UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS & AN ANONYMOUS LETTER Part Three
by Basava Premanand e-mail, click here

Reply to Mr. Gèrald Morèno on his article published on his website
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/

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.

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.

My Response: Anti-Sai Activists have zero credibility. They refuse to provide a link to my site because they are afraid of directing their readers to my site, which exposes their smear campaign, lies and dishonesty.

Conny Larsson is a well known exaggerator (even to Anti-Sai Activists like Greg Gerson). I received a very disturbing email from one of the Zimnicki Twins. He claimed that Conny offered him and his brother money to make false sexual abuse allegations against Sathya Sai Baba (Reference)! No wonder Conny wants to suppress my site-link from the general public. I have backed up all of my comments, about Conny, using his own words and material off of Anti-Sai Sites.

Murali Krishna is not my "accomplice". I do not control who reads my articles and what they choose do with the information they find on my site. I did not even know who Murali Krishna was until I researched Premanand's article about him. This shows how Premanand continues with his misrepresentations even though he has no proof to back up his claims. Why does Premanand act like this? This is not the behavior of a "scientist" or "rationalist" of any integrity. That is why I believe Premanand has no integrity.

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.

My Response: The Betrayal Letter is anonymous. It is copyright protected to its original author. The only person who can complain about copyright infringement is the author to the letter. Since Premanand contends he did not write the article, he holds no copyright privileges to the letter.

On his first response, Premanand said, "Now why did he not carry the full article with my comments, copy of the registered letter to the VC etc., when he has given details of 6 websites where he claims my articles are published? Is it because of the fear that some of the students or their parents - if they browse his website - might come to know the names of the students and the teachers and confirm the matter in the article as true?". Premanand wanted me to publish the full Betrayal Letter on my site (which I did). Now, however, Premanand is claiming I am "violating copyrights" by publishing the full letter on my site! Premanand is double-faced.

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 Morèno 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 SSB. The writer does not want himself or his family to be harassed or murdered. What Morèno refuses to contemplate is a fact only too abundantly clear - particularly to well-informed Indians - which is the extraordinary power that SSB 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.

My Response: Why hasn't Premanand traced the names mentioned in the Betrayal Letter? Premanand has no proof that any of the people mentioned in the Betrayal Letter were either sexually abused or sexually abusive. A sad case of the blind leading the blind. I have not been able to find any information on the people mentioned in the Betrayal Letter, and neither have Anti-Sai Activists.

Regarding the affidavits, one must remember that SaiGuru.net said, "Similar reactions to other young men with whom Sathya Sai was angry when they did not get sexually aroused are recorded in various of the affidavits on the internet." Anti-Sai Activists claimed that affidavits had been published on the internet. Where are they? Ever since I publicly challenged this claim, Anti-Sai Activists contend that the affidavits are "confidential". Hari Sampath, Robert Priddy, SaiGuru.net, Barry Pittard, Timothy Conway and Tony O'Clery claimed that there are "20", "scores" and "over a hundred" affidavits. Ojvind Kyro is only willing to verify he has ten (originally Ojvind said he had 20, but the number mysteriously halved).

I will address the issue of anonymity in the following response.

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 Gèrald Morèno).

My Response: How did Premanand find this link when he does not use a computer? Oh yeah, his "secretary" and "colleagues" are helping him out because he is internet illiterate.

Does Premanand really believe that anonymous allegations of sexual abuse are okay? This puts Premanand and his Anti-Sai compadres in a tenuous position. There are numerous, anonymous allegations of sexual abuse, pedophilia, homosexuality, fraud and criminal activity alleged against Anti-Sai Activists on guestbooks (including the ExBaba guestbook). As a matter of fact, someone made the claim that Robert Priddy was a drag queen, homosexual and a pedophile in the Exbaba guestbook (which were subsequently deleted). According to Premanand, these anonymous submissions were okay and are perfectly acceptable! The people who made these claims have their own reasons for maintainging anonymity. I am sure they choose not to reveal their identities because they fear for their personal safety (I was even sent a death threat via email).

The part to this article, that Premanand left off, said, "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." Also, a related link stated, "Some people worry that greater Internet anonymity means more scam artists and criminal activity. For example, an anonymous Web surfer might have an easier time harassing people online" (Reference). These articles were written in 1999.

Premanand and Anti-Sai Activists repeatedly say that I am not who I say I am. They keep on claiming that I am using a fake (anonymous) identity. Premanand just made a solid case that my identity is not important! Why does Premanand constantly complain about my identity when he believes anonymity is justified? More wishy-washy comments by Premanand.

