Sathya Sai Baba, Alaya Rahm & The Failed Lawsuit – A New Perspective

Sathya Sai Baba, Alaya Rahm & The Failed Lawsuit – A New Perspective
Anti-Sai Activists released an article that discussed Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society in which they resorted to hyperbole, deflection, misrepresentations, lies and erroneous excuses in a brazen attempt to water down the end result of Alaya Rahm’s Lawsuit, i.e., it was self-dismissed before it ever went to trial and not even one other alleged victim (out of supposed “hundreds”) came forward to support or defend Alaya in his sexual abuse allegations.

The blockquotes were taken from the full Anti-Sai article with a response following:

Starting Off With A Lie:
Alaya Rahm’s Lawsuit vs Sathya Sai Society of America – Joint Statement by the International JuST Group and the Rahm family: Date: july 16, 2006: At considerable personal sacrifice to himself and family, Alaya Rahm, 27, filed a civil lawsuit against California leaders of the Sathya Sai Society of America, who include the world chairman of Sathya Sai Baba’s organization, Dr Michael Goldstein. The case was heard by Judge John M. Watson of the Superior Court, County of Orange, California, on April 28th, 2006.

Anti-Sai Activists are attempting to portray themselves as being knowledgeable about Alaya’s court case and foolishly stated (in their ever-so-typical inaccurate ways), “The case was heard by Judge John M. Watson of the Superior Court, County of Orange, California, on April 28th, 2006.” This happens to be bold-faced lie. The lawsuit was dismissed on April 17th 2006 and finalized on April 20th 2006 (View The Actual Records Of Dismissal). So how was the court case “heard” by the judge on April 28th 2006 when the case was self-dismissed 11 days prior on April 17th 2006? The case was set to be heard on April 28th 2006, but never made it to trial.

Alaya Rahm’s lawsuit was originally and collectively filed against Goldstein, Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai Baba Society. The action against all parties, besides the Sathya Sai Baba Society, was self-dismissed by the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm) in mid-2005. The action against the Sathya Sai Baba Society was pursued alone until April 2006, at which time it was self-dismissed by the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm). Therefore, there were actually two self-dismissals, not one.

Alaya had been making his contradictory and very public allegations against Sathya Sai Baba since October 2000 (Reference). Alaya Rahm told Mick Brown that when he first left Sathya Sai Baba, he felt (and still did at that time) that he had a “sense” that Sathya Sai Baba was, “standing over my shoulder saying ‘Good Boy, you’re doing a good job’” (Ref 01)! Since Anti-Sai Activists (including the Rahm Family) contend that Sathya Sai Baba is a nothing more than a fraud, this would imply that Alaya Rahm justified the public exposure of his allegations based on voices he heard in his head. Of course, this very disturbing fact pales in comparison to Alexandra Nagel’s claim that Alaya Rahm personally told her (first-hand) that Sathya Sai Baba literally transformed his male genitals into female ones on two separate occasions (Ref 02). As if this is not disturbing enough, Alaya Rahm wrote a love poem to Sathya Sai Baba after allegedly being sexually abused dozens of times (Ref 03).

In “Response To Form Interrogatories” in Alaya Rahm’s self-dismissed lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society (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).

Critics Shamelessly Distort The Truth And Twist The Facts:

Substantive evidence was about to be called in court to support Alaya Rahm’s case, for which the Judge had allotted five weeks. However, his attorney, William Brelsford Esq., seeing formidable legal obstacles set by the defendants, and also working against a statute of limitations deadline, advised Alaya Rahm to self-dismiss the case. Along with other difficulties encountered, his attorney has explained, June 29th, 2006, to Alaya Rahm and his family: “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.”

Note: The alleged letter(s) from attorney William L. Brelsford contains only selected and entirely self-serving quotes. If any value is to be given to Brelsford’s opinions, the entire letter(s) should be scanned and included from letterhead to signature so that all of his opinions can be subjected to scrutiny and analysis, not just those portions that allegedly support the self-serving arguments being made by Anti-Sai Activists. February 28th 2007 Update: Barry Pittard (one of the main spokespersons for the Anti-Sai Movement) accused William Brelsford of being incompetent, “seriously deficient” and favored making a complaint against him to the California Bar Society (Reference). Therefore, the importance attributed to Brelsford’s citations are thereby invalidated by Ex-Devotees.

Anti-Sai Activists claimed that Brelsford faced a statute of limitation deadline when Alaya’s lawsuit was dismissed. This claim is 100% false. Alaya’s lawsuit was filed within the applicable statute of limitations and actively pursued for sixteen months thereafter, until April 17th 2006. Alaya could have brought his case to trial had he chosen to do so. As one can see, Anti-Sai Activists (attempting to gain lost-face from Alaya’s failed lawsuit) are shamelessly distorting the truth with very poorly researched responses.

The claim that “substantive evidence was about to be called into court” is untrue, misleading and wholly unsupported by any deposition or court record (which will be discussed more in depth later on).

The question also arises that if the Rahms were truly intent on getting justice why didn’t they even try to file a court case in India? Surely (despite the claims of Indian justices being devotees of Sathya Sai Baba) the case would have generated immense publicity with India’s sensationalistic media and rationalist exposures, etc. Instead, the Rahm’s (who were intimately familiar with the Sai Organization, thereby being intimately familiar with the function of the Society) decided to file a legal case in the USA against the Society, trying to hold the Society liable for encouraging Alaya to visit Sathya Sai Baba (an utterly ludicrous claim which wholly dismisses the fact that Alaya wanted to visit Sathya Sai Baba and was encouraged to do so by his parents).

It is also important to point out that the Sathya Sai Baba Society (among its functions) operates the Tustin book center. Al Rahm is intimately familiar with the Sai Organization and the Sathya Sai Baba Society (as he was one of five regional officers in ‘Region 10’ of the Sai Organization in the USA). If the Society was truly a “bookstore”, Al Rahm would have known this. Why Alaya would chose to sue the Society if it was only a “bookstore” is unknown. Nevertheless, the Rahms pursued certain defendants and the Society in the state of California (in large part, no doubt, due to California’s long statute of limitations for such claims). Had Alaya chosen, he could have named other Sai-Related Organizations and defendants up to the day he dismissed his lawsuit. He chose to self-dismiss his case.

This leaves the Rahms with egg on their faces. Why would Brelsford file a legal suit against a “bookstore” to begin with, only to encourage the plaintiff (16 months later) to dismiss his case because the Society was a “bookstore”? If the case was dismissed within a few weeks, based on the premise that they could not hold the “bookstore” liable for Alaya’s allegations, that would be understandable. Nevertheless, we are talking about a court case that was active for sixteen months, not a couple of weeks.

“Irrefutably” Requires Evidence:

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. This is a very different situation to that being depicted in the systematic disinformation being spread throughout the Sai movement; for example, by those connected with its official international broadcast wing Radio Sai.

No court found Alaya’s allegations to be true. Far from it. As a matter of fact, one can argue that Alaya voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit because he was fearful that a ruling against him would severely compromise his integrity and allegations against Sathya Sai Baba. Alaya’s lawsuit was not dismissed on a “technicality”. Rather, it was based on a joint decision between Alaya and his attorney that if they took their case to trial they would lose. That is a strategy, not a “technicality”.

The purpose and process of a court of law is to separate fact from fiction. Alaya did not take his case to trial when he had every opportunity to do so. This conveniently prevented a critical analysis of his allegations, which would have separated fact from fiction. Anti-Sai Activists have a clear antagonism and bias. Anything hostile to Sathya Sai Baba they instantly embrace as “irrefutable truth” no matter how absurd the claims may be. Anti-Sai Activists now claim that Alaya’s accusations are “irrefutably true” although all he has to show for them is a failed lawsuit. Furthermore, Alaya agreed to self-dismiss his failed lawsuit “with prejudice” and he is thereby prohibited by law from ever suing the defendants again, for the same claims made in his former lawsuit. Again, this decision was made voluntarily by Alaya Rahm himself.

The Sathya Sai Baba Society did not “take legal cover behind its bookstore”. Why blame the Society when the Rahms (who were fully intimate with the particulars of the Sai Organization in the USA) were the ones who filed the lawsuit against the “bookstore” in the first place? Why didn’t the Rahms even try to attempt to file a lawsuit in India? Anti-Sai Activists are desperate to cover up the fact that the Rahm’s entire approach to the lawsuit was highly questionable and reflects badly on them, not the Sathya Sai Baba Society.

Diana Payne Scott, Mark Roche & The Alleged Hislop Letters:

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. These incidents occurred when Dr Hislop was the head of the Sai Organization in the USA. The Rahm family has stated: “In the Hislop letters, the director Michael Goldstein was one of those called to consider the Payne sexual abuse matter. When our family met with Michael Goldstein in North-west Arkansas in September 1999 to confide in him the story of Alaya’s abuse by Sai Baba, Michael Goldstein told us that he had never heard anything like this before. That was over twenty years after the Hislop letters, which we now know prove he was lying.”

Diana Scott 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. Secondly, Diana Payne’s testimony would be irrelevant and inadmissible as hearsay and speculation.

It was claimed that “important depositions were not able to be heard in court”. This is another bold-faced untruth. As stated earlier, no depositions were taken from any alleged witnesses on the plaintiff’s (Alaya Rahm’s) behalf. A deposition was, however, taken from Lewis Kreydick on behalf of the defense (View Kreydick’s Full Scanned Deposition). 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.

Regarding the alleged “Hislop Letters”, it is highly suspicious that although the alleged letters were written 25 years ago (in 1981), they only surfaced in 2001 (6 years after Hislop died) with no public mention to them before that time (Read The Full Analysis Of The Alleged Hislop Letters).

Once again, the action against Goldstein was voluntarily dismissed by Alaya Rahm in mid-2005. Consequently, all these absurd claims (from the Rahm family) that they could “prove” that Goldstein was “lying” are false. The Rahms had their opportunity (no less than in a court of law) to prove that Goldstein “lied” and they failed.

Critics Resort To Deflections, Speculations And Hyperbole:

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. These go well beyond sexual abuse of young males and include complicity in gigantic and wrongful deployment of funds garnered worldwide, and a cover-up of several killings in Sai Baba’s bedroom in June 6, 1993. The leaders will not even answer letters from complainants who have held high office in the Sai Organization, which have often been returned unopened. Such unaccountability and authoritarian secrecy is the Sai Organization leadership’s rigidly enforced rule. 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. Moreover, his parents have stated: “Sai Baba also threatened Alaya repeatedly that if he ever told anyone what Swami was doing, Sai Baba would use his powers to cause an accident to Alaya and would also never talk to his parents again. Naturally, if Alaya couldn’t tell his parents, why would he 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.”

If there is truly “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”, why didn’t the Rahms know this (considering their familiarity with the Sai Organization in the USA)? Why didn’t attorney Brelsford know this? Why would an experienced and well known sexual-abuse trial lawyer accept a lawsuit if there was “no legal entity in the United States against which a lawsuit” could be filed? Why did Alaya file his lawsuit then? Why did attorney Brelsford accept and pursue the lawsuit for sixteen months? These are crucial questions that Anti-Sai Activists cannot answer.

