisa De Witt's) constant urgings that the cases must be filed in India. Why? Does India enact laws that would allow Alaya Rahm to claim money damages from Sathya Sai Baba? They must do, if Moreno appears to be urging Alaya to do so! We can put aside the fact that would form yet another contradiction for Moreno given the fact that he has also been boasting along these lines:

"This case was dismissed 'with prejudice' and is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata. This means that Alaya Rahm can never file another lawsuit against Sathya Sai Baba (in the USA or in India) for the same claims made in this case."

What a turnaround for Moreno! From first boasting that the case had gone through due process in court and "failed", to claims that he should have done it properly in the first place! Oh dear, and combined with his constantly dithering opinion of Brelsford's "experience" and consequent expertise in lawful matters, I think that it would be safe to say that Moreno would never make it as a lawyer or any other type of legal representative. :-) Perhaps he should first practice getting his story straight before insisting that others should do the same. That is the best advice that anyone can give, and I'm no lawyer. :-)

It's time to wipe away the eggs dripping from your faces.

>> 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. <<

I do not need to spin anything. The statement speaks for itself. :-)

Sai Baba's Naughty Children.

Geez.
Now you are changing your story and saying that John disappeared. So who disappeared, John or Walter? Make up your mind!

Yes, Kreydick's words are relevant and he believed in them enough to testify in court, unlike you who are hiding out on a message board!

Honesty results from a pure heart and pure thought. It is also related to the desireless state because in that state, there is no need to distort the truth in order to achieve or obtain anything.

Honesty and truth are a way of life, the only way. It means more than just what the words imply, because it also means being true to yourself. The purity of heart is visible when the love of God is reflected so clearly and strongly that it shines through, even in the most adverse conditions and circumstances. Such a man has reached a point where nothing can touch him because he has come so close to God that his whole life is based on the solid foundations of truth, love and devotion to God. How can anything touch such a man?

Edited by author 07-29-2006 11:46 AM
the other day, I was thinking of the English movie from the early 70s called "BLOWUP"

http://www.filmsite.org/blow.html


 Blow-Up (1966) is director Michelangelo Antonioni's view of the world of mod fashion, and an engaging, provocative murder mystery that examines the existential nature of reality through photography. Antonioni's first film in English, it quickly became one of the most important films of its decade, and a milestone in liberalized attitudes toward film nudity and expressions of sexuality. The film was nominated for two Academy Awards (with no wins): Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay (Edward Bond, Michelangelo Antonioni, and Tonino Guerra).
A desensitized-to-life, nihilistic, high-fashion photographer Thomas (David Hemmings) in London, who lives a mid-60s life of excess (riches, fame, and women), becomes bored with his lucrative career of glamour photography. So he resorts to photographing, in documentary style, the seamy and sordid side of life in London, in flophouses and slums.

Innocently, he takes candid photos in a deserted park of a lover's tryst-rendezvous between a kerchief-wearing woman (Vanessa Redgrave) and a middle-aged, gray-haired man in a light-gray suit. She pursues him to ask for the illicit photos, as he imagines that he has witnessed a scene of sexual intrigue - never thinking that he may have accidentally obtained visual, criminal evidence of a murder.

Memorable scenes:


- the suspenseful, obsessive sequence of the photographer processing and blowing up several pictures from his park visit, and magnifying them larger and larger to poster size. As tension heightens, he pins the pictures on the wall of his living room - in sequence - giving them life as if they were individual frames in a motion picture. Ultimately, they reveal a riveting possibility - a man and a gun in the shadows of some bushes behind a fence. He speculates that he foiled a potential murder - but further blow-ups reveal what could be a dead body.
============================


My own take on this film, stays with me all of my life, that he went to the London park to take photos with his model and when he develops this film, one shot shows what *could* be an image, hidden in the bushes, very dimly and obscurely, in the far far distance background, of a man with a gun : he reads of someone murdered in the park, this maybe he thinks that he has a photo of the killer.
    he then litterly blows up the image to get a clearer picture of whether this blur *is* a man with a gun, or whether the image is just of a bush or stick pile. The more he blows up the image to a larger size, the clearer it becomes that this image IS of a man with a gun.
     My own "take" on this movie is that the message of the film is that if someone has a faint perception that something might be real, then fuerther examination will not only prove this out, that *ALSO* the physical evidence will "compline", will also become actually physically
to become that object thought-of, "Occultly"!!

In plain words....as if you peered into the woods and thought that you see a deer, the stump will turn into a real deer!! BE a real deer.

I sense that the "JFK researchers", when they examine the photo evidence of the JKF assaination, there, in Dallas, are finding litterly more and more extra "guns and killers", in this same way!

In other words, "object" and "mind" are not separated.

Now add a very very "magiacian/guru" with "occult powers" to the mix, and then just see what happens!
---did Baba materialize vibuti, or was that merely a "trick"?!
---was someone killed by baba's orders. or was this not so?!

on and on....


from my blog.
http://freestone.blogspot.com/
[here is an article that i wrote, once, about a book that I read, a book that put the *Fear* into me, over what is Real or Not real!!

If you believe this book writer's experience, be afraid, be very very very afraid!!


======================================================== =============



The other day I was reminded of a book that I read over ten years ago.

