OPEN LETTER FROM JuST GROUP PETITION ADMINISTRATION TO GERALD JOE 'VISHWARUPA' MORENO
You are questioning the integrity of the JuST group and the hundreds who have signed their petition. We note your concerted efforts to cast slurs on members of JuST and others who call for judicial accountability of Sathya Sai Baba and his Organisation. Despite much evidence for accusations such as sex abuse, being accomplice to unsolved murder, dozens of documented lies, false materialisations, false 'omniscient' predictions, systematic rumour spreading etc, you show no concern and make no effort that these be investigated. You express no compassion for those who have suffered at his hands (i.e. for the sexually abused, for relatives who have suffered & other victims of his deceits) or through the dereliction of duty of care by his organisation. That is not the behaviour of any 'genuine' or 'sincere' truth seeker. You show far more interest in questioning the legality of the petition on all conceivable grounds than in investigating the actual facts and issues at stake.
My Response: Actually, I do not have to cast "slurs" about the JuST signatories. Those who have written me have shown their temperament in dealing with valid and pertinent questions from their own mouths. It is not my fault that some of the member of JuST have resorted to the very same dishonest and insincere communication policies that they fault the Sai Organization for!
Once again, we have the SaiPetition.net Committee (talking on behalf of the 32 original JuST signatories) that Sathya Sai Baba was an "accomplice to unsolved murders". Why doesn't the SaiPetition.net Committee supply the general public with the evidence to back up this claim? No one has done so thus far. I am not asking for conspiracy theories. I am not asking for anonymous reports. I am asking for proof. It has, again, been clearly claimed that SSB was an "accomplice" to the murders. Where is the proof? Why is it that ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and SaiPetition.net make criminal allegations against SSB with NO proof? It has been 11 years since the murders took place, and still, there is no evidence to support these erroneous allegations made against SSB.
Once again, I reiterate that I am 100% for investigating SSB along legal and verifiable means. I have stated this repeatedly in my correspondence, with some of the JuST signatories, on my email correspondence pages. I have stated that I believe that SSB has sexually abused young men. I have made this clear, time and time again. However, anyone with any common sense can see that Exbaba.com and SaiGuru.net have not adequately researched many of these claims of sexual abuse. I have attempted to do so. Apparently, the modus operandi of ExBaba.com and SaiGuru.net is one of blind acceptance and vitriolic attacks. I am simply providing the general public with both sides of the story. My pages provide links to ExBaba.com's original articles and I give additional information and insights that ExBaba.com fails to give. It's that simple. This does not mean I have no compassion for those who claim they were sexually abused. I have compassion for those who were genuinely abused. Separating fact from fiction has proven to be a daunting task. Even Greg Gerson, one of the people listed in the Witnesses Section, made this very same observation. Greg Gerson said, "Even Conny Larsson, one the principle figures in the Exbaba.com site gave a group of Americans (which included me in 1995) a public dharma talk about his miraculous experiences with Sai Baba. He went on and on weaving an amazingly entertaining story, even bursting uncontrollably into torrents of tears. Now he is talking about having had sex with Sai Baba? Sifting through the variety of stories regarding Sai Baba and sex offenses must be a challenging task." It is also important to point out that neither Greg Gerson or David Paul believe they were sexually abused. Despite this fact, ExBaba.com lists them as sexual abuse victims! ExBaba.com com, SaiGuru.net and the SaiPetition.net Committee have not even questioned the contradictory testimonies to some of these witnesses who claim they were sexually abused.
Jed Geyerhahn is a perfect example. He completely contradicts himself in his three testimonies. Completely! Yet not one cares! Jed Geyerhahn cannot tell us how old he was when he got his interviews, who was with him, how many personal, private sessions he had with SSB, how many interviews he had, what SSB materialized and rubbed him with and which interview SSB materialized these things! What IF Jed Geyerhahn IS lying? It is obvious ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and the SaiPetition.net Committee could care less if Jed is lying. This type of "care less" mentality is undermining the cause of those who truly seek justice. My pages have shown that anti-SSB activists "care less" about factual integrity and "care more" about vindictiveness and deceit at any cost. I made this very point to Dave Lyons, who failed to give me a response to this issue.
