The Gala dinner went very smoothly and without any kind of incident. It was a very successful event, and everyone appeared to enjoy the celebration. As we all know, CCOG had already made plans to protest the Archbishop's birthday celebration at the Hyatt Hotel. The G4S Security did their job in ensuring that protesters stay far away from the Gala celebration for these protestors had no business being in or near the Gala celebration. They are fully aware that the Archbishop is holding his birthday in the ballroom of the Hyatt Hotel; therefore, they should not be anywhere in or near the area of the celebration.
These protestors have a right to hold their protests in the PUBLIC streets, and the security guards have the duty to ensure that they do not take their protests, harassments, and other nonsense into the private establishment of the Hyatt Hotel and their guests. The Archbishop is the guest of the Hyatt Hotel because he rented the ballroom to hold his birthday celebration. None of the protestors were guests. The fact that some of them removed their hand-held signs to enter the Hyatt Hotel does not mean they are no longer protestors. Rather, it shows a hidden motive to cause some commotion. Thanks to a vigilant security guard, a possible commotion by a protestor was avoided.
They did their duty in ensuring that the Archbishop and his guests did not receive any harassment from these protestors whose agenda is to remove him from office at whatever cost. Kudos to the security guard who was vigilant that evening in identifying who the protestors are and in keeping them away from the vicinity of the Gala celebrations.
WE HAD SO MUCH FUN!
ReplyDelete"Thanks to a vigilant security guard, a possible commotion by a protestor was avoided"
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to the lady with the walking frame?
Dear Anonymous at 3:28 pm,
DeleteYes, the same one who used her disability to try to breach security so she can cause a commotion.
''WOW'' You even had a circus in front with all the clowns protesting. Happy Birthday Bishop.
DeleteWas she caught on any security cameras? I'd love to see that.
ReplyDeleteWhat proof do you have diana that the woman with the walker tried "to breach security"? You are blowing smoke through your anal sphincter as you always do by making unsubstantiated claims. I dare you to provide proof that this woman attempted to "breach security" and that the guard hired by the archbishop stopped her.
DeleteAccept this dare and provide incontrovertible proof of the statements you make about this person.
Dear Anonymous at 3:12 am,
DeleteThe FACT that she was a protestor protesting the Archbishop's birthday at the Hyatt, and then entering the Hyatt Hotel is enough to draw suspicion by security. The FACT that she got defensive when security questioned her is also enough to show that an eye should be kept on her. This is what is called "reasonable suspicion". The security guard can have "reasonable suspicion" to keep an eye on Eileen and refuse to allow her to use the same restroom that the Archbishop's guests were using to avoid any conflict.
The fact that the security guard questioned other protesters who entered the Hyatt Hotel will exonerate him from discrimination. He did not allow her to use the restroom used by the Archbishop's guests because she was a protestor......not because of her disability.
A lawyer for G4S would ask Eileen, "Of all the many nearby diners and restaurants in the area, why did you choose to go inside the Hyatt at that PARTICULAR time, knowing full well that the people you protested against were inside there? Why that PARTICULAR place in that PARTICULAR time?"
If that was the President of the United States or even the Pope, a protestor would not get inside the same building, so Eileen was fortunate that she managed to at least get that far. But the security guard of the U.S. President or even the Pope would never allow someone who protested outside against the President or Pope would allow them inside the building. Why? Because it is a matter of security.
ReplyDeleteLooks like a terrible Archdiocese you have on Guam. I really pray you can reach out and heal the divisions of the archdiocese.
Dear Anonymous at 6:54 pm,
DeleteThank you for your prayers.
Awesome! Glad to hear the evening went well.
ReplyDeleteWE HAD SO MUCH FUN! THE ARCHBISHOP IS AWESOME!