I have also received private emails, from people who fear for their own safety, regarding the Betrayal Letter. I was told that there are "mysterious disappearances" of people, in India, who openly challenge Premanand. I was also told that former Sai Students joined forces with Premanand and that was how the Betrayal Letter was created. This was verified by a post that Hari Sampath made on a Yahoo Group (Reference). I was also told that the principal contributer to the Betrayal Letter was a man by the name of "Mr. Prabal Mall", from Assam (who was described as a very disturbed individual). Of course, the people who told me this fear for their safety (as Indian Rationalists attack dissenters, as Premanand did with Yachendra). I normally don't give much weight to this type of anonymous information. However, Premanand does, so I am making it public.

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?

My Response: Anti-Sai Activists published, at one time, my full name, address and phone number on their site. I was even contacted by Ojvind Kyro (a biased, Anti-Sai journalist from Denmark). Ojvind would not have been able to contact me if I am not who I say I am. Regarding my personal contact information, view my FAQ's page.

Morèno 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.

My Response: Premanand is the one who is making criminal allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and the Sai Organization. Therefore, it is upto him to back up his allegations. I am not aware of any illegal activity by the Sai Organization. How can I demand documentation to non-existent illegal activity? Premanand claims that the Sai Organization is involved in illegal activity. The burden of proof is on his shoulders, not mine.

Undoubtedly, there are some devotees who exaggerate their experiences. There are also critics who start false miracle stories, so later, they rejoice in "exposing" the false miracle stories. Although some miracles may have been exposed as being "fake", the fact remains that there are numerous miracles, visions, manifestations and healing attributed directly to Sathya Sai Baba. Even Robert Priddy (a close confidant to Premanand and an Anti-Sai Extremist) said, "Some of what I experienced of SSB's extraordinary and positive powers through many years is undeniable, even after the most rigorous skeptical investigations, and I do not regard him as any ordinary human being." This statement is still on Robert Priddy's site.

Sathya Sai Baba remains an enigma that has withstood world-wide criticism, sexual abuse allegations and vicious slander. Premanand's only claim to fame is in his association with Sathya Sai Baba. Remove SSB from the picture and Premanand's name blurs into the background, along with the Scooby-Doo Gang who shared his nomination for outstanding skeptics (that he did not win, by the way).

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 SSB propaganda and sold in Sai Baba centres around the world.

My Response: Premanand is the one who brings up irrelevant material. Once commented on, Premanand accuses me of introducing irrelevant material!

Earlier, Premanand made the case that anonymous stories are valid. Now, he is casting his aspersions on anonymous miracle stories (in association with SSB). More hypocrisy from Premanand.

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.

My Response: When a person writes a letter and withholds his/her signature and identity, that letter is anonymous. Premanand is saying that an unsigned and unattributed letter is not anonymous! Premanand's argument is wholly absurd. Premanand is illogical and irrational.

Instead of hiding his identity and proper contact details, let Morèno 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 SSB etc., along with 4 confidential files on SSB 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 SSB'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?

My Response: It is indeed tragic what happened to Premanand's son. There are no excuses for murder and I offer my sincerest condolences to Premanand.

However, how would Premanand feel if someone wrote a book about him, alleging that since his son was killed in his dwelling, he was somehow involved in the murder? It would be unthinkable. However, Premanand has done exactly that with Sathya Sai Baba. With no proof, Premanand accused Sathya Sai Baba of being involved in the alleged murders and cover-up to the 4 assailants who broke into his residence.

On this page, Premanand claimed that his house was burgled three times in one month. According to Tanya Datta, Premanand suspected the burglars were looking for evidence against Sathya Sai Baba. This happened around June 2004. Why Premanand kept CDs and confidential files about Sathya Sai Baba in his residence, after being burgled three times, is a mystery. Premanand also does not tell us how he obtained a cell phone that allegedly belonged to Sathya Sai Baba. I have never heard of Sathya Sai Baba using a cell phone. If SSB did use a cell phone, only very close associates could touch it. How did Premanand obtain SSB's cell phone? Who gave it to him? This is a very disturbing bit of information, from Premanand, that suggests some sort of impropriety in obtaining SSB's cell phone.

Unfortunately, Premanand has made many enemies on his crusade against Indian God-men and Saints in India. After being attacked and burgled so many times, why Premanand would leave his son, alone in his house, stocked full of "evidence" against SSB, is perplexing. Especially when Premanand told Tanya Datta, in June 2004, that he felt the burglars were looking for his evidence against Sathya Sai Baba. Why didn't Premanand hide his "evidence" in some other place?

Premanand is trying to make his case that he is honest and will die for the truth. He does so with almost a convincing pathos. However, I know, from direct experience, that Premanand is a liar, a deceiver and a bogus skeptic. Premanand claimed about me:

1) That the Sai Organization is utilizing me to spread falsehoods against him.

2) I am making profits off of my websites.

3) I am being secretly funded.

4) I am an "adept in faking even published newspaper articles".

5) I "threatened" him.

6) I tried to "blackmail" him.

7) I "attested" to SSB's manifestation of oil is for "kundalini arousal".

