Part Three

by Basava Premanand       

Reply to Mr. Gerald Moreno on his article published on his website

under 'BASAVA PREMANAND : DECEPTION' The article's title is: The Basava Premanand Anonymous Letter : vested Interests and Striking Similarities. July 2001 Basava Premanand's Questionable Involvement Updated : May 5th, 2005.

Mr. Moreno’s comments appear in bold black face, and mine are in regular case black type.

Basava Premanand’s Introductory comment : I have reproduced every point GM has published in his deception series, without omission. Active links are not only unnecessary to debate the issue fairly, but the webmaster of saibabaexpose will not provide any links to any pages by persons who hide their identity from the public in cyberspace, such as GM who has also tried to defame him, just as he has tried to defame others, one after another.  Oh, but When GM started his deception series I did not know of it. I know of him only since the time when his accomplice Murali Krishna Yachendra gave GM’s comments from his websites on the book Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room. GM’s “vishvarupa” email address was therefore correct.  It also proves why GM had to update his Basava Premanand deception series in May 5th 2005.
GM’s Response No.1:
Click Here to view the article in question.

Reply to GM’s Response No.1:  
GM has not asked permission to copy this material, which is copyright protected. It is therefore stolen material. My thanks go to GM for publishing the article “Betrayal” which will help his readers as to what he is responding.

GM’s Response No.2 : Although no name is given as to whom authored the article, Premanand just said that the article is not anonymous! Who wrote it then? When a person writes an article and chooses to withhold his or her name, for whatever reason, it is "anonymous". There is no way to verify the comments made in this article, so it is unprovable and untrue. If the contents were true, why hasn't Premanand filed a court case on behalf the person who allegedly wrote it? I suggest Premanand pull out his trusty dictionary and look up the word "anonymous" for himself.
1) Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: an anonymous author.
2) Having an unknown or withheld authorship or agency: an anonymous letter; an anonymous phone call.
3) Having no distinctive character or recognition factor: 'a very great, almost anonymous center of people who just want peace' (Alan Paton) (Ref. 1).
Consequently, the article in question is anonymous, whether Premanand wants to acknowledge this fact or not. When it comes to Sathya Sai Baba's miracles, Premanand demands names and facts about the person/people making the claims. However, when it comes to Premanand, he feels he is perfectly entitled to disperse anonymous stories without providing any names! Hypocrisy, clear and simple.

Reply to GM’s Response No.2 :When the names of the students who have been sexually abused are to be found in “Betrayal,” why does GM not want to verify the facts mentioned there? They are provable and true, but will GM go to the trouble of verification? Note that I have asked him to do this, for it is he who is forever demanding that his critics show this and that documentation, such as affidavits or confirmation of what he has any legal proceeding which he chances to hear may be in preparation. I am waiting for the opportune moment to file a writ petition in the High Court. Opportune, that is, to my lawyers and me and to those victims who are at last finding a voice that Sai Baba and his accomplices wish to see silenced. Inopportune, no doubt, to GM! The details will be provided to the court if it takes the responsibility to protect the safety to life and limb of the author and his family. GM’s comments on me have no relevance to the article. But what would Moreno know about such arrangements? And what would he care? All he wants to do is to keep on crying out “Liars” ….

As GM has searched for the meaning of “anonymous,” the No.3 part of the definition suits one who has been sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba. The writer does not want himself or his family to be harassed or murdered. What Moreno refuses to contemplate is a fact only too abundantly clear - particularly to well-informed Indians - which is the extraordinary power that Sathya Sai Baba wields over the Government, the Law Enforcement Department and the Judiciary in our country. The article is not anonymous except that I have not published the name of the writer. I take full legal and moral responsibility in regard to this document.

In such cases, we read from ‘Computerworld - (http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9907/05/anon.idg/) "There are many occasions in which anonymity is a perfectly acceptable and, in fact, morally responsible form of behavior, and the protection of anonymity is a moral requirement," said Rachelle Hollander, director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science and Technology Program, which funded the project.
Anonymity allows people to engage in political and human rights advocacy, whistle-blowing and reporting abuse, among other things. But the report also acknowledged that anonymity can help protect child pornographers and purveyors of online financial fraud.” (It also protects anti human rights and anti-justice slanderers, defamers and dirty trick merchants like Gerald Moreno).

When I an engaged in exactly that human rights advocacy – and I have been subjected to physical injuries and had my house repeatedly burgled because of my views - yet I stand forth with full name and address etc. Readers can themselves judge whether GM is an advocate of these rights or not, and whether he is cowardly in actually hiding his actual identity or not. Will GM provide his name, address, other controllable information or not - yes or no?

Moreno demands all sorts of documentation, and even when he has it he, as I have repeatedly demonstrated in my series of articles, distorts it to suit his own purposes. Why, one wonders, does he not cry out for proper documentation of Sai Baba’s (so-called) miracles? Why does he not demand documentation from the Sathya Sai Organisation, so that the criticisms that it is highly secretive and dishonest in, for example, its financial and other dealings could be answered? Why does he not spend time in calling for transparency and accountability within the Sai Organisation? Why does he constantly sidestep the many anomalies, inconsistencies, etc., that have been pointed out by serious former devotee and other critics of Sai Baba and his organisation? When some miracles have been investigated and proved to be false, I have, incidentally, been able to get removed, for example, some of the chapters in a book edited by S.P. Ruhela. This is perfectly reasonable and is solely in the interests of science, knowledge and the truth.

GM’s comments on me have no relevance to the article in which I have provided names of some of the students and the perpetrators of the crime. The details will be provided to the court so long as it takes the responsibility to protect the life of the author and his family.

GM calls my stance “hypocrisy, clear and simple.” With a degree of consistency, he ought to have named as hypocrisy, clear and simple the frequently anonymous stories published as miracles by years of Sathya Sai Baba propaganda and sold in Sai Baba centres around the world.