ReplyDeleteJesus would have exited the ballroom and welcomed those protesters. Whether their position was wrong, misguided, or whether they were entirely correct in their assertions, Jesus would have welcomed them. At the very least, acknowledged them. The Shepard, our Vicar or Christ, has become myopic.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:11 am,
DeleteFor your information, in the Holy Bible, it was the protestors who shouted to crucify Christ and release Barrabus. They were upset when Pilate announced Jesus as the King of the Jews because they did not recognize Him as their king. In the same way, the protestors in Tumon do not recognize Archbishop Apuron as their spiritual shepherd and wanted him removed.
Christ will not welcome anyone who rejected Him in His Kingdom. A protestor is a person who rejects.
Oh this is good, is that judgement you're rendering?
DeleteAnd fyi, a birthday party protest and a roman govt sentencing w/the possibility of death are totally two different life situations to draw a parallel between each other.
To place AAA in the same "hot seat" as the Lord in front of Pilate shows a lack of understanding to these events affecting the Catholic Church on the Island. Because AAA is just the Vicar, not the Lord. Nobody is out to crucify AAA to think that people are would be highly presumptuous of the self.
Dear Anonymous at 10:26 am,
DeleteIn the first place, it was not I who put the Archbishop in the place of Jesus. It was actually Anonymous 9:21 am who did that. I was only responding in kind.
Isn't he, AAA, supposed to be the representative of Jesus?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:58 am,
DeleteYes, he is. :-). Christ said to the Apostles (who were Bishops), "he who rejects you rejects me."
But Christ never hurt those who rejected him. And the Bishop is only a man, fallen from God's grace.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:39 pm,
DeleteThe Bishop is the Representative of Christ. Christ does not need to hurt them because they hurt themselves. They suffer as a result of their sins.
Diana, Eileen was a disabled woman who should have been allowed to use the restroom. What the guard did was discriminatory to those with disabilities.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:29 am,
DeleteI disagree. She is a protestor, and the guard was correct in treating her like all the rest of the protestors. To treat her differently from other protestors would be discriminatory. Even the disabled is bound to follow the rules of security. The fact that she refused to follow those rules makes her suspect in trying to carry out some plan to disrupt the celebration.
The protestors who went away after the protest were the only ones who had at least a little bit of common sense. The protestors who entered the hotel, knowing full well that the Archbishop was there celebrating his birthday, were the ones who clearly had ulterior motives.
Tim Rohr can laugh all he wants that these were only ladies. Apparently, he is lost and does not live in the modern world where even women become suicide bombers like those in ISIS. The fact that Eileen was deliberately USING her disability to be in a place where she has no business of being is already suspect.
You must be clairvoyant to know what was on the minds of these protesters.
DeleteWhat's your proof that some of them entered the hotel to crash the gala and were not entering as paying guests to enjoy a meal at the café or the buffet restaurant?
Was Tim Rohr protesting with CCOG or was he watching with his cigar, and liquor, laughing.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:49 am,
DeleteSee my response below at 4:08 pm.
proof Sussana...that's not proof
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:37 pm,
DeleteThat is proof enough to show that the security guard did not neglect his duty, but followed it.
Once she paid for her meal, she became a Hyatt customer. This was an over step on security. I have attended many functions and no one is restricted from using any of the restrooms.
DeleteGood thing the archbishop hired G4S privately. That guard was super vigilant the entire nite. He should get a huge tip. Like $100!
DeleteWhat do you think, Diana?
Dear Anonymous at 9:31 am,
DeleteYou can come up with all the excuses you want, but the fact is..... Eileen was a participant in the protest. She is a regular commenter in the jungle and her views of the Archbishop and the NCW are already well-known. She was protesting the Archbishop and his guests who were celebrating at the Gala dinner at the Hyatt Hotel. To protest against a birthday celebration is already an insane act. Why? Because there is nothing negative about a birthday celebration or a fundraiser for helping the seminaries and the Church.
