Wikipedia

User:SSS108/Self Dismissed Court Case Of Alaya Rahm

< User:SSS108

This Thread Is Closed. Please Do Not Edit It:

The material on this page was the topic of a RFC: Reference:

Stances by devotees and proponents

edit

Lewis Kreydick, in a sworn and videotaped deposition [1], said that he did not believe Alaya Rahm's sexual abuse allegations against Sathya Sai Baba because he had a very close relationship with Alaya during the time the alleged misconduct occurred. Kreydick testified that Alaya shared private information with him that he had not divulged to his own parents. Some of this information included Alaya's sexual activities with girls. Kreydick also testified that Alaya shared all the details to each of the interviews he had with Sathya Sai Baba in 1995 and 1997, and Alaya never made any comments suggesting wrongdoing, impropriety or sexual misconduct. Kreydick said that Alaya was very happy, smiling, laughing and full of self-confidence after his interviews. Kreydick further testified that he was present in some of these interviews in which Alaya was later to claim to have been sexually abused [2]. Kreydick's statements in his depositions are supported by eulogistic talks that were given by Alaya Rahm and his family at Sai Conferences shortly after the alleged misconduct was said to have occurred. The talks were recorded on audio cassettes, distributed through Sai Centers and transcribed [3].

Self-Dismissed Court Case

edit

Alaya Rahm (an alleged victim who was interviewed in the Seduced by Sai Baba documentary, the Secret Swami programme, the India Today magazine and the Divine Downfall interview) filed a court case against the Sathya Sai Baba Society, seeking money damages. The case, Alaya Rahm vs. Sathya Sai Baba Society, was filed in the Superior Court of California on January 6th 2005, County Of Orange - USA, Case No. 05cc01931. Alaya Rahm filed his case 2 days before the statute of limitations was to expire [4]. The plaintiff (Alaya Rahm) self-dismissed his own case on April 19th 2006 and therefore the counter-suit was also dismissed. No offers of settlement were made in this case and no money or other considerations were paid for the dismissal of these cases. This case was dismissed "with prejudice" [5]. This means that all parties in the case entered into a final and binding agreement that would prevent them from pursuing the same matter in any court of law (in the USA or in India).

