 |
BASAVA PREMANAND |  |
From: Joe (Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:40:53 -0700)
Subject: Response Completed
To: Basava Premanand
I have responded to all of Basava Premanand’s claims:
http://www.saisathyasai.com/baba/Ex-Baba.com/Premanand/b-premanand-deception.html
Let us see if you have the truthfulness and honesty of posting my actual links on your site and in your responses.
Sincerely,
Joe Moreno
|
RESPONSE FROM BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Premanand (Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:06:42 +0500)
Subject: Re: Response Completed
To: Joe
Your email dated 20.9.2005 received at 8:10AM sub : Responses completed.
I have no web sites. My articles are copied on several web sites by my friends. You are requested to contact the web master of those web sites. From the copies of my articles published I find that your web site has been mentioned from where your commented and later your responses on my reply on them.
In my articles I have not requested you to comment or called for your responses as those articles are on SSB and he nor his leaders have not so far replied.
with regards,
B.Premanand
|
RESPONSE TO BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Joe (Fri, 30 Sep 2005 05:41:57 -0700)
Subject: Re: Response Completed
To: Basava Premanand
Premanand, your articles pertained specifically to me. Consequently, I gave my responses.
Just recently, Al Rahm claimed that you contacted him a while back and you had filed new lawsuits against the Sai Organization, which are currently underway. Are you willing to confirm or deny that you have filed a new and current lawsuit against the Sai Organization?
J. Moreno
|
RESPONSE FROM BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Premanand (Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:15:29 +0500)
Subject: Re: Response Completed
To: Joe
My articles from which you started the deception series did not contain anything about you.
Send me the email which you received from AL after which I shall reply.
with regards,
B.Premanand
|
RESPONSE TO BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Joe (Sat, 1 Oct 2005 09:08:34 -0700)
Subject: Re: Response Completed
To: Basava Premanand
The original email correspondence, between Al Rahm and I, is as follows:
******************************
From: Al Rahm
To: Mayor Slay
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: Sai Baba Day
Dear Mayor Slay,
I am from St. Louis. I started the first Sai Baba Center in St. Louis in the year 1972 and was a devotee and Officer of the organization for 30 years. I know Dr. Harvey very well and Dr. Goldstein. What they are not telling you is that Sai Baba seriously sexually abused my son. The organization is involved in a terrible cover up and is now under a lawsuit.
Save your reputation.
Feel free to contact me.
Al Rahm
******************************
From: Joe
To: Al Rahm
Sent: Friday, September 23, 1:19 PM
Subject: Legal Action?
Dear Al,
I saw a post in a Yahoo Group where you claimed that the SSB Org is now under a “lawsuit”. This is important information. Where has the lawsuit been filed and when was it filed?
Thanks for any information about this claim.
Sincerely,
Joe
******************************
From: Al Rahm
To: Joe
Subject: RE: Legal Action?
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:45:53 -0500
There is a guy named Premanand in India with several suits going on. He is known as the guru buster.
******************************
Since you have corresponded with Al Rahm in the past, you can email him and verify this information for yourself.
Looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
J. Moreno
|
RESPONSE FROM BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Premanand (Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:38:48 +0500)
Subject: Re: Response Completed
To: Joe
Your email of October 1, 2005 received at 9.38 pm
Subject : Re:Re: Response Completed
As you have not copied to me the exact emails without the email address from and to fully etc., I would request you to send me the photocopy of your emails and Al Rahm’s reply. After getting the scanned copies and after verifying whether it is true I shall revert back.
with regards
B.Premanand
|
RESPONSE TO BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Joe (Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:32:26 -0700)
Subject: Re: Response Completed
To: Basava Premanand
Al Rahm requested that I not divulge his email address. So I have not. However, if you need to contact him to verify the contents, feel free to do so: [Al Rahm’s email snipped] The emails I sent to you did have the “to”, “from”, “subject” and “date”. The only thing left off was Al Rahm’s email. So what I sent you were the actual emails (which you can verify when you contact Al).
The question is quite simple: Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against the Sai Org? If so, for what?
Sincerely,
J. Moreno
|
RESPONSE FROM BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Premanand (Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:24:28 +0500)
Subject: Re: Re
To: Joe
In the email you quoted as Al’s email I donot find that Al Rahm requested that you not divulge his email address. Therefore you have hidden something from the Al’s email. This means that the email you sent me is a false one. So I am unable to correspont with you who sends false emails or partial emails.
Your question to you is simple but I donot want to inform you what I have planned and done as it is none of your business.
|
RESPONSE TO BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Joe (Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:05:37 -0700)
Subject: Re: Re
To: Basava Premanand
Premanand,
Is it characteristic for a “rationalist” or “scientist” to jump to conclusions, a priori, without making the slightest effort to investigate the facts? You are putting your integrity into serious disrepair by making blind accusations against me, and the emails I provided to you, by your refusal to verify the contents to those emails by contacting Al Rahm (whose email address I sent to you).
Al requested I keep his email address private, many months ago, at the time he wrote his explanatory letter to me. I supplied you with the relevant email correspondence to the question I had, i.e., “Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization?” I also supplied you with Al Rahm’s email address. Instead of confirming our email correspondence, you choose instead to make speculative assumptions without even making a half-hearted attempt to verify anything I said. This puts your integrity and your “rationalistic” and “scientific” methodologies into question. It is indeed perplexing that you would rather resort to slander, than an honest and fair enquiry into the facts.
Considering your failures in Indian Courts of Law, against Sathya Sai Baba, I am sure you do not want to reveal what your plans are and what legal actions (if any) you have taken. However, since Al Rahm attributed his claim directly to you, I thought I would enquire about it. Now that I know you operate on a premise of secrecy (and you care less for factual information) I have no choice but to conclude that you unaccountable and have much to hide.
Sincerely,
J. Moreno
|
RESPONSE FROM BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Premanand (Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:29:22 +0500)
Subject: Re: Re
To: Joe
Your email of 3.10.2005 received at 9:35pm
I am not concerned with your allegations against me as they are not true. You are talking about making me believe that the request was made on the email quoted by you. I have no connection with you nor do I know you and so I cannot divulge to you confidential matters unless I know why you want it.
With regards
B.Premanand
|
RESPONSE TO BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Joe (Tue, 4 Oct 2005 09:19:15 -0700)
Subject: Re: Re
To: Basava Premanand
Premanand,
I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking that you contact Al Rahm and verify the emails for yourself, first-hand, before you believe me. All it would take is one email and one minute of your time. Nevertheless, you are not even willing to do that. Instead, you blindly accuse me of sending you “false” emails. It is apparent you do not care for the truth, yet are willing to resort to untruths to defend yourself. This is indeed shameful behavior and you can be certain that I will be making this fact known to the general public (who you attempt to persuade with your alleged “scientific” enquiries and “research”).
This entire correspondence was meant to exonerate the name of Al Rahm, who made a lawsuit claim and attributed it directly to you. The fact that you were not aware of Al’s claim and did not even have his contact information proves that Al Rahm used your name to spread untruths about the Sai Organization. Now if you want to withhold your “confidential matters”, that is your prerogative. The only one who will suffer the stigma of being a liar is Al Rahm. It is in your hands to free Al Rahm of this stigma, in which case I request you to answer my question and provide me with the court case number and information to verify that you did, indeed, file a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization.
Otherwise, you will foster the notion that you are highly biased and purposely withholding information because it either does not exist or you are fearful of the repercussions. The filing of a lawsuit is public information. You are free to withhold details, but your refusal to answer if a lawsuit has been filed shows, once again, that you have much to fear and much to hide.
A lie is a lie.
Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization? Yes or no?
Sincerely,
J. Moreno
|
RESPONSE FROM BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Premanand (Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:22:13 +0500)
Subject: Re: Re
To: Joe
Your email dated 4.10.2005 received at 9:49 PM
sub : Re:Re:Re
Even if you ask me to believe you I can’t believe you. I have not signed any contract with you nor am I interested in verifying with Al, emails sent to and by you by Mr.Al Rahm. Regarding your statement that I am blindly accusing you for sending false emails, investigating these emails is very simple if you send me the scanned copies.
Read your emails to me and my replies:
Your email of 30.9.2005 received at 6.11 pm, sub : Re responses Completed “Premanand, your articles pertained specifically to me. Consequently, I gave my responses”.