8) I am "unemployed".

9) I am a "college dropout".

10) Murali Krishna is my "accomplice".

11) He has "evidence" that that I made international phone calls to solicit my site.

12) Repeatedly states I do not reference my comments when I do.

13) Continually twists and distorts my words into things I never said.

14) That I was sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba!

Such a shameless and perverted liar, it is beyond belief! Premanand made all these slanderous statements about me with no proof and no documention. To me, this is all I need to know about Premanand. I know, from the accusations he made against me, that he is a habitual and chronic liar who will go to his deathbed defending his lies.

Premanand has tried, for many years, to tie SSB with murders and other criminal activities. He has only succeeded in his propaganda campaigns. He has no proof that SSB was involved in any murders. Whenever a SSB devotee dies or something tragic happens, Premanand blames SSB. This type of blame-mentality is unfounded. There are Christians who murder other people. Do we blame Jesus? No, we do not.

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 SSB 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 Morèno 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 Morèno'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.

My Response: It is my opinion that the Betrayal Letter is false. Five years have passed and no one has been able to verify the contents in the Betrayal Letter. Premanand is hoping that the contents to the letter will be shown to be true.

Premanand just stated there are 20 published affidavits! Where are they? This is a famous lie told by Anti-Sai Activists. As a matter of fact, Anti-Sai Activists are now claiming that the affidavits are private and confidential and that is why they have not been released to the general public or published on the internet. As a matter of fact, for many years, Ojvind Kyro was said to possess 20 affidavits. Now, however, Ojvind Kyro is only willing to verify, in complete secrecy, that he has 10 affidavits. Once again, this makes my case that Premanand has not been thorough in his research against Sathya Sai Baba. He is still using outdated arguments that have been conclusively shown to be patently false.

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 Gèrald Morèno 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.

My Response: Premanand has not confronted me with "dozens of indisputable facts". I am sure he thinks his facts are indisputable. I disagree.

The person whom Premanand is referring to (in reference to me supporting someone who lies) is Lisa De Witt. First and foremost, I was not aware of these claims and I do not believe that: 1) Premanand has/had a concubine; 2) Premanand cheated on his wife; 3) Premanand is an illegitimate child or 4) Dr. Kovoor died, in part due to syphilis. I do not believe any of these statements because I have not been able to verify them.

It is also important to point out that Lisa De Witt did not make these comments. An anonymous user (on a Yahoo Group) made them (Reference), and Lisa De Witt reposted them. Earlier, Premanand claimed that information, submitted anonymously, is completely justified when it comes to Sathya Sai Baba. When it comes to anonymous information about Premanand, he is outraged and feels they are "vicious and false lies"! More phoneyness from Premanand. Why wasn't Premanand aware that Lisa De Witt did not make these comments? Again, Premanand is being spoon-fed lies and he is repeating these untruths like trained parrot.

What Premanand fails to recognize, is that when I disagree with something, I openly and publicly state it. I do not maintain silence, thereby feeding the notion that I am supportive to a particular claim. Anti-Sai Activists, on the other hand, know about Reinier Van Der Sandt's viewing of child pornography, know about Afshin Khorramshahgol's perverted statements, know about Sanjay Dadlani's vulgar requests for Jesus Pornography and vile statements made on his online blog and know about Tony O'Clery's blatant lies against Sathya Sai Baba. However, Anti-Sai Activists are completely mute about these things. Therefore, they feed the notion that they are supportive to these people. Premanand has openly defended Reinier Van Der Sandt and Afshin Khorramshahgol. Premanand ignores their perverted online behavior and vicious slander, against Sathya Sai Baba and others, and points fingers at me, whining and driveling.

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!

My Response: Premanand's statement is absurd. As a matter of fact, I find his comment entirely preposterous. If one's identity is withheld (for whatever reason) one is anonymous! There is no way around this simple fact. Premanand is trying to have people believe that an unnamed person who wrote an unsigned letter is not anonymous! That is ridiculous.

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.

My Response: I guess Premanand does not know the definition of "accused" (comparable to his definition of "anonymous").

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.

My Response: I did reference my comment with a screencapture. I don't know how many times I am going to have to defend myself against Premanand's repeated, erroneous claims that I do not reference my comments. The article in question was clearly referenced as "Ref. 3" and lead to this page. Consequently, Premanand's flippant tirade about me not providing proof is moot. Apparently, he, his secretary and colleagues do not even know how to put a cursor over a link and click on it.

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 Morèno 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 Morèno typically opts for the denigrating interpretation. GM spuriously fashions innocent details into an indictment.

My Response: How to contact the VC? Premanand does not even give his name. The fact of the matter is that Premanand misunderstood the wording to my comment. Instead of admitting he misunderstood my comment, he continues to blame me for his reading mistakes. Premanand has no accountability. Your mistakes are yours. His mistakes are also yours.

