Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit Against The Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America

ALAYA RAHM’S FAILED LAWSUIT:
A Shattered Illusion And Major Blow To The Anti-Sai Movement

Alaya Rahm’s sexual abuse allegations (against Sathya Sai Baba) gained world-wide exposure when his accounts were internationally broadcast on the Seduced By Sai Baba and Secret Swami documentaries. In addition to these two documentaries, Alaya’s allegations were nationally published in Britain (by The Telegraph newspaper) and in India (by the India Today magazine). Furthermore, Anti-Sai Activists have translated Alaya’s allegations into various languages and disperse them on the internet through many Anti-Sai sites, forums, blogs and online groups. If anyone was perceived to have a “solid case” against Sathya Sai Baba, for alleged sexual impropriety, it was Alaya Rahm. With many claims of witnesses and corroborated accounts, the packaged version of Alaya’s allegations (as presented by Anti-Sai Activists) seemed credible. The perception that Alaya has/had a “solid case” against Sathya Sai Baba is now an illusion.

When asked why no alleged victim ever attempted to file a court case (first-hand, against Sathya Sai Baba) in a court of law in India, Anti-Sai Activists repeatedly claimed that the Indian Judicial System is “legally corrupt” and that the justices are either devotees of Sathya Sai Baba or are being manipulated by high-ranking Indian Politicians. Alaya’s lawsuit was not filed in India. It was filed in the Superior Court Of California, in the USA. Consequently, the argument of “legally corrupt” courts with justices being devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, or being manipulated by high-ranking Indian Politicians, cannot be used as an excuse with this case. Since the case was self-dismissed by Alaya himself, no verdict was issued and therefore no criticism or suspicion can be used against the judge who would have presided over the case (the case was dismissed before it went to trial).

Facts About The Lawsuit: Alaya Rahm vs. Sathya Sai Baba Society, filed in the Superior Court of California on January 6th 2005, County Of Orange – USA, Case No. 05cc01931. California’s statute of limitations allows an individual to file a lawsuit, for alleged sexual molestation, up to their 26th birthday if they claim the events occurred before the age of 18. Alaya Rahm filed his case 2 days before the statute of limitations would have expired. Alaya’s birthday is January 8th 1979. The court set this case for trial on April 28, 2006. Rather than taking the case to trial, Alaya (the plaintiff) self-dismissed his own lawsuit on April 17th 2006. Alaya attempted to sue for money damages. No offers of settlement were made in this case and no money or other consideration was paid for a dismissal of the lawsuit. 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 (Reference). Alaya never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for alleged trauma and could not itemize any wage losses. Other alleged victims could have come forward and testified on Alaya Rahm’s behalf, however not even one single victim came forward (in answers to discovery) to support, defend or help Alaya (despite rampant and unsubstantiated claims, by Anti-Sai Activists, to there being “over a hundred” alleged victims in the USA). Alaya did not give a reason for self-dismissing his court case. It cannot be overemphasized that no deposition was filed and no witnesses came forward or were identified to the court on behalf of the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm).

Although Alaya’s accusations received some publicity before he filed his lawsuit, his claims were not thoroughly investigated until after the lawsuit was filed. The legal proceeding provided a forum in which Alaya’s claims could be thoroughly and critically examined. Through this process of investigation, it was discovered that Alaya Rahm and his family spoke at a number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999 (during the time that the alleged sexual abuse events were said to have occurred). Inconsistent with Alaya’s later accusations, these conference talks (many of which were recorded and have been transcribed: Refs: 01 – 02), contain no suggestion of any wrongdoing. The earlier words spoken by Alaya would appear to refute his later accusations, especially Alaya’s whole-hearted and enthusiastic praise of Sathya Sai Baba and the writing of a love poem to him after allegedly being sexually abused dozens of times.

During the handling of the lawsuit, witnesses were identified and interviewed who were present at the ashram in India when the events were alleged to have occurred, which formed the basis to Alaya’s lawsuit. One of these witnesses was Mr. Lewis Kreydick. Mr. Kreydick purchased Alaya’s ticket and accompanied him to India in 1995, accompanied Alaya to India in 1997 and was present in some of the alleged interviews in which Alaya later claimed to have been sexually abused. The deposition from Mr. Kreydick was taken as discovery in this lawsuit.