GM’s Response No. 3 : It doesn't matter if Premanand asked for my advice or not. I am simply making a very valid observation. I alleged that Premanand failed to practice the same standard that Kovoor upheld. It is not speculation when Kovoor demanded names and contact information to anonymous miracle stories and concluded that since no names or contact information were provided, the stories were false and unbelievable. Premanand is distributing an anonymous letter (that provides no name or contact information) and seems to think that there is nothing wrong with this. Premanand failed to see my logic because it appears he does not even know the proper definition for the word "anonymous" (Premanand claimed that the unsigned letter, whose author's name is being withheld, is not anonymous). Even Anti-Sai Activists described the Betrayal article as being "anonymous" Ref. 2).

Reply to GM’s Response No.3 : The proper definition of the word ‘anonymous’ selected by GM is controversial, as shown above with the Wikipedia definition. So GM does not ‘know’ any better than I do.

In Dr. Bhagavantham’s story about his anonymous article, there was no personal risk in giving the name of the persons of the Seiko Watch Co., but in the case of the author of “Betrayal” there is the risk to his and his family’s personal safety , not least as justified by known precedents (see below).GM is not bothered about the safety of the writer (but only about his own safety by hiding from proper identification). Even so, he claims to be “simply making a very valid observation”, which is itself invalid, because GM makes what amounts to an invalid attack on me and the offended party.

Instead of hiding his identity and proper contact details, let Moreno come to India and see what it is like for those who speak out without fear or favour, if he has the guts. Let him see what is the real test of that “satya” (truth) and fearlessness that Sai Baba has referred to so often in his public discourses. GM might be surprised to find that there are those of us who will most certainly not be ready to die for the sake of lies but who are in fact ready to die in standing up for the truth. On the early hours of 6.12.2004 my second son was murdered and his naked body was dumped on the waste paper bags. There was theft of about 50 CDs which contained videos on Sathya Sai Baba etc., along with 4 confidential files on Sathya Sai Baba and his cell phone. The invaders also ransacked my photo albums and tried to work my computer. At the time, my son was alone in the house. In 1980’s a whole family of a teacher was murdered in Palani because they printed and distributed a circular on sexual abuse of the students in Kerala. So also a brilliant student studying in Sathya Sai Baba’s Junior college in Karnataka was burnt in the afternoon on the open ground of the Junior College and the case was closed as suicide. Though the other students and staff protested before the police station, the parents of the students were warned off. I petitioned to the Chief Minister Mr. Ramakrishna Hegde about this and though he acknowledged my letter nothing was done. The way in which for years, Sai Baba’s followers have been able to keep him out of public accountability are not a mystery to us here, no matter how GM may like to distort the realities of power in this country. What does he know? Let GM give only one good reason why Sai Baba and his many accomplices should be spared from investigation under the laws of our country?

GM’s feeling that it is unscientific even for a scientist to believe this a cock-and bull story without verification is none of my concern but, with one detail excepted - he would have it that “Betrayal” is false. When the truth about Sathya Sai Baba is finally established, as it surely will be, GM may begin to understand something. He made quite a fuss in demanding the names of those alleging sexual abuse by Sai Baba, and details of their affidavits (not that 20 published affidavits would deter Moreno one inch from his attacks). Quite apart from his attacks on me, his lack of understanding of these sensitive issues and of the severe limits of the internet as a place to find evidence and truth is gross! The real fact is that those victims of Sai Baba’s sexual and other abuses who know of Moreno’s writings do not trust him for a moment, and yet there are others, including distinguished lawyers and expert consultant psychologists, who they do trust.

GM discards all what I have said as utter falsehood deliberately propagated with ulterior motive and vested interest. Yet, when faced with dozens of indisputable facts, he does he correct himself or apologise. Often on his website, GM has demanded that others own up to their faults (i.e. what he assumes to be faults) but never corrects his own many proven errors (he admits now of a few insignificant errors only so as to seem honest). His crafty dishonesty can be seen in how he has also supported on his website one who spread the worst, most vicious and false lies about expose workers, including: “and I hear Premanand has or had a concubine, i.e., cheats on his wife". What a role mode! In the same post, this spiteful liar wrote that Premanand's hero Kovoor died of cancer AND syphilis so it makes you wander WHO he was keeping company with" Rather, it is Gerald Moreno who needs to watch what company he keeps! This was despicable spite and cowardliness against the good name of upright and widely revered man who is not longer here to defend himself.

GM’s Response No.4 : Dr. Kovoor accused Dr. Bhagavantham of "withholding information", being "insincere and dishonest", "conspiring", "propagandizing" and having a "vested interest", because Dr. Bhagavantham could not provide the name and contact information to an anonymous Japanese man who was allegedly the recipient of a Sathya Sai Baba miracle. Dr. Kovoor said, "As I feel it is unscientific even for a scientist to believe this type of cock-and-bull story without verification, I request you to kindly let me know the name and address of this Japanese so that I may verify the truth about it. Your failure to help me to conduct this investigation by withholding this information, will lead me to suspect your sincerity and honesty, and discard all what you have said about Sathya Sai Baba as utter falsehood deliberately propagated with ulterior motive and vested interest."
Consequently, to Premanand: "I feel it is unscientific even for a scientist to believe this type of cock-and-bull story without verification, I request you to kindly let me know the name and address to the author of this letter so that I may verify the truth about it. Your failure to help me to conduct this investigation by withholding this information, will lead me to suspect your sincerity and honesty, and discard all what you have said... as utter falsehood deliberately propagated with ulterior motive and vested interest." Dr. Kovoor's method is quite clear and I am simply using the same method, that Dr. Kovoor used, with Premanand. I think that is 100%fair.

Reply to GM’s Response No.4 : When the author’s name is withheld by a publisher for certain purposes it cannot be called anonymous, so long as the identity is able to be disclosed to bona fide authorities. But GM is decidedly not one of them!   GM twisted the intent of Kovoor’s letter by stating it “ accused” Dr. Bhagavatham, when Kovoor only said “will lead me to suspect” him of being… etc. GM thinks that Kovoor’s and his (GM’s) demands are comparable, which they are not. This is 100% unfair.    