Since a lawsuit was filed and accepted by attorney Brelsford, it would appear that Alaya did not dismiss his case because he sued the wrong defendant. One could rightly argue that Alaya Rahm chose the strategy of a dismissal rather than face the likelihood of defeat from a weak and inconsistent case before the court. It may also be possible that attorney Brelsford lost confidence in Alaya’s case after careful consideration of the Rahm’s often exaggerated and contradictory claims (View The Rahm’s Contradictory Claims).

In addition, Alaya Rahm’s claims in formal discovery revealed he had no claim for medical or psychiatric trauma that could be proven. Alaya never saw a doctor or therapist for any mental or emotional trauma. In response to interrogatory questions, Alaya conceded that he lacked the motivation to finish college, had not been able to hold down a steady job or regularly earn a livelihood. Alaya admitted to being a decade-long daily user of illegal street drugs. Alaya’s lifestyle did not make him a credible witness or claimant.

Discovery also revealed the precise circumstances under which Alaya first disclosed his allegations to his parents. Alaya’s parents were displeased with his lifestyle, the company he was keeping and his failure to behave in a proper manner. Alaya was living off campus and (although an adult) was supported by his parents. Alaya’s parents decided on a surprise visit to attempt to straighten him out. They decided they would cut Alaya off financially if he did not begin to conform his life to their principles. In 1999 they confronted him and told him their ultimatum of being cut off financially. Only then did he claim to have deviated from a spiritual life because he was a victim of molestation. The Rahms, at first, did not believe Alaya’s claims and questioned his motives. They contacted Goldstein who rather than ignoring their claims flew to Arkansas, met with the family, and apparently did not believe the claims either.

Lewis Kreydick also testified in a sworn deposition that Alaya told him that he was sexually active in his mid-teens. Alaya’s parents were not aware of his promiscuous sexual activities and drug use. Alaya also expressed more of an interest in basketball than in the spiritual life that his parents were intent he follow. Alaya clearly had much to hide from his parents and clearly did not want to be limited in his open lifestyle, by either his parents or Sathya Sai Baba.

Anti-Sai Activists suggest that Kreydick’s testimony is not trustworthy because he is allegedly “prejudiced in favor of Sai Baba”. Of course, using this very same logic (illogic), Alaya’s testimonies are not trustworthy either because he is obviously “prejudiced” against Sai Baba. The fact remains that Kreydick’s testimony under oath appears both balanced and truthful. Kreydick had no motive to lie. If Kreydick was expelled from Sathya Sai Baba’s ashram (as the Rahm’s contend), this would suggest that Kreydick would be even less inclined to defend Sathya Sai Baba. Nevertheless, Kreydick’s testimony, which clearly refutes all of Alaya’s allegations, is dismissed by Anti-Sai Activists simply because Kreydick was a Sai devotee and for no other reason.

Furthermore, regarding Kreydick’s sworn and video-taped deposition, Anti-Sai Activists have attempted to cast slurs on Kreydick’s integrity and have accused him of being “prejudiced” in favor of Sathya Sai Baba. Ironically enough, in “Response To Form Interrogatories”, it was none other than Alaya Rahm himself who cited Kreydick & Family as witnesses on his behalf!

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.

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.

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 years after his alleged abuse and 5 months after he filed his lawsuit)! That’s it.

It is noteworthy that we never hear from Alaya Rahm in these matters but rather from his parents, particularly Al Rahm. Alaya is now and at all times relevant has been an adult and presumably capable of expressing his own opinions and advancing his own claims. This is important to point out because one cannot truly know if Alaya’s parents are actually or accurately expressing his position. Since neither Alaya’s father or mother claimed to have personally witnessed an incident of molestation, their assertions and comments on the subject are entirely hearsay. Al Rahm also has a disturbing history of changing and exaggerating claims and comments made in association with Alaya (Ref 04). Even more disturbing is when Al Rahm personally lied to me (Reference), claiming that Basava Premanand filed a recent lawsuit against the Sai Organization (a claim that Premanand was unwilling to concede to and was apparently unaware of).

Anti-Sai Activists want to divert attention from all these facts and instead garble about the 1993 police shootings, about which they know nothing. Anti-Sai Activist’s only “evidence” about the 1993 police shootings are their never-ending speculations, assumptions and conjectures based on what ifs and mental whimsy. That’s it. They claim to know what “really” happened although the Indian C.B.C.I.D could not determine what truly transpired despite their access to objective evidence that no one else had access to! Anti-Sai Activists (like Robert Priddy) claim that the “real evidence” is being hidden by Sathya Sai Baba’s followers (Ref 05). Despite all these claims, Anti-Sai Activists claim they know what truly transpired on the night of June 6th 1993. These are the shameless equivocators who are seeking to defend Alaya.

Anti-Sai Activists purposely ignore Conny Larsson’s involvement in this matter. Conny fully conceded that he was aware that Sathya Sai Baba was allegedly molesting men going back to 1986 and even claimed that he had a sexual relationship with Sathya Sai Baba from 1979 – 1983. Although Conny was a “psychotherapist”, and allegedly knew about others being sexually abused, he did absolutely nothing about it from 1986 – 1999 (a period of 13 years). If the sexual abuse allegations are true, this would make Conny Larsson an accomplice in crime. His inaction and silence would be directly responsible for the alleged sexual abuse of Alaya Rahm and others. Conny had intimate relations with the Rahms (they were even planning on making a movie together about Sathya Sai Baba) and had plenty of time to warn them about Sathya Sai Baba’s alleged behavior with young men. Conny chose to be silent. Conny’s claims have only grown more and more exaggerated over the years, to the point of absolute absurdity (Ref 06). Despite all these facts, Anti-Sai Activists rather blame leaders in the Sai Organization who have never made any confession even remotely resembling the ones Conny made.