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 SSB'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.

My Response: In the previous paragraph, I explained how Premanand misread my comment. Premanand suggested he understood what I said and even provided a sentence on how I should have worded my comment. Now, however, Premanand is going back to square one and is asking me why I "falsified" his words about asking the VC to investiage the Betrayal letter. Before I respond to this again, I need to note that Premanand already conceded that he is not fully conversant with the English language. He relies heavily on his English dictionary and his secretary and "colleagues". Once again, I did not say that Premanand requested the VC to investigate. The word "he" was interpreted, by Premanand, as referring to the VC. The word "he" was actually referring to Premanand himself. Premanand asked the VC if he (Premanand) could investigate the contents in the Betrayal letter. Also, I did not say that Kovoor mentioned anything about the VC. Where Premanand gets all this false information from is beyond me. Consequently, I did not misinterpret the reference at all.

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". Morèno'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.

My Response: My comment was not misreported. Premanand misunderstood the wording to my comment. Obviously, he is still confused. Premanand does not understand my English and claims I do not reference my comments when I do. How shallow is that?

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.

My Response: If the person who wrote the Betrayal Letter is not wanting to reveal his identity, then one must conclude that he has written his account with a vested interest, under the guise of being fearful for his life. In five years the contents to the Betrayal Letter have never been verified (even though full names are provided). Certainly, Premanand has not verified the contents to this letter. Despite this fact, Premanand contends the contents are true. If Premanand received the full signature to the VC, why doesn't he say his name?

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 ".

My Response: Another perfect example of Premanand trying to refute my comments about him, by citing information in his book, but failing to provide the actual contents. It appears Premanand is trying to get people to buy his book. This feeds the perception that Premanand has "vested" interests when it comes to his alleged facts. Premanand repeatedly fails to back up his claims with actual screen-captures or text.

The names of the students sexually abused by SSB 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 Gèrald Morèno 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 SSB's educational institute was sexually abused by SSB. There are several letters from him which are kept confidential, and Morèno 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.

My Response: Anyone could have stolen a school register or a made list to student's names. Many students receive awards and their names are published and read out loud. Just because the names may be genuine, does not make the letter genuine.

I am getting tired of hearing the droning claim that people can make vicious, unsubstantiated allegations against Sathya Sai Baba and everyone must simply accept this out of "confidentiality". If these people make their claims public, their identities should also be made public. Premanand challenged me to come forward with my identity (which I have) or else he considers me to be a hypocrite. However, when it comes to his smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba, all of sudden, anonymous claims by anonymous people are justified and everything is "confidential" and "private". If this information was released to (and backed up by) a reputable journalist or media organization, with an established history of integriy, then maybe I could respect that. However, Premanand is a fervent Anti-Sai Activist since 1968. He is not believable and, in my opinion, is untrustworthy.

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 SSB to spend money on the lawyers and visit the courts when the cases are adjourned. On many occasions, Morèno 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.

My Response: Premanand originally contended that the Malaysian student's allegations were sent to him by a lawyer. Why didn't the lawyer help the students? Why is it that Premanand can afford to send his book to all sorts of people in the Indian Government, but he cannot afford to file a legal case on behalf of sexual abuse victims? Premanand obviously has the time and resources to file a spurious "Gold Control Act" suit against Sathya Sai Baba, but he does not have the time or resources to file suits that really matter!

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 Morèno'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.

My Response: Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. It is like talking to someone who is deaf and mute. Of course Premanand is not going to find the word "scrollbar" on my page. That is because I am not talking about the word "scrollbar". I am talking about "a scrollbar" that is located next to the article. The scrollbar allows one to scroll down and view the entire article. Since Premanand said that someone printed out the page for him, naturally, he is not going to be able to use the scrollbar, because one can only scroll on a computer screen! That is why Premanand said I only published 14 lines to the Betrayal Letter. That was all that printed out. If Premanand viewed my original page, on a computer, he would clearly see the scrollbar and the full article along with it. Consequently, Premanand is arguing his case out of ignorance. He even has the audacity to say I am wrong and he is right!

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!

My Response: It is not a red herring when both Premanand and the anonymous writer used the exact, same phrase, "vibuthi ball". No one else has used this description besides Premanand and the anonymous writer. Why?

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

My Response: Premanand did not fully refute my comments about "ji". He is trying to squirm his way out of it by blaming me (something he typically does anyway).

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.

My Response: Once again, Premanand is simply casting his slurs and aspersions against me, trying to detract from the fact that "ji", when used in association with a Guru, is an expression of great respect.

Reply to GM 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, SSB is not believed to be 'a guru' by any of his followers, but only as avatar.

My Response: Finally Premanand calls "ji" a "suffix". Originally, he called it a "prefix"! Although it is true that people use the suffix "ji" when talking to elders or out of respect for others, "ji", when used in association with a Guru, is an expression of great respect. No rationalist or skeptic will ever refer to Gurus, Saints or God-men (let alone, Sathya Sai Baba) as "Babaji" or "Swamiji". Why the person who wrote the anonymous letter referred to Sathya Sai Baba as "Babaji" is a mystery. As I said before, I believe the writer tried to cover up his handwriting style.

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.

My Response: I believe the author, to the Betrayal Letter, tried to cover up his handwriting style. Since I believe that Premanand's handwriting style is similar to the one in the letter, it is my contention Premanand tried to cover up his handwriting style by using words he would normally not use. This is what people do when they try to conceal their handwriting style. Common sense, really.

Reply to GM Response No.16 : "Sheer 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 SSB'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.

My Response: I did not say the words "cheat, liar and fraud" were used in the Betrayal Letter. Premanand misrepresented my words again and is blaming me for his poor grasp of the English language. The overwhelming majority to this article discusses allegations against various people and Sathya Sai Baba. The letter is also written in third person. The way the letter reads, sounds eerily similar to the way Premanand writes. As a matter of fact, this is what prompted me to research and compare the handwriting style in Premanand's former articles with the one in the Betrayal Letter. The entire letter sounds like Premanand's way of writing. That was/is my impression. I found eight solid similarities between Premanand's handwriting style and the anonymous writer. Premanand would like for everyone to think otherwise. As I said before, the only way for Premanand to vindicate himself, and his highly questionable involvement in writing this letter, is to provide the general public with the name and contact information to the person who allegedly wrote it. That would solve this matter completely. Period. His excuse of "confidentiality" entirely compromises the integrity to the Betrayal Letter. Even more so when, in five years, no one has been able to verify its contents.

Reply to GM 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 SSB. The truth of it is a constant threat to SSB 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 SSB and teachers at his colleges.

My Response: The reasons Premanand just gave, are valid reason why he would forge the letter. Thank you Premanand.

If alleged students are divulging all these "horrible situations with sex abuses by SSB and teachers at his colleges", I can't help to wonder why none of them are willing to do anything about it. If the problem is so widespread, Anti-Sai Activists should have no problem getting the witnesses they need to bring Sathya Sai Baba to justice. The grim and inescapable reality is that despite all these claims from alleged students, relating sexual abuse stories, absolutely nothing has been done about it. Period.

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 SSB, 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.

My Response: The Betrayal Letter is false. No one, including Premanand, has verified the contents to the letter. The letter is propaganda. Why a skeptic and rationalist cannot see this fact, is beyond me. This strengthens my view that Premanand has ulterior motives in soliciting this anonymous letter. It is also amusing to point out that the entire fate of Sathya Sai Baba rests in the hands of an anonymous person who is not willing to file a legal case (despite giving full names to alleged victims and alleged abusers)! Surely someone in the Anti-Sai Movement can provide financial assistance to protect the witness? After all, Anti-Sai Activists offered free "world-class legal resources" to alleged victims. No one has come forward to utilize these free "world-class legal resources". One can only wonder why.

Reply to GM Response No.18,19: Good to see that GM is reduced to this tedious truism. 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.

My Response: Premanand should not be criticizing me and my webpages when he is not viewing them, first-hand, for himself. Even though Premanand is not viewing my actual webpages, he is passing judgment on them and making false and erroneous accusations against me. I suggest Premanand hire a more intelligent secretary who can proofread his comments and correct his monumental errors before they are published.

Premanand is a shameless liar. Even though he has not seen my webpages (first-hand), he continues to make fabricated statements about them, that he knows absolutely nothing about. My article has not changed. Since Premanand admittedly knows nothing about computers, he fails to realize that the Betrayal Letter was put into its own window and had its own scrollbar. That is why he could only see the first 14 lines to the Betrayal Letter. Premanand tells another lie by claiming I changed my page. I did not. This fact is known to the many viewers who read the page and the full Betrayal Letter on it. If Premanand, his secretary and colleagues cannot even get these basic facts right (and conduct the most remedial of research), this proves that Premanand's facts and research against Sathya Sai Baba are similary of inferior quality.

Earlier, Premanand trumpeted that he is "ready to die in standing up for the truth". Premanand's standard of "truth" is so distorted and so low, he can no longer differentiate between what is true and what is not.

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 Morèno 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), Morèno 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!

My Response: Here is another one of Premanand's blatant and shameless lies. I never called Alaya Rahm a "liar". Why doesn't Premanand reference where I allegedly said this? Why does Premanand continue to twist and distort my viewpoints and words, yet claim he has a fervent devotion to the truth? Click Here to view my email correspondence with Premanand where he accused me of "threatening" and trying to "blackmail" him! Click Here to read my articles about Alaya Rahm.

The email provided in the web site by Mr.Gèrald 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.