GM’s Response No.5 : My "proof" was taken from Anti-Sai Sites. As a matter of fact, it was Alexandra Nagel who said that Premanand received the letter in December. It appears that Anti-Sai Activists (who are Pro-Premanand) are making up stories without providing any proof! I will update my comments, about Alexandra Nagel, and how she is making up claims in the absence of proof (according to Basava Premanand). This would mean that Anti-Sai Activists are dispersing misinformation on their sites. Thanks to Premanand for clearing this matter up. As one can see, my comment was not a "guess". It was taken from an Anti-Sai Activist who claimed to have researched this matter. Why doesn't Premanand state the date he received the letter? Why the secrecy?

Reply to GM’s Response No.5. : GM has neither
referenced these sites nor elucidated what are the stories GM sees as “apparently” made up. He, who cries for proof, provides no proof. With flagrant dishonesty, he omits which of the various activists are (supposedly!) pro-Premanand or in what they are for me, for I note that there are many ex-devotees posting on the web who would not at all agree with me on matters like belief in paranormal claims, faith in other gurus and so on. GM is threatening to update his comments about Alexandra Nagel and expose how she is making up claims in the absence of proof (according to Basava Premanand). I know that she has submitted some of my articles in the ex-baba.com but I have not come across any Anti-Sai sites of hers. There is no reason why I should I provide the date of the Betrayal article to a dirt-digging nonentity and unconscionable, anonymous cyber presence like GM.

GM’s Response No.6 : Since Anti-Sai Sites have not provided any scans to support the claims made about Premanand's letter to the Vice Chancellor, I used the word "alleged" because I have not seen this information for myself. Premanand did not understand my words. I said, "Basava Premanand claimed he sent a registered letter on
December 9th 1998 to the (unnamed) Vice Chancellor of the Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning asking to investigate the claims made in the letter." I meant, of course, that Premanand asked the Vice Chancellor if he (Premanand) could investigate the claims made in the letter. Depending on where one puts the emphasis on the wording, one can see what I said, versus what Premanand thought I said.

Reply to GM’s Response No.6 : As I have repeatedly said, I do not frequent anti-Sai sites nor am I consulted in what they publish. If GM has not seen this information for himself he cannot blame me, or any other. But certainly the VC knows about the letter. Will not Moreno ask him? Not likely, for GM – yet again – is hairsplitting so as to mislead.

I never requested the VC to investigate. Why should GM ask, “If I could investigate the claims made in the letter as “Basava Premanand claimed he sent a registered letter on December 9th 1998 to the unnamed Vice Chancellor of the Sathya Sai Institute of Higher learning asking to investigate the claims made in the letter”? I never knew that SSIHL did not have a Vice Chancellor and someone unauthorised signed the Registered Post Acknowledgement. Again GM distorts - by the shallow argument that “I meant, of course that Premanand asked the Vice Chancellor if he (Premanand) could investigate the claims made in the letter. It is a question of emphasis on wording, but of course Moreno typically opts for the denigrating interpretation. GM spuriously fashions innocent details into an indictment.

GM’s Response No.7 : See the previous response.

Reply to GM’s Response No.7 : GM has not answered my question in the previous response wherein he falsified my words when I said that I requested the VC to investigate the claims in ‘Betrayal’.

In Kovoor’s letter there is no mention about asking VC to investigate. It is also true that we have been getting several letters from Sathya Sai Baba’s students about the sexual abuse written by them or their parents. What I mentioned was “one letter” and this does not mean a letter from the students. GM completely misinterpreted this reference as a student’s letter.

GM’s Response No.8 : That is right. Premanand asked if he could investigate the claims made in the letter. I already made the necessary clarification about Premanand's confusion regarding the wording.  

Reply to GM’s Response No.8 : Yes it is true that I stated the following:  “if it is not true, I would be thankful to you if you can allow me to visit your university at Puttaparthi, Whitefield and Anantapur and so also the other schools to interview the students and teachers whose names are mentioned in the article to evaluate the truth in the article”.
Moreno’s making of a “necessary clarification” here, after he had first misreported, reveals him as a shallow player with words, and yet he attempts to pass off his work in his Deception series as well-researched.

GM’s Response No.9 : Anyone can make any claim under the guise of anonymity. Dr. Kovoor gave no merit to Dr. Bhagavantham's miracle story because Dr. Bhagavantham could not provide Dr. Kovoor with a name or contact information. Consequently, the Vice Chancellor was completely justified when he gave no merit to an anonymous story that provided neither a name or contact information.

Reply to GM’s Response No.9 : Anyone can claim the right to anonymity unrightfully, but not all can justify it reasonably as a life or death precaution, as I have. Professor Kovoor did not stop his investigation of Dr.Bhagavantam’s story when there was a clue in it but not proof. However, in the end, he found that the story was false, an outcome typical of so countless stories that elevate Sai Baba to godhood. The article “Betrayal” was posted to the V.C by Reg'd. Post Ack. Due with my full postal address and not sent to him anonymously.  

GM’s Response No.10 : Premanand is citing information that I (and a majority of the general public) simply do not have access to. He should supply the general public with scans to this information so that they may be verified firsthand. Premanand also does not divulge the name and contact information for this "lawyer", nor does he divulge the names and contact information to the alleged students. Premanand just said he received a letter and "later letters" from a lawyer. In this comment, Premanand made no reference to receiving letters directly from "students" (which was his original claim on Internet articles, in which no reference to a lawyer was ever made). Directly receiving letters from "students" and directly receiving letters from a "lawyer" are two different things. It is also important to point out that despite these letters being written in 1981, nothing has ever been done about them in 23 years.

Reply to GM’s Response No.10 : I am not citing information for GM’s benefit or that of some
majority of the general public” (What majority, I wonder – GM is quite absurd!).None but the forever harping GM has asked me for any scans of this information for verification. Verification will be done by the courts, and any other competent authority. My lawyer’s name and address is in the book “Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room Vol 1 page 133 ”.

