Barry Pittard Accuses Lawyer William Brelsford Of Incompetence

On February 28th 2007, Barry Pittard wrote a blogged article entitled “Sai Baba’s ‘Minister of Propaganda’ – Dr G. Venkataraman”. In this article, Barry Pittard said (in part):

barrypittard.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/sai-babas-minister-of-propaganda-dr-g-venkataraman/
“However, a civil lawsuit against the directors of the Sathya Sai Society of America law went badly wrong for the litigant, Alaya Rahm of southern California, who was advised by his attorney, William Brelsford, to self-dismiss his case. This resulted in terms so absurdly unfavourable to Rahm that some of us have wondered whether his pro bono lawyer William Brelsford can even look himself in the mirror of a morning. Had the family not suffered enough – having already courageously lent themselves to former devotee efforts with Denmark’s national broadcaster DR, BBC television, FBI and State Department, UNESCO, etc., – I, for one, favoured initiating a complaint process about William Brelsford to the California Bar Society.”

Barry Pittard Accuses Lawyer William Brelsford Of Incompetence

To begin with, Alaya Rahm is not from Southern California and does not reside there. He resides in Arkansas (as confirmed in court records). Anti-Sai Activists have been desperately scrambling to regain lost face from the shocking public exposure of Alaya Rahm’s failed and self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society of America. Attorney Brelsford knew that he could not win the case due to overwhelming evidence against his client (Alaya Rahm) and advised him to self-dismiss his case.

Claiming to be intimately familiar with Alaya Rahm’s failed lawsuit, Ex-Devotees embarrassed themselves when they publicly lied and erroneously claimed that Alaya Rahm’s case was heard by Judge John M. Watson on April 28th 2006 (despite the official court records scans on my website proving otherwise) and they left this error in place for over a year. This glaring mistake was finally corrected and it was casually dismissed as a ‘clerical error’.

In Ex-Devotee’s response to Alaya Rahm’s failed lawsuit, the main thrust of their retort heavily relied on self-serving quotes allegedly taken from a letter written by attorney William Brelsford on their behalf (in which he was cited as a credible authority and voice of legal expertise).

Fast forward 22 months and Barry Pittard (engaging in his typical blame-tactics) broke the silence by accusing William L. Brelsford of incompetence and being ‘seriously deficient’. Barry Pittard further stated that he ‘favoured initiating a complaint process about William Brelsford to the California Bar Society’. Consequently (according to Barry Pittard), all of William Brelsford’s alleged citations (used to defend Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuits) are now effectively negated as coming from an incompetent lawyer although Brelsford is still cited as a credible voice on their behalf (his ‘seriously deficient’ comments have not been removed from Anti-Sai webpages).

Ex-Devotees have a nasty habit of blaming everyone else for their numerous failures and can often be seen misrepresenting facts, distorting information and even resorting to outright prevarication to make their shabby and half-baked arguments against Sathya Sai Baba (who has never been charged with any crime, sexual or otherwise). Now Ex-Devotees are defaming William Brelsford and are accusing him of incompetence for Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuit although:

  1. Alaya Rahm’s court case was self-dismissed because he sued the wrong defendant in the wrong court in the wrong country.
  2. In “Response To Form Interrogatories” 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 and the media.
  3. Alaya Rahm claimed that Lewis Kreydick & Family were all aware of “incidents” relating to his alleged molestation and named them (on record) as people who:
    1. Witnessed the INCIDENT or the event occurring immediately before or after the INCIDENT.
    2. Made statements at the scene of the INCIDENT.
    3. Heard statements made about the INCIDENT by any individual at the scene.
    4. Had knowledge of the INCIDENT.

    Needless to say, Kreydick’s sworn and video-taped deposition wholly refuted all these points made by Alaya Rahm. The Society did not actively go out and attempt to discredit Alaya Rahm. Rather, they simply interviewed a witness named by Alaya Rahm himself and obtained a shocking and damaging deposition against him.

  4. The legal proceeding provided a forum in which Alaya Rahm’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 Rahm’s later accusations, these conference talks (many of which were recorded and have been transcribed: Refs: 0102), 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.
  5. Notably, in pretrial discovery, Alaya Rahm claimed (by his own admission) 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! As a matter of fact, Alaya Rahm never saw an “expert psychologist” and his parents never sent him to one. Rather, the only help that Alaya obtained was a 3 day seminar from the Landmark Forum on “Empowerment, self help and personal growth” that cost $795 in June 2005 (5-9 years after his alleged abuse and 5 months after he filed his lawsuit)! That’s it.

Barry Pittard conveniently ignored all of these crucial and pivotal facts about Alaya Rahm and instead blamed attorney William Brelsford although no one (not even one critic or other ex-devotee) was identified to the court to support, help or defend Alaya Rahm in his allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.

Barry Pittard is the picture of a lost-soul on the street, babbling to walls, trees and clouds, which cannot and do not respond to the rhetoric he repeats like an automaton. As a matter of fact, one can often see how Ex-Devotees thrive on repetition. “Deceive The Naive” is their motto and their parrot-like antics are used as psychological ploys to hypnotize, befuddle and mislead.

Barry Pittard and Robert Priddy’s gutless personal attacks and viperine scribblings (which they attempt to peddle as Holy Writ) are evidence of their renewed desperation and blog delirium. The stronger critics attack Sathya Sai Baba, the more they expose the truth about themselves. They are (as other’s have pointed out for a long time) a small and vocal group of angry, bitter and mentally unstable defamers who care more for sensationalism and sleaze and care less for honesty and the truth.

Reference

%d bloggers like this: