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

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: 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.

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).


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: 0102) 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

County Of Orange - Full Online Court Records

%d bloggers like this: