Alleged Victims: Not Credible
Alleged Victims Can No Longer File A Court Case Against Sathya Sai Baba In India: 
As confirmed to me by an Indian lawyer, a complaint made eight years after an alleged crime cannot be legally accepted or acted upon in a court of law in India. Therefore, all of the non-anonymous and alleged victims can no longer file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India for alleged abuse (the only place where courts would have jurisdiction over the Guru as an individual defendant). As a matter of fact, most non-property complaints (including torts) must be filed within three years as outlined by India’s Limitation Act (Reference).
Six Non-Anonymous & Alleged Victims Who Claimed They Were Sexually Abused:
Name: Alaya Rahm
Allegation: An adult penis-turned-vagina victim who alleged he was sexually abused.
Last Date Of Alleged Abuse: Around 1999.
Limitation Act Status: Void. Alaya Rahm’s Failed USA Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed “with prejudice” and is binding under the international doctrine of res judicata. This means that Alaya Rahm cannot file another lawsuit against Sathya Sai Baba (in the USA or in India) for the same claims made in his self-dismissed lawsuit (Reference).
Name: Jed Geyerhahn
Allegation: Claims he was not sexually abused but had an “oiling” that (at a much later date) he considered to be inappropriate. Did not leave the Guru because of the oilings but rather because of personal disenfrachisment with the Guru.
Last Date Of Alleged Abuse: Around 1993.
Limitation Act Status: Expired and he can no longer file a court case.
Name: Jens Sethi
Allegation: An adult who alleged he was sexually abused.
Last Date Of Alleged Abuse: Around 1996.
Limitation Act Status: Expired and he can no longer file a court case.
Name: Hans de Kraker
Allegation: An adult who alleged he was solicited for sex.
Last Date Of Alleged Abuse: Around 1996.
Limitation Act Status: Expired and he can no longer file a court case.
Name: Conny Larsson
Allegation: An adult who alleged he engaged in a consentual sexual relationship with the Guru for four years.
Last Date Of Alleged Abuse: Around 1983.
Limitation Act Status: Expired and he can no longer file a court case.
Name: Said Afshin Khorramshahgol
Allegation: An adult who allleged he was sexually abused.
Last Date Of Alleged Abuse: Prior to 1997.
Limitation Act Status: Expired and he can no longer file a court case.
The allegations against Satya Sai Baba are many years old and critics can often be seen omitting relevant dates in a desperate attempt to camouflage the allegations as new and recent. The allegations are not recent and are no longer viable in a court of law in India. This information appears to have been purposely suppressed by critics because they can often be seen claiming to be in correspondence with international lawyers (who apparently have not been able to help them file a court case in the past 10 years).
Excuses Generally Given For The Failure Of Alleged Victims To File A Court Case Against Sathya Sai Baba In India:
Sanjay Dadlani, Tony O’Clery, Robert Priddy and Barry Pittard (all of whom were never sexually abused) can often be seen making excuses for alleged victims and why they have never (ever) attempted to file a court case in India against Sathya Sai Baba (despite attempting to bring the guru to “justice”).
Critics purposely attempt to con the general public about alleged victims by loosely tossing around deceptive terms like “witnesses”, “testimonies”, “testified” and “affidavits”, although no alleged victim has ever filed a court case against the Guru in India. There is no proof that any alleged victim made a sworn and attested affidavit against Sathya Sai Baba. Ex-devotees confuse signed, hand-written stories (that were never sworn before a notary or judge) with “affidavits”. When I had the opportunity to personally question Hari Sampath about the alleged affidavits he claimed he obtained from alleged victims, he ran away and went back into hiding although he said he would answer my question in “half an hour” (Reference).
The following excuses are generally given for the failure of alleged victims to file (first-hand) a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India:
Excuse One: Many alleged victims are afraid to speak out.
Response: Although there is no proof or evidence that there are “many” victims, the six non-anonymous and alleged victims who have come forward were not “afraid to speak out” about their alleged abuse. To the contrary, several of these alleged victims purchased domains and created webpages talking about their alleged abuse, contributed to public media exposés relating to their alleged abuse and posted their alleged abuse stories on public domain forums.
As a matter of fact, Said Afshin Khorramshahgol not only created his own Anti-Sai domain, he publicly spammed his alleged abuse story on several public forums thousands of times. In Afshin’s open letter to David Bailey, he said:
“I am willing to testify in any court of law or in any gathering about the above experiences.”
