Skip to main content
Category

Cyberstalking

May 14

Issue of Defamation on Google

By Cyberstalking, Equalizer, Gerald Joe Moreno, Sathya Sai Baba

Gerald Joe Moreno (Equalizer)

In his campaign to attack all critics of Sathya Sai Baba (d.2011) and himself, Gerald Joe Moreno proved nothing except that the role of a cyberstalking sectarian apologist is acutely misleading and reprehensibly libellous. 

In January 2009, a lawyer passed verdict on the internet attacks by Gerald Joe Moreno (alias Equalizer) in my direction: 

I think that [Gerald] Joe Moreno has been quite defamatory, and I would be very surprised if he has not taken the precaution of ensuring that no property of any value is in his own name, and thus not available to execute against action exerted to satisfy an award of Damages for Defamation. His web writing comes across to me as that of a petty and fanatical lout who always needs to have the last word, and that in itself makes me wonder about his motivation and, thus, to doubt his good faith and his credibility. His output realistically amounts to little more than a hopefully face-saving smokescreen for the benefit of his own cheer squad. 

The count against Moreno increased substantially by 2010. From 2007, he ignored my detailed protests at his misrepresentation and libel. He is reported to have suffered decease in 2010, at the age of forty. Only part of his web output remained visible on Google. 

Hostile and misleading representations of myself were sustained at diverse Moreno sites and blogs. Those incursions included the blog called sathyasaibaba, where Moreno misleadingly referred to himself as “sathyasaibaba,” thus creating an impression that his guru Sathya Sai Baba was here the voice of authority.

In more general terms, the collective toll of Moreno victims aroused the verdict of lawyers, in three different countries, that the web attacks of Gerald Joe Moreno were markedly libellous. His output remains a warning of what sectarian zeal can do in the furtherance of “hate campaign,” treating any kind of criticism as a punishable offence. This situation has served to illustrate the extent of abuse which can occur on Google, along with the satellites blogspot and wordpress, a largely unmonitored field with no due regulations in force. 

A pertinent question exists as to the status and propriety of blog defamation surviving on blogspot and wordpress after the decease of a malpractitioner,  in the face of active complaint.

The Moreno inquisitorial web labyrinth, prior to his death, was an obvious attempt to annul all criticism of his guru Sathya Sai Baba. Moreno frequently repeated his mantra that the Puttaparthi guru had never been convicted of any crimes. The “allegations” were therefore invalid, he liked to assert. The reason for a massive loophole in the law was that socially prominent devotees like Dr. Michael Goldstein (of California) blocked all investigation. Goldstein appeared in a well known BBC interview (dating to 2004), during which he dismissed all critical factors via his emphatic belief that no guilt could apply to Sathya Sai (the Western medic also rated his own ability to discern cases of sexual abuse). A BBC complaint emerged that Goldstein relied on the testimony of the accused, not any due process of enquiry.

Goldstein had been requested to confront Sathya Sai Baba with the abused instance of Alaya Rahm, a young American devotee. The guru responded: “Swami [Sathya Sai] is pure.” The Puttaparthi avatar was not slow to negotiate the new threat to his ascendancy. The next day, he imparted a discourse in which he lavishly praised Goldstein, more than he had ever praised anyone. Goldstein proudly referred to this eulogy as “the peak of my life.”  According to ex-devotees, Goldstein subsequently started to fund Moreno in his apologist project online. 

The Danish documentary Seduced by Sai Baba had caused a stir in 2002, being opposed by devotees who resorted to a legal procedure that failed. Produced by Ojvind Kyro of Denmark Radio (DR), the Seduced feature profiled “Sam Young,” meaning Alaya Rahm (who at that date adopted a protective pseudonym against potentially accusing devotees). During the 1990s, from the age of 16, this American was sexually molested for several years after being “oiled” (on the genitals) by Sathya Sai. Alaya and his parents were gifted with money and  jewels (also cheap gold watches that soon faded in lustre). His parents later described these offerings as bribes from the guru. The testimony of the victim includes the following:

One time he [Sathya Sai] had his robe completely off and he tried to have anal sex with me, because he came from behind and started climbing up on top of me. (Testimony from Sam Young on the video SEDUCED, exbaba.com, Witnesses tab)

Kevin R. D. Shepherd

May 2014 (modified 2021)

ENTRY no. 27

Copyright © 2021 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.

