Thursday, August 11, 2016

Bill 326-33

An anonymous person wrote the following comment, which can be found here:
OK I was wrong. I heard people say that if you don't support Bill No. 326-33 (COR) you support child sexual abuse.
I thought we knew Brother Tony is innocent.
I thought we are against child sexual abuse.
I found out that our Zoltan was the only one who testified against Bill 326-33.
Now people are saying the Neocatechumenal Way is for child sexual abuse.
I'm not for child sexual abuse.
Does Zoltan's testimony mean that Brother Tony abused those boys?
I'm very sad.
The jungle claimed that those who do not support this bill support child sexual abuse.  The NCW does not support child sexual abuse at all, but we also support our democratic principles, which is a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.   

The reason why rape and sexual crimes have a statutes of limitations is to ensure that the witnesses are still around to testify and that there is some evidence to substantiate the allegation.  It emphasizes to the victims the importance of reporting the crime in a timely manner. However, Bill 326-33 simply allow alleged victims to file a lawsuit of alleged crimes that occurred 40, 50, or 60 years ago when witnesses are most likely dead and there are no clear evidence.  The bill also has a hidden agenda.  Its true intention is to persecute Archbishop Apuron and ONLY Archbishop Apuron.  Its intention is to remove him at whatever cost.  

The first sexual ad that Tim Rohr publshed was NOT in May, 2016.  It was actually back in November 8, 2015.  He published it in his blog and gave it to SNAP to publish it in their website.  This FIRST sexual abuse ad published by Rohr targeted ONLY one person - Archbishop Apuron.  See the screen shot below: 

Junglewatch on Bishop Accountability

Most people forgot that Tim Rohr and SNAP published this ad back in November 8, 2015. Tim Rohr was not after sex abusers in general.  He was mainly after one person as usual.  The November, 2015 ad stated (the bold is mine):
 "Our inquiry is not limited to these dates and locations, but they are our primary areas of inquiry."  

What I placed in bold was removed from the May, 2016 ad published in the newspapers because Rohr did not want anyone to implicate that he was mainly after the Archbishop.  After all, it would look suspicious that he mainly targeted the Archbishop.  See the screenshot below: 


  1. part 1


    I am thankful that I can make a testimony as a concerned citizen.
    First, let me acknowledge the alleged victims and their families. Without them this bill would not be discussed here today. Their testimonies must be heard with attention and sincerity. If the charges are true then there must be consequences. Vatican officials including Pope Francis are taking these charges very seriously. This guarantees that consequences will follow with substantial impact on the Catholic Church on Guam.

    If the charges are true then we have to acknowledge the pain and suffering these alleged victims had to endure. Just imagine, if you as a child would have been sexually abused by a priest what would you have done? Take a minute to feel the hurt, the humiliation and the confusion… What would you have done as a child or later as an adult who understands the gravity of what happened to you? Well, as about me, for the sake of my own well-being and mental balance, I would have wanted to come to terms with the abuse and expose the perpetrator as soon as the opportunity arises.

    The good thing is that the proposed bill tries to make justice for the alleged victims. However, some of the circumstances of this piece of legislation raise concerns.

    1. First of all, I am concerned because there are some details in this bill that remain unclear and unexplained.

    2. I am concerned by the language the advocates of this bill employ to justify their stance.

    3. I am concerned by the attempts of politicizing faith matters in order to make politically motivated accusations and demands on a group of believers.

    4. Finally, I am gravely concerned that this bill might be intended to become a stepping stone toward making untrue connections to vilify a certain faith group inside the Catholic Church. I am concerned as a citizen who wants to continue exercising his constitutional right and protection of following his conscience and practicing his religion.

    Let’s follow this outline in elaborating my concerns:

    1. Some details in this bill remain unclear and unexplained
    The bill applies to alleged victims whose claimed abuse occurred a long time ago and the existing statute of limitation prevents them from filing a lawsuit. The bill lists two wide spread solutions to allow these alleged victims to come forward with their complaints. First, a window of opportunity is opened by lifting the statute of limitation for a particular time period like two years. Second, the statute of limitation for sexual crimes is abolished altogether. The explanatory part of the bill claims that it follows national trends by choosing the second solution. However, the bill does not mention at all that the Guam Legislature had already chosen the first solution some years ago, the statute of limitation was lifted for two years but nobody came forward with sexual abuse complaint.

    So referring to a national trend here is extremely misleading. There is no national trend to choose both solutions, first one of them and then overriding it by the other!