Reply : My articles did not mention you at all as I came to know you only from Mr.Murali Krishna who gave me a copy of your comments on my article on the 6 Murders in SSB’s bed Room taken from my book “Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed room” which you claim to have not read at all.
So my replies to your comments started with your comments and my replies to your comments were not articles but replies to your comments on my articles which were a part of my book. So your statement is false.
In the same letter you stated: “Just recently, Al Rahm claimed that you contacted him a while back and you have filed new law suits against Sai Organisation, which are currently underway”. These are not the exact words in your purported email of Al Rahm. What he stated was “there is a guy named Premanand in India with several suits going on. He is known as the guru Buster”. So here you have even faked Al Rahm’s purported email purposefully.
And you put a question to me “ Are you willing to inform or deny that you have filed a new and current lawsuit against the Sai Organisation?”
Your question was a threat. And why should I confirm or deny to you my confidential matters when I do not know whether one Joe aka J. Moreno aka Gerald Moreno really exists? I have no proof that this Joe or J.Moreno or Gerald Moreno really exists. I am well aware of many instances where a person starts email addresses in the name of different persons and it includes you as you have confirmed in your deception series against me, and what one Murali Krishna Yachendra did in different names which is documented in the book Sabotage by Murali Krishna Yachendra. Unless you give me your identity by an attested affidavit with your photograph and real address and the purpose of your questions whether it is to add to your deception series or any other purpose specifying the purpose I refuse to answer your questions. Though you have pricked me with your slangs I kept myself under control and replied you by my email dated 1-10-2005 sent at 10:45 am :
“My articles from which you started the deception series did not contain anything about you. Send me the email which you received from Al and after which I shall reply”.
2. Your email dated 1-10-2005 received at 9:38 pm Re:Re:Response completed.
Instead of the email photocopy from Al Rahm you sent me a typed copy of the email dated 22-9-2005 9:46 am Sub: Sai Baba Day addressed to Mayor Slay.
Your email dated 23.09.2005 sent at 1:19pm sub: Legal Action to Al Rahm.
Also a typed copy of the purported email said to have been sent to you by Al Rahm without the email addresses of the sender nor the addressee.
And reply of Al Rahm email dated 23.9.2005 received by you at 14:45:53-0500 sub:Re:Legal Action?
In the email purported to be sent by you to Al Rahm there is no year mentioned in the sent : column and you claim they are the original correspondence. I surely know you will come with excuses when you are caught with lie and faking, but your excuses cannot change the purported emails already documentated by you in this letter. So I had to be on alert, when you stated that “since you have corresponded with Al Rahm in the past, you can email him and verify this information for yourself” when I am not interested in verifying the correspondence between you and Al Rahm, with Al Rahm.
So I replied to you on 3.10.2005 at 9.08am. As you have not copied to me the exact emails without email address from and to, fully etc, I would request you to send me the photocopy of your emails and Al Rahms Reply. After getting the scanned copies and after verifying whether it is true I shall revert Back.
3. Your email dated 3.10.2005 received here at 10.02 am sub : Re.Re. Response completed
In this email you stated that “Al Rahm requested that I do not divulge his email address. So I have not”. This is another lie when you continued “However, if you need to contact him to verify the contents, feel free to do so: [Al Rahm’s email snipped]. The emails I sent to you did have the “to”, “from”, “subject” and “date”. The only thing left was Al Rahms email. So what I sent you were the actual emails (which you can verify when you contact Al)”. This is another faking. If what you sent were actual emails it ought to have had the email addresses also and Al Rahm’s request that you donot divulge his email address. You also did not send me the photcopies of the emails proported to be sent by Al Rahm which would have cut down further correspondence.
Again on this email you stated “ The question is quite simple : Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against Sai Org? If so for what”? You expect every one to reply to your questions without explaining why you want the information and without caring to send the scanned copies of the emails between you and Al.
So, on 3.10.2005 at 5:54 pm sub :Re
I informed you that “in the email quoted as Al’s email I donot find that Al Rahm requested that you not divulge his email address. Therefore you have hidden something from the Al’s email. This means that the email sent to me is a false one. So I am unable to correspond with you who sends false emails or partial emails”.
Your question “to you is simple”, but my request is still simple asking for scanned copies without which I donot want to inform you what I have planned and done as it is none of your business.