References and Footnotes

edit
  1. ^ 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: "Videotaped deposition of Lewis (Kryshna) Kreydick, taken on behalf of the defendants, at 2677 North Main Street, Suite 820, santa Ana, California, commencing at 10:07 a.m., on Thursday, March 16th, 2006, reported by Sharon E. Gonzalez, CSR, No. 4501, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California"
  2. ^ 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:
    "10:43:37: Well, not right away. But on the trip, we got to be very close, and he told me a lot of things about what he was up to.
    10:43:55: A. Well, we talk about a lot of things. And on the trip, he shared a lot more things. We got to be very close on this trip.
    10:45:45: Q. Did he share with you during that trip that -- and he was 16 years old when he went with you to India?
    10:45:56: A. Yeah.
    10:45:56: Q. Did he share with you that at that time, he was sexually active?
    10:46:01: A. Yeah, he did.
    10:47:03: A. He told me, but now -- it was so long ago, I can't remember. But he was 14 or 15 that he started his occasional relationships. And he was very active.
    10:47:15: Q. Did he indicate to you whether he had shared the fact that he was sexually active with his parents at tht time?
    10:47:21: A. I don't think he told his parents. We were just real close. And I don't even feel good about telling you about this now. It was kind of a personal thing between us. But he liked talking to me and I liked talking to him. And he wanted to know, really, the right thing to do.
    11:04:30: Q. When Alaya came out of that interview, describe for me his demeanor.
    11:04:44: A. Well, he was carrying an orange robe that Baba had given him. And he had gotten a ring there also. And he was very happy.
    11:04:57: Q. Was he smiling?
    11:04:59: A. Smiling, laughing, talking, and full of self-confidence.
    11:35:09: Q. Did Alaya ever express to you during these discussions that he didn't want to go back to see Sai Baba?
    11:35:18: A. No. To the contrary. He was one of the most excited guys to go on this trip.
    11:43:07: Q. And did Alaya tell you about those interviews when you arrived in India?
    11:43:16: A. He told me -- he told me about the interviews.
    11:43:20: Q. What did he tell you?
    11:43:21: A. He told me that it's just been phenomenal how Baba's pulled our group in and given us all the attention. And he already at that time, you know, made some jewelry for them. And given them a lot of attention. He was very happy. He was very happy that I was back there.
    11:43:39: Q. Did he tell you that Sai Baba touched him inappropriately in any way.
    11:43:48: A. No.
    11:43:49: Q. Did he -- did Alaya express any concerns to you, or refuse to talk to you about what had happened? Anything like that?
    11:43:57: A. Not at all.
    11:44:02: A. No. He wanted to bring me up to date. He wanted to fill in what I had missed, okay. And so he told me everything. And then, of course, I was there for all the rest of the interviews. I didn't go into most of the interviews. But after the interviews, we would share what happened.
    11:46:36: A. No. He shared almost every day what happened with Baba because, see, I wasn't in most of the interviews and he was in most of the interviews. So after -- we would get together every day that we had an interview. We were there for six weeks. And he had had 14 interviews in those six weeks. So after the interview, we'd get together with at the Rahm's apartment, and we would just find out from people that were in the interview what happened, and we would share with everybody. Because we were kind of a nuclear family. Then after that Alaya would talk to me in the garden right next to the place, and tell me even more things. Because some of the private interviews he had with Baba, he just didn't want to share with, all the details with his family.
    11:52:22: Did Alaya say, this is a secret. I'm really -- I don't want you to share this with anybody?
    11:52:30: A. No, no. He told me things he wouldn't tell his parents. But that wasn't one of the things that he wouldn't tell his parents.
    11:53:17: Q. And did he seem excited and happy about his encounters with Sai Baba?
    11:53:22: A. He was over the moon about thes encounters. And he loved sharing with me because I loved to hear it with Sai Baba. And I really liked Alaya a lot. And I was happy he was getting all this attention. It was very good for him.
    11:53:34: Q. So you and Alaya would speak privately almost every day?
    11:53:38: A. Every day, yeah, at least. And we'd talk to each other going to Darshan and coming back. We talked to each a lot.
    11:53:46: Q. So you and he spent quite a bit of time alone?
    11:53:49: A. We hung out. We hung out -- we didn't mean to be alone, but sometimes you are alone. We included everybody else, but a lot of times, we were just by ourselves.
    13:48:36: Q. When you heard that Alaya Rahm was alleging that he had been sexually molested by Sai Baba during his '95 and '97 trips to India, were you shocked?
    13:49:16: A. I couldn't believe it.
    13:49:21: Q. Why not?
    13:49:21: A. Well, I just, it was just out of the realm of possibility, as far as I am concerned.
    13:49:30: Q. And was it because of your own personal observations of Alaya Rahm after his interviews with Sai Baba?
    13:49:37: A. Yeah. He was very happy. Nothing was -- and he shared everything with me. We were so close. I don't know what's happened actually."
  3. ^ Reference 1: Transcript to USA Sai Regional Conference August-30/31-1997 Available online
    Reference 2: Transcript to the 21st North & Mid Central Region Sai Conference Available online
  4. ^ California's statute of limitations Available online: "Present law provides that the statute of limitations is tolled against a sexual perpetrator until the plaintiff's twenty-sixth birthday, or until within three years, after majority, she or he discovers or reasonably should have discovered that incurred psychological injury or illness was caused by the sexual abuse (Section 340.1(a), as amended 1994)."; Alaya Rahm's birthday is January 8th 1979, as stated on court documents.
  5. ^ Filed Superior Court of California - County of Orange - Central Justice Center; Apr. 20 2006, Case No. 05CC01931; Trial Date: April 28, 2006, Time: 9:00a.m., Dept.: C15, TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORDS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above referenced matter has been settled in its entirety. The plaintiff has agreed to dismiss his complaint, with prejudice, and the cross-complainant has agreed to dismiss its cross-complaint, with prejudice. No economic consideration has been paid in exchange for either of these dismissals. Dated April 19, 2006. "With Prejuidice" legal definition, Available online

