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?

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!

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.

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/

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."

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. :-)

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

Edited by author 07-31-2006 12:34 AM
Regarding Lisa's post (/m191):

Tony O'Clery Exposed

Sanjay Dadlani Exposed (aka "Sai Baba EXPOSED")

It is amusing that Sai Baba EXPOSED" (aka Sanjay Dadlani) is trying to take a moral and ethical stand against Sathya Sai Baba when he has been fully exposed for his StreetBitches Blog, his Jesus Sex Fetish, his views on Child And Teen Pornography, his self-admitted Psychological Problems, his Views About Women, his self-admitted Drinking Problems, his Satanic Inclinations, his Shocking Confessions, his Long And Established History As A Pathological Liar, his apparent outward Denial Of His Own Guru Srila Prabhupada, his public Lie About Meeting Aghori Vimalananda, his Homoeroticism And Gender Confusion, and his Inability To Keep A Girlfriend.

This is the guy who is posting here, trying to deceive everyone into thinking he is rational and sober. He isn't.

Predictably (of course), Sanjay's typical responses will be that the debate is not about him, his character is not important and that he is going to refute my "lies" and "defamations" about him at some unknown future date. One will also notice how Sanjay resorts to long, rambling (and very boring) diatribes (as evidenced in his latest post: /m187) to water down the issue, discombobluate the reader and deflect from the core issues by making specious, half-baked arguments, citing no official court records, documents or scans to Brelsford's letters to support his comments.

Edited by author 07-31-2006 01:13 AM
Didn't take long for the ad-hominem attacks to start, did it? :-)

And in tandem too, wow we are honoured! :-) Tsk tsk, what a pity. And just when I thought that we were all actually here to discuss Sathya Sai Baba.


>> water down the issue, discombobluate the reader and deflect from the core issues by making specious, half-baked arguments, citing no official court records, documents or scans to Brelsford's letters to support his comments. <<


Er, sorry, but my points still stand. I have shown exactly how Gerald 'Joe' Moreno has been inconsistent and avoiding the core issues.

How ironic that Moreno speaks about specious and half-baked arguments when he is the one who focuses inordinately on why it took sixteen moths to find out that the Society was a bookstore, when the same reasoning can be applied to why it took the defendants sixteen months to find a defence witness who, by the way, is so obviously prejudiced in favour of Sai Baba that his testimony would have been ripped to shreds in court in all likelihood. :-)

And then let's not talk about Moreno's constant flip-flopping on the issue of Brelsford's "expertise" in legal matters. He just cannot make up his own mind on that. :-)

And then let's not talk about why Moreno appears to insist that every Sai devotee or serving officer in the Sai "Organisatio" should be privy to the details of the organisation's incorporation details. :-)

And then let's not discuss Moreno's points that betray his insufficient knowledge of psychology, and how psychology is not just restricted to descriptions about just "trauma". :-)

And then let's not discuss Moreno's knowingly disseminating DISINFORMATION by insinuating that the Rahm case was self-dismissed because of Kreydick's deposition. Not to mention his other disinformation about the court case is deemed as a "failure". :-)

Oh dear, I exposed so many of Moreno's avoidances and inconsistencies that it's getting too much just to recap them. Just read it all again: /m187. :-)

We can expect more of the same, and an increase in the ad-hominem attacks. :-) It just goes to show what depths devotees are dragged down to when they're losing the argument. :-)

P.S. And for the record, I have never downloaded child porn or viewed it any way, nor do I have any connections with child pornography. This malicious accusation has never been proven, but is always brought up (along with other malicious and distorted accusations) whenever devotees lose the argument. :-) Too bad that discussions with Sai Baba devotees almost always ends up with mudslinging on their part. They should perhaps go back to school and learn how to take part in a conversation/discussion/debate.

Sai Baba's Naughty Children.

Another garrulous reply from motormouth Sanjay. I have already responded to Anti-Sai Activist's response On This Separate Thread.

Since Sanjay claims to be so intimately familiar with Alaya's failed lawsuit, then he should have no problem getting scans to the court records that refute the points I made. Sanjay is arguing his case via prattle :-)

Unlike Sanjay (aka "Sai Baba EXPOSED"), I have given a full response to his posts against me: View My Full Response To Sanjay Kishore Dadlani's Defmatory Blog Posts Against Me.