The names of the students sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba is in the article “Betrayal” and the address would - unless the paper trail has been suppressed or destroyed -
be there in the registers of the schools and the SSIHL. That availability might get matters to a point of authenticity, and it would be gratifying to see, under a court injunction, just what records are missing or present. Again, if Gerald Moreno thinks that Sai Baba’s institutions and his worldwide Sathya Sai Organisation are all about openness then he is entirely mistaken. The letter is documented, as mentioned above. The relative who was studying in Sathya Sai Baba’s educational institute was sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba. There are several letters from him which are kept confidential, and Moreno is one of the last of all people to whom one would ever wish to disclose them. Repeatedly, in his writings, he fails to show any respect for this process of confidentiality! His knowledge of the reactions of victims of crime, especially sexual crimes, is abysmal.
  The parents of students in Malaysia cannot do anything even if it takes 100 years as the cases have to be filed in India and they cannot compete with Sathya Sai Baba to spend money on the lawyers and visit the courts when the cases are adjourned. On many occasions, Moreno has ridiculed Sai Baba’s critics about the lack of court proceedings, and, despite his cry of ‘fair is fair’, his unwillingness to recognise the sort of obstacles here or even request the slightest accountability from those he covers up for is the acme of unfairness.

GM’s Response No.11 : At http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v12/12-4-12.htm, the Betrayal letter was published.
Contrary to Premanand's fallacious claim, I did publish the entire Betrayal letter on my webpage. Click Here to view the page in question. Consequently, I have no "fear" whatsoever about this unverifiable and anonymous letter. If Premanand had actually read my webpage, he would have seen that I provided the Betrayal article in full. It is apparent he did not read my article. Now why is Premanand critiquing my comments when he did not read my article in full? Even if someone printed the page for him, the scrollbar next to the Betrayal article is prominent. Now why would there be a scrollbar next to the article if there wasn't more information to scroll down through?

Reply to GM’s Response No.11 : There was no ‘click here’ in GM’s first rebuttal.  I - a computer and Internet novice - got his web page printed out for me and have read it fully. On the copy I have taken I cannot find the word “scroll bar” or what it may be. I did not find the article “Betrayal” on Moreno’s website. Would that I knew about the scroll bar, but I don’t. If I did not read his comments in full how then did I manage to reply to him sentence by sentence, recording each of his sentences? It is GM who is selectively skipping most of my replies.  

GM’s Response No.12 : It is my opinion that the anonymous letter has striking similarities to Premanand's own writing style. That is my opinion and others are free to agree or disagree with me. It is my opinion that the author to this anonymous letter purposely tried to cover-up his handwriting style. This means, of course, that Premanand's handwriting is not going to be a perfect match. However, there are amazing similarities that lead one to suspect Premanand's questionable involvement in writing this anonymous letter.

Reply to GM’s Response No.12 : GM suspects any lead he can find to suspect, regardless of facts, which do not count for him
. “Amazing similarities” is a absurd red herring, as already shown to the full, but he is still parroting himself…. anyone can see that my article and any one of GM’s deception series articles has a hundred words which are similar, as with countless articles by others! 

GM’s Response No.13 : First of all, "ji" is not a "prefix". It is a suffix (something any educated person would know). Secondly, I never claimed that Premanand used the word "Babaji". The fact that Premanand never used the word "Babaji" and does not use the suffix "Ji" (admittedly), make the case that Premanand, in my opinion, wrote this letter and tried to cover-up his known handwriting style by using terms he never used before.

Reply to GM’s Response No.13 : Already refuted all this fully. GM grinds his empty speculative points down into dust.

GM’s Response No.14 :
Actually, "Ji" is used to address the elderly. Why? Because that is the way people show their respect and reverence to the elderly, in India! Premanand even conceded that "Ji" is a "friendly gesture to anyone one likes". Did the author to the Betrayal article "like" Sathya Sai Baba? Was the author extending "friendly gestures" to Sathya Sai Baba? Apparently not. Which is exactly the point I made. So why did the author call Sathya Sai Baba, "Babaji"? It is obvious he tried to cover up his writing style. That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Reply to GM’s Response No.14 : GM is stuck hard to his amazingly big empty point! But  based on his imaginary lies, as pointed out.
GM’s Response No.15 : Hislop, Kasturi and Murphet are just a few devotees who referred to Sathya Sai Baba as "Babaji" and "Swamiji", in their writings and speeches. Sathya Sai Baba is a Guru (whether he is a bona fide guru, is a matter of personal opinion). Everyone knows this. If someone refers to a guru as "Babaji", they are showing respect and reverence by using that term. That is the point I made. Premanand obviously missed it. Perhaps Premanand can name any skeptic that has referred to, or will refer to, Sathya Sai Baba as "Babaji" or "Swamiji"? No skeptic will ever do that. Why? Because the added "Ji" denotes a special reverence and respect.

Reply to GM's Response No.15 The suffix ‘ji’ is used widely and even through sheer habit and quite glibly in India, hence often without intending respect (not least obsequiously to the famous or powerful etc.!), So GM is wrong about skeptics’ language use too.  Besides, Sathya Sai Baba is not believed to be ‘a guru’ by any of his followers, but only as avatar.
  GM has to make up his mind and be specific whether he considers the article ”Betrayal” as mine because I use words which I do not use, or words which I generally use. He cannot argue both ways.  

GM’s Response No.16 : Premanand is obviously misunderstanding what I said and is trying to argue his points out of sheer desperation. First, I never said that the author of the Betrayal article called Sathya Sai Baba a "cheat, liar and fraud". Those were my words (not parenthesized). The author clearly suggested that Sathya Sai Baba's manifestation of vibuthi was a palming trick. Only a "cheat, liar and a fraud" would purposely mislead others into thinking they are working miracles, when they are not.
Regarding my statements about "Ji", I simply pointed out that it is uncharacteristic, for someone who does not like Sathya Sai Baba, to address him as "Babaji". Again, it is clear that the author was trying to cover up his writing style, as "Babaji" is not an appropriate term used by skeptics or former followers (especially when the person in question is a Guru).

Reply to GM's Response No.16 : “S
heer desperation” is shown by grinding away regardless on a lost point, as GM is always doing. Whether in parenthesis or not, “cheat, liar, and fraud were the words used in ‘Betrayal’, as GM’s own sentence itself shows in the next line with: “so GM has accepted that the author clearly suggested that Sathya Sai Baba’s manifestation of vibhuti was a palming trick.” Even if GM has taken only one para. from mine and Betrayal he could have pointed more than a dozen similar words and he could find only 8 coincidences in the 5199 words in “Betrayal” as per his calculation. What a genius researcher this fellow is! – if he would not remain so cravenly anonymous the world might hail him.