Mr. Kreydick testified in a video deposition that:

1. He had a personal, close and confidential relationship with Alaya from 1995 to 1997.
2. Alaya confided private and personal information with him that Alaya apparently had not divulged to his parents (such as his numerous sexual activities with girls during his teen years).
3. He spoke with Alaya on a daily basis when he was at the ashram in 1995 and 1997.
4. Discussed the details of each interview Alaya received during that period.
5. Even though Alaya openly shared confidential details about his sexual past with Kreydick, Alaya never related or suggested, during this period of time, that any misconduct, wrongdoing or sexual actions had transpired between him and Sathya Sai Baba. Kreydick testified that Alaya related only positive, enthusiastic and miraculous experiences with Sathya Sai Baba.

The video deposition from Mr. Kreydick was taken on March 16th 2006 and the typed deposition was signed on April 7th 2006. The very same day that the Defendant (Sathya Sai Baba Society) filed Kreydick’s deposition as part of the official record, Alaya Rahm self-dismissed his case. The very same day.

In “Response To Form Interrogatories” (Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One) Alaya Rahm fully admitted that he had been a daily user of illegal street drugs and alcohol since at least 1999 – 2005. Consequently, during Alaya Rahm’s “Divine Downfall” and India Today Anti-Sai interviews and during the filming of the BBC Documentary “Secret Swami” and the “Seduced By Sai Baba” Danish Documentary, Alaya Rahm was under the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol while relating his alleged sexual encounters with Sathya Sai Baba. This crucial information wholly undermines Alaya Rahm’s credibility and irreparably compromises the integrity of his claims. Needless to say, this information has been purposely suppressed from the general public by Anti-Sai Activists, the Rahm Family and the media (Ref).

ACTUAL SCANS TO COURT RECORDS:

• Court Records – Dismissal By Plaintiff Alaya Rahm
• Court Records – Proof Of Service
• Court Records – Lewis Kreydick Deposition In Limine
• Court Records – Full Transcript Of Lewis Kreydick’s Deposition

UPDATE: About The Sathya Sai Baba Society Of America:

Some have erroneously claimed that the Sathya Sai Baba Society does not exist. These erroneous claims are patently false. The Sathya Sai Baba Society has functioned continuously as a charitable organization since 1970, having been incorporated in California by Elsie and Walter Cowan and John Hislop. It is the oldest continuously functioning fully chartered Sai related organization outside of India. A review of the publically accessible web site of the California Secretary of State, Department of Corporations (Refs: 01 – 02) discloses its relevant particulars. The Society was served as a defendant and answered the complaint.

UPDATE: Regarding Kreydick’s Deposition:

Anti-Sai Activists (particularly Robert Priddy) have erroneously claimed that Kreydick’s deposition is not part of the offiical court record and cannot be obtained by the general public. These statements are patently false.

On the Superior Court Of California Website >>> Click on Case Info >>> Click On “Accept Terms” >>> Click On “Case” >>> Enter the Case Number “05cc01931″ >>> All of the pertinent information about Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed court case are provided. All items under “Register Of Actions” can be obtained by the general public (for a fee) because they are now public record. This can be confirmed through the records department: (714) 834-2200 >>> Press 1 for English >>> Press 6 >>> Press 0 >>> Request the records department >>> Inquire about records listed on County Court Of Orange website (however, they cannot give specifics over the phone).

On 3/16/2006, under “Stipulation – Other”, Kreydick’s deposition was obtained: Reference. On 4/17/2006, a “Proof Of Service” was filed: Reference. On 4/17/2006, 4 motions were filed in limine by the Society (showing under “Motion/Hearing-Other”). Kreydick’s deposition is attached as an exhibit to motion in limine number 4 (with court file stamp showing) and is a part of the official court record: Reference. Therefore, Kreydick’s deposition was filed as part of the official court record. One need only request the four motions made on 4/17/2006 to verify this fact. Furthermore, the scans show the stamp on the top of the page that clearly states: “FILED Superior Court Of California County Of Orange Central Justice Center, APR 17 2006″.