No “Compelling Evidence” On Alaya Rahm’s Behalf:

Compelling evidence could have been brought that Alaya’s case was but one of many cases of sexual abuse against citizens of the USA and other countries where Sai Baba is described as using threats and bribes. A number of sexual abuse professionals whom JuST has consulted have told us that emotional bribery and blackmail are common stratagems in the repertoire of sexual abusers. Such duress would be frightening enough for an adult, but what of mere boys in their teens!? What of those many who have been raised from birth as Sai devotees?

Once again, “compelling evidence” most certainly “could have been brought that Alaya’s case was but one of many cases of sexual abuse against citizens of the USA and other countries”. Nevertheless, the indisputable fact remains that no “compelling evidence” was brought forward in Alaya’s lawsuit. As a matter of fact, not even one alleged victim (from supposed “hundreds” of US citizens) came forward to support or defend Alaya.

One must remember that Barry Pittard (an Anti-Sai Activist) stated “Well over a hundred sworn affidavits alleging sexual molestation of young males has been lodged with FBI” (Ref 07). The excuses that alleged sexual abuse victims were afraid to come forward because they were “raised from birth as Sai devotees” and “duress would be frightening” to them are moot. The unknown and anonymous alleged victims (referred to by Barry Pittard) had supposedly already taken action against Sathya Sai Baba by allegedly filing affidavits with the FBI. These alleged victims were fully prepared to participate in a court case, armed with affidavits, against Sathya Sai Baba. Along comes Alaya’s court case and not even one single affidavit was submitted and not even one alleged victim gave a deposition or was identified to the court as a witness. Not even one. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This highly suggests that Anti-Sai Activist’s numbers about alleged victims are untrue, unsubstantiated and unverifiable. This single fact alone wholly compromises and changes the entire face of the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.

No “Compelling Testimonies” On Alaya Rahm’s Behalf:

Because of the legalistic stumbling blocks, compelling testimony could not be presented. For example, evidence of: dereliction of duty of care by leaders of the Sathya Sai Organization – from other families and individuals who allege sexual abuse by Sathya Sai Baba.

There were no “legalistic stumbling blocks”. To the contrary, “compelling testimony” could have been presented and was presented by Kreydick. If Kreydick could present his “compelling testimony”, so could have others. The fact remains that no one came forward to support or defend Alaya. Anti-Sai Activists can babble about this as much as they like. It won’t change the fact that no depositions were filed (when they could have been) and no witnesses were identified on Alaya’s behalf (when they could have been).

Critic’s One-Way And Selective Attacks:

What is more, hostile ploys in court by the Society’s lawyers and Lewis Kreydick to cast Alaya and Marisa Rahm (his mother) in a false, negative light have, most unjustly, remained undefended because of the sudden termination of the case.

Ironically, Anti-Sai Activists attempted to portray Kreydick in a “negative light” and saw nothing wrong with that. Nevertheless, when the focus is shifted to an opponent of Sathya Sai Baba, Anti-Sai Activists expect and employ different standards.

Kreydick’s testimony, regarding Marisa Rahm’s alleged past confessions about being a “dancer” who took her clothes off, was not seen by him in a “negative light”. Even though, according to Kreydick, Marisa Rahm was contemplating writing a book about Sathya Sai Baba named something like “The Holy Man And The Stripper”, Kreydick specifically said, “But anyway, just for a title. And just showing that, you know, miracles are possible. I took it in a real positive way.” Therefore, Kreydick was simply answering questions posed to him and was not attempting to smear Marisa Rahm with her past history as an alleged stripper. Regarding Kreydick’s testimony about Marisa Rahm possibly using illegal drugs in her past, this was not defamatory in the least because Marisa Rahm stated (in the Secret Swami documentary, which was internationally broadcast) that “SS: 10.09.13: I was living the high life, I was in Hollywood meeting some of the top stars and thought it was all quite exciting but at the same time I was also pretty unaware and pretty drugged most of the time, I was just partying. Life was about beauty, being young, being famous in Hollywood and becoming a star and being noticed.” Therefore, Marisa confessed herself that she was “pretty drugged most of the time” in her younger years (no help needed from Kreydick).

Regarding the comment, “most unjustly, remained undefended because of the sudden termination of the case”, Anti-Sai Activists have no one else to blame but Alaya Rahm because he was the one who brought the case to a “sudden termination” by voluntarily self-dismissing his court case.

Gutter Tactics And The Right To Trust One’s Personal Experiences:

Leading office-bearers who have attempted to expose the truth are always closed out of the Sathya Sai Organization. Therefore, lower echelon and rank-and-file members cannot deliberate on the facts. Sai Baba has lied about former devotees who now expose him, and his leaders know that. He has called them “Judases”, “demons”, and has falsely and without giving a shred of evidence accused them of opposing him for money. When the Rahms took their story to Dr Goldstein, in September 1999, he was, they say, shocked and shaken, telling them, “Faith has got to be restored and words will not be enough.” Promising to speak to Sai Baba, Goldstein asked the Rahms to keep the matter secret in the meantime. On his return, Goldstein said that Sai Baba replied, “Swami is pure” and “If you want to fight with people in the gutter, you also have to go into the gutter. Don’t.” But the Rahms are not gutter people. Nor were they fighting. Goldstein and the leaders of the Sathya Sai Organization have breached the time-honored ethic in investigation of serious allegations that one does not rely, alone, on the word of an accused perpetrator. What indeed might a law case, allowed to run its course, reveal about this Organization?

Dr Goldstein did not rely exclusively on Sathya Sai Baba’s words. He relied on his own personal experiences (spanning a full 30 years) in close proximity to Sathya Sai Baba, closely viewing him both formally and informally in a variety of settings and interactions with students and devotees. Dr Goldstein has the unique position of being the Coordinator for the Sathya Sai Organisation in the USA. As such, he has easy and frequent access to Sathya Sai Baba’s person and is always seated in close proximity to him. Therefore, if anyone was in a position to see something questionable in Sathya Sai Baba’s behavior, it would have been Dr Goldstein. He is also a very public figure at Sathya Sai Baba’s ashram and admittedly had never been approached by devotees or students alleging inappropriate behavior from Sathya Sai Baba prior to the time he was confronted by the Rahms.