My Response: It is not my fault that Gerald Huber did not forward my email to Premanand. The fact remains that I did send an email, to the email address provided, to be forwarded to Premanand.

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.

My Response: I did not claim that the email address was Premanand's. I specifically stated it was located on the Indian Skeptic website and that my email was not forwarded.

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.

My Response: With all the lies and distortions that Premanand resorts to, it is of little wonder that the SSS Library does not allow this type of disinformation to be put on their shelves. If anyone has been shown to be "splitting hairs" and "wholly incapable of differentiating between his own deceptions and the truth", it is Premanand. His own words (even on this page) fully support this contention.

Reply to GM Response No.22 : When I have stated that it was for the information of students joining the SSB 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 Morèno has emerged as the sole extended Internet defender of SSB, 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 SSB, why you would Morèno have needed to retort against it?

My Response: More fuzzy distractions and explanations from Premanand. If my viewpoints are not so popular, why would Premanand feel the need to retort against them? The fact of the matter is that Premanand has made zero progress against Sathya Sai Baba. SSB is still the largest recipient to foreign donations. This indicates that he is still very popular and well respected. The only people who believe Premanand are rationalists, atheists and ex-devotees.

Indeed, SSB 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 SSB 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 Morèno 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 Morèno 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!

My Response: Why would devotees continue to make donations to Sathya Sai Baba if they felt that he was wasting their money? It is easy for Premanand, as an acidic skeptic, to interpret everything negatively, however, the inevitable fact remains that Sathya Sai Baba would not be the largest recipient to foreign donations if devotees felt that he was wasting their money. Enough said.

One will never see crowds around Premanand as there are around Sathya Sai Baba. If it were not for Sathya Sai Baba, Premanand's name would be practically unknown.

I have no clue what Premanand is talking about when he said there were hurricanes in New Mexico. New Mexico is hundreds of miles away from the nearest coastline. Obviously Premanand is confusing the city of New Orleans with the state of New Mexico. How is it that these profound errors pass the inspection of Premanand, his secretary, colleagues and Anti-Sai Activists? Are they all so blind to overlook such crucial oversights? Apparently so. I work alone, so sometimes I do not catch my errors. Premanand, however, works with a group of people. He is helped by his secretary and colleagues. He supposedly writes his own responses, has them researched, proof-read, edited and then sent to Anti-Sai Sites where they are proof-read and edited again and finally published. All these people miss his errors! What a fantastic research group you have, Premanand! Once can be certain that Premanand will raise a huge cry and gnash his teeth because I pointed out this error of his.

If Premanand is so devoted to the Truth, why doesn't he write a book about the corruption in the Judicial System in India? Premanand can make numerous excuses for his repeated failures. I do not believe him or his excuses.

Regarding the dismissal of my writ against SSB on Gold control act, it was dismissed on the personal beliefs of the Hon.Justices that SSB 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 SSB! Does Morèno 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?

My Response: Absolutely not. However, Premanand has not furnished the general public with all the information regarding the hearing. Apparently, the only way to get the contents is by paying for it (notice the "vested interest" trend). What evidence did Premanand supply for the case? Pictures and claims made in books? SSB never gifted Premanand with anything, so I am trying to understand how Premanand made his case without objective evidence. How did Premanand attempt to explain how SSB manufactured, prepared or processed gold? I guess Premanand will try to make another sales pitch at me in reply (as he did before).

Reply to GM 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.

My Response: In Premanand's original response, he said, "The VC did not care to question the students, might be he knew the fact mentioned in the article was true, nor did he invite me to interview the persons mentioned in the article." Premanand spoke on behalf of the VC and did not know what action/inaction the VC took. Premanand assumed (as he loves to do) about what the VC supposedly did. However, when I gave my opinion, Premanand castigated me for speaking on behalf of the VC! More self-serving hypocrisy from Premanand.

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 SSB, his leaders and Morèno. 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!

My Response: And who verified the article by calling the father? The fact of the matter is that the parents did not even file a police complaint. Where did the father complain about the police rejecting his complaint? Premanand is accepting this case on superficial claims. Premanand has no proof. However, Premanand did not stop there, he added his speculations and hinted at a conspiracy theory by adding the following comments: "Was the youth disposed off in the electric crematorium? What happened to the 2 film rolls? Did these films contain any incriminating evidence against SSB?" There are also plenty of errors in Premanand's version of events. I was recently given additional information about this story from a Sai Student and was told: "Premanand mentions about a student of Eswaramma High School who disappeared after coming into possession of two film rolls. Unlike what BP claims, Eswaramma High School is not run by Swami or the Trust. It is a school that Swami has donated to the village and it is a Govt run school. Secondly, it is a day school and does not have a hostel attached to it. All of Swami's educational institutions are boarding schools with hostels attached. So there is no question of the so called warden and watchman of SSB having found Ramu with the films as no one connected with the Sai system enters that school. "

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?