  2. part 2

    What is going on here? Why would the bill omit any reference to the fact that sexual abuse victims had this two years long window of opportunity on Guam? Why would not the bill address the Guam Legislature’s earlier decision in this regard? Simply overriding an existing law without substantial and compelling reason is not an acceptable praxis. As Bill Pesch writes in the PDN on June 26th: “But, there is a major problem with this approach in Guam. This isn’t the first time our Legislature has opened a window of opportunity to civilly pursue past incidents of child sex abuse. In 2011, senators passed a law giving past victims of child sexual abuse a two-year window of opportunity to file a civil lawsuit. No one did. Although appellate courts may allow a legislature to alter the civil statute of limitations for pursuing cases of child sexual abuse once, there is serious doubt that they will allow it twice. This may well be considered an "expo facto" law.”

    We learn that “Sen. Frank Blas Jr.’s Bill 326-33, in its substitute form, says the intent is to remove the current section requiring “certificates of merit,” as such information would have a chilling effect on those sexual abuse survivors who choose to seek justice against their victimizers.”

    Well, who created the Certificates of Merit section in the current law? Was it not the Guam Legislature? In order to keep the dignity and integrity of the Guam Legislature and its senators, would not it be beneficial to explain in the bill why this section is currently there at the first place, if it is not even necessary and should be removed? A lingering question is carefully avoided by the proposal: who is responsible for the Certificates of Merit section in the current law?

    2. The language employed by the advocates of this bill is disturbing

    From the news reports: “The substitute bill gives child sex abuse survivors a chance not only to seek justice for the acts that have scarred them, but also allows them to file claims against institutions and organizations and other individuals who have engaged in a conspiracy to cover up those acts, said David Sablan, the president of the Concerned Catholics of Guam. “The passage of this bill and its enactment into law will be justice served, albeit years later,” Sablan added.” How is this in the bill proposed? Who are those who have engaged in a conspiracy? How are they addressed and identified by the bill? Is this truly the content of the bill or the intention of the advocacy group? The unanswered questions reveal how hard it is to say what CCoG really wants to achieve by this bill. Very disturbing.

  3. part 3

    It is good that Mr. Rohr refers in his testimony he had last week to the Junglewatch blog that he initiated and managed for 3 years. Anyone who just looks any randomly chosen page of this blog would see the style and vocabulary employed on these pages that are simply inadmissible in any sincere and intelligent discussion. For example, David Sablan, the president of CCoG accuses Archbishop Hon that “you have not removed others who are part of the cancer in the Archdiocese.”

    How dare anyone call other people part of a cancer? Cancer is a terrible illness producing foul and malignant tumors that kills life. People may become ill with cancer. They are not and cannot be cancer. Who are the people called cancer here? Who and why should be removed? Should not a cancer be excised and cut out? As Mr. Goebbels wrote it 73 years ago about a particular people: “They are a parasitic race that feeds like a foul fungus on the cultures of healthy but ignorant peoples. There is only one effective measure: cut them out.” Can you recognize these words? No question, it is a very, very much disturbing language!

    Gerard Taitano says at his testimony “We cannot continue to expect the church to fix itself in this regard.” Why not? Pope Francis is taking the task to investigate the sexual abuse charges. His timeline differs from the timeline of Mr. Taitano. Is this a reason to rush to ill-fed conclusions? No way! He continues: “We must hold child sex abusers and their enablers accountable for their actions.” Who are the enablers? Who are these people and what have they done? How would the bill address these enablers of sexual abuse? We have no answers. Very disturbing.

    Bill 326-33, as listed at the Guam Legislature’s WEB-site, is not the current version of the proposal! Let me quote from the latest version: “An action for child sexual abuse may be commenced against

    - abusers,
    - their enablers,
    - their aiders or abettors,
    - those acting in concert with them and
    - their institutions or
    - corporations sole

    at any time.”

    Who are exactly these people? The following terms and expressions are undefined in the given context: enabler, aider, abettor, those acting in concert with them and their institutions or corporations sole. The bill does not offer any means to identify persons whom can be described by these terms. This makes the proposed bill incomplete!

    1. Dear Zoltan,

      By institutions, this could also mean the government agency itself or even the government of Guam. So an entire institution will have to suffer because of the actions of one person?

    2. This bill in its current form is a mockery of law making and 100% unconstitutional!

  4. part 4

    3. Attempt of politicizing faith matters is on display

    4. Taking away constitutional right and protection of following one’s conscience and practicing one’s religion.

    My concerns here simply follow from the observations discussed above.

    Dear Senators, as a concerned citizen I ask you to convince yourself that the proposed bill in its current form cannot be supported. The wording of the proposal omits crucial details, neglects explanations of eminent importance and mischaracterizes current trends in law making. Without showing up substantial and compelling reason to change a law, it tries to override it with possibly open ended consequences. The proponents of the bill openly declare their desire to go beyond the wording of the bill and use the law, if enacted, to exert pressure on peaceful believers on the sole basis of belonging or not belonging to some faith groups.

