Attorney William Brelsford Accused 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.”

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 8 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: 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.


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

Over 100 Sworn Affidavits Against Sai Baba?

Exposing Barry Pittard
The Australian Pit-Bull Of The Anti-Sai Movement

Barry Pittard erroneously claimed that "Well over a hundred sworn affidavits alleging sexual molestation of young males has been lodged with FBI" (Reference). Strange enough, no other Anti-Sai Activist has made this claim besides Barry Pittard. This absurd, exaggerated and unfounded lie is unique to Barry Pittard alone.


Where did Barry Pittard get his information from? Why is Barry Pittard publishing this unsubstantiated information on the internet when it isn't true? Why is Barry Pittard forwarding this untruth to various organizations and officials all around the world? Barry Pittard never saw any alleged affidavits that were supposedly submitted, in the USA, to the FBI (nor has anyone else for that matter). The FBI does not disclose affidavit records to the general public. They are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Exemptions (b)(6) and/or (b)(7)(c) of the FOIA, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552. Consequently, the only way for Barry Pittard (who lives in Australia) to have seen the "well over a hundred sworn affidavits alleging sexual molestation of young males lodged with the FBI" would have been if he personally accompanied the affiants to the FBI, in the USA, which he never did.

On Anti-Sai Sites, the only person (a non-American resident from India) who allegedly went to the FBI was Hari Sampath. Hari Sampath tried to represent "Neptune" (an anonymous individual whose case was called "useless" by the FBI: Reference) and others. Allegedly, the Rahms filed an affidavit with the FBI (Reference). Although the Rahms have never specifically stated that they filed an affidavit with the FBI (it appears that Hari Sampath took a statement from them to the FBI), if they did submit an affidavit they be would be number one. Where are the "well over a hundred" other U.S. Citizens who filed affidavits against Sathya Sai Baba? Barry Pittard cannot back up any of his statements with any reliable documentation or any reliable sources with contact details. As a matter of fact, Barry Pittard is now claiming that this information is "confidential". That's right, these very public smear campaigns against Sai Baba are based on "secret" and "confidential" information.

Alaya Rahm filed a lawsuit against the Sathya Sai Baba Society and not even one single alleged victim came forward to defend Alaya Rahm or file a joint lawsuit with him (Reference). Anti-Sai Activists resorted to 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 (Reference). These unknown and anonymous alleged victims (referred to by Barry Pittard as "numbering well over a hundred") had supposedly already taken action against Sathya Sai Baba by allegedly filing affidavits with the FBI. These alleged victims were therefore 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 on Alaya Rahm's behalf and not even one alleged victim gave a deposition or was identified to the court as a witness on Alaya Rahm's behalf. Not even one other person. Zero. Zilch. Nada. This highly suggests that Anti-Sai Activist's numbers about alleged victims are untrue, unsubstanitated, unverfiable and without merit. This single fact alone wholly compromises and changes the entire face of the allegations against Sathya Sai Baba.

So when Barry Pittard said there are "well over a hundred sworn affidavits" against Sathya Sai Baba, he is lying through his pit-bull teeth.

One will also notice (on the screencap provided earlier) that Barry Pittard boasted that "US former devotees succeed in getting Travel Adisory posted re Sathya Sai Baba's ashram -citing many accounts of sexual molestation of young males". Read my article about the US State Department Advisory and how it was accomplished by ex-devotees. Just more proof of Anti-Sai Activist's behind-the-scenes scheming and subterfuge.