Although I am not inclined to say the Rahm’s are “gutter people”, they most certainly have engaged in gutter tactics. Instead of filing a basic police report, complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India, the Rahms have waged a very public smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba through TV documentaries, newspapers, magazines and the internet. As discussed earlier, Al Rahm also has a disturbing history of changing and exaggerating claims and comments made in association with Alaya (Ref 04) and even lied to me about Basava Premanand filing a recent lawsuit against the Sai Organization (Reference).

Whining, Sniveling And A Failed Publicity Stunt:

It seems impossible to approach Sai Baba legally from abroad – not to mention the obstacles to bringing him to justice within India itself, where Supreme and High Court judges, government ministers and power brokers from many sections of Indian society are his devotees. Continuous efforts are made by the Sathya Sai Organization to cover up for its founder and to protect its own name. In regard to attempts to pursue Sathya Sai Baba by some means from outside India, William Brelsford (Alaya Rahm’s attorney) has explained: “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.”

Note: The alleged letter(s) from attorney William L. Brelsford contains only selected and entirely self-serving quotes. If any value is to be given to Brelsford’s opinions, the entire letter(s) should be scanned and included from letterhead to signature so that all of his opinions can be subjected to scrutiny and analysis, not just those portions that allegedly support the self-serving arguments being made by Anti-Sai Activists. February 28th 2007 Update: Barry Pittard (one of the main spokespersons for the Anti-Sai Movement) accused William Brelsford of being incompetent, “seriously deficient” and favored making a complaint against him to the California Bar Society (Reference). Therefore, the importance attributed to Brelsford’s citations are thereby invalidated by Ex-Devotees.

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 defendants 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 harassment at worst.

Despite the claims that justices in India are Sathya Sai Baba’s devotees, the Rahms never even attempted to file a basic police complaint or court case in India. They did not even try.

One must also remember that Alaya Rahm claimed that Sathya Sai Baba allegedly molested and attempted to forcibly rape him when Sathya Sai Baba was 70-72 years old and Alaya was 18-20 years old. Sathya Sai Baba is 5’2” tall and weighs a mere 108lbs. Contrast this with (at that time) Alaya Rahm being 6’6” tall and being height/weight proportional and in good health. Anti-Sai Activists often stated that Sathya Sai Baba suffered from frail health, stumbled often when he walked, had thinning hair, broke bones going back to 1988 and allegedly suffered several heart attacks. This is the type of frail person who allegedly has the libido of a teenager and the strength of a giant to subdue a healthy 6’6” tall basketball player in the prime of his youth!

More Irrelevant Deflection Tactics From Ex-Devotees:

Where they can, cults typically head off law cases on the basis of legal technicality. Sai Baba’s organization dares not face public examination. In countries in all the Sai Organization ‘regions’, its prominent leaders were instructed to ensure the Organization was not registered in a way that would render it legally or financially liable. One point which exemplifies this policy is seen in The Sathya Sai Organization Charter Section (E) CENTRES (6) Rules and Regulations: “The Centre/Group will not ordinarily be registered under the local law relating to registration of societies, if such registration is not mandatory.” (p.24). In the late 1980s, overseas Sai Organizations and their Centers were instructed not to own or buy any property in the name of the Organization, but where necessary to let or borrow premises. The only properties and assets were to be in India, in the name of the Sathya Sai Central Trust, whose overall authority rests in Sai Baba himself!

What does all of this have to do with Alaya Rahms failed lawsuit? There are numerous Sai centers/groups (many unofficial) that are started by Sai devotees. Why should these groups be registered as a “society” if the law does not require it? The Sai Organization never “instructed” its leaders to not register their centers/groups. To the contrary, the cited regulation specifically stated: “The Centre/Group will not ordinarily be registered under the local law relating to registration of societies, if such registration is not mandatory.” If the registration is mandatory, then the center/group must register. The rules and regulations simply provides guidance for international centers/groups and their possible legal responsibilities. Apparently, Anti-Sai Activists are deceptively trying to associate regular centers/groups (many unofficial) with the Official Sai Organization. No official documents were cited about the claim “…not to own or buy any property in the name of the Organization, but where necessary to let or borrow premises”. Even so, I fail to understand the relevance of this citation, or any inferred illegality, in reference to Alaya Rahms failed lawsuit.

An Admission To Biased Media Exposures Against Sathya Sai Baba:

The executives, research and legal staffs of major organizations have accepted the credibility of many witnesses from the USA and countries around the world (including those with sworn affidavits) who accuse Sathya Sai Baba of male sexual abuse over many years. These bodies include UNESCO (Paris), the US State Department, the BBC (“The Secret Swami”), AZUL TV (Argentina, “Zona de Investigación”), DR (Danish Broadcasting, “Seduced” – re-titled as “Seduced By Sai Baba” by Australia’s SBS – which, like DR, withstood Sai Organization threats to sue), and ABC Radio (Australia). Print media have likewise have accepted the credibility of former devotees and rejected Sai Organization attempts to kill the stories – e.g., India Today, The Times of London, The Daily Telegraph,, and many other newspapers in Scandinavia, Europe, Canada, and Australia.

As already stated before, Andries Krugers Dagneaux (former webmaster and current “Main Representative, Supervisor and Contact” for the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet, made several very disturbing claims that Michelle Goldberg (from, the Danish Radio (which produced the Seduced documentary), Tanya Datta (correspondent for the BBC in the production of the Secret Swami programme) and the BBC itself accepted and promoted the views of, and were sympathetic with, Anti-Sai Activists: Reference!