    Advocacy groups who support this bill are unable to explain why they stayed away from their advocacy activity back in time when the window of opportunity for sexual abuse charges was open. These groups openly demand punishment for clergy and restriction of faith related activity of lay people. Among those groups who support this bill and among their members, including leadership, an unacceptable language is prevalent that recalls the practices of oppressive political systems of the 20th century. Calling Catholic believers and consecrated priests by dehumanizing terms, like cancer, is revealing a vicious agenda of political intent that cannot be supported by any respectable legislature with stature and integrity.

  5. you can't fault people who go after alleged child molesters. unless of course, you support child molestation. NCW TAMUNING2.

    1. Dear NCW Tamuning 2,

      The rule of law still stands. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. The bill as it is proposed also has some flaws.

      1. Because it mentions "institutions", it is flawed. An institution should not be held liable for the actions of one person.

      2. Going after an alleged child molester after 40, 50, or 60 years would be impossible to prosecute as any witnesses would most likely be dead or there would be no clear evidence to show. It is preferable to pass a bill extending the statutes of limitation as some states are doing.

      3. The responsibility must be emphasized on the victims the importance of reporting the crime as soon as possible in order for effective prosecution to take place.

      4. There is a possibility that the bill is unconstitutional due to the fact that it may violate the ex post facto law.

    2. Good grief! This law is not about child molesters. It is about how to misuse the law to make money. If it would be about child molesters, it would go after them and not after everything and everybody, related or unrelated to the abuse.

      Just an example, assume someone touched a young girl 50 years ago in an athletic club. If the girl is coming out with complaint, then the whole athletic club would be charged? Would you go after the legal successor of the club, even if the club itself had been closed for, say, 20 years?

      Replace the athletic club with a nursery or elementary school, a bar or a game room. How would you prosecute everything and everyone? For damages? For money? For restoration? What kind of restoration is that?

      Just lock up the abuser as soon as you had proved him/her to be guilty. That is your job. Why do you go after the institution, the church, the club, the nursery, the school, etc? What is you purpose??

    3. Dear Anonymous at 4:12 pm,

      Exactly! All three alleged victims including the mother of Joseph Quinata stated that it is not about the Church. It is about the person (Archbishop Apuron) and only the person. They say they love their Church. But when it comes down to it, they named the "Archdiocese of Agana" (the Church) in their lawsuit for 2 million dollars.

    4. Yep. So much for "it's not about the church, it's about the person" thing.

    5. Yes, dear Diana, and with Bill 326-33 they wanna go for much more than 2 million dollars!

    6. 2 million dollars for calling them liars. big to bluff you think?

  6. Why? Answer: MONEY.

    1. If the institution was involved in the coverup, they should also be held liable.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 10:18 pm,

      I disagree. An institution is not a person. A person is involved in the cover up. Walter Denton and Roy Quintanilla both stated that they confided in Father Jack of the sexual allegation, and there no reports; therefore, one would accuse Father Jack of the cover up, not the institution. Strangely though, the alleged victims and the jungle never had anything negative to say about Father Jack.

    3. Some people knew Fr. Jack for a long time as a good priest. He was a priest for a long time in Agat after Apuron moved to the cathedral. They were shocked after learning that he didn't do anything to help those young boys. It was hard for them to believe he's part of the cover up. It's very unfortunate that Fr. Jack is not here to answer for himself cuz his name has been dragged into part of the cover up since he didn't report it to Archbishop Flores.

  7. Dear Anonymous in the Opening Post, 6:54 AM, red letters. You say:

    "I heard people say that if you don't support Bill No. 326-33 (COR) you support child sexual abuse."

    This does not make any sense. How can you "support" abuse?! It is silly. What does it mean? Everybody I know is against sexual abuse, because it is a crime. Plain and simple. Who were exactly the people who told you what you parrot here? Illiterate jungle folks? Are they your pals? Wow!

    You also say: "Now people are saying the Neocatechumenal Way is for child sexual abuse."

    Who told you this incredible silliness? All NCW people I know are strongly against any kind of abuse. Our communities have strong arms and defend the defenseless. If you were abused for example, then please come to some of our communities. You will be healed and protected.

    What does it mean in your mind to be "for" an abuse? Can you have a meaningful way to state what is your point? Because I cannot comprehend you. It is like being for typhoon or being for earthquake. Nobody id for these things but for protection against them. Yeah! Do you understand?

    I have never heard anyone talking like you, except I read similar silliness at the jungle. Are you here to be the voice of the jungle? Are you here to spread silly talk among the educated? Well, then you are definitely at the wrong place, my friend.

  8. Just a few questions in regards to why it's wrong to file criminal charges against an institution:

    Why can't a person file a criminal charge for complicity against an organization, such as a corporation? If a person can be an accomplice or conspirator to a crime, why can't the same be true of an organization?

    Why should we assume the church can't be an accomplice to covering up or silencing the abuse?

    Why should we believe the church, or rather the individuals within leadership of the church and those that follow such leadership, are/were innocent of such allegations?

    Thank you for your time.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:29 pm,

      Because in that organization are people who have nothing to do with the crime especially if the crime took place over 40 years ago. Would you still blame the people of Japan today for invading Guam in 1941? The invasion took place over 50 years ago, and most of the invaders are dead. The Japanese people today have nothing to do with the atrocities committed by the invaders and cannot be charged with war crimes.

    2. Yes, there are individuals who had nothing to do with the crime. I do not doubt that, but just because they didn't have anything to do with it doesn't mean that a past wrong should be without punishment or steps taken to make up for that wrong.

      You mention continuing to hold the people of Japan today accountible for the crime of invading Guam, and how that would be wrong. If that is the case, what about the war reparations Guam is asking from the US? Are you saying we shouldn't be compensated for the wrongs committed by that "institution"? That the land that was stolen, the complete ban on using chamorro in public, and the crime of using power and influence to change the culture and identity of the people that lived on Guam should not be paid for? That we should continue to have family members lay down their lives for an institution that fails to even provide basic privileges and rights, such as the ability to vote, and only desire equal rights and privileges shared by most Americans in the "states"? That we should not fight for or demand war reparations?

      In the case of the church, are you saying that the past wrongs committed against its members should not be compensated just because the people that committed the crime are no longer alive or in a state able to testify? To clarify my thoughts as well, I am not saying that innocent individuals within the church should be targeted, but that as a whole, shouldn't the church provide some sort of action to show its sincerity in the healing process of the victims?

      Also, I don't want the bill to be passed any more than you do, but isn't the truth of the matter that had it not been for the bill we would still be moving on and dismissing such allegations as "attacks on the church", not to be taken seriously because it comes from the mouths of people who seem to lack credibility?

      Yes, I recognize the hardwork and sincerity made by Archbishop Hon and most today towards creating a more unified church. However, should past actions be left in the past simply because there is no one left to provide testimony for the one person left who makes the allegation?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:27 am,

      Look at the people who are seeking war reparations. Most of them were not even born at the time the war occurred. Both my parents suffered during the Japanese Occupation. Both my parents are now gone just like most of the invaders. I never ask for war reparations because I have nothing to do with the war and my family who did suffer in the war are already gone. There is only one family member who suffered in the war who is still alive. She is my aunt who lives in the U.S. However, she is not asking for war reparation nor is her children asking for it. My aunt forgave the enemy and has moved on.

      It has always been about MONEY. Since when has money ever been able to make up for the past atrocities? What amount of money can do that?

      There are SOME punishments you cannot give, which is why we leave it up to God. Can Father Jack be punished for covering up child molestation now that he is dead? It would be an injustice to punish an institution because of the action of one man. And it is also not right to give war reparations to those who did not suffer in a war. It has always been difficult for the war reparations to be passed because the Chamorros not only ask for money to pay those who suffered, but also for the family members of those suffered and have passed members who have not suffered in the war but want to enjoy money that rightfully belongs to the dead.

    4. You're right, Diana. There are some punishments that cannot be given, and that is the reason we leave it up to God. But what to do about the anger, bitterness, and resentment that some may have if they do not trust in God's justice?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 11:11 am,

      The main reason they are angry and bitter is because they have not forgiven the enemy. Forgiveness has a healing power. Forgiveness is not for the other person. It is for our own benefit so that we can leave the anger, bitterness, and resentment behind and move on to better and greener pastures.

    6. Dean anon 10:29 pm, you are confused a little about what you say. So are you saying? But it is okay, not everybody is required to be well versed in law.

      For your information: Nobody talks about criminal charges against institutions here. It is all about civil litigation in context of sexual abuse from the distant past. Criminal law and civil law are two distinct branches of jurisdiction that are not to be confused.


  9. No forgiveness.
    The removal of Apuron is only way to heal now. Followed by removal of priets who knew of abuse. If not followed we will go after Archdiocese. Very simple.

    1. Dear anonymous at 11:33 am,

      There is no healing in revenge. Revenge only brings about your own downfall.

    2. There u have it.... is their gain not the whole Catholic Church! These group lurk to destroy it. In the cathechism book say the worst sin is to fight against the holy spirit. God will fight you CCOG,Tim Rohr, Chuck White.