SaiPetition.net -The Bogus ‘Sai Petition’ Against Sathya Sai Baba:
The SaiPetition.net website is an alleged online ‘petition’ that allows anyone with a negative opinion about Sathya Sai Baba to submit multiple signatures under multiple fake names.
The fraudulent Sai Petition calls for an official investigation of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba and the Sathya Sai International Organization. The SaiPetition.net administrators falsely claimed that Sathya Sai Baba has been “charged” (when no legal charges have ever been filed against him) and made references to:
- The Unesco Withdrawal (whose media release was removed from the Unesco website along with an official apology from Unesco expressing regret).
- Alleged ‘Witnesses’.
- The Alleged Hislop Letters.
- A solicitation for Barry Pittard’s Anti-Sai conspiracy blog.
- References to various media investigations (which Anti-Sai Activists boasted on accomplishing themselves).
- Reference to British MP Tony Colman’s question in Parliament (from which nothing ever resulted).
- A letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, which he responded to and said (in part): ‘However, as I understand, FCO Ministers explained to you last year, there is little the Government can do. Those who have complaints against Sai Baba will have to take them to the Indian police. No formal charges have been brought against him.’
- Reference to the U.S. State Department Warning, which was purposely altered, leaving out the pivotal word ‘unconfirmed’ in reference to ‘reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader at an ashram or religious retreat located in Andhra Pradesh’. The US State Department warning was officially removed on July 17th 2007.
- Reference to the June 6th 1993 Police Shootings. The petition administrators shamelessly lied and claimed that the four assailants (who viciously stabbed to death Sathya Sai Baba’s 2 aides and seriously injured two others) were ‘executed’ by the police while Sathya Sai Baba ‘passively stood by’. There is no proof, documentation or verifiable testimonies to support these absurd claims and bold-faced untruths.
SaiPetition.net, created by JuST and written by Arthur Klein, hosting an Online Petition against Sathya Sai Baba has pointed fingers at unnamed officials in the Sai Organization and complained that they have “failed in their moral and compassionate duty” regarding allegations of sexual impropriety leveled against Sathya Sai Baba. After boldly making this claim, SaiPetition.net miserably failed in their “moral and compassionate duty” by allowing anyone to submit multiple signatures (using multiple fake names) against Sathya Sai Baba without any sort of verification process whatsoever
What would you think if someone made sexual abuse allegations against you and created an online petition that allowed anyone to submit multiple signatures under multiple fake names? The negative and criminal allegations against you may never be traced to a real person and you must bear the stain of accusation without recourse. You would protest this outright. But SaiPetition.net thinks there is absolutely nothing wrong with this type of behavior despite their “moral” obligations and dedication to the “truth”. This is reprehensible by all standards and should be remedied immediately.
Legality, Flawed Submission Policies & Unverifiable Signatures:
On October 9th 2004, SaiPetition.net changed its flawed submission policy and finally acknowledged the issues of abuse and not using full names. In the two years the petition was online, no one had the conscience or integrity to screen submissions for abuse or failure to use full names. Although the full-name policy was started on October 9th 2004, the SaiPetition.net website is still keeping the invalid signatures (using one name, initials or a partial name) and is still accepting partial name entries.
Prior to October 9th, 2004, submissions were instantly accepted with no verification process whatsoever (very much akin to signing an online guestbook or posting a comment on a public forum). See For Yourself. After Moreno pointed out the Sai Petition’s dishonest and easily exploitable submission method, they resorted to the equally flawed method of “screening” submissions before accepting them (a process Moreno has conclusively shown does not work). Click Here to view a screen-capture with multiple, fake submissions (names: Joe Apodaca, Isaac Nivek and Kevin Iassa) that Moreno made, which were screened and accepted into the petition.
SaiPetition.net erroneously claimed that the petition signatures are "100% Legal" (a bold-faced untruth). In order for any legal petition to be legitimate, it must record verifiable information, such as:
- A verifiable full name.
- A verifiable address.
- A verifiable signature.