RFC RESPONSE

edit

I don't see in the current version citations to the court records, nor have I found such in the history I've reviewed. We have instead citations to California statutes - those do not prove that the court case even happened. To cite anything based on the court cases, we need citations to the court case records. Per the guideline on relable sources, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." [Emphasis in original.] Unless/until the court documents and records are published by a reliable publisher - which for legal records would be a publisher that publishes all cases for a given jurisdiction, we can't use material from the court documents. As there is no such citation at this time, the relevant clause of WP:BLP is "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion." I will therefore remove the material as not adequately sourced. Should citations to the court records, as published by a reliable publisher, become available, this evaluation will no longer be relevant. GRBerry 13:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, actual scans to the court records have been referenced here for others to verify: Ref 1 and Ref 2. These were obtained from the Court itself. SSS108 talk-email 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Those links are not to a reliable publisher of court documents, they are to an activist site. Look for a site like findlaw.com, Lexis.com, or a print media court record like the United States Reports that covers a wide array of cases. That is what a reliable publisher means in this context, especially since WP:BLP says to "Be very firm about high-quality references". Other reliable secondary sources could be cited, if there was press coverage. When I removed the material, there wasn't even a reliable citation to prove that a court case occurred. GRBerry 21:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that the material is not appropriate to use until it is published by a reliable publisher that publishes many/most cases from the court. And the only portions of the material that it will be appropriate to use are those published by that reliable publisher. This is what WP:BLP and the final sentence "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." of the definition of a primary source in WP:RS means for primary court documents. GRBerry 01:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, the court records are published by the County Court Of Orange and are available to the general public for a fee. Since these records come directly from a court of law, that would make them reliable. Just because the case has not been made available on court-record sites does not negate the information or integrity of these court records. I have provided full scans to them, along with information to verify them. The case is not some major suit that is going to be listed on court-record sites. Therefore, the citations to these records are from high-quality sources. They come from an actual court of law. SSS108 talk-email 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to ask you if your POV Risk And Affiliations is affecting your views regarding this matter since the topic in question is about a Indian Guru? SSS108 talk-email 03:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe so. I can't have helped but notice that the subject of the article wears traditional Indian attire, but I'm not sure if the negative material about a living person is about him or a critic - and I don't need to know that, I need to know how it is sourced (the citations showed this) and that it is negative material about a living person (which the RfC and prior discussion adequately showed). I'm enforcing WP:BLP consistently with how I have done so at Seth Finkelstein when BLP was guideline instead of policy (where if you can see in the article history that User:Jimbo Wales agreed the material I had removed should be and stay removed) and at Kyra Phillips (not yet resolved). If there is a shadow of doubt, the material should stay out until there is consensus on the talk page that it is adequately sourced, where consensus certainly means more editors than just the one arguing for inclusion. GRBerry 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry, thank you for your comments. However, there happens to be a very active Christian & Christian Counter-Cult Anti-Sai-Baba movement and it just does not feel right for you, a member of a "non-notable, non-denominational, evangelical, semi-charismatic, and semi-fundamentalist church that was a church plant of a Southern Baptist church" to be making the call on a controversial Indian Guru. Having said this, I think your assessment sounds fair and seems to be based on Wikipedia policy. However, can you kindly tell me where this RFC was filed and how I can request other editors to weigh in? I do not believe the RFC was made known on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

REGARDING RFC

edit

Who requested the RFC? Where is it at? When was it made? And where on this talk page was the RFC made known? Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I filed an RFC on 3 Sept. It was made known on the talk page hereabove by me. Andries 04:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Instructions For Filing A RFC
  1. Create a section for the RfC on the article Talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Example
  2. In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to that section on the Talk page.
  3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.
  4. After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.
Andries stated he was filing a RFC but never posted the direct link for this RFC on this page Ref. Rather, he just posted a general link to the Wikipedia:Request for comments. The RFC instructions were not followed, I was not directly informed about it (although I was a party to the discussion) and I never agreed to the issue being resolved before the edits were made. You did not follow proper procedure. Let me know if I am wrong about this. SSS108 talk-email 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean that you were not directly informed about it. [1] I did try to summarize it neutrally, but only after I got responses from the RFC. And of course. Andries 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See previous comment. SSS108 talk-email 18:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

COURT RECORD DATA

edit

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 (which 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).

  • On the Superior Court Of California Website:
    • On 3/16/2006, under "Stipulation - Other", Kreydick's deposition was obtained: Ref 1: 12 pages.
    • On 4/17/2006, a "Proof Of Service" was filed: Ref 2: 1 page.
    • 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: Ref 3: 1 page.

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. SSS108 talk-email 20:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SSS108/Self_Dismissed_Court_Case_Of_Alaya_Rahm&oldid=1142431122"