SECOND REPLY TO MORENO'S FURTHER UNFOUNDED CLAIMS AGAINST MY WRITINGS - by Basava Premanand

This reply to Gerald Moreno follows on from my first reply to him (click here) Gerald Moreno's claims from http://www.saisathyasai.com/ under "ExBaba.com: Deception" and is titled: in the page 'Comments by Gerald Moreno - On Basava Premanand, honored by the Indian Government' - where he refers to the ExBaba page 'Hoax - busters' at ExBaba.com - October 2004) Gerald Moreno's comments appear in bold black face and mine in regular case navy blue type.

GM replied to former article with:
GM : This is actually reverse logic.

Reply : How can it be reverse logic? If my figures were wrong GM has to prove it by records from SSB and the Balance sheet of the SSB organisation as on 31.3.04.

GM : I have not seen any documentation, from any source, that gives a figure to Sathya Sai Baba's assets.

Reply : That means that he is simply assuming that the figure I gave was not true, and that SSB does not keep accounts of the money he collects as donations. The main point is that the Sathya Sai Central Trust and other institutions run under SSB's auspices are closed to investigation. They are not accountable to the public for their transactions, banking and their meetings' minutes are never published.

GM : The fact of the matter is that these numbers are speculative. Since Basava Premanand made the claim about SSB's assets, he should substantiate his claim with documentation.

Reply : How did GM know that these numbers are speculative, unless he researched and found out the value of SSB's assets as on 31.3.2004? He is speculating!
Has SSB documented any of his claims published in the hundreds of books on him and his official magazines? Or has he made his income and expenditure account and Balance sheet of his trusts public?
Who is Gerald Moreno to question me? Is he a law enforcement officer to question a person who gave the information instead of questioning SSB and his organisation? Why is it, I wonder, that his voluminous articles constantly berate, deride and defame, and demand answers from former devotees, and are bereft of any signs that he would ask any questions of Sai Baba or his leaders?

GM: Premanand has not made any documentation public to support his claim.

Reply : Why should I make any documentation public? I have not asked GM to believe my statements. My statements were to the Law Enforcement Department, and will be made happily available to the law courts and, in general, to investigators of skill and ethical principles.

GM : Where is the documentation for "SSB's balance sheet for 2004"?

Reply : According to Indian Law every year SSB and his trusts should submit the income and expenditure account and Balance sheet to Income Tax authorities and to the registrar of Societies. So GM cannot call my estimation false unless SSB proves it by making public the Sai Central Trust's accounts. He can get the copies from them as according to law anyone can ask for the copies of the public trusts. He can ask, at least! Has he done so? If not, as seems very evident, why not? If he failed to get honest accountability and transparency, would he tell the public (on whose behalf he arrogantly presumes to be acting)?

GM : According to Rediff.com, the Sathya Sai Trust received Rs 881.8 million (US $22 million) in 2003 in charitable donations (Ref. 1) That is US $1.48 billion short of Premanand's number.

Reply : Those are merely current donations (and in a "bad" year, since the allegations had reportedly begun to reduce considerably foreign membership and therefore surely donations). What about the earlier donations received year by year? Then how did he accumulate his vast assets in lands and at least 50 major buildings etc? Are these charitable? What about the immovable and movable asserts?

GM : These figures also do not take into account expenditures.

Reply : Assets means what is left after expenditure by way of charities. Ask any Auditor and he or she will explain what is Asset. Why does GM confuse asset and expenditure, is he competent to judge anything financial?

GM : The article mentioned, from The Economist, is nowhere to be found.

Reply : GM can't find it, excellent researcher that he claims to be. Is he only able to surf the Internet?


GM : Robert Priddy managed to remember the details to a 1990 article 10 years later, after becoming an Anti-Sai Activist. Once again, these numbers are speculative and unsubstantiated. There are no documents that validate these numbers. If these documents exist, I can only wonder why Priddy and Premanand have not made them public?

Reply : "The Economist" has made it public. The Economist does not allow posting of their materials on the Internet, for they have copyright which they guard by legal actions.

GM : Furthermore, these calculation do not include expenditures. If one adds up these amounts (including the amount from 1990): US $600 million + US $39 million + Rs. 100 crores (US $25 million) = US $664 million. This number is US $1.03 billion short of US $1.7 billion (Premanand's estimate) and US $1.33 billion short of US $2 billion (Priddy's estimate).

Reply : What about the donations received after 1990 up to 2004? What has happened to these donations? Does GM mean that SSB trust received only these three donations from 1990 to 2004? He cannot produce any financial data of import on any of this himself, yet he claims to be a 'researcher'. A head-in-the-sand grain analyst is a more real description of him.
It is known there have been a large number of legacies to the Central Trust, one such publicised instance being that of the huge estate of James Mason, which was unsuccessfully contested by his genetic family in court in UK. Others are reported on the internet, but most are doubtless never mentioned - despite his naïve belief that the Sai Organisation is honest and open with its accounting. The earnings from the more than 1000 highly over-priced but small bare 'apartments' in the ashrams, where rooms are over-subscribed in the dozens allowing a full donor in 1998 (who was charged US $10,000 ) only 2 to 4 weeks per annum residence depending on availability. This earned hundreds of millions for the Central Trust. Donations flow in cash and many other forms (e.g. very large batches of free books to the Sai Book Trust, gifts for students). Priddy reports having seen the Bank Manager at Puttaparthi flick through a huge wad of received cheques all signed 'Sathya Sai Baba' already back in 1986, when he was asking about his donation that year.
The extent of financial corruption in India is known to be extremely widespread, as reported by the UN, and the Sathya Sai financial empire is known to have been corrupted by persons taking kickbacks, not keeping accounts etc., but genuine accountability has not been enforced on it by the government. If GM really tries to investigate whether there are major hidden finances of SSB, for whom all taxes and custom duties are waived by the Government, would he come up against massive shadowy financial interests involving political and other worse hindrances?
GM may scoff and disbelieve him and so many other witnesses, but of course it is his habit to call honest men liars, so fortunately their good reputations are not in his hands, but of those who can vouch for them.

GM : Mentioning articles written 15 years ago and making speculative calculations about them is unreliable.

Reply : What is the proof that they are unreliable? That they are not current? Does GM never mention and make claims against articles written 15 years ago himself? The assets in 1990 would have become many many times more now. He is acting as if he knows nothing, surely just to confuse people who browse his website. That he constantly acts as the unofficial mouthpiece of an organisation that does not dare submit itself to open public scrutiny suggests that he is its grand dupe.

GM : As one can see, my claims are not without merit. Consequently, they are not slanderous, but entirely valid.

Reply : Not without merit to whom? Not to any scientific investigator, nor any reasonable person, I think. Nor to those who understand GM's agenda - to defend a sexual abuser who Moreno has stated he actually also believes to be a sexual abuser against all possible claims that he is fraudulent. That shows the degree of the 'merit' of GM's claims. GM's claims or my replies have to be verified by a court or unbiased people to find out who is correct and true and whose statements are entirely valid and who is slandering whom. Gerald Moreno has shockingly slandered many persons already, such as Barry Pittard, Robert Priddy, Reinier van der Sandt, Dr Timothy Conway and myself, just for a start, as anyone who visits his websites can see.

Or go to main series  part one  part two - part three - part four - part five  or   RETURN TO HOME PAGE - CLICK HERE -   (I want to thank my skeptic colleagues for relieving work pressures on me by key board work and editing of my answers)   NOTE! Unless otherwise stated, every article on these pages is the registered copyright of the author and/or website owner and unauthorised copying will be pursued legally . Permission to be sought in writing via the owner of this website