Email from Joe dated 3.10.2005 received at 9:35pm sub : Re:Re:
You have come with blind and false accusations against me calling me names in this email. My statements were true and without sending me the scanned copies of the emails purported to be sent by Al Rahm to prove that your typed versions is true (they were not genuine and I have already pointed out why they are not genuine.
This is what you stated :
--------------------------
“Premanand,
Is it characteristic for a “rationalist” or “scientist” to jump to conclusions, a priori, without making the slightest effort to investigate the facts? You are putting your integrity into serious disrepair by making blind accusations against me, and the emails I provided to you, by your refusal to verify the contents to those emails by contacting Al Rahm (whose email address I sent to you).
Al requested I keep his email address private, many months ago, at the time he wrote his explanatory letter to me. I supplied you with the relevant email correspondence to the question I had, i.e., “Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization?” I also supplied you with Al Rahm’s email address. Instead of confirming our email correspondence, you choose instead to make speculative assumptions without even making a half-hearted attempt to verify anything I said. This puts your integrity and your “rationalistic” and “scientific” methodologies into question. It is indeed perplexing that you would rather resort to slander, than an honest and fair enquiry into the facts.
Considering your failures in Indian Courts of Law, against Sathya Sai Baba, I am sure you do not want to reveal what your plans are and what legal actions (if any) you have taken. However, since Al Rahm attributed his claim directly to you, I thought I would enquire about it. Now that I know you operate on a premise of secrecy (and you care less for factual information) I have no choice but to conclude that you unaccountable and have much to hide.”
This is what you had been doing in all your deception series against me and others who belong to Ex-baba group.
Al Rahm’s email address I already have and I have contacted him on his son’s sexual abuse by SSB. You came with an excuse that “Al requested I keep his email address private, many months ago, at the time he wrote his explanatory letter to me,“ instead of documenting your excuse.
You have not supplied me with scanned copies of the email correspondences except faked emails as explained by me and also not the full text. Your question “Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization?” can be answered only after you explain to me why you want this information when it doesnot concern you and you send me the scanned copies of your emails and Al Rahm’s replies. My requests were not speculative attempts and I cannot verify unless I get scanned copies of the emails proported to be sent by Al Rahm. I am not answering to your condemnations. “Yours isnot an honest and fair enquiry into the facts” as I find it is to condemn me which you have already done.
You alleged that “Al Rahm attributed his claim directly to you” but I find your statement is false. He only mentioned (if the typed copy of the email is true), that “there is a guy named Premanand in India with several suits going on. He is known as the guru Buster”. What Al Rahm has stated is true. There are cases pending from 6 years and back in the High Courts and I will not document them to you. You can enquire SSB. I have not failed in any Indian courts on the points of law and justice. It is the courts which have gone against law to protect SSB. The last sentence of your email does not effect me, it is SSB and you who are operating on secrecy and who do not care for factual information and unaccountable and have much to hide.
As I cannot go to the gutter level and so I replied on 4.10.2005 at 1:59 am
Sub : Re:Re
I am not concerned with your allegations as they are not true. You are talking about making me believe that the request was made on the emails noted by you. I have no connection with you nor do I know you and so I cannot divulge to you confidential matters unless I know why you want and who you are.
Your email dated 4.10.2005 received at 9:40 pm sub: Re:Re:Re:
This email contains more allegations and accusations against me. It is quoted fully below:
--------------------------
“Premanand,
I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking that you contact Al Rahm and verify the emails for yourself, first-hand, before you believe me. All it would take is one email and one minute of your time. Nevertheless, you are not even willing to do that. Instead, you blindly accuse me of sending you “false” emails. It is apparent you do not care for the truth, yet are willing to resort to untruths to defend yourself. This is indeed shameful behavior and you can be certain that I will be making this fact known to the general public (who you attempt to persuade with your alleged “scientific” enquiries and “research”).
This entire correspondence was meant to exonerate the name of Al Rahm, who made a lawsuit claim and attributed it directly to you. The fact that you were not aware of Al’s claim and did not even have his contact information proves that Al Rahm used your name to spread untruths about the Sai Organization. Now if you want to withhold your “confidential matters”, that is your prerogative. The only one who will suffer the stigma of being a liar is Al Rahm. It is in your hands to free Al Rahm of this stigma, in which case I request you to answer my question and provide me with the court case number and information to verify that you did, indeed, file a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization.