She is a protester of an insane act of protesting something that is not even negative. Taking off the hand-held sign and entering the Hyatt Hotel does not take away this fact. Rather, it makes her a target for any security guard to keep an eye on her......especially when she starts wandering toward the vicinity of the Gala dinner.
why can't you just let this go? It's over, the gala was a success. Are you jealous that she writes a weekly column and people on the island know her name? Her column also runs on Tues in the Saipan Variety. No one knows you from squat.
DeleteThat must get your goat.
Diana she was not a protestor. Do you know who the protestors are by name or identity? There are now hundreds of our people complaining,mcommemting on JW, protesting against Archbishop. Now even priest's are openly calling for Archbishop to retire. When priest's join the protest it is a sure sign something is seriously wrong. Mike T.
DeleteDear Mike T.
DeleteEileen herself admitted that she was a protester when she stated that she participated in the protest.
Those anonymous commenters in the jungle can easily be one person. Besides, there were more people at the Gala Dinner than at the protests. In the Gala dinner, hundreds of thousands of dollars were poured in while CCOG could not even raise enough funds to hire a lawyer. That alone says a lot.
You stated: "When priest's join the protest it is a sure sign something is seriously wrong."
I have not yet seen one priest standing in the protest line, but I am aware that there is a problem in the clergy despite that.
Their motive was to get FOOD....they were customers. She went to the restaurant. As customers, they have every right to go to the bathroom. Not even the Governor's Birthday Fund Raisers go through these great lengths to keep people out.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 11:15 am,
DeleteI was not born yesterday. She is a protestor who posts in the jungle against the Archbishop on a regular basis. She went in there to get food........my foot! Of all the places and nearby restaurants in the area, she had to choose the very same hotel that the Archbishop was celebrating his birthday.........yeah right! After her dinner, she did not even leave the hotel. She went back to the same restroom that was used by the guests of the Archbishop a SECOND time after she was already told the first time that the restroom is to be used only for the Archbishop's guests. She wanted to use that particular restroom in the hopes of bringing her protests from the streets to the Archbishop and his guests.
Furthermore, she even ADMITTED in the Post that she participated in the protest to get the Archbishop's attention. Therefore, when the protest was over, she decided......well, what better way to get his attention that to be in the very same hotel. By being in the same hotel in the same vicinity, she can create a commotion to get his attention. The protest on the streets was not enough for her.
The Archbishop's birthday/fundraiser was ALSO not designed to keep people out. It was only to keep the protestors out. And if the Governor of Guam were in the same situation as the Archbishop, he would also keep the protestors who want him removed out.
WE HAD SO MUCH FUN THAT NIGHT!
ReplyDeleteDiana,
ReplyDeleteYou sure know a lot about that protester. I know she has an Oasis Club membership at the Hyatt to use the pool and get a 20% at all the Hyatt restaurants.
I do think you were born yesterday as you have an infantile mental capacity.
Dear Anonymous at 2:46 am,
DeleteBeing a member of a club at the Hyatt Hotel does not give her the privilege to go against the rules of security. Eileen made herself a target when she chose to protest and then decide to enter the hotel where the Archbishop was celebrating his birthday. Just because she took out the hand-held sign does not mean she is no longer a protester. The security guard did his job. If he had not, Eileen would be bringing her protests into the Archbishop's celebration. To ensure that that does not happen, the guard did not allow any protester anywhere in the vicinity of the celebration. That particular restroom that Eileen went back to a SECOND time was in the confines of the Archbishop's celebration. To think that a protestor can USE not only her disability but ALSO her membership of a club in the hotel shows that she may have malicious intent to bring her protest to the Archbishop's celebration.
Dear Anonymous November 5, 2015 at 2:46 AM, you tell us a half truth or something we cannot check and then you throw in an insult. Why?! Where is this coming from?
DeleteWhy do you think you can afford this kind of behavior? Even if someone has an Oasis Club membership, it is no reason that you insult Diana. Do you understand? Please, apologize and do not ever do this cheap act again.
But don't you teach that to "love in the dimension of the cross", one should allow the "other to kill you" - not necessarily physically but ontologically, or by taking the "persecution"? I thought that this was the central message of the communities? So much for all that, hey?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:17 am,
DeleteThere is a big difference between "loving in the dimension of the cross" and being a "door mat for people to step on". Jesus was never a "door mat for people to step on." After all, he threw out the money changers from the temple.
Diana I seriously worry about your mental health. First of all these are Manamko holding signs and praying the rosary. Really? Isis? And contrary to your ascertains, the security guards hired by archbishop have not authority to keep a paying member out of the hotel. Only the GM can do that and since they didn't step in then she was well within her rights. And who the hell cares if she wants to eat there and go pee. I can't comprehend the ridiculousness of your paranoid and hightenes sense of self puffery. Oh and by the way? Tony Apuron is not being persecuted like Jesus Christ and just because I don't respect him or follow him as Archbishop does not mean I'm going to hell. I seriously think you and your fellow kitty kats need some sort of mental health intervention.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:05 pm,
DeleteFirst of all, the security guard did not keep a paying member out. He kept a protester out. That was his job. Eileen wrote in the jungle:
"This area had nothing now to do with the gala except that people from the party would use the restroom in there."
http://www.junglewatch.info/2015/11/g4s-security-bullies-at-hyatt-guards.html#more
Since the beginning of the celebration, that particular restroom was being used by the guests of the Archbishop, which is the reason why the area there was blocked off by tables. Eileen admitted in her own written testimony in the jungle that the guests of the Archbishop uses that particular restroom, and she was fully aware of that fact. These guests are also the people whom Eileen protested against because they spent $200 attending the Archbishop's birthday celebration. The guard was correct in not allowing her to use the restroom......not because she was a disabled person, but because she was one of the protesters. When Eileen saw that the restroom was not available for her use the FIRST time because tables were set up to block the area off, she went to another restroom and had dinner at La Mirenda. There was already a restroom available for her use at where she ate, and she already had her dinner. She had no business going BACK to the same area where the Archbishop was celebrating his birthday.
Dear Anonymous November 5, 2015 at 12:05 PM, please, worry about the mental health of someone else who keeps feeding nonsense to his readers on a daily basis. Diana's blog is absolutely okay. But in the jungle there is a cheap prankster who produces the worst kind of daily joke to his readers every day.
DeleteThe whole jungle became a big joke now, a terrible cacophonia of self-indulgent people. Much worse than, say, Saturday Night Live, because SNL is at least made by professional entertainers, but Jungle watch is made by amateurish jokers who make the worst kind of jokes on the expense of themselves.
i read the jungle blog. Jokes are made about the archbishop. People think they're funny. Just saying. I think they're funny too. Public figures are often made fun of. Anyone can make a joke. You can't be objective. What does it matter anyway? You should try joking about that blog. You take it too seriously. Why do you go there?If I were you I'd stay away. I go there for entertainment. Your going there doesn't help the archbishop. Concentrate on all the good things the archbishop does. Put that in here. You make unfounded statements. Just tell the truth about the archbishop. That's more helpful to your cause.
DeleteHope this helps.
AT..9:41 PM Is this you TIM ROHR }:-<> Not me Anonymous
DeleteDiana at 8:47 PM:
ReplyDeletethis is a quote
"After dinner, I went to the spa to get a brochure and from the spa went down the hallway back to the café to use the restroom. By this time, it was after 8 p.m. and everyone was in the ballroom.
The tables were no longer needed so I headed to the restroom as it appeared to me that the seating area was now open. It was empty except for one woman.
That same G4S guard was there and told me I couldn't use that restroom. I had to go back around to the other restroom. He said he was given instructions to block access. This area had nothing now to do with the gala except that people from the party would use the restroom in there."
Everyone was in the ballroom at this time. No hotel blocks guests from using the restroom. The restrooms were not in the ballroom. From the restroom you can't even see the ballroom. Seems to me she only wanted to use the restroom in an open area of the hotel. That area was in use before the gala started but afterwards was not needed.
He obviously got instructions from the archbishop who hired him on a private contract. i work in a lawyer's office. I think there's a discrimination case here. The archbishop and G4S will be sued if she wishes to go that route.
Dear Anonymous at 3:41 am,
DeleteAs Eileen admitted in her testimony, that restroom would be used by the guests in the Gala.....the very people whom Eileen protested against. Allowing a protestor to use the same restroom with those she protested against would give Eileen the opportunity to bring her protests to the Archbishop's guest, which is what the security guard was preventing. Eileen admitted in the Post that she wanted to get the Archbishop's attention because it is difficult to see him due to his busy schedule and off-island trips. So, what better way to meet the Archbishop than to enter the hotel and bring the protest there....after all, she is a member of a club at the Hyatt hotel.
Eileen also admitted in her written testimony in the jungle that the guard also confronted other protestors who entered the hotel and asked them the same question he asked her. The guard did not confront anyone who was not a protestor. In other words, if Eileen had not been a protestor, she would not be confronted by the security guard, and there would be no reason for her not to use the same restroom that the Archbishop's guest were using. The guard did his duty.
The protestors who left were the ones who had a bit of common sense. The ones who stayed behind and even ventured to go inside the hotel is the one to watch out for. By going into that hotel right after the protest, Eileen only made herself a target.......what did she expect???? Did she not see that that night was a different night with more guards visible?
Diana, is it true that Fr Pablo Rodriguez and Fr. Harold have both left our Seminary? How can Fr. Pius be strong enough for the job?? Concerned.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 5:46 am,
DeleteI see that you found out from the jungle that Father Pius would be the new Rector of RMS. That news is already old news. It was announced to the Responsibles and Co-Responsibles at the Beginning of the Year Convivience that Father Pius will be the new Rector of RMS. I am sure he will make an excellent rector. He will certainly keep the seminarians on their toes. :-)
Why was it only announced during the Convivence? It should have been known to the rest of the islands about the change.It is a big deal,
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:33 am,
DeleteIs it really that newsworthy? Was the rector of John Paul II seminary ever announced in the newspaper?
Did the archbishop make this announcement? Fr. Pablo was so friendly. Is he still on-island? If so, I'd like to see him before he leaves. Hope he was assigned to a parish. Do you know if he's still on Guam? Please let us know, Diana. I know he has many friends on island. We should have a going-away party. Something simple like maybe lunch at the Hyatt and get that G4S guard the archbishop hired. Those protesters might try to disrupt out luncheon for Fr. Pablo even though he's a popular, he is in the Way and those psycho protesters are unpredictable.
DeletePlease Diana, let us know where he is.
Dear Anonymous at 10:38 am,
DeleteActually, I was thinking that we should have a Christmas Gala dinner. I would like to see the protestors come out to protest Jesus' birthday. :-)
Dear Diana,
DeleteI, like Anonymous at 10:38, will miss Fr. Pablo---even if I am not Neo. If he has been transferred off island I pray for his safe travels and a successful transition!
Why is fr. Pablo leaving? I like him he should stay here. Where is he going? Best he stay here Diana.
DeleteDon't offend G4S employees by calling them Security "Guards"...they are Security "Officers".
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:06 am,
DeleteIt was not meant as an offense. I did not know the word "guard" was an offensive word.
Guard is very offensive. Word is security officer, security staff, security detail.
DeleteAt least make it known in the the diocesan news so that we know what is happening. That is big news for all to know. Why are you hiding it amongst yourselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Rector of JPII was announced to Archdiocese.
ReplyDeleteThe appointment of Father Pius as Rector will also be announced soon.
DeleteBut Diana says this is "old news"! what took so long?
DeleteLet's see if it will.
Delete