Therefore, none of these six non-anonymous and alleged victims were “afraid to speak out”. Why didn’t any of them file a basic police complaint against Sai Baba in India for alleged sexual improprieties? Why didn’t any of them file a court case in India against Sathya Sai Baba? Why did all of them reject the offer of free “world-class legal resources” from Barry Pittard?
Excuse Two: It often takes years or decades before survivors can come to terms with what happened to them.
My Response: (See answer to Excuse One) The six non-anonymous and alleged victims had obviously “come to terms” with what happened to them because they openly talked about their alleged abuse, contributed to public media exposés relating to their alleged abuse and posted their alleged abuse stories on public domain forums. Said Afshin Khorramshahgol obviously had come to terms with his alleged abuse and publicly boasted that he was ready to testify in a court of law. Needless to say, in all these years, not even one ex-devotee assisted him to file a court case in India against Sai Baba. Why not? After reading Afshin’s thousands of spam posts, I think it is abundantly clear that he is not even remotely credible.
Excuse Three: Even the few alleged victims who are ready to face the public can often be in no position to litigate because of lack of funds, time, energy, or family or close friends to support them in an intelligent and genuine manner.
My Response: As stated before, all six non-anonymous and alleged victims were ready to “face the public” and did so. They revealed their real names along with their alleged abuse stories. Barry Pittard offered alleged victims free “world-class legal resources” (Ref) and none of the alleged victims accepted his offer. Why not? Critics have also boasted that they have deep pockets to assist alleged victims. Conny Larsson is a self-professed multi-millionaire who has thrown a lot of money at “exposing” Sai Baba (as well as making money by writing an Anti-Sai book).
Many of the six non-anonymous and alleged victims expended vast amounts of personal energy and time against Sathya Sai Baba through various types of media, online webpages and internet forums. One is left to wonder why these alleged victims worked so hard at exposing Sai Baba on the internet and through various media, yet adamantly refused to file (first-hand) a basic police complaint or court case against him in India. Needless to say, a court case in India would have readily accomplished their objectives and would have generated immense publicity to their cause.
Alleged victims do not want to compromise themselves and their alleged “integrity” by being critically cross-examined in a court of law. Even though Alaya Rahm’s bogus lawsuits never made it to trial, a great deal of damaging information was revealed about him that was purposely suppressed for years by ex-devotees and the media. Alleged victims rather resort to internet smear-campaigns where they can selectively choose their answers, package their stories and disseminate their propaganda.
Barry Pittard puts on a compassionate face for alleged victims and expresses sympathy and concern for them with an almost-convincing pathos. However, Barry Pittard’s known friends and associates (specifically: Sanjay Dadlani, Tony O’Clery, Basava Premanand, Conny Larsson and Alan Kazlev) viciously and fraudulently accused me of being sexually abused by Sathya Sai Baba despite my numerous statements to the contrary. If Barry Pittard has so much sensitivity and compassion for alleged victims, why does he associate himself with proven liars who defame and libel others unapologetically with fraudulent sexual abuse claims? Read my article: Joe Moreno Refutes Being Sexually Abused By Sathya Sai Baba.
It is also important to point out that going back to 2001, Anti-Sai sympathizers were disgusted with the hearsay allegations made against Sathya Sai Baba and rightly questioned why the Anti-Sai Movement was being carried on the shoulders of people who were never sexually abused themselves (Reference).
Excuse Four: Litigation is always an uncertain, costly and often extremely drawn-out process, especially in sex abuse cases where the success rate is still far lower than in most other common crimes.
My Response: Critics of Sathya Sai Baba can often be seen boasting that they are attempting to bring Sathya Sai Baba to “justice” although they have miserably failed to initiate any criminal proceedings against him in India for the past 10 years. Former Followers are attempting to bring Sai Baba to “justice” by waging vicious smear and hate campaigns on the internet against him. That is their strategy and modus operandi.
Critics can also be seen repeatedly boasting that they have highly credible accounts, weighty documentation, irrefutable facts, overwhelming evidence, thorough documentation, first-hand witnesses, etc., etc., etc. Despite all of these inflated claims, alleged victims purposely avoid filing a lawsuit against Sai Baba in India despite the fact that it would generate immense publicity to their cause (especially by verbose Indian rationalists and atheists). Critics do not want the general public to know that alleged victims can no longer file bona-fide legal court cases against Sathya Sai Baba because they waited too long. If alleged victims had actually filed a court case and a judge dismissed their case, then they could say that the Justices were protecting Sai Baba and that their cases were rejected on questionable grounds. However, critics put the cart before the horse and claim that they cannot get justice because the Supreme Court Of India and Judges are all Sai Devotees (a blatant and bold-faced untruth that they cannot back up with verifiable information).