Otherwise, you will foster the notion that you are highly biased and purposely withholding information because it either does not exist or you are fearful of the repercussions. The filing of a lawsuit is public information. You are free to withhold details, but your refusal to answer if a lawsuit has been filed shows, once again, that you have much to fear and much to hide.
A lie is a lie.
Have you or have you not filed a current lawsuit against the Sai Organization? Yes or no?
Sincerely,
J. Moreno ”
“geedeemedi@vsnl.net wrote:
Your email of 3.10.2005 received at 9:35pm
I am not concerned with your allegations against me as they are not true. You are talking about making me believe that the request was made on the email quoted by you. I have no connection with you nor do I know you and so I cannot divulge to you confidential matters unless I know why you want it.
With regards
B.Premanand”
--------------------------
I am not replying to your threats and black mail. I can’t believe you unless I get the scanned copies of correspondences with Al Rahm and verify that the purported emails are genuine,. I donot want to contact Al Rahm even for a second it is enough if you provide me with the scanned copies when it is so simple unless you have other ulterior motives behind your request. I have not blindly accused you as the transcript copies you sent me are not original copies as you claimed. In the rest of the para you are black mailing me.
You state that this entire correspondence was meant to exornate the name of Al Rahm“. Who and how you can exornate him of the purported email to Mayer Slay if I answer your question? “Are you willing to confirm or deny that you have filed a new current law suit against the Sai organisation?”, you have not explained. But from your past comments under the deception series even on the explanatory letter from Al Rahm proves that your only purpose is to add another chapter to the deception series.
I cannot find in the purported email that you sent, that Al Rahm has made a law suit claim and attributed it directly to me. I was not aware of the alleged claim you made about Al Rahm in the purported email alleged to be sent by Al Rahm I do not find that Al Rahm used my name to spread untruths about the Sai Organisation. AL Rahm will not suffer the stigma of being a liar it will be you. If the email you sent me as from Al Rahm is true he only said, “There is a guy named Premanand in India with several suits going on. He is known as the “guru buster”.
So you can proceed with your pet and only project. Moreover filing a lawsuit is not public information. I would be happy if you add another chapter in the deception series and face the legal consequences.
Yours sincerely
B.Premanand.
|
RESPONSE TO BASAVA PREMANAND | |
From: Joe (Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:54:57 -0700)
Subject: Re: Re
To: Basava Premanand
Premanand,
Thank you for your email. It is amusing that you continue to rant and rave about wanting to verify the emails I sent you, but you refuse to lift even one finger to directly verify the emails with Al Rahm, who could indisputably confirm the correspondence I sent you. This shows you care more for equivocation and deceit than you do for factual information. Scanned copies can be tampered with and forged. Ultimately, you would need to contact Al Rahm. You do not care to contact him. It is deliberate ignorance on your part to ask for information whose inevitable conclusion relies on Al Rahm’s verification.
My original e-mail dealt with my responses to your articles about me (which have been published on Conny Larsson’s site, “SaiBabaExpose.com”). So when I said, “your articles pertained specifically to me”, I was referring to your articles about me, not the other articles you are referring to (which are completely irrelevant to the email I sent you). I even provided you with a link to my updated articles. Why would I refer to unnamed articles that had nothing to do with me? Your response series pertained directly to me (you made reference to my name 150+ times). Consequently it was your response series that I was referring to. You would have known this had you actually read my email and kept yourself up-to-date with your articles, that were published on Anti-Sai Sites.
Asking Al Rahm can easily resolve all of your speculations, slanders and mental imaginations about my email correspondence with him. You refuse to ask him. Such being the case, you can never know the truth of this matter. Even more disturbing is how you choose to remain ignorant of the facts by refusing to contact Al Rahm. Instead, you continue to resort to lies and slander to defend yourself. This type of behavior is shocking and reflects badly on your so-called “rationalistic” and “scientific” approach to the truth. It also jeopardizes your integrity.