GM’s Response No.17 : The Betrayal letter had been published since 1999 and nothing has come from it. Now, if Premanand is willing to believe anonymous stories, regarding Sathya Sai Baba miracles, then I will believe the claims made in this anonymous letter. So which is it Premanand? Do you or do you not believe anonymous stories pertaining to Sathya Sai Baba's miracles?

Reply to GM's Response No.17 : Considering my life work, what a supremely stupid question!
The “Betrayal” article has forwarded people’s awareness and realisation of the huge cover-up of sexual molestation by Sathya Sai Baba.  The truth of it is a constant threat to Sathya Sai Baba and his leaders, who dare not breath a word about it, even to refute it, so it stands as a public indictment which they cannot get erased by any court. It also gives increased confidence to abused students, who I am informed are still privately contacting other expose activists in confidence telling of the horrible situation with sex abuses by Sathya Sai Baba and teachers at his colleges.

How can GM say nothing has come out of the “Betrayal” article published since 1999? He is himself a proof that he has read it and Sathya Sai Baba, his leaders and GM had nothing to prove that the “Betrayal” is false by going to a court or ever contradicting it! All along, I have tried to bring matters to court and have them out in the open so as to see who is and who is not lying and covering up. 

GM’s response No. 18 : Again, I am expressing my own personal opinion. Others are free to agree or disagree with me.

Reply to GM's Response No.18 : Good to see that GM is reduced to this tedious truism.

GM’s Response No. 19 : This comment, by Premanand, proves that he did not read my article in full. Click Here to view the article in question. One will notice that there is a scrollbar next to the Betrayal article. If one scrolls down, one can clearly see I provided the full text to the Betrayal article. I did not publish "14 lines with 20 words in each line". If Premanand actually read my article in full, he would have known this fact. He does not know. Consequently, Premanand has egg on his face while trying to refute my article. Supposing someone printed out my article for Premanand, he should have seen that there was a scrollbar next to the article. Why would there be a scrollbar next to the article if there was nothing more to scroll down to? Next time, Premanand, I suggest that before you try to refute my articles, you at least read, in full, the article in question. Premanand even conceded that his "skeptic colleagues" helped him to edit his answers. Obviously, these "skeptic colleagues" have the same remedial researching skills that Premanand does. Furthermore, I did try to contact Premanand, on
November 19th 2004, regarding this Betrayal letter, and he never responded.

Reply to GM's Response No.19 : The scrollbar was not discovered by me because my secretary did not print it out for me, that is the decisive fact! The rest is therefore typical GM irrelevance hoping to derail criticism. Some
colleagues helped me in editing, as my English would be difficult for non-Indians to grasp fully. They did not work my computer for me, nor do my research or argue my case. GM’s “click here” now is about the article “Betrayal” but was not found in his earlier comments which he states were in full, so how could I quote his article sentence by sentence and reply to his assertions. He published only 14 lines in his comments, which I have documented in my reply.
  I have no record of GM trying to contact me on November 19th 2004 regarding anything. Recently, however, I have replied to his emails in which, chiefly, he claimed that my reply would exonerate Al Rahm, a man who my various enquiries indicate was one of the most prominent and respected leaders in the American Sathya Sai Organisation, whose family support the honesty and integrity of the Rahm’s young son, Alaya, in telling of most dreadful sexual abuse by Sai Baba, and who Moreno has callously branded a liar!  GM has based most of his criticism of the BBC documentary on an inaccurate date! Instead of observing Al Rahm’s courteous and kindly letter to GM (Click here), Moreno now calls him a “blatant lair”, without even stating exactly what the lie is supposed to be! So much for GM’s empty, devious slanders!   The email provided in the web site by Mr.Gerald Huber is not mine. GM could have again asked Mr.Huber why he did not forward it to me by snail post. He made no efforts to follow up even after 11 months.  

GM’s Response No. 20 : Yes, I emailed Premanand. He never responded. I used the email provided on the bottom of the Indian Skeptic website: info@indian-skeptic.de (Ref. 4). In 7 months, my email was either not forwarded to him, or he chose not to respond. Either way, I did not get a response. That does not mean I made no effort. I did.

Reply to GM Response No.20 : GM pretty well knows that I then had
no personal email address. I received nothing. GM could have sent his letter by snail mail. It was Huber who announced that email address, not I. I got my own personal email address in 2004. 

GM’s Response No. 21 : As I stated earlier, I provided the full text to the Betrayal article on my webpage. Premanand continues ranting about me not providing the full text, furthering his embarrassing failure to do even the most rudimentary research into my article.
Since Premanand is a stickler for accuracy, regarding quotes, I did not say, "as if it could be classified as anything!" I said, "As if it could be classified as anything else!". Who distributed this anonymous letter to the students at Puttaparthi and Whitefield? Where is the proof that this letter was distributed at these two places? What was the fallout? Premanand obviously has trouble differentiating between "knowledge" and unverifiable and anonymous claims. If Premanand's research is indicative to the research he did into my article, it is of little wonder that the SSIHL refused to keep the Indian Skeptic magazine on their library table.  

Reply to GM Response No.21 : I am not ranting about anything, although questioning why he quoted 14 lines of the article “Betrayal” in the comments.
It was
the fear by the VC of the aftermath the Indian Skeptic magazine would create if it were kept in the library. Strange that the librarian has not refused to receive the copies sent to him by refusing to accept the posts! Otherwise, GM shows he is a stickler for splitting hairs to the point of total distraction and in wholly incapable of differentiating between his own deceptions and truth.

GM’s Response No.22 : Premanand just admitted that the letter was sent to him "alone". Since the letter was sent only to him, Premanand is indirectly confessing that he was involved in distributing this letter to the students at Puttaparthi and Whitefield. How else did the students at Puttaparthi and Whitefield get a letter that was sent to Premanand "alone"? Despite students and parents allegedly reading the Betrayal article, Sathya Sai Baba's popularity has not been affected. Sathya Sai Baba is still the largest recipient of foreign donations and his college students still enroll without decline.
Premanand's writ petition, for a CBI enquiry, was dismissed. Premanand included 186 pages of newspaper clippings as "evidence" against Sathya Sai Baba! The court dismissed Premanand's petition, in part, because: "On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government resisting the writ petition, contended that although a Ministerial enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was immediately ordered, after giving wide publicity and after conducting enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate since submitted his report to the Government and in spite of wide publicity and holding enquiry, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, nor participated in the enquiry. The allegation that 161 Cr. P.C. statement of Sri Satya Sai Baba was not recorded is not correct. The investigation which was ordered immediately, was taken up by the crime branch and not by local police and within a few hours after the occurrence, the Crime Branch of Criminal Investigating department has taken over the investigation. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner are not correct. Further, the allegation that if the investigation is not handed over to the C.B.I., the State Police against whom allegations are made, would not arrest the accused Police Officers is not correct. Even the Police Officers against whom allegations are made, have also been arrested. The petitioner has not come with clean, hands. The petitioner; earlier filed a writ petition unsuccessfully alleging that the Head of the Ashram had violated the provisions of the Gold Control Act. It is finally contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to direct investigation by C.B.I." Because Premanand has made zero progress in the courts, Premanand claimed that all the courts (including the CBI) "know what is happening in Sai Baba's Empire" and are covering up for Sathya Sai Baba.  

Reply to GM Response No.22 : When I have stated that it was for the information of students joining the Sathya Sai Baba educational institutions it means that it was distributed to them. GM’s reasoning power is failing him in his concluding that I am indirectly confessing that I was involved in distributing this letter to the students at Puttaparthi and Whitefield, and imagining that it was sent to me alone. Given that Moreno has emerged as the sole extended Internet defender of Sathya Sai Baba, could he not easily verified it with the students etc., mentioned in the article whether they have received it and who gave them, instead of imagining things.

If the article has not affected the popularity of Sathya Sai Baba, why you would Moreno have needed to retort against it?

Indeed, Sathya Sai Baba is still the largest recipient of foreign donations. Though collected for charity it would be used for the expenses of the grandest 80th birthday cerebrations of Sathya Sai Baba which is not a part of charity except as a self propaganda. Instead he should order his followers not to go to Prasanthi Nilayam to celebrate his 80th birth day in pomp but to send the money to help the people who have lost everything in the recent hurricanes in the USA and New Mexico and earthquakes in Kashmir and Pakistan. What know-it-all Moreno has stated about the order of the court is false. Contention by the Standing Counsel for the Central Government has nothing to do with the order passed in the High Court and by the Supreme Court. The Sub Divisional Magistrate’s enquiry took place before the writ petition and no wide publicity was given to the enquiry and he was not even able to get information from the inmates and people who were witnesses to the murder. He never subpoena’d any one. The investigation taken by the CB-CID has been accepted by both the courts but the state government closed the murder case stealthily on the R.D.O and the GO (Government Order) on this was kept confidential against law. What a fool this man is! Perhaps if Moreno has ever slightly suspected that his own government is not so lily white, he may like to come to India and see how things can really go amiss here!

Regarding the dismissal of my writ against Sathya Sai Baba on Gold control act, it was dismissed on the personal beliefs of the Hon.Justices that Sathya Sai Baba creates gold ornaments. Personal beliefs of the judges cannot be a part of the judgement, as all courts are courts of record. I did not fail in the Writ Petition when I was able to prove that the judges went against the law so as to exonerate Sathya Sai Baba!

Does Moreno think it is correct for Judges to hand down a judgement that accords with personal theology rather than with laws that reflect a secular State? Yes or no?

GM’s Response No.23 : The VC did not care to investigate the issue perhaps because the letter was anonymous, did not provide a name or contact information and Premanand is a known skeptic of Sathya Sai Baba since 1976 (despite admittedly "investigating" Sathya Sai Baba since 1968).
Once again, I did provide the full text to the Betrayal article. Premanand obviously, did not read my article in full. Consequently, he continues to repeat this shameless untruth.
The anonymous author would not have disclosed his identity by speaking in 1st person (using terms like "me", "my", "I" and "mine"). Instead, the author speaks in 3rd person, relating a story that he was not directly involved. This suggests deceit.

Reply to GM's Response No.23 : GM’s speaking on behalf of the VC is only his imagination at work, with his tentative “suggests”
and without any documentation. Whether the accuser writes in 3rd or 1st person makes no difference. Yet again, I did read the article, GM sticks to his stuck gramophone record.

GM’s Response No.24 No one has been able to provide any sort of official documentation, that was filed by the parents, regarding the missing teenager. Since 1998, nothing has surfaced that would implicate Sathya Sai Baba with this alleged incident.
Reply to GM Response No.24 : When no one knows who GM really is, why should they provide him with any sort of documents? The father’s phone number was given in the article for the sake of verification, then was the time to ask. This opportunity was lost
to Sathya Sai Baba, his leaders and Moreno. Nothing would surface as the police (whether frightened or corrupted?) refused to accept the father’s complaint and register it. No police evidence, no defamation case against accusers! Simple to understand!

GM’s Response No.25 : Premanand is now claiming that the Betrayal article was not written by the student (as he implied to the VC), but by the student's father! Why was this fact never divulged before? Anti-Sai Sites claim the letter was written by a student. Premanand has now divulged it was not written by a student (6 years later). Also, the alleged father does not relate any firsthand stories of sexual abuse against his son. The letter is simply telling a story, making all sorts of allegations, without relating any firsthand accounts. Since the alleged father approached Premanand for help, it is entirely possible that Premanand helped him write the article, which would account for the handwriting similarities. Earlier, Premanand said, "It was sent to me alone because of the hope I would do something to stop this sexual abuse of the students". Now, Premanand is saying that the alleged father distributed the letter "earlier". This statement contradicts Premanand's previous claim. Did Premanand "alone" receive this letter, or did others get it before him?

Reply to GM's Response No.25 : The fact is that the student was abused, his father wrote hoping I could help him. Nothing more is of the slightest concern compared to these facts. Official documentation needs police compliance to register the complaint.   Nothing could
surface when the student lived on selling newspapers and when kind Sai Baba adulators like GM did not help him?

GM’s Response No.26 : Once again, since 1998, nothing has surfaced that would implicate Sathya Sai Baba with this alleged incident. This is Premanand's speculation and (in my opinion) paranoia.
Nowhere did Premanand claim that this letter was written by the father of a Sai Student. This information was purposely suppressed. Why? Anti-Sai Activists have openly derided people who do not use their real name. Robert Priddy called them "hypocrites" and "cowardly creatures". Anti-Sai Activists see no problem using anonymous claims against Sathya Sai Baba. However, if Pro-Sai Activists express their opinions without divulging their name, they are castigated as "cowardly creatures" by Anti-Sai Activists. Using this same logic, the writer to this anonymous letter is a "cowardly creature" who does not have the honesty or integrity to put his name on this faceless letter. Fair is fair.  

Reply to GM's Response No.26 : I did not say that the “Betrayal” article was written
down by a student? I have not implied this to the VC. What I stated was “one letter”. In my first reply I stated it was the article by his father, which was also true. This is to refute Moreno’s lying distortions. Gerald Moreno’s “fair is fair” is more of his unfair hypocrisy. What does he have to hide, why so cringing and shameful? Why does he not dare to stand forth like Robert Priddy and I, among many others? In hiding his actual identity, Gerald Moreno proves he is indeed a most cowardly creature!

GM’s Response No.27 : Since this letter is anonymous, anyone could have faked it. Anyone could have claimed they were a "father" to a Sai student. Anyone can claim anything they want, as long as their identity is concealed. There is no way to verify this information. If this was about me publishing an anonymous sexual abuse allegation against Premanand, one can be certain he would be demanding names, contact information and condemning me for spreading an allegation that anyone could have made under the guise of anonymity!
It is true that I made multiple submissions to SaiPetition.net in order to expose their deceitful submission policy that allowed anyone to make as many fake submissions, under as many fake names, as they chose. Since SaiPetition.net did not listen to my valid concerns, I made fake submissions and screen-captured the results as proof that anyone could make a bogus submission. However, I clearly stated, on my site, which fake signatures I made and even provided screen-captures. I did not withhold this information, nor did I keep it secret. Click Here to view my page about SaiPetition.net.Click Hereto see proof that SaiPetition.net and Robert Priddy do not verify the signatures submitted to this bogus petition. After a month and a half, Robert Priddy continues to publish an openly faked name on his Ex-Office Bearers page (despite being sent an email to make the necessary correction). This shows whom is an "expert in faking". I was never offered a "straight explanation" by SaiPetition.net. Click Here to view the response I got from the anonymous SaiPetition.net Sextuplets.   Regarding the comment, "He is chronically unwilling to accept straight explanations, even those submitted to police, legal and government authorities, can be true.", I will reference an article published on SaiGuru.net, that talks about the "petition". SaiGuru.net (an Anti-Sai Site) published an article located at: http://saiguru.net/english/news/petitionnews.htm that said (about the petition): "The JuST petition working group, in consultation with a dozen of the other original signatories in the JuST group, seriously considered the status of exposé dealings with the FBI and the CBI and found that the initiatives taken towards these bodies by various exposé activists have not so far proven effective. No documentation of replies, nor any public statement concerning Sathya Sai Baba or the accusations against him, have been made available anywhere by either the FBI in the USA or the CBI in India. Mentioning this in the international petition would therefore have been counter-productively unconvincing to any serious actors and agencies in the legal and human rights field. The same applies to the High Court judgement in India, where the charges were rejected as invalid, on the grounds that they were made by a person other than any of the injured parties. Documentation of all this only proves unadvised and incorrect procedure on behalf of the injured parties, which the JuST group considered a bad advertisment for the credibility of the petition to authorities around the world." Enough said!  

Reply to GM Response No.27 : Again, we see Moreno’s attempt to invoke side-issues, and in some absurd way think that I am responsible for anyone else’s opinions. I am not concerned with what Robert Priddy called others and if he has called anyone any names they are competent to question him and, if it is defamatory, and take legal action.

I am not connected with the Sai Petition web site, and have simply signed the Petition, as have many others – including Moreno whose suspicious mind cannot reckon with the fact that most people’s signatures of the petition (except his own bogus ones, of course, are genuine).

I am not connected with the Sai Petition web site except that I have signed it. So GM states that he falsified signatures on his web site? This does not prove the petition people are the falsifiers, but the contrary. If people (many of them being, I hear, former devotees whose identities are well-known to Sai devotees), have signed the JuST petition, how can it be that those who set up the Petition are experts in faking? Another Moreno absurdity! Those knowledgeable of the Internet tell me that a fraud can hide his identity even when asked for confirmation (even counterfeit false written signatures). Until one has experienced chicanery like Moreno’s on the Internet, people trust that signatories will be bona fide. GM’s negative, suspicious mind is all that is necessary to concoct scenarios unlikely from the very beginning. Moreno has himself boasted that he can counterfeit typed documents (Click here).

GM’s Response No.28 : Once again, I published the Betrayal article in full. It is amusing that Premanand is not aware of this basic fact. The sentences I was referring to, in the Betrayal article, were "In Bible only one individual is supposed to love homosexuality, The Satan or the anti-christ...On the Day of Judgment you will have to pay for your sins... it is common-sense that when Satan appears, he will never proclaim himself as Satan he will only 'act' as God and confuse and destroy the faith of mankind and cause confusion and mayhem as you see in world today and talk about bringing love, peace and harmony – where are they?". I was not referring to any of the three selective quotes that Premanand cited. Now, if the anonymous writer was not trying to refer to Christianity, why did he make mention to the "Bible", "Satan", the "Anti-Christ" and the "Day of Judgment"? The concept of Satan "appearing" and acting as God, comes from the Book of Revelations. Islam does not accept the Book of Revelations. Consequently, this reference is Christian. Again, it appears that Premanand, despite publishing this Betrayal letter, is unfamiliar with its contents. Premanand just said, "What the religions and agents of gods do is to exploit believers in the name of god". Once again, Premanand is accusing Jesus and Mohammad of "exploiting believers in the name of God".

Reply to GM Response No.28 : On the principle that a lie repeated endlessly will eventually be taken as the truth.
GM is continuing parrot like with the same questions to which I have given adequate answers.

The writer’s aim was not to refer to Christianity, it’s that simple! The author quoted the Bible to show that Sathya Sai Baba is the Satan (both a Christian and a Muslim concept, as familiar to some Sai students who are Christians or Muslims). He has quoted the Vedas also. He would not have quoted from Koran as Islam is not averse to sex and Muslims do not consider celibacy as an important quality. Sathya Sai Baba also speaks about the Bible and the Satan. Both Hinduism and Christianity propagate celibacy.  The comment that I am accusing Jesus and Mohammad for exploiting believers in the name of god is not true. Mohammad also did not perform miracles nor did he claim to be a god like Sathya Sai Baba.
  I am very familiar with the article “Betrayal” but not so with the book of Revelations.    

GM’s Response No. 29 : No where did I attribute this quote to Premanand. As a matter of fact, the quote begins with, "The anonymous writer says, under the 'Miracles' section..." Premanand is obviously confused. However, on the link that Premanand provided (which I quote from later), he fully acknowledged he used the term "vibuthi ball", which happens to be the exact phrase used by the anonymous writer! I have not been able to find any other person who used this exact phrase.
Reply to GM Response No.29 : Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly!
    GM’s Response No.30 : Of course none of this is in Premanand's article. Again, it was taken from the Betrayal article, whose statements, Premanand has obviously forgotten. I specifically said, "The anonymous writer says, under the 'Miracles' section..." I was referring to the anonymous writer, not Premanand. Guess Premanand is having trouble reading (again).  

Reply to GM's Response No.30 :  Who can be bothered to read GM’s compulsive nit-picking and misrepresentation of everything he touches on?

GM’s Reference No.31 : It is true that Piet Vroon made this comment. I had a long list of articles from the Indian Skeptic website and accidentally included this quote. I recorded this quote under the Indian Skeptic Magazine 6(4), August 1993: 8-16, however, forgot to attribute it to Piet Vroon. I corrected my article by removing the quote and the link.

Reply to GM Response No.31 : If GM’s research is meticulous, how did he misrepresent Prof.Vroon’s article as mine and, after I pointed it out, stating it is true that Prof.Piet Vroon made it? There are also other quotes when he speculated that he has not been able to find any other person who used the exact word (“Ball”) when he knew that the article was of Professor Vroon’s.  What a fraud Gerald Moreno is!

GM’s Reference 32 : Good. Premanand acknowledged he made this post. In this post, Premanand happened to use (call it a "miracle" or "coincidence") the exact phrase "vibuthi ball" that the anonymous writer used. I have not been able to find one other person who used this exact phrase besides Premanand and the anonymous writer.
Reply to GM Response No.32 : Why does GM want me to acknowledge it? It wa
s not an acknowledgment of the post but simply to point out GM’s faking. “Vibhuti Ball” is mentioned in ‘Betrayal’ and  in Prof. Piet Vroon’s article. GM is stating another untruth.

GM’s Reference No.33 : I am simply pointing out that the only two people (that I have found) who used the term "vibuthi ball" are Premanand and the Anonymous writer to the Betrayal article. Is this just a coincidence? Piet Vroon said "ball" (not in conjunction with the word "vibuthi") and this word was translated into English by J.W. Nienhuys. All the other references, that I could find, use the terms "pellets", "pills", "beads" or "tablets". Click Hereto view nine references where Anti-Sai Activists, Former Devotees and Skeptics described the vibuthi in terms of "pellets", "pills", "beads" or "tablets". I have not been able to find even one other person who used the term "vibuthi ball" (like Premanand and the Anonymous writer did). Consequently, my point is entirely valid.

Reply to GM's Response No.33 : It takes the small-minded to make such tiny, false points! When GM does not know any other persons who uses the word vibhuti ball and he has not verified it from Sathya Sai Baba’s competitors like Swami Premananda, Bala Sai Baba etc.  

GM’s Response No.34 : Not only did Premanand and the Anonymous writer use the same exact phrase, that other Anti-Sai Activists did not use, they also describe the process identically. I am simply pointing this out.

Reply to GM's Response No.34 : “Simply” is the right word here! It is not true that I have described the process identically.
Before I replied to GM at all, I very well knew that his agenda is only to twist facts and interpret them falsely; but he does it so badly that his malign intent and incompetence are clear to observant persons. My purpose was collecting enough of these untruths etc., to send to the law enforcement departments, and expose the cult mentality for interested media and other researchers.

It is clear that GM has tried to obtain from Al Rahm, me and others information to which he has no moral right or any qualifications whateverto justify. When flouted, he attacks and attacks us and defames us as liars etc. He predisposes himself to believe Murali Krishna’s story despite the fact that complaints were made about this miserable person to Interpol and to the Indian police, and that Murali Krishna’s duplicitous (and when caught out, his self-confessed) playing both sides of the street was reported to the Australian Federal Police and other instances. The murder of my second son, so obviously related to his possession of vital evidence against Sathya Sai Baba, clearly means nothing to this vilifying, heartless Gerald Moreno. 

GM’s Response No.35 : Concluding this first response to the Betrayal letter, I knew that Premanand would resort to distorting facts and misrepresenting my words. I am not surprised that he has resorted to the very same tactics I have accused him of. So Premanand's response was not a "flop" at all. Rather, it was exactly what I expected. It is undeniable that Premanand and the anonymous writer share an uncanny resemblance to each other's writing styles. Of course, the only sure way for Premanand to exonerate his questionable involvement in writing this letter is by providing us with the name and contact information to the person who wrote it.

Reply to GM Response No.35 : Gerald Moreno
has utterly failed to prove even one uncanny resemblance between my writing style and that of the author of ‘Betrayal’, whose name I will constantly withhold until his safety can be legally and practically guaranteed.

See previous articles on this issue:-
1: Refutation of Unfounded Allegations against an Anonymous Letter - part one

: Refutation of Unfounded Allegations against an Anonymous Letter - part two


NOTE! Unless otherwise stated, every article on these pages is the registered copyright of the author and/or website owner and unauthorised copying will be pursued legally . Permission to be sought in writing via the owner of this website