It is also amusing to point out that Robert Priddy said, and I quote:
“Supposed ‘religious figures’ get convicted and imprisoned in Indian courts for sex offences and murder. Their devotees, however, invariably insist that their gurus could not possibly be guilty and the trials must have been unfair, fixed, or due to political repression and so on. Unfair High Court convictions probably do occur, but hardly in more than a few instances.” (Reference)
If this were true, why have critics and alleged victims refused to file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India for the past ten years? The truth of the matter is that alleged victims will never file a court case against Sai Baba in India. Not only have they surpassed their legal time-limits, their numerous defamations, libels, bold-faced lies, misrepresentations, deceptions and embarrassing personal admissions have thoroughly compromised all of their alleged credibility. Critic’s dare not jeopardize their carefully protected and packaged smear and hate campaigns by opening themselves up to critical cross examination in a court of law or by filing lawsuits that would surely expose them and their gutter tactics.
Excuse Five: Sathya Sai Baba enjoys powerful protection from the Indian Government, judiciary, the Supreme Court Of India and other power echelons from any sort of prosecution.
My Response: (See answer to Excuse Four) Since no alleged victim has even tried (first-hand) to file a court case against Sathya Sai Baba in India, there is no proof whatsoever that Sathya Sai Baba might be protected by the Indian Government, judiciary, the Supreme Court Of India and other power echelons from any sort of prosecution. Once again, critics are putting the cart before the horse and are claiming that Sai Baba is being protected by Justices although they have not even attempted to file a court case against him. File a court case first and if Sathya Sai Baba is protected by the Indian Government, judiciary, the Supreme Court Of India or other power echelons, then make that claim. To make this claim a priori is indicative of excuse-making, paranoia and deflection. Critics believe that the Supreme Court Of India is protecting Sathya Sai Baba because they rightly dismissed Hari Sampath’s bogus writ petition (although he was not a victim and was not even present in India when the writ petition was heard by the Justices).
Excuse Six: Many alleged victims have been raised from birth as Sai Devotees and duress would be frightening to them because they are mere boys in their teens.
My Response: This excuse can be found in critic’s response to Alaya Rahm’s Failed And Self-Dismissed Lawsuit Against The SSB Society (my full response can be found here). According to Barry Pittard, “well over a hundred sworn affidavits alleging sexual molestation of young males has been lodged with FBI” (Ref). This erroneous and unsupported claim has only been made by Barry Pittard (no other critic has made it). Therefore, these alleged “well over a hundred” affiants were not afraid of “duress” because they were “mere boys in their teens”. Allegedly, these “well over a hundred” affiants approached the FBI and filed affidavits with the FBI, fully prepared to participate in a court case against Sathya Sai Baba (why file affidavits otherwise?). However, along came Alaya Rahm’s Lawsuit Against The Sathya Sai Baba Society and not even one affidavit was submitted on Alaya Rahm’s behalf and not even one affiant or alleged victim was identitifed to the court on Alaya Rahm’s behalf (facts fully supported with court records).
In “Response To Form Interrogatories” (Form Interrogatory No. 12.6, Set One), Alaya Rahm mentioned his complaint that was filed with the FBI in Chicago through Hari Sampath (the Rahms did not file the complaint with the FBI in Chicago themselves). Therefore, although Alaya Rahm’s lawyer was fully aware of the FBI complaint, he was totally unaware of the alleged “well over a hundred” other affiants who had allegedly filed affidavits with the FBI (which would have all but solidified a case in favor of Alaya Rahm’s allegations).
And to put the final nail in the coffin, the JuST Group (allegedly composed of 32 ex-devotees) said:
“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.”
Therefore, the “well over a hundred sworn affidavits”, the “boys in their teens” and the FBI claims are totally without merit and no one can provide a scintilla of verifiable evidence to the contrary.
A Final Thought:
Despite critics claiming that Sathya Sai Baba’s “empire” is worth “billions of dollars”, not even money-hungry lawyers touched alleged victims. Ever wonder why?