Then, the SaiPetition.net Committee has the audacity to say, "That is not the behaviour of any 'genuine' or 'sincere' truth seeker." As if the SaiPetition.net Committee are "genuine" and "sincere" seekers of truth! I belive my pages about SaiPetition.net, adequately and wholly, refutes their claim to being "genuine" and "sincere" seekers of truth! One can also reference my email correspondence with Robert Priddy, Randi Godager and SaiPetition.net to see how these people respond to pertinent and just criticisms!
Nowhere do you show that you have investigated or questioned anything about SSB or his Organisation or received any reply from any of them. That you made zero effort to learn the other side of the matter indicates strongly that you have made up your mind about the overriding issues already. Since you claimed in an e-mail that you do not actually believe Sathya Sai Baba is God, you should at the very least be publicly questioning his continually repeated major lies to that effect. Instead you try to undermine the only people who, free of rigid Sai censorship, are asking genuine questions and reporting facts and honest accounts.
My Response: My site is about the blatant exaggerations, inaccuracies and even lies told by ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and the SaiPetition.net Committee believe that SSB and the Sai Organization should be held accountable for their actions and words. I fully agree. I also believe ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and the SaiPetition.net Committee should also be held accountable for their actions and words. Apparently, the SaiPetition.net Committee think this is unfair!
I have openly stated that there are contradictions in SSB's discourses. They exist. Nevertheless, I have also pointed out that the contradictions come mostly from the English translations to SSB's Telugu discourses. This is a fact. The general public should be made aware of this fact. Brian Steel devotes a lot time researching contradictions in the English translations to SSB's Telugu discourses. Why doesn't Brian Steel find someone who speaks Telugu (Brian Steel does not read, write or understand Telugu) who can find the real contradictions in the original Telugu discourses? Apparently, not even one Telugu speaker has come forward to supply any anti-SSB site with any Telugu discrepancies! Why not? Possibly because most of the contradictions are due to translation issues.
In your one-sided campaign, you blow up all manner of trifling details, cast highly speculative doubts on people without having any relevant facts, even libel one sex-abused ex-devotee as 'mentally ill'. This reminds us of Soviet techniques! However, we have looked into your criticisms and your sabotage with bogus signatures and have made some minor adjustments in routine and presentation.
My Response: This is indeed an amusing statement! I am accused of a "one-sided campaign". However, ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and the SaiPetition.net Committee are somehow not waging a "one-sided campaign" against SSB! This paragraph leaves out some vital details. The statement, against me, saying "even libel, one sex-abused ex-devotee as 'mentally ill'" is not accurate. Of course, I did not expect the SaiPetition.net Committee to tell the real story, or even provide a link to where I allegedly said these things. The person in question is Said (Afshin) Khorramshahgol. You can view my original comments here. The SaiPetition.net Committee could care less about Said (Afshin) Khorramshahgol's "lible" against SSB (posts numbering in the thousands). They care more about my own personal opinion about Said. I am simply providing vital information about Said (Afshin) Khorramshahgol that ExBaba.com does not divulge about him. I think this is only fair. It is also important to point out that despite ExBaba.com putting Said's open challenge on their site, they refuse to provide a link to my response. This truly shows who is waging a "one-sided campaign"!
A response to some points you belabour may be of general interest:-
A LEGAL PETITION FOR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
There is no contradiction, as you invalidly argue, between our asserting the full legally unchallenged legitimacy of our petition and our suggestion of testing it in court. You fail to understand that statute law and the practice of advocacy do not always agree, moreover, precedents can be created and judgements overturned. Naturally, we do not consider your website as a legally valid 'court' for any such purpose. Further, since international legislation on petitions hardly exists or is ratified anywhere, what is legal all depends on the nation or state and its system of law. Your talk of violations of "the Initiative and Referendum laws" is vague, highly uncertain and trivial. A law in Texas, say, can be invalid in France - or an issue may not be covered by legislation at all. Your tit-for-tat challenge to us to take legal action against you is fatuous. As and when the JuST group backs any legal actions they will be of quite another order of importance, you may rest assured.
My Response: This is another slippery-tongued comment by the SaiPetition.net Committee. I am not challenging the legality of them making an online petition. I am challenging their claim to the legality of the petition signatures. Anyone can form an online petition. As a matter of fact, I rightly pointed out that the SaiPetition.net "petition" is in the same category as the following "petitions" (Graphic Language): An Open Letter to God Petition - Change the Name of Canada Petition - Decriminalize My Good Friend Mary Jane - Kill Jesus Petition - Petition to God for Longer Orgasms - Ban Low Flow Toilets Petition - Prayers to Satan in School Petition - Eat More Cheese Petition. SaiPetition.net cannot be differentiated from these petitions in relation to signature legality and setup.
I also rightly pointed out that, in the USA, there are initiative and referendum laws that govern legal petitions. The SaiPetition.net domain is registered in the USA. There are similar laws that govern petitions in other countries. Since the SaiPetition.net Committee has finally acknowledged that there are NO laws, including international laws, that govern their petition and it's signatures, they have shot themselves in the foot by fully admitting the petition has no legal basis! IF the petition signatures were truly "legal", the SaiPetition.net Committee should have supplied us with the international laws that uphold such petitions and their signatures. SaiPetition.net has just acknowledged NO such laws exist! Consequently, the legality of the petition and it's signatures has NO legal foundation or backing. Thank you SaiPetition.net! This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Furthermore, all countries that have petition laws have the common denominator of signature verification. Without a signature verification process, a petition become nothing more than piece of paper.
If you would like to test the "legality" of this online petition for yourself, feel free to do so. Make a negative comment (positive comments are not accepted) about SSB, using a believable, fake email address, and submit it to SaiPetition.net. Wait a few days and you will see just how "genuine", "sincere" and "legal" this pathetic petition truly is! You can make as many fake submissions as you choose. This is the dishonest and deceitful practice that I condemn, and that SaiPetition.net deems moral and honest!
We have so far found no laws making the petition less than 100% legal, nor found that laws anywhere have been broken by it. Your attack is a red herring.
My Response: Obviously, the SaiPetition.net Committee has not looked into the Initiative and Referendum laws in the United States of America that govern petitions. The Initiative and Referendum laws make it clear that the signatures must be verifiable. I have no less than 7 signatures on the petition! SaiPetition.net has no way of verifying their signatures. Once again, SaiPetition.net does not supply the general public with the laws that DO make the petition signatures legal! As a matter of fact, they stated earlier that no such laws exist! Despite making numerous claims to the legality of the signatures, SaiPetition.net has failed to provide us with any laws that would support the legality of the signatures on their site! They can't even site one international law! How legal is that? Of course they did not break any laws. The petition signatures are not legal!
Also, the SaiPetition.net Committee says that my "attack is a red herring". It is obvious that the SaiPetition.net Committee has no clue what constitutes a "red herring" fallacy. I raised the issue of signature illegality (due to the fact that I was able to make multiple submissions) and SaiPetition.net affirmed their position on signature legality. This discussion, of signature legality, is two-way. It is not a "red herring", as this would imply that I changed the original topic of signature legality to another topic, that is irrelevant to the signature legality discussion. Since this discussion is about the legality of the petition signatures, the SaiPetition.net Committee has failed to explain what "red herring" I used to change the discussion with. Obviously, the only "red herring" used is by the SaiPetition.net Committee, trying to change the subject of the signature legality to an attack that never happened.
YOUR CONFUSED ALLEGATIONS ABOUT 'FREE SPEECH'
You expect the Petition to be open to you and other opponents to publish your antagonistic comments, but no petition is ever a forum for those who disagree with it. You have peculiar notions about how the freedom of expression works in a free society.
My Response: I have no problem with free speech. I have a problem when SaiPetition.net states the petition signatures are legal. This simply is not true. Basically, SaiPetition.net is an anti-SSB guestbook. However, SaiPetition.net is trying to pass off the petition signatures as legal when they have no way of verifying the signatures (which is the foundation stone to legal petitions). I am not anti-free speech. I am anti-deceit.