I would say that what is in this book, I found to be the very " most scary" thing that I have ever read! This book, privately printed, never got to register on any radar, never got discussed in any new age forum, the "hydrogen bomb" contained in this book, exploded where no one ever heard it!

In my hometown of about 600 people, Interlaken, NY, there is a small public library, and it is very small indeed, perhaps the bookshelves take up all of a square 20 feet by 20 feet, the genealogy room is larger! This is in a town where they build one new house every ten years! I moved back there in the early 90s, and often went to this library.
One day, in the "occult" section, I found a book, this book was the *only* book in the occult section!
DUNDEE DREAMING by ??????
---a newspaper reporter from the [?]Dundee gazette newspaper had a column called "Dundee Dreaming". She collected the dreams of the people of Dundee, NY, a small city about 50 miles away from Interlaken. Then she would print them in the column, the dreams of Dundee. For years she ran this weekly column, and she asked the people of Dundee to submit their dreams. She had once lived in Elmira, NY, and thus in the 70s and 80s had also attended the Jane Roberts Seth Speaks classes.
This book was about this column and about the dreams of the people of that city.

the greatest Dream, was the 130 dreams that people mailed in to her about the man who was drowned in the sailing accident in Seneca lake. They all dreamed that a man drowned, in literal or symbolic language. Only thing was....That the Son of a Founding family was drowned weeks *AFTER* everyone dreamed this!!
[a collective premonitional dream, from over 100 people.]

*this* chapter, while amazing enough, is not the "bomb"! The utterly amazing event that I will write on, came from her own life, as this book is a bit "autobiographical"!

She had just come from one of the Lawyer meetings, her bad marriage had now just been Severed, the divorce was now Real. Stressed her to the max, the proceedings. She wanted to come to her uncle's farm, the childhood farm where she grew up on, for all of her years of childhood, so to heal and recover. She wanted to spend some hours in the barn attic where she spent SO many hours as a child, her 'safe spot", as her own parents lives were not so loving to each other. Her uncle now owned the farm, he just bought it.
She could hear him hammering away in the house as he did some fixing up on the old farmhouse, as she came up the stairs into the attic, unchanged since she was a girl, years ago. There *was* a change, though. The old nine pane window at the end of the attic now had four panes of glass in it, instead of the nine panes that it had when she was there, twenty years ago. She then sat where she always sat, nearly every day of the week that she could get there, as a child. She must have spent 15 years, five days a week, some bit of time in that room. There was only that one window. She now could see more, now that there were only four panes, as there were fewer window frames. She then came closer to the window. She then noticed that there was dust and dirt on the window sill and then on the putty at the bases of the four window panes.
"how *could* this be?" she asked herself! She was now in quite a bit of shock, as it seemed to be apparent that her uncle had never been to repair this window, that the panes have been there for years! After all, she looked out of this nine pane window for over ten years, nearly daily!
*REALLY* in a state of shock, when she asked her uncle about this, and she was told that he had not been up there.
a photo! She knew that there was a photo collection in some room in the house. Yes, the chest was still there and in it were several old albums of musty faded photos from her childhood, taken by her parents.

she found one with that attic in the background. There were four window panes in that window!

NOW....The "floor really did drop out from under her"!! How could this BE??

[be like, sports fans, like that year old white sports car you own, you get up to go to work and find that this white car has "miraculously" turned into a raspberry PINK!! You see by the dirt on the paint that it was not painted overnight! In fact you run to look at a photo taken months ago, only to see that this car has ALWAYS been pink!!]

she finally realized that the window REFLECTED her life, now that she has gotten this divorce from a marriage made when she was only 20 or so, she now had

A FAR WIDER VIEW ONTO LIFE

--and this window, so important to her growing soul, in childhood, reflected this!
More light, more freedom, more awareness. Four panes of glass; not nine.

Consider The Implications, sports fans!
--the outer "objective" world reflects your life inwardly, it changes as you change.
---many people might be able to change a "collective" reality, like of WAR or of EARTHCHANGES like of hurricanes or earthquakes.
---the weather that we have, might reflect the state of the souls of the people living under it!
--airplane contrails are "bad", thus they will make you sick in 20 seconds after
they appear in the sky, and that no doctor can deny the damaged body's symptoms!

this Dundee dreamer lady gave one more example, in this chapter! She had a friend
who took a photo with her camera, of her family, then she lost the camera before she was able to extract the film for development. She then moved five times and two of the moves were across country. Four to six years later she was one day hanging her wash on the clothesline and low and behold when she came out to the clothesline there was a camera hanging on the line. HER camera, as it had film in it and when developed, there were the pictures of her family that she took, still viewable after all those years!
?????
how?

the book is not listed in Google, long out of print, maybe if you were to go to the Home of the Rod Serling Twilight Zone, and visit the Library, you can check it out!
but my hometown of Interlaken, with its one room library *IS* the home of the twilight Zone, as 1955-1963 rod serling had his summer cottage there, a mile from Interlaken, on Cayuga lake: he wrote his scripts on the porch. He often was seen in town, and many of the stories used the town: "you cant go home again"...He revisited the town to walk it, the town was interlaken, I know where that carousel was!!

so ponder, if ye will, the Implications of that attic window!!

freestone

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

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

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.

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

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

"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

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