It is true that Tanya Datta wrote an article promoting the Secret Swami programme in exclusive association with Basava Premanand (an atheist and long term critic & skeptic of Sathya Sai Baba since 1968). Tanya Datta also worked in close association with Premanand prior to the making of the Secret Swami programme. Even Khushwant Singh, an Indian journalist who was interviewed in the Secret Swami programme, admitted (in the GuruBusters documentary) that he holds anti-guru and rationalist views (Reference). Mr Singh’s anti-guru and rationalist views were not divulged on the Secret Swami programme. This same type of hidden bias was discovered on Michelle Goldberg’s article, on, entitled “Untouchable” (Reference). It is exactly this type of hidden bias that is responsible for misleading so many people. Consequently, all of the major broadcasts and articles written against Sathya Sai Baba were published by people who were biased and sympathetic with critics and ex-followers.

As a matter of fact, in every single case (without exception), no alleged victim has even tried (first-hand) to file a police report, complaint or court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India. All these alleged victims continue, to this day, to refuse to follow proper procedure and file a grievance against Sathya Sai Baba with the police or in a court of law in India. Despite all these facts, Anti-Sai Activists have the audacity to attack those who do not agree with their bitter, vitriolic and unsubstantiated arguments and claims.

Regarding the Unesco Withdrawal and the US State Department Warning, Anti-Sai Activists withhold the fact they were the ones responsible. They even boasted about it. Funny how Anti-Sai Activists are willing to cite the Unesco withdrawal, yet fail to mention how they are currently attacking Unesco (Reference).

Many Are Not Satisfied That Alaya Rahm Is Telling The Truth:

The Sathya Sai Organization – which, like Sai Baba, claims to uphold the truth – continually bluffs with its threats but quickly retreats when a corporation stands up to it, like the BBC, Danish broadcaster DR, Canada’s CBC, Australia’s SBS, India Today, and others. 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! The Society – or, to call things by their right name, the Sathya Sai Organization – did not and dares not face the challenge of a public examination of the case. Except, of course, in situations where it is forced into damage control.

Funny enough, the only one who “continually bluffs with threats but quickly retreated” was Alaya Rahm. He filed a lawsuit, attempting to sue for money damages, and quickly retreated by self-dismissing his own lawsuit just prior to the case going to trial. The Sathya Sai Baba Society was fully prepared to go to court and challenge Alaya’s claims. The Society never backed down, “retreated” or wavered one inch. Alaya did. So when Anti-Sai Activists stated, “the Society – or, to call things by their right name, the Sathya Sai Organization – did not and dares not face the challenge of a public examination of the case”, they are not only being thoroughly hypocritical, they are being dishonest. It does not matter how “prepared” Alaya allegedly was to face the legal system. The fact remains that by his own choice he did not face the legal system by taking his case to trial.

Dr. Timothy Conway And More Unsubstantiated Claims:

Al Rahm says: “Alaya was seriously sexually abused by Sai Baba, who expected him to sustain a game of lies”. Compelling accounts of individuals from many countries and investigative documentation by former devotees and some of the world’s leading media attest that Sai Baba has sexually molested boys and young men for over 30 years. Indeed, much of the international testimony, including sworn statements, could not be aired within obvious broadcast or print media limitations. Claims that these media are ‘sensationalistic’ are grossly untrue. These have been made by Sai Organization heads like Indulal Shah (formerly world head of the Organization), Dr. G. Venkataraman (Deputy Chairman of the ruling world body ‘The Prashanti Council’ chaired by Dr. Michael Goldstein and head of Radio Sai, the official international radio broadcaster) and other prominent Sai Baba apologists. As early as 1980, Dr John Hislop gathered Goldstein and the other directors to discuss the allegations by devotees. At that time as well, he accused an innocent mother and her abused teenage son of lying. Because of the technicality that closed the case, this is but one of the vital issues that it was not possible to air in court. Alaya Rahm’s attorney would have been able to demonstrate, under witness oath, that the Hislop letters – very damaging to the Sai Organization – are fully verifiable. 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.

Apparently, Anti-Sai Activists are suffering from “broken-record syndrome” and I will have to repeat myself again.

Alaya was so “seriously sexually abused” he suffered no psychological trauma that would have required medical or psychiatric care, by his own admission. Alaya identified no psychologist who had ever examined him.

Anti-Sai Activists are deceptively trying to associate other alleged “compelling accounts” with Alaya Rahm’s failed lawsuit. As stated before, not even one single deposition was taken and not even one single witness was identified to the court on Alaya Rahm’s behalf.

There is no proof that Hislop talked to Goldstein about the allegations 25 years ago. Alaya Rahm voluntarily self-dismissed his action against Goldstein in mid-2005. This reflects badly on Alaya, not Goldstein.

Dr Hislop died in 1995 and it is not possible for him to defend himself or have others speak on his behalf. As stated before, regarding the alleged “Hislop Letters”, it is highly suspicious that although the alleged letters were written 25 years ago (in 1981), they only surfaced in 2001 (6 years after Hislop died) with no public mention to them before that time (Read The Full Analysis Of The Alleged Hislop Letters).

As stated before, Timothy Conway never filed a deposition. Nor was Timothy Conway ever identified to the court as a witness for the plaintiff (Alaya Rahm). Furthermore, Conway does not have the original copies to the alleged “Hislop Letters”. He admittedly only has xeroxed copies (which do not reflect Hislops known writing style) that are heavily marked with comments from an unknown person.