My Response: In five years, Premanand never divulged the fact that a father, to an alleged Sai Student, wrote this letter. Why the secrecy? All along, people were led to believe that the letter was written by a Sai Student. As a matter of fact, many Anti-Sai Activists solicited the letter as being written by a Sai Student. Hari Sampath, Alexandra Nagel and other Anti-Sai Activists, attributed this letter to a Sai Student for the past 5 years! Only after I pointed out the serious problems in the letter, did Premanand change his story and say that a Sai Student's father wrote the letter. Furthermore, the alleged father made no mention to his son being sexually abused. No mention, whatsoever! As a matter of fact, he made no mention to being a parent either. The person who wrote this letter withheld crucial information. This makes the letter even more suspect.

As idiotic as it sounds, Premanand is criticizing me for not helping an anonymous student, whose name and identity are being withheld! How exactly did Premanand "help" the student? Did Premanand give the father or the student money for their story? Did he bribe them? By making this comment, Premanand is suggesting that he helped a poor student who was making his living by selling newspapers. How did Premanand help the student? It would be very easy to buy off a poor newspaper seller in (as critics love to point out) "corrupt" India.

Premanand also said that he never claimed the letter was written by a student. Premanand's actual words were, "As no reply has been received we have to presume that the experiences of the student is correct which we are publishing 'Betrayal by Sai Baba'...We have been getting several letters from your students about the sexual abuse of the students. I am sending herewith one letter so that after going through the same you inform me whether what is stated in the article is true or not." (Reference). Consequently, Premanand did attribute this letter to a student. That is why Anti-Sai Activists, for the past 5 years, said the letter was written by a Sai Student. More lies and deception from Premanand.

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 Morèno's lying distortions. Gèrald Morèno'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, Gèrald Morèno proves he is indeed a most cowardly creature!

My Response: View my previous response where I wholly refute Premanand's lie that he did not attribute the Betrayal Letter to a student. Again, Premanand is casting his aspersions and slurs against me, trying to slither his way out of his dishonesty and deception. As if this could not get even more embarrassing for Premanand, just earlier (on this same page) Premanand made the case for anonymity. Now he is making the case against anonymity, calling me a "cowardly creature". Not nearly as "cowardly" as the person who wrote the anonymous Betrayal Letter! Premanand is trying to have it both ways. Hypocrisy, clear and simple.

I am not using an anonymous identity. Premanand wants me to prove my identity to him by sending him my picture, my full contact details and an "attested affidavit"! Of course, none of the alleged sexual abuse victims (or any of the contributors to Anti-Sai Sites) have come forward with their pictures, full addresses and "attested affidavits" to verify their identities. Using Premanand's logic (illogic), all these alleged victims and authors are not who they claim to be! One does not see Premanand making any demands from his Anti-Sai banditeers to verify their identities with pictures, full contact information and "attested affidavits".

Furthermore, Premanand made a very strong case why I should use an anonymous identity, i.e., for reasons of safety. I have been viciously attacked on the internet, slandered against, defamed, had my email spammed to porn sites and was sent a death threat! Premanand is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde critic whom justifies his actions by arguing for a cetain standard, but then froths at the mouth and bashes anyone else who happens to use the very same standard he uses!

Reply to GM Response No.27 : Again, we see Morèno'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 Morèno 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).

My Response: Premanand calls my comments about the Online Petition a "side issue", however, I was not the one who brought it up. Premanand did! I simply responded to his comments and he is now trivializing my answer. When it comes to Robert Priddy's lies, Premanand excuses them and maintains silence. Since the petition signatures have never been independently verified, neither Premanand nor anyone else for that matter, know that the signatures are genuine. That is Premanand's speculation and hope. If the petition signatures are genuine, and Premanand believes so strongly that they are, why doesn't he have an independent organization or media agency verify them? Saipetition.net stubbornly refuses to have the signatures verified. I know why. Click Here to view my article about the inherent dishonesty at Sai Petition.net.

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 Morèno 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 Morèno'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.

My Response: View my previous reply. It is also important to point out that a majority of the signatures did not come from former devotees. Premanand said, "Those knowledgeable of the Internet tell me that a fraud can hide his identity even when asked for confirmation (even counterfeit false written signatures)." Thank you Premanand! However, with the SaiPetition, it is very easy to make multiple submissions under multiple fake names. I made multiple submission to prove this beyond any doubt. Only the gullible and naive will believe Premanand and Anti-Sai Activists about the integrity to the online petition against Sathya Sai Baba. Premanand can refute my arguments entirely by having the signatures independently verified. Premanand rather resort to slurs than verification. A behavior that is not characteristic of a scientist or rationalist of any integrity.

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.