You mistakenly assert that the petition maintains 'soviet-style' control over the submissions. But deletion of bogus names, unduly defamatory or pornographic content is only right, so this is done. No complaints about this have yet been registered by any responsible body, nor from any authority which has received the petition. We do not regard ourselves as accountable in detail to you, who represent only yourself (according to your website's disclaimer). You have mostly leapt to superficial conclusions without considering alternative explanations.
My Response: This statement is absurd. For example, I have a list of 24 added signatures that SaiPetition.net has failed to account for. They delete any pro-sai submissions and alter other submissions that have absolutely nothing to do with bogus names, defamatory comments or pornographic content. SaiPetition.net also does not delete "bogus names" that only use a first name or initials, that are anti-SSB. I have the screen captures to back it up as well! Click Here to view the exact duplicate to the text version of the Original Petition site, along with it's numerous inconsistencies. I discussed this on my page about SaiPetition.net. Of course SaiPetition.net do not hold themselves accountable to me. They do not hold themselves accountable to anyone. I, however, am holding them accountable for their deceitful and dishonest tactics. Since this is a "public petition", I have every right, as a member of the general public, to question these deceitful and dishonest tactics. Now if SaiPetition.net feels they have no obligation to the general public, that is their choice. I am simply pointing this out for everyone to see. Of course, "no complaints have been registered by any responsible body"! No responsible body will associate themselves with such a dishonest petition! Will SaiPetition.net tell us which "responsible body" has associated themselves with their peitition?
In a mail on your website, you liken ANY abuse of the petition by false signers (you being the prime abuser yourself) with SSB's alleged sexual abuses of many minors and young persons (which I remind you include oral sex together with vile, powerful threats by Sai Baba and anal sex, both also involving minors). This alone shows a sadly deranged sense of values and proportion, plus failed logic. Despite your brief pro forma criticism of the Sai Organisation and disclaimer, you are factually running their errand as whitewasher for them and Sai Baba.
My Response: Once again, SaiPetition.net is trying to justify their dishonest and deceitful petition by making claims (mostly unsubstantiated) against SSB. Which "young persons" did SSB sexually abuse? This seems to be making reference to the anonymous letter attributed to Dr. Bhatia. Once again, an anonymous allegation that SaiPetition.net deems factual. There is also another claim by an anonymous 15 year old boy whose testimony, according to Hari Sampath, was called "useless" by the FBI.
Actually, I am not a "white-washer" for SSB or the Sai Organization. I am simply pointing out factual inconsistencies, lies and deceitful stories that ExBaba.com disperses to the general public. Also, I have openly divulged which fake signatures I submitted to the petition. I simply showed how flawed the submission process truly is. So flawed, that in fact, SaiPetition.net removed their original petition page and changed their submission policy on SaiPetition.net. They are using the very same flawed process, that they used on the original petition, with the exception they now have complete control over the submissions that leaves no record of what was deleted, altered or added. We must accept the petition signatures on the word of those who are openly vindictive against SSB!
ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and SaiPetition.net are obviously threatened by me. They are doing exactly what I said they would do, namely, resort to character assassination and ad hominem attacks instead of answering the tough questions. Considering that my web site pages now outranks those on ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and SaiPetition.net (on Google), these anti-SSB sites are expressing great consternation that I have accomplished this single-handedly and in a matter of 2 months (I started my ExBaba-Deception site on October 2nd, 2004)! This has caused so much consternation in Robert Priddy, he stole my title, description, keywords, metatags and javascript on my page about SaiPetition.net and used them on his own propaganda site (home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/disempowerment.htm), in a desperate attempt to outrank my site!
I would dare say that ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and SaiPetition.net are "whitewashers" for SSB and the Sai Organization. Anyone who reads their sites can see that they are not even remotely objective, sincere or fair. This is why many reject them outright. They have rightly developed a reputation as liars and anti-SSB propagandists. They have shown themselves to be nothing more than a mob of angry, nitpicking, obsessed and negative people. That is the truth of the matter. I am pointing this out and, in true cult style, this bandit of anti-SSB activists is grouping together to attack me because I have pictures of Swami Premananda on my site! A not-so-clever ploy to detract from the fact that they cannot address my valid and pertinent concerns about their disinformation campaign.
SABOTAGE BY FALSE "SUBMISSIONS"
Essentially, all petitions are necessarily founded on decency and trust, which you ignore in trying to contravene it by your several bogus postings (i.e.deceits). Please refrain from further concocted "submissions”. The vast majority who choose to sign the petition are doubtless honest people, not bent on stooping to counterfeit by inventing bogus e-mail addresses, setting up false e-mail accounts, or wanting to discredit the petitioners by means fair or foul. No electronic or handwritten petition (or other public undertaking, for that matter) is 100% proof against fanatics and lawbreakers, but our site is more secure than most. We are confident that even the great majority of SSB devotees would not stoop to those dirty tricks.
My Response: Thank you, SaiPetition.net, for admitting that people can make "concocted submissions"! Finally, an admission to what I have been claiming all this time! Also, the comment about petitions being founded on "decency and trust" is absurd. An overwhelming majority of online petitions are not founded on "decency and trust". For example, take a look at the religion section at petitiononline.com or the petitions at webpetitions.com. Furthermore, the signatures submitted to these petitions can be both pro and con. These two sites do not allow people to delete or edit the signatures. SaiPetition.net deletes and edits it's signatures. SaiPetition.net does not address my valid concerns about anti-SSB spammers. It is clear that numerous submissions, to SaiPetition.net, were made by one person. Either SaiPetition.net is creating these fake signatures, or a person is using fake emails and making multiple submissions. Either scenario is troubling, and since SaiPetition.net has no way of verifying the signatures, they can't say, with any certainty, that they are not being spammed by anti-SSB activists.
Furthermore, I incorrectly stated that one has to create email accounts in order to make a fake submission. The process is far simpler than that. All one has to do is submit a fake email on the petition form. No need to open a fake email account at all! Just put in a believable, fake email and submit a negative comment.
To provide you with confidential information from signers when validating signatures, which you demand (on no authority) is wholly out of the question. We keep our guarantees of privacy to signers at whatever cost!
My Response: This is another amusing comment. For example, I signed the petition multiple times and nowhere did it require a verifiable email address. SaiPetition.net make no effort to contact you. No effort to verify your signature. Consequently, the "confidential information" that SaiPetition.net says they have, does not exist! Another perfect example of SaiPetition.net deception. Why doesn't SaiPetition.net have a news agency, or some other official body, independently verify the signatures for them? I can tell you why. Take a look on my page about SaiPetition.net.
Ask yourself why people choose to sign up, despite exposing their names to slander and threats from Sai followers and possible ridicule from associates, employers and the wide world, which will of course never regard Sai followers as anything but deluded cultists. Naturally, the desire for the truth to be investigated inspires most of them, and not the motives you slur them with.
My Response: I have asked myself why people choose to sign the petition. They do so to slander SSB! There is ample proof that many of the names are not real. So the issue of ridicule is non-existent. Very few of the names are real. And until SaiPetition.net has an independent agency verify the signatures for them, the grim reality of deceit, forgery and lies will haunt their petition. This would mean that all 800+ people would have to be contacted to verify their signatures! Will SaiPetition.net step upto the plate and have the signatures independently verified?
In any community, there are always only a relative few who dare speak up on such sensitive issues as here involved and against such a large, rich, and – frankly - fanatical religious sect. You constantly imply that well over 800 signatures do not represent views of real, outspoken people. Perhaps you do not realise you come across with a rather inquisitorial attitude.
My Response: Again, have the signatures verified. Until SaiPetition.net does so, numbers are numbers. I have already shown how over 13 posts have striking similarities that most certainly appear to have been made by one person. If one person is doing this, you can be certain others are doing it as well. Especially when the petition does not verify signatures or emails!
