Friday, September 30, 2016

Monsignor James Referred To GPD And AG Office

As I mentioned in one of my previous comments in the last OP, when you put people who are against the Way in charge, it would come as no surprise that Monsignor James was cleared of all allegations of financial mismanagement. After all, look at the bias seminary report.  At any rate, the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam Inc. has now filed a complaint with the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General's Office against Monsignor James. According to KUAM news:

Image result for Monsignor James BenaventeComplaint filed with GPD and AG regarding Monsignor James Benavente   

In an interesting twist, just hours after the Archdiocese of Agana held a press conference to announce that all allegations of financial mismanagement made against Monsignor James Benavente were invalid, KUAM News has learned that a complaint has been filed by the Catholic Cemeteries of Guam, Inc. with the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General’s office.

According to the complaint Catholic Cemeteries alleges $13,000 was misused for the personal use of Monsignor James Benavente, specifically for his 20th anniversary dinner in 2014.
Personally, I think this should have been done a long time ago.......like back in 2014 when the misuse of funds was discovered.  When the financial officer of the Yona parish was found to have stolen thousands of dollars from the parish, the police was notified and she was arrested.  The Church should have done the same thing with Monsignor James once it had been discovered that he misued the funds.  But Archbishop Apuron was too merciful.  Rather than reporting it to the police, he removed Monsignor James from the Cathedral, and he went to the Tamuning parish where he could still practice his priestly duties.  

Now, that GPD and the AG is involved, he can explain how he managed to take $13,000 for his personal use, specifically for his 20th anniversary dinner.  Even if he had paid back the $13,000, do you think the government would excuse him?  Do you think the Government of Guam would clear him of these allegations? 

According to the Criminal Defense Lawyer Website: 
 A person who misappropriates funds with the intent to later return the money to the rightful owner is still guilty of misappropriation. It also doesn't matter if the misappropriation only lasted for a short amount of time. 
MORE ON PNC NEWS:
The report states that Msgr. James Benavente misused over $13,000 in church money for his anniversary dinner. 
Guam - Just moments after he was vindicated, a complaint was filed against Msgr. James Benavente for allegedly spending over $13,000 in church money for his personal use.

PNC obtained a board resolution from the Catholic Cemeteries of the Archdiocese of Agana, signed by Attorney Jacque Terlaje, who also represents Archbishop Anthony Apuron in a separate libel and slander lawsuit filed by four of the Archbishop's alleged sex abuse victims.

The report from the catholic cemeteries was sent to both the Guam Police Department and the Attorney General's Office today. In the report, it states that two checks were written to a Joshua Perez totaling $13,620 dollars for the purpose of Benavente's 20th anniversary dinner back in June and July of 2014.

However, attached to the report is a receipt from the Catholic Cemeteries for $14,280 in reimbursement for Benavente's 20th anniversary dinner.

Not long after Msgr. James' anniversary dinner, he was fired by Archbishop Anthony Apuron as the director of the catholic cemeteries and rector of the cathedral basilica. 
 
PNC reached out to Msgr. James for his response but he was unavailable for comment as of news time.   

51 comments:

  1. God desired to clear Monsinuer accepted. However Monsinuer engaged in gray financial practices for over a decade. so I'm not surprized about
    this at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:51 pm,

      Things would have been easier if Monsignor James had come out and admitted his guilt. Even if he did use the $13,000 for his personal use and later paid it back, it is still a misuse of funds.

      Delete
    2. The only way i can see around the $13,000 is if the owner/share holders
      gave a director authority to use a credit card then re-pay. Few business people i know would allow this. Streatching tnis as far as possible to help Monsinuer.

      Delete
  2. Mon. James should have considered himself lucky that archbishop Apuron removed him from the cathedral rather than reporting him to the police. The government isn't known for their mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you need to rethink your OP because the person who filed the complaint was not authorized and does not represent the archdiocese. Please refer to the OFFICIAL statement from archbishop hon cause Jackie was wrong to have filed this when Monsignor was OFFICIALLY CLEARED of all wrongdoing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hon later said whoever filed that charge had no authority to do so since it's under his purview. Does that mean the charge is null and void? Can someone file a claim that they are not authorized to? Please clarify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:09 pm and 6:14 pm,

      The damage has already been done. GPD and the AG is not beholden to the Church. Once a complaint has been officially filed, they will look into it.

      Delete
    2. Now Diana, as Arch Hon stated clearly this is obedience to to him for misrepresenting the archdiocese. Of course, all members of the cemeteries are neither members.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 6:59 pm,

      Like I said, I personally think that a complaint to GPD should have been filed once the misuse of funds have been discovered, which was back in 2014. Whoever filed the complaint said they represent the Catholic Cemeteries, not the Archdiocese. Also, whoever filed the complaint probably saw a white collar criminal getting away and felt compelled to follow his/her conscience to report it to the police and AG's office. It is interesting to see what happens next. The damage has already been done. It is now in the hands of GPD and the Attorney General.

      Delete
    4. Actually your wrong Diana. Anyone can file a complaint, but if the archdiocese desires not to press charges, the case will be closed.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 11:43 am,

      That remains to be seen. A complaint has been filed. The people making the complaint can choose to pursue with their complaint.

      Delete
    6. No investigation is going to be done Diana. It was found to be an invalid and bogus claim. Jackie Terlaje should have known better.

      Delete

  5. yes he was vindicated. But the reality is who paid for a decade of high life in Manila hotels. I think it was the Cathedral fund that paid for it. It used to make me so mad watching. But i learnt to forgive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I, too, used to get so mad. But c'mon, even our ArchB Apuron went along on many of those trips. And, in fact, the buck stops with him, so he approved the expenditures! That type of behaviour was so accepted....and by our not saying anything, we also approved.

      Delete
    2. perhaps it was accepted. But what about the poor who ate pandasal bread while thousands were spent in Hotels.
      who paid for this?

      Delete
  6. Under the government, they can find Mon. James guilty of misappropriation of funds. That is not going to look good for archbishop Hon and the church. It will make the church look like they're also covering up financial mismanagement. It's bad enough that the church has been known to cover up sex abuse scandals. If found guilty, the church will also be known to cover up financial mismanagement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:56 pm,

      Actually, that would not look very good for Archbishop Hon. Archbishop Apuron was the one who removed Monsignor James for financial mismanagement.

      Delete
  7. Time to excommunicate the cemetary board for grave insubordination and disobedience towards Arch Hon. I think you have to agree on this one Diana..it's time you " walk the talk" that you have been preaching forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:02 pm,

      Regardless of what he does, the damage has already been done. This is now in the hands of GPD and the Attorney General. Monsignor James will now have to answer to government officials, and this time we will know for certain whether he is really cleared of financial mismanagement. If found guilty, I wonder what Archbishop Hon will have to say to the people of Guam. If found guilty, how is Archbishop Hon going to explain his "cover up" regarding church finances?

      Delete
  8. Junglewatch nation is demanding excommunication for the person involved in filing the complaint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:31 pm,

      The jungle can demand excommunication all they want. It is not going to change the fact that Monsignor James is now going to answer to the government authorities. And if he is indeed found guilty, then the jungle will stand alone while the entire Catholic community in Guam will demand why the church was "covering up" Monsignor James. And when Rome hears about the "cover up"...........

      Delete
    2. There are those in Jungle nation questioning the financial practices asking for detailed information.In particular a balance of $30,000 in the perpetual care fund, if true, is a serious concern.

      Delete
    3. Actually over the years from reading both blogs I've seen that the call for excommunication is the MO of the NCW and not the Junglewatch nation. Since 2014 Diana and a number of the Neos were naming people who they thought should be excommunicated. The only times I've seen anything about excommunication from the Junglewatch nation is when they comment on the lists coming from this blog. They don't seem to have their own list. LOL

      Delete
    4. Jungle nation? Lol! More like a horde...

      Delete
  9. Shows your true colors Diana. You preach excommunicate anyone and everyone who is disobedient to Church leaders but that doesn't seem like the case if they are Neo members. Atleast Tim and the gang, will stand up to their objectives no matter who stands in their way. My message to you...practice what you preach!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:45 pm,

      Where in any of my comments did I say that "Neos" should not be excommunicated?

      Delete
    2. This is a perfect example. The board members as Hon stated that such representation is " a grave wrong and disobedience." Donyou believe these members have done nothing wrong? Your thoughts please.