SaiPetition.net has no way of verifying signatures as legal and valid because they do not request an address or phone number and submissions can be made using fake e-mail addresses. Moreno was able to submit multiple fake signatures using multiple fake e-mail addresses to the petition (which were screened and accepted!). How legal and valid is that? Click here to view a screen-capture with the fake names Joe Apodaca, Joe M, JM and Isaac Nivek. Moreno has challenged SaiPetition.net to verify three recently “screened” submissions by: Ronnie Bartlett, UK; Sara Friedmann, France and Henry Sanders, USA. Apparently, the Sai Petition is not able to verify these 3 signatures that they screened and approved. This is highly indicative of deceit and dishonesty.
UPDATE: July 24th 2005: Even though Moreno very clearly stated that he made a fake submission using the name “Joe Apodaca”, Robert Priddy took Moreno’s fake submission and put it on his “Ex Office Bearers” page, using it as a first-hand account against Sathya Sai Baba. Needless to say, there was no way for Priddy to contact “Joe Apodaca” (as a fake email was used) but the signature was regarded as authentic without any sort of verification and put up on his page as a legitimate signature. I think this speaks volumes for the so-called “integrity” of the petition’s “signatures”. Click Here to see a screencapture to Robert Priddy’s site and his use of an openly faked signature to promote his Anti-Sai Agenda. Click Here to view the google cache. Click Here to read an in depth article.
Information Purposely Suppressed On The Sai Petition:
The SaiPetition.net webmaster (out of his own mouth) admitted to purposely suppressing information on the bogus Sai Petition and 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.” (Ref)
Here we have a clear admission that the Sai Petition purposely withheld information from the general public due to concerns that the information would have been “counter-productively unconvincing to any serious actors and agencies in the legal and human rights field” and “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”. How deceptive, dishonest and crooked is that?
SaiPetition.net: Does Anyone Believe and Support Them?
JuST (Just Seekers of Truth) addressed the Sai Petition to:
“All governments, human rights institutions, all religious and spiritual leaders, NGOs, politicians and official functionaries, and the media organizations of all countries.”
Nevertheless, despite the Sai Petition being online since 2002 (and being posted on every single Anti-Sai website on the internet) no one belonging to Governments, Human Rights Institutions, Media Organizations or NGO’s have verified the signatures on the bogus Sai Petition. Despite the Sai 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. No one is willing to back up the bogus Sai Petition by signing it.
SaiPetition.net: Altering Submissions: Dishonesty in Action:
JuST’s Sai Petition signatures are not legal despite their misleading claims that the petition signatures are legal. On SaiPetition.net, they stated:
“…and who wish the responsible persons be made accountable through proper legal process, to please sign this petition…This Petition is for the benefit of the general public and will be sent to any relevant authority that may forward the Petition…”
Online Petitions are not legal for several reasons:
- Signature verification is next to impossible.
- A single person can submit numerous signatures under numerous names and email addresses.
- There are no international Initiative and Referendum laws that govern online petitions.
Randi Godager and the SaiPetition.net Administrator asserted that the petition signatures are “fully and 100% legal”. This is dishonest and a lie. The fact that Moreno was able to make multiple submissions proves that signatures can easily be faked. How valid and legal is that?
However, for arguments sake, let us assume that the petition signatures are legal. If any signature was altered, such an action would be illegal, in violation of the Initiative and Referendum laws and punishable by law. SaiPetition.net alters the signatures! If you go SaiPetition.net, and look for the name “Laim Ekaf” (which spells “Fake Mail” backwards), you will see that there is only a name with no comment. However, if you click here to view the altered submission, you will see that on the original submission there was a comment in Dutch attached to it that was removed by SaiPetition.net! Not only is this inappropriate and dishonest, if this Sai Petition was legal, this would be illegal activity! This from people who demand legal recourse against Sathya Sai Baba.
Furthermore, the following signatures were altered:
- “Jorge, Mexico signed the petition” was changed to “Jorge Reyesvera, Mexico signed the petition”.