Yes, my "inquisitorial attitude" is just as much an "inquisitorial attitude" held by the fanatical anti-SSB sects of ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and SaiPetition.net. Apparently, if one questions these three anti-SSB sites, one is compared to an inquisitor. However, if one joins these three, and makes the same inquisitorial comments against SSB, one is not an inquisitor, but a liberator! This again shows the one-sided and hypocritical views held by the SaiPetition.net Committee. (This "committee" sounds eerily familiar to the "Prashanti Council"!). First we had JuST (Just Seekers of Truth). Then we have FDSSB (Former Devotees of Sathya Sai Baba). Now, we have the SaiPetition.net Committee!
Many ex-devotees we know hold back from risking being compromised by admitting to have been duped so wildly. Many others we know refrain so as not to harm family and friends who are still dependents of the cult or are still in doubt. Others fear retribution, persecution in India or at home and slander and dirty tricks on the Internet. Reasons for not signing also include anxiety caused by the deep spiritual fraud of Sai Baba and the superstitions he has engendered. All the more honour to those who sign anyhow!
My Response: Thank you for providing us with very valid reasons why people would use fake names and fake emails to slander SSB. Being "duped" and feeling "anxiety" would indeed generate much anger and would most certainly prompt people to sign the petition under multiple fake names (because they don't want to use their real names). SaiPetition.net allows for people to voice their grievances over and over again, as many times as they choose, under as many fake names as they want. Yes, all the more honour to this disgraceful submission policy used by SaiPetition.net! Even my elementary and basic guest-book (was removed because it was abused by Anti-SSB activists) has more scripts in place to weed out multiple submissions and detect fraud, than does the SaiPetition.net site! Sad.
AD FREE SPEECH: WE MOST OFTEN ANSWER EVEN HYPERCRITICAL QUERIES
Different Committee during the 3 years of our operation have entries by Sai people and others who ignore netiquette and the rules of common decency. You want removed every comment which you consider to express “hate, anger and bitterness” against SSB. This censorship you demand would be draconian and judgemental, since only the signer can know if these are his/her subjective motives. You wanted nothing changed or edited out – this would presumably also mean sexually abusive comments and threats (i.e. a number have been posted by Sai disrupters, then removed)! Your ideas of free speech are in total disarray.
My Response: The petition was started 2 and half years ago, not 3 years ago (current date December 3rd 2004).
This answer is lamentable. Apparently, threats, pro-SSB submissions and pro-SSB spam are deleted from the petition. SaiPetition.net has already acknowledged this. However, vile and bitter comments are openly and warmly accepted and displayed! Anti-SSB spam is approved and defended! I simply pointed this out on my site. If SaiPetition.net believes that people are entitled to their own opinions, why do they delete pro-SSB submissions? It is clear that SaiPetition.net is nothing more than a flytrap and waste receptacle for negative comments. That is it's only function and purpose. The general public should be aware of this. That is where my site, and comments, come in. Nowhere do I say that these negative posts should be censored. I am simply pointing out how these vile and bitter posts are kept, but pro-SSB submissions are deleted. SaiPetition.net is perfectly entitled to run their "petition guest-book" as they choose, however, I think it is only fair that everyone see how they choose to run their site.
If not holding public office, a person is under no automatic obligation to reply to anyone who asks it, let alone demands it. Nonetheless, several active members of the JuST group have sent many replies to queries of all sorts, though we found that none of them had valid grievances against the petition. As the petition's working group, we mostly reply also to persons with grudges, each according to their approach. But there are limits of course! We have long since posted some questions and our replies here at http://saiguru.net/english/news/petitionnews.htm
My Response: I think everyone should take a look at the link provided by the SaiPetition.net Committee. What is amusing about the SaiGuru.net page, is how anti-SSB activists attack those who make pro-SSB comments, all the while whining about how their petition is being attacked by pro-SSB activists! I know for a fact that these anti-SSB spammers will make fake pro-SSB submissions to make SSB devotees look bad. On this page, there is a "death threat" made against those who made the petition. If the petition has a way to verify the identity of the person making the submission (after all SaiPetition.net says the submission signatures are genuine, verifiable and legal), why hasn't SaiPetition.net taken the appropriate steps to notify the authorities? I'll tell you why...because the person who made that post gave a fake email and a fake name. The original petition (as well as SaiPetition.net) has no way to verify the person who made that submission! It's that simple. One can also see the fake emails used on the original petition site.