My question about whether you filed a lawsuit against the Sai Organization was not a “threat” nor was it “blackmail”. It was simply a question. If you felt it was a “threat” or “blackmail”, then this implies you are fearful about giving a response, because you would be held accountable for your answer. Whenever a lawsuit is filed in India, that information is made public through various media. Had you actually filed a lawsuit against the Sai Organization, it would have been published in Indian newspapers or on court-related sites. It has not been published in any media. For example, http://www.courtnic.nic.in/ deals with disposed and pending court cases, in India, from the Supreme Court and High Courts in various States. This information is public domain. Your refusal to answer my question shows you have an agenda of suppression, rather than an agenda of honesty and forthrightness. I also suggest you look up the definition for “blackmail” in the English dictionary you rely so heavily upon. No one is “blackmailing” you. That you would accuse me of such, shows that you are an extremist who is reacting out of spite and anger. I feel that people are intelligent enough to see through your caricatured statements and determine whether anything I said was a “threat” or “blackmail”.
You are free to believe or disbelieve in my identity. That is your choice. I am bemused that you want me to send you an affidavit, address and photograph to establish my identity to you. As if I can trust you with this information when you have shown you care less for the truth and more for slander! I guess, according to your logic (illogic) all Anti-Sai Activists and alleged sexual abuse victims are not who they claim to be, because they have neither submitted affidavits, addresses or photographs of themselves to confirm their identities. Using your logic (illogic), Anti-Sai Activists and alleged sexual abuse victims are all using fake identities. If you want to set the standard, you should apply it equally on both sides.
The inevitable fact remains that your responses are published on my site, regardless of whether you believe who I say I am. Consequently, you have an opportunity to publicly clarify your positions and statements attributed to you. You refuse to do so. That is your choice. I am simply holding you accountable for your actions and words. Something you feel you are perfectly entitled to do with others (like Yachendra). Since you feel that others must be held accountable for their actions and words, then this must mean that you are willing to submit yourself to the same standard of accountability that you expect from others.
Al Rahm made a lawsuit claim and attributed his claim directly to you. Therefore, I emailed you and asked you whether this claim was true or not. You refuse to answer. Your answer determines whether or not Al Rahm lied. I have already explained this to you several times. You can try to distract from the main issue, by introducing irrelevant subject material, but I will continue to keep the focus on the issue at hand.
I’m sorry if you do not have a good grasp of the English language. Once again, if you re-read the email correspondence I sent you, Al Rahm said, “The organization is involved in a terrible cover up and is now under a lawsuit.” When I enquired about information regarding this lawsuit, Al Rahm responded by saying, “There is a guy named Premanand in India with several suits going on.” Consequently, Al Rahm used your name to defend his lawsuit claim.
Not only have I added more pages to my Deception Series, I have also provided this email correspondence as well. I have nothing to hide. Do you? Funny that you would threaten me with legal action when you are unwilling to clarify whether or not you have taken legal action against the Sai Organization! I am fully prepared to defend myself and I have adequately shown that the only person who has resorted to slander, “threats” and lies is you. This email correspondence is even more proof to this fact. I also suggest you take the time to read my responses to your articles about me. As you will see, my original comments changed very little and my personal opinions about you have not changed at all.
Sincerely,
J. Moreno
|
BASAVA PREMANAND - IN CONCLUSION | |
In my email correspondence with Basava Premanand it is clear he did not correspond with Al Rahm (as he was completely unaware of the “lawsuit” claim) and did not have Al Rahm’s email address (he requested this information from me). Premanand’s unwillingness to confirm Al Rahm’s “lawsuit” claim only serves to fuel the valid perception that Al Rahm purposely misled Mayor Slay with a fabricated statement.
In classic unscientific form, Premanand made all sorts of unreasonable demands (like photocopying the emails and mailing them to him in India) so he could ascertain the authenticity to the emails. Of course, photocopied emails are not reliable ways of authenticating them. In order to indisputably authenticate the emails, Premanand would have had to contact Al Rahm. Instead of contacting Al Rahm (in the first place), Premanand chose instead to libel me by saying that I provided him with “false” emails and that I “threatened” and “blackmailed” him!
It is shameful that Premanand would engage in this type of childish and irrational behavior. One can only wonder to what extent Premanand engages in this shameful behavior on his crusade against Sathya Sai Baba. Just as Premanand accuses devotees of being blinded by their belief, Premanand is similarly blinded his own belief and is purposely misleading the general public with negative and collusive propaganda.