Click thumbnail to enlarge:

County Of Orange - Full Online Court Records

Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART FIVE

Failed Legal Maneuvers Against Sathya Sai Baba: PART FIVE

Basava Premanand, the Gold-Control-Act & His Failed Writ Petition:
India’s Gold Control Act of 1962 prohibited citizens of India from holding pure gold bars and coins. The old holdings in pure gold had to be compulsorily converted into jewellery that had to be declared. Only licensed dealers were allowed to deal in pure gold bars and coins. The Gold Control Act was abolished in 1990.

Basava Premanand (an Indian rationalist and critic of Sathya Sai Baba from 1968) attempted to file a writ petition against the Guru for materializing gold jewelry and other gold items, claiming that Sai Baba was violating the Gold Control Act for “manufacturing” gold. Of course, this claim is utterly absurd and Premanand’s writ petition was promptly dismissed. In order for Premanand to have had a valid case, he would have needed to:

• Prove that Sathya Sai Baba truly “materialized” gold objects. Since Premanand contends that Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and palms his alleged “materializations”, he would have had to change his rationalistic beliefs and accept that the Guru actually “materialized” gold items.
• Provide eyewitnesses and/or documentation showing Sathya Sai Baba “materializing” gold items.
• Provide expert testimony that the “materialized” gold items were indeed made of gold.
• Explain how gold “materializations” are associated with the mining of gold in India.
• Explain how gold jewelry violated the Gold Control Act when it specifically prevented citizens in India from possessing gold bars and gold coins (not gold jewelry).

Basava Premanand listed 89 objects he alleged were made of gold (that he cited from Sai-related books) that were materialized by Sathya Sai Baba from 1968 – 1978. Of course, Premanand did not have access to any of those 89 objects and thereby could not prove they were made of gold. Hence the complete futility of his arguments.

It is important to point out that all of the information pertaining to Basava Premanand’s failed writ petition must be obtained solely through him (B. Premanand, Satya Sai Baba and the Gold Control Act. Published by INDIAN CSICOP, Podanur 1986). No scans or copies to the writ petition or transcipts have been made public. Therefore, one must rely on an obviously biased publication from Premanand and believe his selective and self-serving quotes that he alleged were said by Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu.

It is true that Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu is a well known member of the Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Prasanthi Nilayam. It is also true that Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu specialized in affairs dealing with the Gold Control Act (Ref). It is very suspicious that Basava Premanand filed his writ petition with a judge he knew was a Sai Devotee. It certainly appears that Premanand filed his absurd and ridiculous writ petition dealing with the Gold Control Act in order to trap Judge Y.V. Anjaneyulu and then boast that all the Judges in India are somehow Sai Devotees and biased.

Even Justice R Ramakrishnam Raju said about Premanand (in yet another one of his failed petitions):

“Further, the allegation that if the investigation is not handed over to the C.B.I., the State Police against whom allegations are made, would not arrest the accused Police Officers is not correct. Even the Police Officers against whom allegations are made, have also been arrested. The petitioner has not come with clean, hands. The petitioner; earlier filed a writ petition unsuccessfully alleging that the Head of the Ashram had violated the provisions of the Gold Control Act. It is finally contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to direct investigation by C.B.I.”

For the record, Justice R.R. Raju is not a known Sai Devotee or known associate of the Sathya Sai Organization.

Therefore, we have yet another example of a failed writ petition that was not an actual court case. Sathya Sai Baba did not have lawyers present to defend him and the writ petition was dismissed (and rightly so). Again, it is also very disturbing that Barry Pittard misrepresented the facts about this writ petition and attempted to argue that it was an actual court case. It most certainly was not.

Reference

Also see:

- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part One
- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Two
- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Three
- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Four
- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Five (You Are Here)
- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Six
- Failed Legal Maneuvers: Part Seven