Perhaps the most interesting segment on this page is when it is said, "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." Obviously, someone needs to relay this information to Barry Pittard and Glen Meloy! And we have a clear admission that the original petition purposely withheld information from the general public due to concerns that this information would have been, "counter-productively unconvincing to any serious actors and agencies in the legal and human rights field"! How deceptive and crooked is that?
None of the information, on this SaiGuru.net page, deals with the issues I raised on my site.
Your website under your alias, 'Vishwarupa', promotes pictures of Sathya Sai Baba and not least the infamous Swami Premananda, beside pictures of Jesus Christ. Yet Premananda is a convicted double rapist and murderer serving two life sentences in India. This indicates that you do not care at all for rigorous proof or legality!
My Response: SaiPetition.net suggested earlier that they do not like logical fallacies, such as "red herring" fallacies. Despite this fact, they are engaging in an ad hominem fallacy by attacking me because I have pictures of Swami Premananda on my site. My site has much more than just pictures of Sathya Sai Baba, Premananda and Jesus. Click here to view my site. Despite the SaiPetition.net Committee being sensitive and taking a moral stand against Swami Premananda, SaiPetition.net has NO problems with Barry Pittard posting his anti-SSB articles on the Adelaide Institute's website, which the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers to be both a hate-group and anti-semitic (they deny the holocaust ever happened)! Now which is more egregious? Swami Premananda or the Anti-Semitic, Hate-Mongering People who deny the holocaust ever happened? I know my answer and SaiPetition.net knows theirs. Click Here to view my article about Barry Pittard and how he tries to rally support from people who openly deny the holocaust ever happened! Also, "Vishwarupa" is not an alias. It is the domain name to my site and is spelled "Vishvarupa".
Furthermore, the reason I made a small pictures section for Swami Premananda is because I have had spiritual experiences with him. I have never physically seen him. I do not provide external links or solicit him in any other way. People are free to view his pictures or not. My site began as a hobby that provides images with spiritual personalities with whom I have had personal, spiritual experiences with. That's it. My site has over one thousand images on it, and Swami Premananda only comprises only .02% of those images (19 pictures). Many people believe that Swami Premananda was framed and even the police officers, at the jail where he is at, believe he is not guilty. He was even allowed to leave the prison, to visit his ashram, for several weeks. There are current efforts to vindicate him and supposedly, many of the 32 complaints brought against him have been shown to be false. The DNA testing is also being challenged and has proven the most difficult, due to a significant time lapse. [Update: January 1st, 2005: Click Here to view Robert Priddy's confession about the corruption prevalent in India, the Indian Justice System and with Indian Police Officers.] [Update: August 5th 2005: Click Here too see how the UK's leading DNA expert, Dr. Wilson J. Wall, testified that the DNA samples do not belong to Swami Premananda. Also, all of the alleged rape victims said they were tortured into giving fake testimonies and have since recanted their original statements against Premananda.]
To try to make this an issue about Swami Premananda pictures is preposterous and desperate. This is the only thing that ExBaba.com, SaiGuru.net and the SaiPeition.net Committee are holding on to, in a vain attempt to detract from answering the tough questions I raised on my web pages about them.
THE PETITION CONTINUES SUCCESSFULLY TO SUPPORT TRUTH AND COMPASSION
You stated: "And one last point, despite the Online Petition being online for 4 years, how many people from "Governments, NPO's, Dignitaries, Lawmakers, Police, UN" have submitted a verifiable signature? You evidently believe that such authorities would sign any public petition! No, they receive petitions, and not one has so far questioned the validity of ours. Besides, the Public Petition is has only been online for 2 1/2 years. Get some facts straight, Morèno!
My Response: Actually, this was a typo on my web site and I corrected it. I had the facts correct on my page about the Original Petition, in which I stated, "It is very important to assess the original petition that JuST created, in 2002, and see how "honest, just and decent" JuST is with their petition project." I got the date of 2002 by doing an archive search on archive.org that shows the date being in 2002. I incorrectly said, "4 years" when it should have read "2 years". Obviously, ExBaba.com never read my page about the Original Petition, or else they would have noticed the error was a typo oversight. And earlier, on this very page, the SaiPetition.net Committee said the petition was online for 3 years. SaiPetition.net said, "Different Committee during the 3 years of our operation have entries by Sai people and others who ignore netiquette and the rules of common decency." SaiPetition.net, Get Some Facts Straight! Of course, this was an oversight as well, as they correctly stated the time they were online (2 and half years). I also stated the correct time they were online but made a typing oversight, just as they did in this letter!
Since the SaiPetition.net Administators have clarified the point about the official bodies receiving the petition, I will update my article to say, "The Just Seekers of Truth addresses their petition to 'All governments, human rights institutions, all religious and spiritual leaders, NGOs, politicians and official functionaries, and the media organizations of all countries'". However, despite the petition being online for over 2 years and being posted on every single anti-Sathya Sai Baba site on the internet, there is not even one verifiable instance that any person belonging to (or claiming to belong to) any Governments, Human Rights Institutions, Media Organizations and NGO's have accepted and verified the signatures on their petition. Despite this petition being addressed to all of these official organizations and people, there is not even one verifiable signature from any person claiming to be a Politician, an Official Functionary, a Religious Leader or a Spiritual Leader who will back up this petition by signing it. Not even one!"
The petition contributed much in bringing together a global network of contact persons and activists who intend that the truth about SSB shall be known, leading to many articles and statements. It played a role in the BBC's decision to proceed with their documentary, and contacts reached through the JuST group were made available to their team, who carried out extensive researches worldwide and contacted numerous abused persons. It is a support to the spirits of sexually abused ex-devotees and to mourning relatives of the murdered.
My Response: The BBC was a poorly researched and edited documentary. They made Alaya into A Liar. This was confirmed by the Rahm Family themselves! Despite this fact, and despite Glen Meloy and Barry Pittard being made aware of this fact, Exbaba.com continues to solicit the BBC documentary, Secret Swami, as reliable and well researched! According to Robert Priddy, the BBC crew incorrectly researched the water project. The BBC crew did not ask for Basava Premanand's evidence when he accused SSB of being a "witness" to the murders that happened in 1993. This documentary is plain pathetic. Consequently, it does not surprise me that the petition so easily swayed them. I assume they did just as much research into the petition as they did with the water project and Alaya's interviews.
Do not expect any further answer to your antagonistic mails or postings.
My Response: SaiPetition.net wrote this article almost 2 months after I last wrote them (October 12th 2004). I have only emailed SaiPetition.net 4 times (and will email them this response). Obviously, valid and just criticisms are "antagonistic"! SaiPetition.net's frail and anaemic letter fails to address many of the key points I made on my site. They failed to address the issue of added signatures. They failed to address the issue of altered posts. They failed to supply the general public with any information that supports the legality of the petition signatures. They failed to explain why they removed the original petition. They succeeded in admitting that their petition can, and has, been abused (refuting signature legality). They failed to address the lie they told about email addresses being verified. They failed to tell us where the signatures came from. They failed to admit to the issue of duplicate posts made under different names (confirming anti-SSB spamming). They failed to address the issue of anti-SSB spammers. They failed to address my page about the 13 signatures with striking similarities. They failed to explain how the signatures can be legal and genuine when I have made no less than 7 submissions myself (refuting signature legality). They failed to provide any names to any official organization or person who has accepted and verified the signatures on the petition. And they continue to fail to have the petition signatures verified by any independent organization or agency.
From the current working committee the Sai Petition (6 members) on behalf of the collective JuST Group.
My Response: Notice that the 6 members do not give their signatures on their letter. Apparently, they wish to remain anonymous. The SaiPetition.net Committee does not even have the integrity to sign their names to their letter, yet question me and my "alias"! Obviously, they feel that their signatures are not that important. This is not surprising considering their apathy in relation to the importance of the signatures on their online petition!
Update: July 25th 2005: Click Here to view a new article that proves that SaiPetition.net does not verify their signatures!
|