- “raaid, Pakistan signed the petition” was changed to “raaid iqbal, Pakistan signed the petition”.
- “Rajkumar Subramnaian from UK” was changed to “Rajkumar Subramnaian from India”.
- “christophe bouity” was changed to “christophe boity”.
Why are the signatures being altered? Why aren’t we told that submissions are being altered? Who is altering them? What else are we not being told about the petition signatures?
If you go saipetition.net (click “View Signatures” then click on “Show First 700 Signatures”, scroll to the bottom of the page and look for the 23rd signature up) you will see that Robert Priddy claimed he was devoted to Sathya Sai Baba from 1983 to 2002. Or, you can click here to view a screen capture. His wife, Reidun Priddy, was devoted to Sathya Sai Baba from 1983 to 2000 (in other words, Reidun Priddy left Sai Baba 2 years prior to Robert Priddy).
If we are to believe Robert Priddy’s signature information on SaiPetition.net (after all, Robert Priddy made the submission himself), he claimed that he was still devoted to Sathya Sai Baba in 2002. However, if you go to http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/witnesses/robert.html, you will see that this article is dated March 10th, 2001. At that time Robert Priddy was no longer a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. However, according to SaiPetition.net, Robert Priddy claimed he was a devotee in 2002. Did Robert Priddy make that submission? Or did someone else make it for him?
It is also significant to note that Alexandra Nagel (an Anti-Sai Activist) told Moreno that she had “no clue as to how it happened that on the petition it is said that I was a devotee in 2000. That simply is not true” (Ref). On SaiPeitition.net, Alexanda Nagel’s signature stated she was devoted to Sathya Sai Baba “briefly in 2000”. Where did this comment come from when Alexandra Nagel claimed she did not make it?
Signature 145 was allegedly made by “Sekharji”, who was the webmaster for the website sekharji.org. On the Sai Petition, Sekharji allegedly claimed that he visited Sathya Sai Baba in 1946 & 1949. The only problem with this claim is that Sekharji was born in 1959 (Refs: 01 – 02). Since Sekharji disappeared from the guru scene many years ago, it appears someone submitted a fake signature using his name.
SaiPetition.net: Where Did The Signatures Come From?
On the newer petition at SaiPetition.net created in June of 2004 (the Original Petition was created in 2002), if you scroll to the bottom of the petition and work your way up, you will notice the first 758 submissions do not have dates attached to them. Only the most recent 51 posts have a date. When Moreno wrote this article, there were only 809 submissions on SaiPetition.net. Where did the 758 posts (with no dates) come from? The answer is that most of the submissions were duplicated from the Original Petition page (which has subsequently been deleted). SaiPetition.net (in an act of desperation) removed the Original Petition page in a deceitful attempt to prevent people from verifying the errors Moreno pointed out on it. Click Here to see the exact duplicate (text version) of the Original Petition, along with it’s numerous inconsistencies. Seeing is believing.
The Grim Reality: Anyone Can Submit a Fake Signature:
The grim reality is that anyone can submit multiple fake signatures to the Sai Petition. Don’t believe it? Go to the Online Sai Petition Page, use a believable fake e-mail address, a believeable fake name and a fake profile. Say anything you want to say and click “submit”. Wait a few days and see what happens (Please Note: Your comments must be negative or they will be not be accepted!).
Consequently, anyone that is Anti-Sai Baba, can submit as many fake submissions as they choose (using as many fake email addresses they can think up). As a matter of fact, Moreno did it himself. The names used were: “Joe M, JM, Joe Apodaca” for Sept. 27 and “Kevin Iassa, Isaac Nivek” for Sept. 28. As expected, SaiPetition.net deleted “Joe M” and “JM” from the petition. Click here to view these submissions that were deleted. Any group that strives for “honesty, sincerity, decency, truthfulness and accountability”, should know better than putting up a bogus Online Petition, claiming it is 100% legal, accepting signatures that cannot be verified and providing a forum that can be used and abused by dishonest people (which come a dime-a-dozen in the Anti-Sai Movement).