I emailed Timothy Conway and queried him about any direct involvement he may have had with Alaya Rahm’s lawsuits. I specifically asked Timothy Conway if he was called as a witness or was asked to submit a deposition on Alaya Rahm’s behalf. Timothy Conway responded (emphasis added by him):

NO, i was never called as a witness, and was never asked to submit a deposition on his behalf. I recall at some point emailing Alaya’s father Al Rahm (it’s hard to document, because my computer’s hard-drive utterly and irretrievably crashed in Aug. 2003, and i completely lost all my email correspondences before that point), but I can’t remember when he and i had brief email contact. In any case, Al never asked me for any help in this matter.”

Therefore, Timothy Conway was not a “strong witness standing by to verify the letters ” as deceptively and dishonestly stated by Ex-Devotees.

More Missed Opportunities:

Al Rahm states: “The leaders covered up then and are covering up now. Dr Goldstein Dr William Harvey, Berniece Mead, Robert Bozzani and their attorneys are fully aware of the seriousness of the many sexual abuse allegations”.

Once again, the Rahms had every opportunity to prove, in a court of law, that “leaders covered up then and are covering up now”. They could not prove it in a court of law, yet expect others to blindly believe their claims.

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses:

On the Internet and elsewhere, some persons – who dare not stand forth as Alaya and other Sai Baba abuse survivors have done – dishonestly set about trying to discredit people who were much respected when Sai devotees. Alaya Rahm’s father, Al, for example, was one of five regional officers in ‘Region 10’ of the Sathya Sai Baba Organization of the United States. He and his family received over fifty interviews (combined) with Sai Baba. On several occasions, they performed music and sang in the Puttaparthi Mandir, which is the foremost temple for millions of Sai Baba’s followers, and have also performed in official Sai Centers throughout the USA, and in those of many countries. He started the first Sai School in the United States at the personal direction of Sai Baba during interviews that took place in 1997. This is a 501c3 non-profit institution named the School of Human Values of which Berniece Mead (mentioned above) was one of the officers. Al Rahm has told JuST that, when he: “… called the officers to discuss the newly found sexual abuse information of Alaya Rahm, Berniece chose to resign instead of attend the meeting and face up to the allegations saying, ‘It’s always about something sexual’. Is this the kind of care that the head of the Sathya Sai Baba Organization’s children’s division (called ‘Education in Human Values’ or ‘EHV’) should have?”

Here, Anti-Sai Activists made a strong case that Al Rahm was no novice or stranger to the Sai Organization. Therefore, Al Rahm knew full well what the Sathya Sai Baba Society was when they were named as a defendant in Alaya’s lawsuit. The claim that the lawsuit was dismissed because the Society was actually a “bookstore” is a ridiculous excuse and the Rahms (and their lawyer) should have known better.

Berniece Mead was indeed contacted by Al Rahm. She had been to visit the Rahm commune in 1998 and observed Alaya as a rebellious and flirtatious teenager (at that time, little did she know her assessment was correct, albeit mild). Al asked Berniece to be a member of his Board of Directors (related to the private school he had at his commune) and Berniece agreed. When Al called Berniece regarding Alaya’s accusations she severed her connection with the Rahms. Al made it sound as if Berniece resigned from her Sai EHV activities. She did not. Berniece made her own independent decision based upon her personal observations that Alaya’s claims lacked credibility. Berniece is still a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba and is currently involved in teacher training for EHV (Education in Human Values).

The Final Spin:

It most assuredly is not, and this typical case of dereliction of duty of care among Sai Baba’s foremost leaders should concern the wider public too which is the target of the Sai Organization, with its multi-million dollar project setting up schools in different countries. With its EHV program it seeks to get into the schools of the world but without disclosing its Sai Baba-oriented agenda – the guru who says that he will rule the world before AD 2022. That Alaya Rahm withdrew his case reflects on certain Sathya Sai Organization leaders and their bad faith, not on him. Rather, he and his very supportive family who sacrificed so much through many years for Sai Baba and his Organization have had the courage, in the hope of saving other children from sexual abuse, to come forward in a United States court of law and to redouble their efforts to let the public know the truth.

It is peculiar that Anti-Sai Activists blame the Sai Organization’s leaders for Alaya Rahm’s decision to self-dismiss his own lawsuit against them. This type of extreme and unsound reasoning is highly indicative of denial, deflection and intellectual dishonesty.

If the Rahms were truly committed to saving other children from sexual abuse, one would think they would have done the right thing and filed a basic police complaint and court case in India against Sathya Sai Baba when they first learned of the alleged abuse against their son. One would also think that the Rahm’s would have had the common sense, sympathy and compassion to seek counseling for their allegedly traumatized son. They did neither. Instead, the Rahms set out on a smear campaign, taking their son’s questionable allegations to the public through various means.

Thereafter, Alaya Rahm attempted to file a futile lawsuit in the USA five years after his alleged abuse occurred (and 2 days before the statue of limitations was set to expire) against the wrong defendants in the wrong court and in the wrong country! Of course, all of this reflects badly on the Rahms, not Sathya Sai Baba or the Sathya Sai Baba Society. After all, it was not the Society that retreated, caved in or asked for a dismissal. It was Alaya. Anti-Sai Activists are notorious for their spin on all topics relating to Sathya Sai Baba. As one can see, the spin & propaganda machine is still very much alive in the Anti-Sai movement.

Thankfully, this failed lawsuit does allow the general public to see the “truth”. Unfortunately for Anti-Sai Activists, the “truth” wholly compromises Alaya’s allegations. It of little wonder that the Rahm’s chose to be silent (releasing no public statement) after Alaya’s lawsuit was self-dismissed. The Rahms are only speaking out after the webmaster for this site divulged the contents to Alaya’s self-dismissed court case. Therefore, the claim that the Rahm’s “have had the courage, in the hope of saving other children from sexual abuse, to come forward in a United States court of law and to redouble their efforts to let the public know the truth” is not only more spin, it is untrue.