Mar 02

Copyright Muddle of Gerald Joe Moreno

By Cyberstalking, Equalizer, Gerald Joe Moreno, Internet Terrorism, Kate Thomas
Images of Kate Thomas (Jean Shepherd) abused by Gerald Joe Moreno. Images copyright Kevin R. D. Shepherd.
In his web campaign to offset all criticism of Sathya Sai Baba (d. 2011), Equalizer (Gerald Joe Moreno) proved his talent for confusing argument in what he called the “Copyright Issue.” This was a reductionist ploy of 2009. I was here described in terms of “foamed-at-the-mouth, gnashed his teeth and raised a huge wail about Joe Moreno [note third person] violating his copyrights for duplicating pictures of himself and his mother.”
The accusation was misleading. I had indeed complained about the excessive use of images, three of myself and five of my mother. Equalizer flagrantly reproduced these eight images yet again on the “Copyright Issue” blog page, demonstrating his defiance against reasonable complaint. 
Equalizer (Moreno) added that “Shepherd implied he may take legal action against Moreno” for duplicating images. This was incorrect; my reference to legal action had implied the libellous tactic of Moreno, not image copyrights. Equalizer thus gave the convenient impression that only photographs were at issue. In reality, the extensive train of misinformation, personal attack, family harassment, and other matters were being monitored by legal analysis which had reached very negative conclusions about Gerald Joe Moreno, alias Equalizer.  
The cyberstalker then launched into his favoured theme that his sole image was copyright protected, and therefore must not be used by anyone. He had placed five images of my mother with an insulting caption on his attack website, yet no image of Moreno could be used by me. The discrepant nature of this situation was clear to observers.
The obnoxious blog was entitled “Kate Thomas aka Jean Shepherd.” The family attack associations were made quite explicit by Equalizer when he presented another of his misrepresentations on that page. The militant guru defender stated that “Jean Shepherd is a widely solicited public figure and critic in regards to the Findhorn Foundation.” He added in brackets “albeit exclusively through her son and self-publisher.”
The word “exclusively” was here rendered in bold, meaning that Moreno discourse was irrefutable on this point. In actual fact, the emphasised word was a fiction.
My mother (Kate Thomas) had authored books (in the plural), none of which were published by me. She was celebrated in numerous press reports of the 1990s, including major British newspapers. She also appeared prominently in an annotated book by Stephen Castro that was not published by me, and which furthermore gained recognition from  ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association).  The magnitude of error on cult web deserves acknowledgment. 
The misleading blogger next opted to describe me as “a self-serving hypocrite.” This charity of Pro-Sai defamation is a testimony to what can happen on the American web to members of other nations. This strike was masked by another banal item of camouflage: the accusation that my complaint about images was negated by my own use of images in relation to such people as Eileen Caddy (deceased), Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber, and Frank Visser. The issue of Moreno libel and distortion was here totally bypassed. Caddy was dead, Cohen and Wilber were controversial entities whose images were well known, while Frank Visser had no objection to his image being reproduced by me. 
Equalizer concluded with an extremist expression of a type that many readers found unconvincing. I was here called an “internet terrorist” and “sectarian cyberstalker.” The criterion here was that I had “pirated” the sole Moreno image by showing this on my sites. 
Critical analysts were easily able to decode the rhetorical devices employed here. I had complained that Moreno was an internet terrorist and sectarian cyberstalker. This met with ready agreement from victims and close analysts of the situation. However, in Equalizer/Moreno blog justification, this meant that the critic was an internet terrorist and cyberstalker.  Tit for tat response.
The logical effect of these blogger devices, if taken seriously, would lead to situations such as: anybody complaining of a murder would be labelled a murderer by the criminals. Anybody complaining of a theft would be regarded as a thief by the apologists. Any counter-accusation would be justifiable if blog deception was the criterion for judgment, even if regarded as blogspot.com state of the art. 
A secondary consideration here is that pseudonymous trolls lacking a web image may need to be identified in such cases of evasion. 
Kevin R. D. Shepherd 
ENTRY no. 20 
Copyright © 2014 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.
Dec 03

Kevin RD Shepherd Not An Academic

By Craig Gibsone, Cyberstalking, Equalizer, Findhorn Foundation, Gerald Joe Moreno, Holotropic Breathwork, Sathya Sai Baba
Craig Gibsone
Gerald Joe Moreno (Equalizer) was incensed when some ex-devotees (of Sathya Sai Baba) described me as a scholar. He went to elaborate lengths to snub this classification. His blog Kevin RD Shepherd is NOT an Academic appeared in 2009, and notably capitalised the negative word.
Since 1983, when I first emerged in print, I have made clear that I am not an academic, both to avoid confusion and to allay any grievances of specialist academics. The Equalizer treatment of this issue, in 2009, was memorable even by the vehemently distorting standards of Pro-Sai web campaign:
Kevin R. D. Shepherd is a sectarian bigot who obsessively, unremittingly and fanatically attacks and stalks everything and everyone affiliated with the Findhorn Foundation. 
Equalizer (Moreno) here relinquished completely any credence to accurate reporting. It is well known that I am not a member of any sect. My criticisms of the Findhorn Foundation do not come under the sectarian category, as is obvious to diligent readers. Nor do I criticise “everything and everyone” affiliated with that organisation.
Informed readers concluded that the extremist Moreno assertion closely reflected his own ill-repute as an obsessive  stalker of “Anti-Sai” critics and ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba (d.2011). Moreno was much more than a troll, gaining the repute of a cyberstalker who went to almost unbelievable lengths to blacken the reputation of his adversaries. For instance, he was reported to distort images of ex-devotees, and to harass victims by emailing their contacts with adverse portrayals. He targeted Google name lists with multiple entries visibly agitating against the victims. At one time there were seven hostile Moreno web entries listed in a row on my own Google listing,  with many others following in a more scattered density.
The peculiar spite of Equalizer (Moreno) was evidenced in his concluding remark at the NOT blog. “The only thing that trumps Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s non-academic role is his big ego.” Equalizer also had a non-academic role, referring to Moreno in the third person, and making many mistakes in his vituperation. The lack of context in his stigmas became a source of amazement, not merely notoriety.
Equalizer urged that my “big ego” was proved by my pointing out the lack of academic credentials in others. The only instance he supplied was that of Craig Gibsone, an influential member of the Findhorn Foundation. No further information was given. The missing context is relevant here.
I had indeed criticised Craig Gibsone, and more than once, but not for a mere lack of academic credentials. The reason was because Gibsone had been disastrously influential in pioneering commercial Grof therapy (Holotropic Breathwork) in Britain. He could only be offset by the combined warning of Edinburgh University and the Scottish Charities Office in 1993. Even this setback did not prevent Gibsone’s further resort to dubious “workshop” practices of hyperventilation, connoting a medical risk. I had pointed out that Gibsone and his team did not possess medical credentials in their “new age therapy” pastime, a deficit posing a potentially substantial risk. See further my Letter to BBC Radio, dating to 2006.
Medical doctors considered my objection to be perfectly valid. However,  in cult lore, such reservations are caricatured in terms of “big ego.” To extend that argument in due proportion, the Equalizer category of “big ego” discrepantly covers many medical doctors, psychiatrists, and other professional parties of scruple. Ethical complaint at discrepancy is set at naught by cult lore, an endangering activity involving a blanket dismissal of criticism and a hate campaign against any objector.

Observers of this situation pointed out that the Moreno (Equalizer) slurs, aimed at diverse victims, comprised an attempt to distract attention from the “allegations” of sexual abuse made against Sathya Sai Baba. The solid testimonies are revealing.
A well known testimony came from Jens Sethi, a German who encountered Sathya Sai Baba at close quarters during the 1990s. In the notorious interview room at Puttaparthi ashram, “he [Sathya] commanded me to remove my trousers, unzipped my fly and went with his right hand into my underpants. Sathya Sai Baba the divine touched and massaged my genitals unasked. He expected some erection, but this didn’t happen for I did not feel any sexual excitement, no lust in the presence of a seventy year old man. I was really disgusted. Then he had the impudence to say, ‘It is very weak, don’t waste energy.’ When I looked at him I realised the truth about him and was shocked indeed” (Experiences of an ex-Sai Baba devotee I, exbaba.com, Witnesses tab).

Sethi continues his narration of events:

I came into contact with other devotees who had similar and even worse sexual experiences [with Sathya Sai], and came to the conclusion that there is indeed a pattern of behaviour towards his victims. First he establishes contact and checks the devotional potential of the devotee. Afterwards, once he has decided to molest a person he starts by kissing the same [on the lips]. The next step is massaging the genitals with oil or vibhuti [sacred ash], and finally [he] is masturbating them. In the end he asks [the victim] to do oral sex! This is nothing but the truth. Also, [there are] testimonies from Indians who have been sexually molested through Swami [Sathya Sai] even in the early seventies [1970s]. Now it becomes evident through many testimonies that he had sexually molested and raped young boys for a very long time.  This made me very sad and it broke my heart…. To cover up the awful incidents, he builds more and more buildings to distract innocent devotees from his evil motive. He wants to become more famous than Krishna and is after name and fame. (Experiences of an ex-Sai Baba devotee II, exbaba.com, Witnesses tab)

Some Western victims tried to justify their plight by inventing bizarre justifications. The oiling ritual was invested by these alarmed devotees with supposed significances of “kundalini energy,” a Tantric theme becoming popular in the Western new age. This excuse also became associated with the Sathya Sai action of kissing the lips. Some victims referred to the “balancing” of kundalini, a fantasist belief in Western sectors created by entrepreneurs.

Apologist devotees subsequently resorted (by 2006) to a belief that “spiritual healing” was being accomplished in sordid activities of the interview room and the bedroom. Others denied that the abuse had ever occurred. Sathya Sai himself apparently favoured the “spiritual healing” interpretation. A prominent Dutch devotee insisted that the abuse was a remedy for “karmic debts and sexual lust” (Dogged Denial).

Western victims were often very confused. One of these was Gerald Joe Moreno, who early stated that he had experienced the oiling ritual in 1988, at the age of eighteen. The Pro-Sai activist subsequently attempted to justify (and to ignore) such guru eccentricities, which complicated his apologist tactic. Ex-devotees pointed out the discrepancies. This was no proof of their “big ego.” To the contrary, they were opposing a guru who claimed to be God while pursuing phallic and paedophile preoccupations in numerous instances. One devotee justification for all discrepancies was the assertion: “Swami (Sathya Sai) is God.” They were repeating the guru’s own inflated emphasis.

Kevin R. D. Shepherd

December 2013 (modified 2021)

ENTRY no. 13
Copyright © 2021 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.
Nov 16

Troll Boast, No Image

By Cyberstalking, Equalizer, Gerald Joe Moreno, trolls, Wikipedia
Wikipedia manager Jimmy Wales in 2006 at a Wikimania conference discussing the identification and elimination of trolls.
The activity of internet trolls has become a major issue, with new measures in process and in debate. A well known Wikipedia article refers to different applications of the term troll. Standard advice is to ignore rather than to engage with a troll. Wikipedia is strongly associated with trolling. Larry Sanger of Citizendium explicitly referred to trolls in his acute dissatisfaction with the “anyone can edit” policy on Wikipedia, granting a general license to the use of pseudonyms.
At large, the pseudonymous phenomenon of trolling varies from militant teenage aggression to more sustained and menacing attack by seasoned cyber agitators. Some critics say that all web users must be registered with their real name and image identity; moreover,  all websites in defiance of this precaution should be eliminated from the web. Until such a development  occurs, the internet is uncivilised.
Gerald Joe Moreno, alias Equalizer, was not a typical troll, being known by his real name at his website. However, many of his blogs exhibited a pseudonym. In this respect, he can certainly be considered a troll. Many readers of Equalizer blogs did not understand that Moreno was the author. An increasingly general public impression of the troll phenomenon (certainly in Britain) is that of a miscreant who attacks and slurs while concealing personal identity. 

A basic problem, in the case of Moreno (Equalizer), is the aggressive and defamatory verbal style demonstrated by the role of “guru defender.” He was also accused by ex-devotees of being a cyberstalker, which is a very undesirable category.
Moreno (SSS108, Equalizer) assumed that he was victorious in his 2007 online repudiation of myself. Using the pseudonym of Joe108, he posted a brief item of five lines on digg.com, a popular American site. He asserted:
Attempting to portray himself as a serious researcher into the Sai Controversy, Kevin Shepherd wrote a rambling diatribe against Joe Moreno. Moreno responded to Shepherd and exposed him as a shabby and biased researcher. 
Troll boasts are notorious for a deceptive sense of inflation. The so-called “diatribe” was my complaint arising from Moreno’s censorious Wikipedia User page (dated 2006) against my publishing venture. Some observers say that the complaint did not ramble, but made a strong point, which Moreno evasively resisted. I did not claim to be a researcher into the “Sai Controversy,” an apologist phrase, instead referring to some relevant data concerning my own case (the updated version is at Wikipedia Issues).
I responded to the overbearing gestures with a detailed refutation of the supposed victory. My lengthy Response to Moreno (2007) was conveniently ignored by the contested entity, in preference for the five line frivolity posted on digg.com.

Improvised triple image of Kevin R. D. Shepherd displayed on Equalizer blogs. 
Another factor emerging was the aversion of Moreno to any presentation of his image. I had included his sole known image in my original article of protest. I was berated for this disclosure of his appearance, also threatened with legal consequences if I included his image in any book (which was not my intention). Moreno was so opposed to the employment of his image that eventually I deleted this from my sites in April 2010. He failed to respond in due measure, retaining all three of the images he displayed of myself so frequently and abusively (along with five of my mother).
The fact emerges that my image was reproduced over eighty times on the Equalizer blog cycle of 2008-9. Yet the image of Gerald Joe Moreno (Equalizer) was conveniently prohibited by the subject. The “guru defender” version of the lax troll code may be considered questionable.
Kevin R. D. Shepherd
ENTRY no. 10
Copyright © 2013 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.
Oct 19

Introduction to Kevin RD Shepherd

By Cambridge University Library, Cyberstalking, Findhorn Foundation, Gerald Joe Moreno
Cambridge University Library
In October 2008, Gerald Joe Moreno (alias Equalizer) duplicated his “vanity publisher” theme on a blogspot feature, under the heading of Introduction to Kevin RD Shepherd.  This was examined by my legal adviser, who expressed a negative verdict.

The troll blog stated that I am “a garrulous writer adept in writing loose, tabloid-like diatribes composed of rumour, hearsay and poorly researched claims.” More specifically, Equalizer asserted that his blog was “created to refute and respond to Kevin RD Shepherd’s articles against Joe Moreno.” Third person Moreno did not tell the reader that those three articles were written in protest at his stigma and libel. 

The invective of Gerald Joe Moreno was expressed in the original 2007 sub-heading “Kevin Shepherd: The ‘serious amateur’ non-academic writer  who conducts seriously amateurish and biased research.” Moreno did not understand the academic tag of “serious amateur,” himself being a non-academic blogger who had not written any books. He was attempting to justify his cordoning tactic on Wikipedia, an episode which had preceded his indefinite ban.

Moreno expressed the erroneous verdict that the unofficial phrase “serious amateur” was used exclusively in relation to astronomy, photography, and botany. He derived this acute contraction from a very literal reading at the websites of Cambridge and Oxford universities. This tactic reveals the dependence of bloggers on web entries, as distinct from active participation in research activities. 

On his Equalizer blog, third person Moreno repeated his error of misrepresenting me as having four publishing imprints instead of two. He blatantly  ignored my clearly expressed complaints on this score. He even reproduced his error of New Media Books Ltd, there being no publishing imprint with that name. In contrast, New Media Books did exist, the point being that I was not the publisher of the two books bearing this logo. The only two imprints that were my own were Citizen Initiative and the discontinued Anthropographia. 
Moreno had become notorious for never altering his statements; no revision was applicable to him, who was always right. Complaints and protests could be totally ignored as trifling reflections of victims who had dared to counter Moreno, the blog campaigner in the cause of Sathya Sai Baba. 
The accusation was made: “Kevin Shepherd has no claim to any sort of academic credentials.” This is not a crime, especially as third person Moreno had no such credentials, no history of library research, and no books to his credit. He contemptuously mentioned my “private research project” at Cambridge University Library (CUL). Equalizer was here anxious to reiterate that CUL was “not to be confused with Cambridge University itself.” This improvisation ignored the major participation of CUL in the life of Cambridge University. 
Third person Moreno went on to accuse me of having boasted that I followed “academic rules in citing sources to a greater extent than many academic philosophers.” The context of this reference was lost upon the sectarian apologist. I had protested at the confusion in my Response to Moreno (2007). The objection was completely ignored by Moreno, whose reporting proved unreliable to an acute degree. 
Very briefly, some academics had noticed my annotations in published books; they commented that these were more detailed and extensive than the notes found in many works by academic philosophers. The latter are rarely historians, and often employ conceptual sources only, drawn from philosophy. Whereas I did employ references to a variety of scholarly works, including journals and books applying to the history of science, the history of religion, and also social science. I do not claim any distinction in this respect; I have merely pointed out that the academic assessment did occur in relation to citizen books. 
Because of the gross misinterpretation, I had removed the afflicted reference the previous year from my (first) website. Moreno failed to report this action. With typically misleading negligence, he instead gave the impression that the abused quote was ongoing at my site.
A curiosity in Equalizer blog labels was noticed. One of these read “Findhorn Foundation Radical.” This was an erroneous definition of myself. I have never been a member of the Findhorn Foundation. I am known as a critic of that organisation, and in a completely independent capacity. 
Some blog readers received the impression that I was some sort of new age rebel from the Findhorn Foundation who had wandered into a scruffy minor library in Cambridge, there to boast about my achievements in citing sources, and ultimately to slur the angelic blog giant Joe Moreno with “tabloid-like diatribes.” 
Beware of blog introductions, in case these are misleading. 
Kevin R. D. Shepherd 
ENTRY no. 6 
Copyright © 2013 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.
Sep 19

Cult Campaign of Equalizer

By Cyberstalking, Sathya Sai Baba
Sathya Sai Baba (d. 2011)
A sectarian apologist, calling himself Equalizer, created a defamatory blog against me at blogspot.com. The real name of that offender is Gerald Joe Moreno (d.2010). An American living in New Mexico, he gained the reputation of being a cyberstalker and libeller. Lawyers in three different countries passed a negative verdict on his output.
Moreno, alias Equalizer, launched the notorious website called saisathyasai.com. This featured many attacks against critics of his guru Sathya Sai Baba (died 2011). Most of these critics were ex-devotees of the guru, disillusioned people who complained about strongly alleged misdemeanours that are now well known. Moreno treated the significant testimonies of sexual abuse as crimes of dishonesty. He resorted to a scenario of Pro-Sai versus Anti-Sai, the latter being depicted as aberrant in his denunciations.
In 2008-9, Moreno undertook a separate blog cycle against me at blogspot.com. He duplicated numerous hostile items appearing on his website. This was after I had protested more than once against the misrepresentations he furthered. He claimed to “expose” me in his hate campaign. Very aggressively, he called his blogspot cycle Kevin Shepherd Exposed. There were 27 entries.
The contents of that hostility are not reasoned critiques but attack blogs composed in an excessive style of invective. The Moreno (Equalizer) attacks include misconceptions, distortions, and libels. Despite my continued repudiation of his attacks and my protests at defamation, Moreno did not delete his aggressive blogspot cycle, evidently hoping to maintain his deceptions.
On this site, I will counter a number of his distortions and defamations. This is a supplement to my existing web protests, e.g., Internet Terrorist.
The Moreno attacks on myself featured an excess of vehement denunciations, accompanied by such stigmas as “Anti-Sai Extremist.” In fact, I did not mount any web campaign against the guru, and was not an ex-devotee. Instead, I complained about the Wikipedia tactic of Moreno (User SSS108), who proscribed all my books on the basis of ex-devotee reports found in the appendices of only one book. Observers noted the extremist action of Moreno in bracketing me with ex-devotee activists.
This issue has various dimensions of interest to analysts of contemporary religious movements. When affiliates of such movements are seen to adopt extremist attitudes and manifestations, then I agree with those analysts who apply the term “cult” to deviations from due conduct.
Kevin R. D. Shepherd
ENTRY no. 1 
Copyright © 2013 Kevin R. D. Shepherd. All Rights Reserved.