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.