My Response: I originally said that Premanand was repeating untruths about me like a "trained parrot". Ever since I made this comment, Premanand has been stuck on his "parrot" gramophone! Premanand is repeating "parrot" like a trained parrot! Also, it is Premanand who lied. Not I. Premanand said I did not publish the Betrayal Letter in full. I did. Premanand is trying to trivialize the fact that he, his secretary, colleagues (including the one's who are "knowledgeable of the Internet") and Ant-Sai Activists did not even have the common sense to put their cursor over the scrollbar and scroll down with it.

The writer's aim was not to refer to Christianity, it's that simple! The author quoted the Bible to show that SSB 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. SSB 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 SSB.

My Response: The anonymous writer also talked like a rationalist. Premanand is familiar with Christianity, Islam and the Vedas, so this shows that the writer and Premanand share similar backgrounds. On his original response, Premanand said, "What the religions and agents of gods do is to exploit believers in the name of god." I guess Jesus and Mohommad were not "agents of God" and did not have "religions" started after them? Premanand is speaking out of both sides of his mouth again.

I am very familiar with the article "Betrayal" but not so with the book of Revelations.

My Response: I never claimed that Premanand or the anonymous writer were familiar with the book of Revelations. I simply supported my claim that the peson who wrote the anonymous letter was specifically making Christian references.

Reply to GM Response No.29 : Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly!

My Response: Another example of Premanand doing his parrot-act.

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

My Response: This is Premanand's response to one of his errors. He attributed a quote to me that I never made. I said, "The anonymous writer says, under the 'Miracles' section..." Premanand said I was talking about him. How could I be talking about Premanand when I specifically said "The anonymous writer..."? Of course, if Premanand really wrote this letter he would think I was referring to him, because he would have really wrote it!

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 Gèrald Morèno is! Reply to GM Response No.32 : Why does GM want me to acknowledge it? It was 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.

My Response: Premanand should cite where Piet Vroon used the exact phrase (as the anonymous writer and Premanand did) "vibuthi ball". You won't find it. The word "ball" was used (but even that was from a translation) and was not used in conjuction with "vibuthi". So the only person "stating another untruth" is Premanand.

Reply to GM 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 SSB's competitors like Swami Premananda, Bala Sai Baba etc.

My Response: Not nearly as "small minded" as Premanand, who finds numerous "tiny, false points" about Sathya Sai Baba! Notice how Premanand tried to introduce irrelevant subject material? Of course, if I comment on Swami Premananda or Bala Sai Baba, Premanand will accuse me, in his next response, of introducing irrelvant material! Premanand has extremely short-term memory and forgets that he is the one who introduces the side-issues to begin with.

Reply to GM 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.

My Response: I have already clearly made my case that Premanand is a habitual and pathological liar, deceiver and bogus skeptic. This is not a blind attack either. My opinions are fully supported by Premanand's numerous slanders against me. Premanand has fully exposed himself. I fully know the truth about him and his deception. Whatever integrity Premanand built up, in 70+ years of his life, has now been reduced to nothing. If Premanand compromised the truth against me, one can only imagine how much more so he compromised it with Sathya Sai Baba.

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 Gèrald Morèno.

My Response: Al Rahm wrote a letter to Mayor Slay and said, "The organization is involved in a terrible cover up and is now under a lawsuit." After talking to Al Rahm, he attributed this statement to former conversations he said he had with Premanand (Reference). When I contacted Premanand to verify Al Rahm's claim, he refused to answer the question, made slanderous comments against me and refused to lift even one finger to verify the emails directly with Al Rahm! Premanand even accused me of "threatening" and "blackmailing" him (Reference)!

Premanand should stop trying to use his son as a front and excuse for his bitterness and anger against Sathya Sai Baba. There is no proof that Sathya Sai Baba was involved in the murder of his son. Premanand has no one to blame but himself for the many enemies he created on his irreverent and ridiculing crusades against alleged God-men in India. One would think that after being physically attacked and burgled so many times, Premanand would have the common sense to keep his "evidence" in a safe place, thereby averting danger by keeping it in his house. Despite being burgled and attacked, Premanand kept his crucial "evidence" in his house and left his son alone there with it, with no protection.

If Premanand's son was murdered in his house and it had anything to do with "evidence" against Sathya Sai Baba, one would think that Premanand would have been blasting it all over the internet before now and that it would been covered on skeptic sites. Also, one would think the Indian newspapers would have covered it since he is supposedly is a famous "Guru Buster", risking life and limb to expose the frauds. Why didn't this issue get any press?

When it comes to Sathya Sai Baba, the truth means nothing to the vilifying and heartless Premanand. Even his name "Premanand" is an oxymoron.

Reply to GM Response No.35 : Gèrald Morèno 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.

My Response: Until such a time, I will continue to uphold my opinion that Premanand is the author to this anonymous letter and he has vested interests and ulterior motives in distributing it. I have solidly made my case about Premanand's questionable involvement in writing the Betrayal Letter. Premanand's denial is all too characteristic of his denial mentality.