On the very same day Moreno contacted the Sai Petition webmaster about his concerns about the bogus Sai Petition, they closed down the Original Petition page. Their closing comment can be viewed here. The Original Petition was removed so no one could verify Moreno’s claims firsthand. However, Moreno made a full catalog of screen captures to the Original Petition. Click Here to see the exact duplicate (text version) to the Original Petition, along with it’s numerous inconsistencies.
It is baffling that these Just Seekers of Truth tell so many lies. If you view Moreno’s page about the inherent dishonesty of the Original Petition page, he enumerates five bold-faced lies told by the unnamed “Sub-Administrator” (whomever that is, as no real and verifiable name is given).
SaiPetition.net: Duplicate Posts:
To conclusively show that something suspicious and fraudulent is going on at SaiPetition.net, find the submission by “Babu Sharma”. It reads:
“Need for huge people movement or revolution against Sai Baba. A person or people can’t able to stand up and blow the whistle against Sai Baba, because Sai Baba has too much religious, social and political power. Indian state police, government, religious organization and million stupid devotees are Sai Baba’s protectors and defenders. To put Sai Baba in justice or jail, People’s movement and revolution must require. Indeed it is reality and true. People scare and keep shot their mouth rather than get kill by some stupid.”
There was another post at SaiPetition.net by “sanjeev biradar” (dated Sept. 27th, which was subsequently deleted) that read:
“Need for huge people movement or revolution against Sai Baba. A person or people can’t able to stand up and blow the whistle against Sai Baba, because Sai Baba has too much religious, social and political power. Indian state police, government, religious organization and million stupid devotees are Sai Baba’s protectors and defenders. To put Sai Baba in justice or jail, People’s movement and revolution must require. Indeed it is reality and true. People scared and keep shut their mouths rather than get killed.” (Ref)
As you can see, the posts are identical except for a few words in the last sentence. The person who made these submissions used completely different names (Babu Sharma and Sanjeev Biradar). This fully supports Moreno’s claim that people are making multiple submissions under multiple fake names on the Sai Petition.
Click Here to view multiple posts made by Reinier van de Sandt.
If this type of activity happened on a Pro-Sai Site, one can be certain that Anti-Sai Activists would be gnashing their teeth and raising a huge cry. JuST has some explaining to do. SaiPetition.net removed the post from Sanjeev Biradar only after Moreno pointed it out. They don’t even care to review the submissions before accepting them.
Furthermore, there are two posts (one from a person claiming to be “George Miles from New Zealand” and another post from a person claiming to be “Arati Rai from Nepal”) that refer to Sathya Sai Baba as the “SARS virus”. How many people do you know who refer to Sathya Sai Baba as the “SARS virus”? Is this just coincidence? Moreno doesn’t think so.
SaiPetition.net: Anti-Sathya Sai Baba Spammers?
How about Anti-Sai spammers? On Moreno’s page about the Original Petition, he discussed how many posts are, in his opinion, from the same person. As a matter of fact, there are recent posts on SaiPetition.net that have startling similarities to the posts Moreno did an analysis on. Click Here to read Moreno’s analysis of the petition signatures. This proves that something very suspicious is happening on SaiPetition.net.
Reinier Van Der Sandt admitted using multiple, fake names on a Yahoo Group (he even had imaginary conversations with himself between his fake Yahoo identities). If the webmaster for the largest Ex-Baba domains on the internet used incognito, fake identities on a Yahoo Group, who is to say that he is not doing the same on SaiPetition.net? Click Here to read about Reinier Van Der Sandt’s admission to using fake names.
Moreno was spammed with hate mail from a person using anonymous, proxy IP’s. Again, if a person will resort to such drastic steps to cover-ip his/her identity, who is to say they are not doing the same on the bogus Sai Petition? Click Here to visit my hate e-mails page.
On April 3rd 2007, Freestone Wilson agreed to hand over the QuickTopic board FE68KidtskS (on which Ex-Devotees often posted) to Gerald Joe Moreno. Moreno promptly upgraded the board to the Pro-Version (giving him access to all the IPs). Between Sanjay Dadlani, UsedByBaba and Tony O’Clery, they used no less than seventy nine (79) fake names, even attempting to pass themselves off as females, Sai devotees, Sai proponents and people from other countries! See Moreno’s article: Shocking Behavior From Ex-Devotees Of Sathya Sai Baba On The QuickTopic Forum. If Ex-Devotees engage in this type of deceptive and secretive behavior on public forums, who is to say they are not doing the same on the bogus Sai Petition?
SaiPetition.net: Added Submissions:
Perhaps the most disturbing fact about the bogus Sai Petition are the added signatures that were supposedly taken from the Original Petition page, but were NOT listed on the Original Petition page. Where did these added signatures come from?
The first 700 submissions on SaiPetition.net are almost identical to the first 700 submissions on the Original JuST Petition. However, while comparing them, Moreno found some startling dissimilarities. Some posts (mostly pro-Sai Baba) were discarded on SaiPetition.net and twenty four new submissions were mysteriously added. None of the 24 added signatures came from the Original Petition. Since these added signatures are shown as originating within the sequence of the Original Petition, one can’t help to wonder where they came from. The submissions not found on the Original Petition, but listed on SaiPetition.net, are:
- Abdallah from Australia
- Albutiu Anda from Romania
- Alejandro from Argentina
- Anish Rathod from the UK
- Babu Surati from India
- Dan Dumitrescu from Roumania
- Debora Lewis Montserrat from France
- Diyanat from India
- Edwin Reu Rings from Netherlands
- Erika Brioschi from the UK
- Evgeni from Russia
- Fekre from Egypt
- Jeannot from Belgium
- Jenny Knol from Netherlands
- Lello from Italy
- Licia from Italy
- Livio from Italy
- Nirav from USA
- Praveen from India
- Ratikant from India
- Srimathi from India
- Suresh from Australia
- Samira from Iran
- Xortay from USA
SaiPetition.net: Plagiarizing Moreno’s Web-Page Meta-Data:
Click Here to view a Google screen capture that shows a partial section where SaiPetition.net plagiarized Gerald Moreno’s page meta-data verbatim (in a desperate attempt to outrank his website). Click Here to view Moreno’s Petition Analysis page, from which SaiPetition.net plagiarized Moreno’s meta-data. On SaiPetition.net’s main index page, their meta-data description is:
“Critical Analysis of both online petitions against Sathya Sai Baba, of Puttaparthi India, and Guru to millions. Analysis is of merged petitions from the Original Petition and the newer petition at SaiPetition.net by Just, Just Seekers of Truth, and Arthur Klein.”
Compare this to Moreno’s meta-data description, which states:
“Critical Analysis of both online petitions against Sathya Sai Baba, of Puttaparthi India, and Guru to millions. Analysis is of merged petitions from the Original Petition and the newer petition at SaiPetition.net and shows the inherent dishonest, unjust and propagandizing methods employed by Just, Just Seekers of Truth, and Arthur Klein.”
This highlights SaiPetition.net’s desperation. They plagiarize Moreno’s web-page meta-data in a desperate attempt to outrank his site. The meta-tags they used are in the exact same order as the ones listed on Moreno’s page. Shameless thieves! Click here to view a screen capture to SaiPetition’s source code to see their desperation in action.
SaiPetition.net: Suspicions Confirmed: Pro-Sai Posts Deleted:
While making this page, the following post appeared on SaiPetition.net:
“Priya Reddy, India signed the petition on October 1. 2004. Period as a follower: 1988-Present: Sai is a God. He has healed me and my father of cancer. We owe him our lives. You all see only bad. You do not see his power and glory. Vibuthi and amruth manifest from our aunty’s house. This power does not belong to ordinary human. It is divine. No one else can do these things.”
Moreno wondered if SaiPetition.net would allow this post to stay on their petition website. As Moreno suspected, the post was removed the very next day. Why is it that SaiPetition.net removes honest and positive submissions and keeps vile and defamatory submissions? SaiPetition.net may argue that it goes against the premise of their “petition” purposes (and we know what these “purposes” are), but Moreno has already shown how this so-called “petition” is not a petition at all. It is an Anti-Sai “guestbook”. This type of “soviet style” control and behavior contradicts JuST’s claim to furthering a “two way and sincere interface with the public”. As one can see, this is unequivocally insincere, dishonest and one way!
Furthermore, why didn’t Arthur Klein (the alleged author of the petition) submit an official signature to the petition? If you view the signature that is attributed to him on SaiPetition.net, it corresponds to post number 83 on the Original Petition. If you go to the Original Petition, you will see that post 83 is not a signature but a post about spamming (this post comes after 12 voided lines). There are only two posts by Arthur Klein on the Original Petition (796 and 83) and both are not signatures. One is a comment to 2 people about using their full names, and the other is comment that talked about the petition: “…Even though the spamming has caused us undue problems it has helped to further expose our view.” If Arthur Klein wrote the Petition, why didn’t he officially sign it? His comment about spamming is not seen until the 83rd post. There is a strong suspicion that “Arthur Klein” may be a pseudonym for Dave Lyons (who happens to share the exact same email address, as confirmed by WhoIs).
Click Here to see the exact duplicate (text version) of the Original Petition along with it’s numerous inconsistencies.
Do Terrorist Organizations Support The Sai Petition?
On May 27th 2007, the SaiPetition.net administrators published the following submission and comments on the Sai Petition (click here for the screencap):
Osama Binladen, Afganistan signed the petition on May 27. 2007.
Period as a follower: – Position in S.S.Org: -
NOTE FROM SAI PETITION ADMINISTRATION – THE ABOVE SUBMISSION FROM AN ALLEGING AL QUEDA PAKISTANSI TERROR ORGANISATION IN U.K. – FROM IP 18.104.22.168 (WITH A BOGUS E-MAIL ADDRESS) – HAS BEEN REPORTED TO THE LONDON METROPOLITAN POLICE FOR THEM TO INVESTIGATE. THE SENDER USING THE NAME OF OSAMA BIN LADEN ALSO ADDED THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:
“i am like all of u here who have commented i also do not like the man. all of u have inspired me.thanks, people like u help people like me!xxxx”
FINAL NOTE, OF COURSE THE THE SAI PETITION ADMINISTRATION AND THE JuST GROUP MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT OSAMA BIN LADEN OR ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES WHATEVER. – :
Are “Al Queda Pakistani Terror Organisations in the UK” supporting Anti-Sai Activists and their bogus Sai Petition? Apparently, the Sai Petition Administrator’s seem to think so.
To those possessing sober intellects, it is apparent that this post is one of the more obviously faked posts that plague the bogus ‘Sai Petition’. My thanks to the Sai Petition administrators for making this post public and showing how easy it is for people to submit fake submissions, under fake names and with fake emails.
Sai Petition – In Conclusion:
In conclusion, it seems that SaiPetition.net has fallen into a very sad state with their fraudulent ‘Sai Petition’. Consequently, it is recommended that SaiPetition.net find a more legitimate, legal and honest way of obtaining verifiable signatures for their petition purposes. Although SaiPetition.net stated that many Anti-Sai Activists do not resort to “propaganda” (Moreno is assuming that SaiPetition.net is also referring to itself) the Sai Petition speaks for them to the contrary of their claims.
In order to do some damage control and prevent the valid perception that a majority of the petition signatures are fake, SaiPetition.net needs to come forward with clean hands and have the petition signatures independently verified. Various members of the general public have expressed increasing suspicion over SaiPetition.net’s adamant refusal to have their petition signatures verified. Furthermore, concerned citizens feel that independent media organizations (who have never been affiliated with the Anti-Sai movement) should be utilized to verify the signatures. There is now proof that Anti-Sai Activists do not verify the names or claims made on their deceptive Sai Petition. Rather, they accept negative submissions made under faked names and disperse this information as the truth. This is reprehensible by all means and must be investigated and remedied.