It does not matter how long it took the defense to find a witness on their behalf. The fact remains that the defense did find a witness. During this same time-frame, the Plaintiff's side were unable to find (out of alleged "hundreds" of USA victims) even one single witness on Alaya Rahm's behalf. Not even one single deposition or affidavit was accepted on Alaya Rahm's behalf. Zero. Zilch. Now if Sanjay would like for others to take him seriously, he should provide us with scans to the public court record that refute these claims. He has not provided any scans to any court record, documents or letters to support his views against my comments.

Sanjay has yet to provide any court records or documents that support the LIES that Alaya's case was "was heard by Judge John M. Watson of the Superior Court, County of Orange, California, on April 28th, 2006", that Conway, Payne or Roche were identified by the court as witnesses or were not allowed to submit depositions, that William Brelsford was "working against a statute of limitations deadline" when Alaya dismissed his case, etc., etc.

Alaya's objective was to sue the Society for money damages. He self-dismissed his lawsuit before it went to trail. Now Sanjay might not see this as a "failure", but I do. Alaya failed in his objective. The Society was fully prepared to go to court. The Society never wavered or budged once inch. The society never caved in. Alaya did. Period. End of argument.

Furthermore, I do not need to endlessly engage myself with a fully exposed pervert who happens to be a pathological lair.

Exposing "SaiBabaExposed", Sanjay Kishore Dadlani

Namaste,

Yes I was present when Danny gave sb his Australian Passport in an
envelope, TWICE , over a period of time. sb was known to help people
extend their visas if they went to a devotee policeman in Anantapur.
sb just gave it him back twice!!!Although in an Aussie interview he
gave him one of those alloy rings of Saraswati, indicating he was a
devotee of the Goddess.

So in the end sb let him go to jail and be deported from India for
loving him too much. Daniel Valentine Grier was betrayed by sb his
guru.

Do you know why John left the hospital and ashram? I'll give you
another chance to show us you knew him. Also John and his assistant
had a hands energising session, at different times!!!!

Plus I will post a url to my article on the orange lodge so the
world can see what liars and distorters lisa simon and joe
are...Tony. Would you guys like to see a photo of me with sb to
prove my visits to the ashram?

Hi,
          May I point your attention to Obadiah Shoher's book, Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict?
Yahoo and Google banned the book's website from their ad programs for "unacceptable content," and Amazon deleted all reviews. The book, however, is only honest, and the measures suggested are only rational.
Shoher is a pen name for veteran politician. He dealt with antiterrorism issues for most of his career. The Samson Blinded dissects honestly the problems accumulated since the Jews returned to Palestine. Advocating political rationalism, it deplores both Jewish and Muslim myths, and argues for efficiency and separating politics from moralism.
Please download a copy from www.terrorismisrael.com
           Being banned from Google, we depend on links to bring Shoher's message. May I ask you to link to us from your site?
 
Thank you,

Sheila

who is the administrator?

how is that peple like joe 108 do not reply to people like me.Is it convenience. Well now they will immediately tell me to reveal my identity.
That is the easiest way. How about the ex.baba .com videos showing baba cheating his "materialisations" If you want me to reveal my identity please you show me by doing it yourself.Afterall you are a Devotee and BaBa will save you.
Do you have the guts

You must be asleep or drunk usedbybaba. I replied to your post a long time ago and you ran away. Additionally, if you were paying attention you would have known that Joe has posted the link to his website numerous times and his name is ALL over his website. You are obviously not the brightest crayon in the box. I think it's funny that you are hiding behind an anonymous name whining about other people hiding! Sorry abusbybaba, like I said before, it's obvious you are a liar and a game player. You have not stated even ONE specific that can be corroborated. When asked by gr8sink you ran away like a coward too. Criminal allegations are to be addressed in court. We can't help it if you anti-Sais are so cowardly that you think the internet is going to get you anywhere with your continuous lies.

u cannot abuse me and try to make me angry and divert the attention. What answer? even now u just abused me and not answered me.
  "asleep or drunk usedbybaba " "not the brightest crayon in the box" I am not a cryon but baba is ,After all he is red.
  none of u told me why babas date of birth is wrong in his school register at uravakonda.
  I also asked you about the ex.baba videos showing him cheating his materilisations and u have no answer. of course u will just send me an abuse mail and get away with it. I know u do not want to know the truth.
  now tell me who is hiding from the truth.
  when i went away i did mention it and i came back.
  By the way why is joe not answering. now u can hide and he will answer. he now would not come to the point .
   
   
  
QT - Lisa De Witt <qtopic+29-FE68KidtskS@quicktopic.com> wrote:


     
---------------------------------
 Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW < replied-to message removed by QT >