BACK  Ref 01: From an email Mick Brown personally sent to me regarding the “Divine Downfall Interview”; November 15th 2004: “I tape-recorded all my interviews and the quotations are transcribed directly from the tape.” Divine Downfall Interview Quote: “It’s a curious thing, said Young, but when he first told his friends and fellow devotees he was leaving Sai Baba, he had the sense – ‘and I still feel that way’ – that Baba was ‘standing over my shoulder, saying, Good boy, you’re doing a good job.’”

BACK  Ref 02: Alexandra H. M. Nagel; The Netherlands; September 11th 2001; “Sai Baba as Shiva-Shakti: a Created Myth? Or?” (Alaya was referred to by the pseudonym “Sam” in this article): “When I told Alaya what I had heard of the two English young men, and asked him if something similar had happened in his case, he informed me that the same ‘switch in genitals’ had been experienced by him on two different occasions. The specifics were that: a) Alaya first felt nothing, b) Baba had blown on his fingers, and c) on the second touch ‘a bulge’ was felt, upon which Sai Baba had said, ‘See? God is both man and woman’.”

BACK  Ref 03: Transcript to the 21st North & Mid Central Region Sai Conference,St. Louis MO; May 24th 1998; Alaya Rahm’s Love Poem Reference: “I will never love another. My mother I come from you. Your words echo through mine. To them I will stay true. Love and grace is your hook. Sai you are so sweet, the beauty of your tender feet. Sai you are so sweet, the love you spread across the world. Sai you are so sweet, glancing patiently with loving eyes. Sai you are everything to me. Your pleasure is my goal. In your bright fire I’m a simple coal.”

BACK  Ref 04:
1st: Al Rahm; “The Rahm Family Letter”: Reference: “Alaya came out of one interview with a hand full of cash given to him from Sai Baba. There was over $1000 in rupees that Alaya was told to give to his mother to take care of the room, food, saris etc. and there was $3000 in crisp one hundred dollar bills for Alaya.” Kreydick testified that Alaya personally showed him the money Sathya Sai Baba gave to him and it was $300, not $3,000.

2nd: Al Rahm; “The Rahm Family Letter”: Reference: “On one occasion Baba took off his robe and lungi and, fully naked, attempted to pull down Alaya’s pants and climb onto his back in an effort to have anal sex.” This contradicts Alaya’s version in which Sathya Sai Baba allegedly had his robe pulled up and was not “fully naked” as alleged by his father. “Seduced” version by Alaya Rahm: “One time he had his robe almost completely off and he tried to have anal sex with me, because he came from behind me and started climbing up on top of me, you know, and being that I’m so much taller than him, in order to keep prevent it from happening, I just stood straight up…”; “Secret Swami” version by Alaya Rahm: “I could pretty much stop convincing myself that any of this was spiritual when he lifted his robe and his dhoti up to his chest and showed me the whole bottom half of this body and told me to take my pants off and then he tried to, I’m much taller than he is, he’s like five feet tall maybe and I’m six, six and he tried to climb up onto me, you know.”

3rd: Al Rahm; “Seduced”; “The threats, the pressure, the intense responsibility to bring this boy along, to keep him around for seven years as Baba’s plaything.” This is a clear example of the type of exaggerations that Al Rahm has resorted to. The alleged sexual abuse occurred within a time-frame of 1½ years, on 4 trips, from July 1997 – December 1998 (1 trip lasting 1½ months and 3 trips lasting a couple of weeks). Where Al Rahm got the figure of “7 years” is beyond me.

4th: Al Rahm misrepresented his oiling experience with Sathya Sai Baba and fostered the idea that he was similarly oiled on his genitals when he was not (he was oiled on his “solar plexus”, just below the sternum). Click Here to read about Al Rahm’s non-sexual oiling experience, direct from his own mouth.

5th: Al Rahm purposely lied to me about Basava Premanand filing a lawsuit against the Sai Organization. I published my response on a Yahoo Group where this issue was first brought up (Reference).

BACK  Ref 05: Robert Priddy; May 2005; “Sathya Sai Baba Murders Revisited”; Revisited Reference: “The collected evidence is still kept secret by authorities who are Sai Baba followers and regular visitors of his (i.e. most recently India’s current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the current Home [Interior] Minister, Shivraj Patil, along with several other figures in government).”

BACK  Ref 06: Conny Larsson; “Conny Larsson’s talk on Cults at the FECRIS Conference, Brussels”: Reference (look on the bottom of page): The following new claims, made by Conny Larsson, prove that Conny is a deeply disturbed individual who will shamelessly resort to blatant lies to smear Sathya Sai Baba’s name. Conny newly claimed, with no proof or evidence, that: 1) The Sai Org is a “money laundering machine”; 2) “From day one it organised a paedophile ring trafficking people back and forth i.e. young Indian boys are sent to America and American coloured men from ghettoes in New York etc. are sent to the Indian fellows and mostly to the Ashram.” and 3) “The Ashram itself today, receives from 10,000 to 1,000,000 people. There is continual trafficking in people that arrive by plane. There is a new airport which has been built.”

BACK  Ref 07: Barry Pittard; site, Reference: “Well over a hundred sworn affidavits alleging sexual molestation of young males has been lodged with FBI.”


Important Related Links:
Alaya Rahm Self-Dismissed His Own Lawsuit Against The SSB Society
Alaya Rahm – A 6-Year-Long Daily User Of Illegal Street Drugs And Alcohol
A Scathing Response To Critics About Alaya Rahm’s Failed Lawsuit
The Truth About The ‘Secret Swami’ Program
The ‘Open Letter’ To The Prashanti Council – Defamations Addressed
Prof. Venkataraman Writes About The Sai Controversy
The Truth About The Alleged Sathya Sai Baba ‘Sex Scandal’

%d bloggers like this: