Monday, July 13, 2015

The Truth About The Title Of RMS

Another anonymous commenter asked the following questions, which can be found here.  According to the anonymous commenter: 

Diana, are you sure that the title of the seminary is under the Archbishop? Attorney Bronze said that it isn't and Tim agrees with him. Did the deed restriction made the title report useless as Tim indicated?

In the present situation, the Title Report is useless because it shows the Deed Restriction as an "encumbrance". The legal nature of that encumbrance is what is at issue. This is why a legal opinion was needed.

This is my response: 

The FACT that the Archbishop was able to make that deed restriction for the RM seminary showed that the title is indeed under the Archbishop who represents the Archdiocese of Agana.  A person cannot make any deed restrictions on property that does not belong to him.  According to "Property Rights Research" below (bold is mine): 

A deed restriction defines specific limits regarding allowable uses and development of a property. It is established by a landowner on a property's title, typically when the landowner is selling the land and wishes to exert some influence over its use, usually to benefit adjacent lands to which he or she intends to retain title.

Therefore, Tim Rohr's statement is false when he claimed that the title report is useless due to the deed restriction.  The title report shows that the Archdiocese of Agana retains the title of the property because of the fact that the Archbishop can remove the deed restriction.  The Pacific American Title conducted the report in 2015 AFTER the deed restriction was already in place and found that the ownership of the property is still under the Archdiocese of Agana. 

As I said in my last entry post, the pontifical council concluded that there is no alienation of property because the corporate sole of RMS is the same corporate sole of the Archdiocese.  They are the same person.  In addition, the Pacific America Title also confirmed that the lots on which the RM seminary sits identified the owner as the Archbishop of Agana.   

The Archbishop already said that the title of the RM seminary is under the Archdiocese of Agana.  As the spiritual father, he has already shown a summary of the documented proof, which was published in the Umatuna.  If CCOG or Tim Rohr does not believe him, that is not the Archbishop's problem. 



  1. Diana, I was the anonymous person who made that comment. Thank you for your answer. I've been keeping tabs on your blog and JW. You've been able to answer my questions in layman's term, and I appreciate that. It helps me to understand it better.

    1. What is encumbrance? I don't know the meaning of this word. Could you clarify, please? Thanks.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 3:14 pm,

      It is a burden or claim on a property. The deed restrictions specifies what is being restricted. The title shows ownership.

    3. But why is there a burden of NCW affiliation on the Yona property set for perpetuity? Was it the intention of the benefactor? What I read in documents, the benefactor was unaware of the existence of NCW, therefore the encumbrance did not come from her.

      It seems to be an extraneous imposition by will, an exclusion of local candidates, outside of the scope of NCW, from the benefits of using the luxurious Yona property for their education and formation for priesthood. This is a perpetual lockout of everyone else who is not in the NCW. How does this serve the interest of the Catholic faithful of Guam and the Pacific region?

    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:40 pm,

      First of all, what documents from the benefactor??? Tim Rohr did not show any documents from the benefactor or even the Archbishop's written letter to the benefactor. All he did was showed so-called quotes supposedly from the Archbishop. I do not see the Archbishop's signature attached to those quotes.

      The restriction deed was put in place to protect the seminary from being sold. You ask how it serves the interest of the Catholic faithful and the Pacific region? The seminarians in the RM seminary are being trained for both local and world-wide evangelization. We already have some RMS priests in local parishes while others are evangelizing in Asia and Africa. Locals who are interested in both local and world evangelization are welcome in the RM seminary.

  2. Diana you talk about the truth of the title. But in the other post you said: "I have always said the blogs are not based on truth. They are based on a person's opinions and speculations." I have trouble with this, dear Diana, because it is so confusing. What is truth? Do you have a good definition? How can you figure out if something is the truth or not? If blogs are not for the truth, then for what?

    I paid some money and learned how to be in a blog. I mean you have to learn to use the Internet in an intelligent way. Many people don't do that, especially on Guam. Most of my friends don't care for the Internet. But I made my effort in learning. It took me time. Sorry if I am still confused by so many things. But I did this because I have respect for blogs. Blog is like a journal or the news in the television. It is supposed to be honest in best efforts, otherwise people will not know the truth. What is the meaning of truth for you, Diana? Does it have anything to do with the Spirit of God? Or you just think so?! Thanks for allowing me to ask.

    Joane Santos

    1. Dear Joane,

      Blogs are online journals. Journals are the opinions of the person from their perspective. If he publishes a document and interpret that document, that becomes his opinion. One reason why there are over 10,000 Protestant denominations is because all if them have their own interpretation of the same book. News reports can also be the same way.

    2. Dear Joane,

      Blogs are online journals. Journals are the opinions of the person from their perspective. If he publishes a document and interpret that document, that becomes his opinion. One reason why there are over 10,000 Protestant denominations is because all if them have their own interpretation of the same book. News reports can also be the same way.

    3. Dear Diana, I truly apologize for my way of thinking, but I just don't get it. Journals and news magazines are the sources of information we read every day. A tv news anchor who makes up fake news is going to be fired. I read about it! You don't go and pay for the Internet to read fake news or private opinion in fake news magazines. You pay the subscription fee of the Internet to access the truth! I invested some of my money to learn how to Internet, so please, why don't tell me the truth?

      What is very confusing is that we learn the spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit. So when someone speaks the truth, I mean the real truth, you can almost see the little fire tongues hovering above. I always imagine that during the sermon in the Sunday mass. My priest is one of the best on island who always tells the truth, you can feel the Holy Spirit in his words. For me, this is the definition of truth. For you, Diana, what is it?

      You say your blog is your personal opinion and "I have always said the blogs are not based on truth". It is a quote from you. But how about the spirit of truth, how about spirit of God? Only hat could validate the truth, whatever it may be. It is very confusing when your admirable intelligence that you show in your blog every day overrides the humbleness of the spirit of truth. So I humbly ask you, dear Diana, what is truth for you? What is the truth of your blog? Thanks for teaching me how to be humble.

      Joane Santos

    4. Dear Joane,

      Jesus Christ is the only truth.

    5. This sounds good as a slogan, Diana. But I am talking about everyday truth. Like the the truth of 2 by 2 is 4. You don't need Jesus for that, do you? What you need is humbleness in heart and mind to seek truth, talk truth and only truth, even in your opinion! Do you have that kind of truth in your blog, dear Diana? Or don't you think it's important?

      Why don't you explain your quote that I don't need to repeat again, so we could have an idea of your way of thinking about truth. Is Jesust is truth, then it has consequences on my life, right? I should let the spirit of truth lead me. You charged Msgr James to be "white collar criminal" who wanted to sell the seminary to pay for his credit card dept. Is this the truth, Diana? Why is it then that I just cannot see the little tongues of fire above your charge? Please, do not sidestep the question. Thanks for helping me to look into my our morality and conscience better.

      Joane Santos

    6. Dear Joane,

      Everyone needs Christ in everything in their life. How does one become humble without Christ when all humility comes from Christ. How does one walk in truth when all truth comes from Christ. When humans do things on their own power, they will surely fail. You read the jungle and my blog; therefore, you should pray to Christ and ask him to open your eyes to the truth because he is the only one who can do that.

    7. Diana, you did not answer my question. Please, do not call on the name of Christ if you just avoid responding. I am sad. Conscience that is God given in your heart is what we should rely on. You keep burdening your conscience by what you said about Msgr James. I am sure you can do much better than that, dear Diana.

      Joane Santos

    8. Dear Joane,

      I say that Monsignor James committed white collar crime because according to the Internal Review, he used his credit card to pay for his anniversary party and he gave free cemetery plots to his family and friends. If you are issued a government credit card and use it for your anniversary party, that constitutes a white collar crime. If you gave out free government properties to your family and friends, that constitutes a white collar crime.

      The jungle, on the other hand, will tell you that the family of Monsignor James paid back the money that was charged through the credit card for the anniversary party without showing you the receipts. They will also tell you that those free cemetery plots to family and friends were for a service done. They did NOT deny that the credit card was charged for the anniversary party nor did they deny that free cemetery plots were give out to family and friends. But that was never the point. The point was....what was done constitutes a "white collar crime." If that was done in the Government of Guam, the person would have been arrested.

  3. Diana,
    There is speculation that Tim ROHR uses his friend working at the Guam District Court the infamous Dr. White to access the IP addresses of whomever logs into the jungles. This looks like a federal offense.
    There is also speculation to link the wife of deacon Steve Martinez for accessing secure flight information on the archbishop's itinerary when he flies with United. She unlawfully reveals the Archbishops flight itinerary to the jungle blog. ROHR even knows the flight and seat numbers! How is it that the ROHR accesses this information?
    These look like federal offenses. The FBI should investigate ROHR & united airlines and see who's the leak! They should also investigate Guam district court.
    And these law breakers want to litigate the archbishop? So what, the case will be Anthony Apuron vs. Anthony Apuron, corporations soles?

    1. Waiting for tony to file law suit then we all join in. archdiocese will be such a battle ground it will become headline news instantly.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 11:13 am,

      I do not think the Archbishop will sue. I think he is waiting for CCOG. After all, CCOG is the one who believes that the title of the RM seminary is not under the Archdiocese of Agana. So, why is Tim Rohr challenging the Archbishop to publish his documents? The Archbishop is only bound to obey the Pope. He is not bound to obey Tim Rohr or CCOG.

    3. (continued from my previous comment)… I find it interesting that having been instructed by Fr. Pius himself to myself and my community to stay out of the jungle and read your blog, that he would allow this kind of attack on a woman whose done nothing to you or anyone else. Did Fr. Pius not instruct your community like he did mine, to not fight back, carry our cross and accept the persecution. Does Fr. Pius not catechize to us that these so called attacks are a response to the successful Great Missions being conducted around the world as a retaliation from Satan himself? Did he not say that we should not be surprised and be humble? So if that is what Fr. Pius tells our community, what does he say in your community that somehow instills in you and in others that it is okay now for you to allow this woman to be persecuted by allowing that comment to be posted? Is her vocation, as the wife of the Deacon, now a justification to attack her?
      I wonder truly, if Pat and Fr. Pius should continue to instruct us to read your blog. And just maybe they should require you to remove the title Neocatechemunal Way (please also correct the spelling, but then again, maybe it’s a sign of how it’s not authentic anyway). And yet, now I wonder if Pat feels just as disgusted as she did when she relayed her response to us about how sick reading junglewatch was for her. If her response is not as disgusted as that, it would concern me, since after all she is my catechist.
      Again, I will post this on my Facebook page for my community to read. It will probably cause much consternation and stomach-aches on top of the persecution, that I’m sure will be coming forth, if you post this.
      Another catechesis: Are we not supposed to no longer allow the fear of death to master us? For isn’t fearing death exactly the reason why we sin? I guess I just answered my own question as to why you would allow such slanderous comments to be posted. You fear dying (being persecuted) and thus you hide behind this anonymous character and allow sinful acts to occur.
      Peace be with you. See you all at the Convivance or at the Announcements. I hope you all have the courage to at least make yourselves known and be real. For Jesus didn't hide, when he stated the truth. His apostles only cowered in a room until He rose again. Has He not risen for us all?

    4. Hi Diana,
      I'm using my real name, like the last time I posted a query here, which was less than a year ago. Little did I know then that posting on your blog would create such nasty comments, which you had no problem posting. So I'm prepared this time to be persecuted for posting this, that is if you actually allow it to be posted on your blog, but even if you don’t it will be posted on my facebook page.
      I'm deeply surprised at your willingness to post a response from someone that claims not only anonymity but also libelous speculation. Was it not just awhile ago that you stated that you choose not to disclose your identity so as to not open yourself to be attacked by Mr. Rohr and Mr. White and thus keeping your family, job, and yourself free of those ‘persecutions'. You even referenced Mr. Rohr's alleged attacks on a professor at UOG named Zoltan (Although their discourse is between them and it is their choice to interact that way).
      For you to post this so called slanderous speculation regarding Deacon Steve Martinez' wife and blatantly attacking her position in her job is disgusting, alarming and downright un-Christian. Is this not something that you are avoiding for yourself by remaining anonymous and yet you allowed it to happen to her, why?
      I don't recall ever hearing from Mrs. Martinez anything regarding the issues involving the Archbishop, the NCW or the CCOG. I don't recall her making comments or placing herself in a position to be even attacked. I don't recall her posting anything on this blog or anywhere else otherwise to warrant that kind of attack. Tainting the life of a woman, who by the way, has not only been respectful, welcoming, and carries with her much grace, integrity and love for our people, who, by the way, has never treated me ill, just because I walk in the way, which by the way, others have no qualms doing is a reflection of the lack of integrity you have.
      (continued on the next post)

    5. Dear DonaMila,

      I have posted both your comments this morning when I saw them in my inbox. If you are going to post your comments in your facebook, I hope that you also post my response in your facebook so that your readers would also read my response to you.

      First of all, I do not know what happened to the first half of your comment. This comment starts with (continued from my previous comment). I checked my spam box for your previous comment and it was not there.

      Secondly, as administrator of this blog, I make the decision whether to publish a comment or not. While you disagree with Anonymous 9:47 pm, his comment is NOT an attack, but a speculation just as he/she says so. This is no different than Deacon Steve Martinez making allegations that Father Luis sexually abused a child and should be investigated. Anonymous 9:47 pm, also made an allegation and felt that an investigation should also be launched.

      Furthermore,, his/her comment regarding Tim obtaining IP addresses is the truth. Tim Rohr is able to obtain the IP addresses of those who post in the jungle. See the weblink below:

      One of my reasons for my publishing Anonymous 9:47 pm's comment serves as a warning to others to cease posting in the jungle because Tim is able to obtain the IP addresses of those who post comments there. He is also able to get the flight itinerary of the Archbishop and know what seat number he sits on the plane. It is also a known fact that he gets documents he is not entitled to his possession.

      In the third place, I allowed the publication of his/her comment because I also believe in Freedom of Expression so long as it is according to the rules of conduct. Persecution and cyberbullying and free expression are not the same. Nowhere in Anonymous 9:47's comment did he/she belittle the Deacons' wife through name calling or mockery. Below is an example of "persecution", which you can only find in the jungle, and comments like these serves no purpose other than senseless ridicule. Notice the name calling?

      AnonymousJuly 12, 2015 at 5:57 AM

      Liar Liar, skirt on Fire! You, pius crap, disgust us! You hide under the name of the Catholic Church to enrich yourself and foment lies and other malicious schemes to defraud innocent trusting people! Liar Liar, pants on fire! Do us a big favor and crawl back to that Maltese cave you slithered from and leave us the hell alone! You've damaged our Church!

      Finally, you asked what did Father Pius say to my community. I heard Father Pius tell us that we can speak to the media and write to the newspaper.

    6. Hi Diana,

      Thank you for posting my comment.

      I also do not enjoy the slithering comments. But I'm not referring to those nor am I referencing Deacon Steve Martinez and his quest for justice (again not the topic of discussion).

      Obviously we're missing some understanding on what I'm holding you to task for. As a community member who has been instructed to read your blog by Fr. Pius, I expect integrity and truth to abound. I, and my community, didn't get the instruction to use the media to allow libelous speculation.

      You chose to post that libelous comment from an anonymous person which speculates against a woman who again is not part of this conversation and included her job as well; this created scandal.

      The fact that you quote from junglewatch does not justify you being a tool in scandal. It in fact show that you fail to follow the instructions by my catechist, Fr. Pius, who I believe is the person that gives out the instructions. He did instruct us not to read junglewatch. So why are you reading junglewatch?

      The person who wrote so viciously about Fr. Pius, is I believe what Fr. Harold said in a homily, "a person who is hurting" and how are we to respond to that? As instructed by Fr. Pius, you don't fight back, you carry your cross and you accept the persecution.

      Everyone involved in this blog stands as a representation of the whole Neocatechumenal Way on Guam. The mission of this blog is to explain the Way. Although it is not my blog, you all chose to represent us (those of us who still feel that community is a blessing) then I expect that clarifications based on truth be posted. Not libelous speculation from anonymous "fear of death, because I don't want to be persecuted" people.

      I can explain why my second comment posted first in your inbox. Some glitch happened; I'm sure it has to do with the craziness of the Internet since the storm. But it's fine.

      Thank you for posting it. I'm sure people will be able to make the connection between the two parts.
      On another note. Searching IPs requires almost zero brain cells. Your computer actually does it. You just need to read code and know how to access it. Any kid can do it. No need to question, whether a special access was done.

      As for knowing seats and flights, also not hard to figure out. I can get that from people in community just as easily, without having to contact someone in the airlines. It does help that the Archbishop's itinerary goes through so many hands. From secretaries, travel agents, responsible and, oh yeah, from the Archbishop himself.

      Please be a real and apologize to Mrs. Martinez. Your reasoning as to posting the libel is invalid, incredibly childish, a shame on the Neocathechumenal Community and being a Guamanian Catholic. I don't think my confessor would accept that excuse for justifying my allowing scandal. But let me see if it'll work when I go to confession during my communities reconciliation services. What will be really sad is if either presbyters I go to actually don't correct me and hold me to task.

      As to reposting your response to me on facebook, I have no problem with that. I'm sure someone already saw how I've posted it, but since I don't "know" who you really are, you could already have read it just as one of the many community members that are my friends in FB. But just to make sure others read it, I've made it public.

    7. Dear DonaMila,

      Thank you for showing us non Neos that there are actually some members who are able to think independently. I don't know you but I have added your name to my prayer intentions because I'm guessing that you will be horribly persecuted. The persecution won't come only from your community but from members from other communities for daring to call Diana to task.

      People like you give me hope that not all members of the NCW are mindless robots. Sad to say, but that's the impression I get when I come to this blog. I used to come here to try and learn more about the NCW but most of the time Diana and other members are so busy attacking Tim Rohr and others. Diana starts and then the others join in the attack repeating the same things over and over again. Even when people come to ask questions they are made fun of . I figured I didn't need all that negativity, so I stopped coming here. Today someone told me I needed to check out your comment so that's the only reason I'm here.

      God bless you DonaMila. Stay strong and stay true to yourself. If you find that the NCW is helping you, then I'm happy for you. I'm just really really happy to know that you are an intelligent person who can think for herself and you are able to question the contradictions you see between what your catechists tell you and what you see here.

    8. Dear DonaMila,

      When Anonymous 9:47 made an allegation against the Deacon's wife and called for an investigation into Tim Rohr, United Airlines, and the Guam District Court, do you not think that is also a quest for justice? After all, it appears that the Archbishop is being stalked. Anonymous 9:47 was calling for an investigation because information given to Tim Rohr is being used to stalk the Achbishop and other people who supports the Way. Photos of the Archibshop in the Philippines were given to Tim by his French connection in Manila and photos of Father Rudy's car was taken at his home and work. Stalking is illegal.

      In addition, Father Pius suggested that we do not read the jungle, which is excellent advice especially if people get angry over it. Nevertheless, people still have free will. Father Pius also encouraged the communities to read my blog because he stated that my "views are more balanced." However, just because he encouraged the brothers to read my blog certainly does not mean that they MUST read it. Again, we have free will.

      When I quote from the jungle, it is not to be a tool of scandal, but to give an example. And not everyone in this blog represents the Way because not everyone here is walking in the Way.

      The comments I chose to publish are not always comments I agree with, but I publish them because 1) I value freedom of expression and 2) because we can learn from one another in order to help each other grow.

    9. DonaMila, you said " I, and my community, didn't get the instruction to use the media to allow libelous speculation. "

      That's not what Diana said. Fr. Pius said we can speak and write to the media just like Diana wrote. And Diana spelled "Neocatechumenal" correctly. That's how it's spelled in the statutes. As members of the way, we learn to correct our brothers and sisters with love and compassion.

    10. Thank you again for approving my comment to your response.

      Unfortunately, the reasoning you provide is again not valid. In your new response, you give credence to this anonymous person's libelous speculation. Why? I'm assuming you are still trying to reference Deacon Steve's issue, which is not our focus; thus confirms that the attack on his wife is primarily about her being married to him.
      Let's clarify: a speculation is not a call to justice. A formal letter submitted to the authorities identifying the accused and their alleged criminal act by an identified accuser is an act of seeking justice. What was done, which you obviously not only allowed but now give credence, is to publish a baseless accusation that is libelous in it's intent to both retaliate against Deacon Steve and defame the professional reputation of his wife.
      Please do the honorable thing and apologize to Mrs. Martinez.

    11. Dear DonaMila,

      I disagree. Anyone who THINKS that a crime or corruption MAY have taken place and CALLS for an investigation constitutes as a quest for justice. In fact, there is a law on Guam stating that anyone whose jobs involve children and THINKS that child abuse MAY have taken place are to notify the authorities. It is then up to the authorities to determine whether these reports are accurate or not. If the anonymous poster believes or thinks that illegal information is being given to Tim Rohr by the Deacon's wife to be used inappropriately for stalking the Archbishop, it is the right of that anonymous poster to express those concerns and also his right to call for an investigation.

      And it is my right to either choose to ignore or publish those concerns. It is called "Freedom of expression." I did not wake up in communist North Korea where all media are controlled by the government and people's rights to freely express their opinions and concerns are stifled.

      What is NOT a quest for justice is action of John Toves' (the typhoon). There was no speculation nor a call for investigation on his part. He simply wanted the Archbishop removed despite that he never spoke to his cousin.

    12. This is my last response to this unending diatribe of zero intelligence, civility or any ounce of Christian values. I sincerely hope that the administrators of this blog are not part of my community or any community member that I personally know, for if you are, shame on you.

      I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Mrs. Martinez for the community here, now, and personally if and when I see her: Mrs. Martinez, on behalf of myself and anyone else in the Neocatechumenal Way who still have an ounce of integrity and honor, I humbly ask for your forgiveness. I apologize for this attack on your person and I pray that you will find it in your heart to forgive us for even giving credence to this blog by reading it and allowing it to continue.

    13. Diana,
      You did exactly what you chastise Tim Rohr of doing in his blog: publish an unsubstantiated suspicion or rumor to the detriment of the reputation (and possible employment?) of an innocent person.
      Trying to justify it by citing the law regarding child abuse is weak, at best. There is a vast difference between suspecting illegal activity at a work place or corruption and suspecting child abuse. (That's probably why there is a law specifically for reporting child abuse!)
      Yes, it is that person's right to submit his/her comment of what they think....but you posting it is questionable since there were accusations made, and given your criticism of Tim Rohr's blog.

    14. Dear Anonymous at 8:39 pm,

      The only thing I published on Deacon Steve Martinez was to make a correction. Someone had posted a comment using his name. The real Deacon Steve came forward and notified me through my blog that someone used his name to comment on my blog. See the weblink below:

      Nowhere in my blog did I ever state that Deacon Steve was wrong in bringing a child abuse charge against Father Luis. This is what I stated:

      It is within the Archbishop's authority to remove a deacon and replace him with another; therefore, that is not persecution. As for Father Luis, he has an ongoing case with the police. As you can see, the police department could not give any information to Tim Rohr regarding Father Luis' case due to the fact that it is still an ongoing case. Interfering in any police investigation would jeopardize the rights of the accused, which goes against Guam's law.

      Furthermore, no victims came forward charging Father Luis with child abuse just as no victims came forward charging the Archbishop of child molestation. What you have is Deacon Steve who got the information from someone who was not even the victim. In the same way, John Toves got his information from someone other than the victim. Thus, all these stories are "third hand" information that has no validity or reliability. Until the victims themselves come forward, any investigation is a waste of time and money.

      I have also stated that Deacon Steve should not interfere in any police investigation, (See the weblink below). But nowhere in my blog did I ever say that Deacon Steve SHOULD NOT report the Child Abuse. He has every right to report it if he suspects child abuse. That is no different than a person who suspects a crime or illegal activity being done at work. That also should be reported.

    15. misunderstood. My reference to child abuse law was in reply to YOUR comment at 11:12 -- "In fact, there is a law on Guam stating that anyone whose jobs involve children and THINKS that child abuse MAY have taken place are to notify the authorities." (This in response to Ms. Taitano's post.) In no way was I talking about that issue with the Deacon.

    16. Dear Anonymous at 9:51 pm,

      I was merely using that law as an example. That law was passed to protect children. Nevertheless, all suspected criminal activities should be reported to the authorities. In fact, Crime Stoppers take anonymous phone calls from people who may have some information regarding a crime. People call in and give tips to Crime Stoppers. These tips could be accurate or not, but it is the duty of the police to investigate all possible leads.

    17. To Anonymous 07/15/15 @ 7:23 PM:
      The misspelling that DonaMila was referring to was not in the header of this blog but in its address Look at it for yourself if you don't believe DonaMila or me.

    18. Dear Anonymous at 10:18 pm,

      Thank you for pointing that out. That is interesting....I never looked at my blog address. I wonder if I had misspelled it the very first time I started this blog and then later corrected it after I made my very first post.

    19. Dear Diana at 9:59PM -
      The difference I think they are trying to point out is that you are not the authority, nor are you like Crime Stoppers. They investigate the reported suspicions, do you?

    20. Dear Anonymous at 8:39 am,

      Where in any of my comments did I ever claim to be an authority? Did I not say that I value freedom of expression? The anonymous poster has a right to express his concerns and a right to call for an investigation. He can always bring his concerns to the authorities. I, on the other hand, have a right to either ignore or publish his/her concerns.

  4. Concerning the title and deed of restriction of the seminary property, if Rohr and ccog won't believe the pontifical council for the interpretation of legislative texts, then they won't even believe in the pope. If they don't believe EVEN the pope, then it shows they only believe in one thing: themselves. Good grief, they even believe in their own lies! And we're supposed to think ccog and rohr speak on behalf of the church?
    This is like the dog who licks his own vomit and at the same time the dog convinces me that its the best food in the whole wide world. Go figure!

    1. "if Rohr and ccog won't believe the pontifical council for the interpretation of legislative texts"

      This report should be made available. Only then can you make such a judgement.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:44 am,

      It is available at the chancery.

  5. Diana,

    Junglewatch has been playing with words since the beginning. They've been trying their hardest to snatch anyone who doesnt understand or fails to see the fine print. I have to admit that they are smart in many cases but there are a few times where the truth slipped. All they do is speculate and propose rumors and then they have all their creative minds and imaginative writers blog on. It does get entertaining but again like we all know, its just a select few. Usually the same people commenting, thinking they know after reading a few of Tims poems.
    Sadly they have created a big mess but the catholic church will always welcome them back no matter what they have done to cause a big divide in the local church.
    Rome is not taking its time at all. Rome is not waiting for more reports. Actually, Rome is not paying attention to them. They are accepting letters and all but thats all. They are very much familiar with Tim, he has caused a mess in other places as well.
    By the way, remember the whole AMWAY scandal? Selling products and being invited to week long "conventions" but only to find out it was a whole new church operation. No one remembers Tim being one of the top promoters of Amway on Guam?
    My question is where will Tim run off to after this mess? He ran away from L.A. . He ran away from that other place, I forget its name, its an island. Does anyone not see a pattern here?

    Is the Clergy Association still telling each other to stay away from Rohr? Not pay attention to that toves boy?I wonder whats on their agenda this week?
    Its very obvious that Tim is getting very desperate. Hes running out of shoes and his Bronze shoe didnt do much but kick the bucket. Hes now resorted to insulting and belittling you. Any writer can see the "bullying" characteristics of that blog.

    I feel so sorry for all the victims of the jw blog but its time to move on and let the healing begin.

    -Jokers Wild

    1. Funny, but what you say is being said by the Junglewatchers about the Neos.
      Both sides accuse each of playing with words, creating a big mess in the Catholic Church, getting desperate and now resorting to insults and belittling, and both sides feel sorry for each other's followers.
      ....On second thought, not funny at all.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 10:51 am,

      Yes, but there is a difference. Have you noticed that Tim Rohr never refuted anything I said?

    3. RIGHT ON..........''JOKER''

    4. Dear Diana @ 2:37 July 14--
      You're kidding, right?? Tim Rohr's blog is all about refuting what you say! He takes your words apart section by section--just as you are wont to do.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 8:00 am,

      Tim Rohr did not refute what I said nor did he take my words apart section by section. This is what I stated when I responded to an anonymous comment in one of my entry posts:

      "Apparently, Tim Rohr thinks that because the office of the Archbishop was not included in the Board of Guarantors, he believes that Anthony Apuron will remain on the board even after he is replaced as Archbishop of Agana. This is false. What Tim Rohr failed to understand is that the Board of Guarantors is the "Board of Guarantors of RMS." And RMS has a corporation sole, namely the current Archbishop of Guam Anthony Apuron. According to the legal website I provided in my last entry post on corporation sole (bold is mine):

      Corporations sole consist of one person only and his successors, in some particular station, who are incorporated by law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense the king is a sole corporation; so is a bishop; so are some deans, and prebendaries, distinct from their several chapters; and so is every parson and vicar."

      Tim Rohr copied everything in that entry post and posted it in his blog, and the weblink below showed everything he said:

      Notice that he did not address anything in my comment. The source I used to prove him wrong was even in my entry post, but he said nothing about it. There was no refutation.

    6. Hi, Diana--
      Sorry, but an example of how Tim refutes your comments is in Junglewatch under entry titled, "Apuron is a footnote". He does do this quite often. Maybe not as an entry all the time, but he'll put it in comments as the need warrants.

    7. Dear Anonymous at 9:22 am,

      That was not a refutation. That was a contradiction to the legal website I quoted. I said that a corporation sole can have a board of directors because according to the legal website a corporation sole also applies to a king as a head of state. The only thing that Tim Rohr said is that a corporation sole does not have a Board of Directors. He completely ignored the fact that some corporation sole do have a Board of Directors. I will write and entry post and clarify more on it.

    8. I have already published an entry post regarding corporation sole with a Board of Directors. You can find it in the following weblink:

  6. Diana at 8:16 -
    I went to that link you posted and it was an entry calling you out to disclose the documents you refer to in your posts, namely the Denver opinion and the Legislative text commission to stop the back and forth. He posted a link to his 'Bronze' document. Your readers would be able to read for themselves. It wasn't a post that called for refuting what you said.