      Delete
  10. And if the accusations from the board of directors have no merit? What do you think will happen to them? I would think the archdiocese has done their due diligence in clearing Msgr. james. It is a serious matter they have filed a report without consulting Archbishop Hon and using official archdiocese letterhead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 8:55 pm,

      The civil authorities will now be the one to determine that. It is now in the hands of GPD and the Attorney General. After the bias seminary report, I do not think the Archdiocese have a leg to stand on.

      Delete
  11. Many times i don't agree with Diana. But this time i believe she has a valid point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diana,

    Please republish the cathedral basilica report that detailed all the abuses of Benavente!

    ReplyDelete
  13. i am not walking but i understand business. It is unacceptable for a business partner to use the credit card of a corporation for private use even if the intention is to pay back. The business ethics is unacceptable to accounting practice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In such an event Monsignor is reported to GPD he will be questioned by Police. AG office then detetmines if a crime took place. This is what happens if a priest views church money as personal money. A priest must always detetmine what is personal what is owned by the church. Items purchased on cburch money belong to the church. credit card expenses must be related to pastoral minitry. Parties in hotels do not constitute pastoral ministry. However, to hold parties on personal funds is acceptable but not via corporation credit cards. Good accounting practices are essential. Distinguish between personal money and company money.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But why in heavens name is Hon trying to smear over and cover up a corrupt priest ???? Isn't pope Francis doing just the opposite?

    Maybe Savio has some corruption up his sleeve that he wants to cover as well?

    Maybe Savio was paid to 'redeem' Msgr, James??????????????

    Usually corrupt Vatican Officials are always involved with money.

    SCANDAL TO YOU HON!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear 10/01/16 @1:29AM--
      Perhaps he is choosing his battles. After all, since it appears as if everything was out in the open--as all the documents indicate--and there was "no malice intended", as it were. A judge would most likely just slap his wrists and warn him of the inpropriety, with a minor fine.
      I surmise there are bigger things he is battling and needs all his energies to focus on that.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 7:31 pm,

      I believe that the reason for bringing it to court is to show that Monsignor James is not all that cleared as Archbishop Hon made him out to be. The truth is he misused the funds. And even Tim Rohr agreed that it was used inappropriately. What makes it worse is Archbishop Hon covering up this simple fact in order to discredit Archbishop Apuron.

      Delete
    3. Diana, now Monsignor James will be in charge of patrimony of Archdiocese. What do you think?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 2:47 pm,

      This is the reason why the NCW is getting suspicious of Archbishop Hon. When Father Mike revealed through the media that Hon's first task was to remove Archbishop Hon, I had suspicions. It appears that he has some hatred toward Archbishop Apuron. The fact that he put Father Paul and Monsignor James at the cathedral is proof of that hatred.

      Delete
    5. @Anon. 2:47 pm, that position is going to be a temporary one depending on which comes first. If Archbishop Apuron returns, he won't be there long. Or if the AG decides there is enough evidence to pursue the case against Monsignor James, he won't be in that position as well. Hon can call the resolution invalid, but GPD and the AG are not in control by the church. When a complaint is made, they have an obligation to look into it.

      Delete
  16. So the cemetary folks were content not to report this for years until after mons' name is publicly cleared. I guess they didn't like Hon's decision and felt their own ideas were better. Pride? The first sin?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:10 pm,

      They were waiting for either the Archdiocese or Monsignor James to do the right thing.

      Delete
    2. Which is what Diana?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 2:39 pm,

      Either for Monsignor James to take responsibility for his actions or for the Archdiocese to take action. Archbishop Apuron did not need to wait for two years. After one year, the Church should have already taken action.

      Delete
    4. And how would Msgr. James take responsibility for his actions? What should have been the actions of the archdiocese if he failed to do so?

      Delete
  17. The Ghost of the Cemetery do hunts you. A check written to his God's son? SMH.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Diana,
    How do you feel about what the Cemetery Board did? I mean, it completely circumvented their boss, AB Hon. No matter what we feel about his actions, shouldn't we still respect that he is the boss? I'm disturbed that it seems as if they are going behind his back. While we await AB Apuron, AB Hon is our Apostolic Delegate assigned by Pope Francis and is due our full cooperation. This is all so disheartening. Please call for everyone to stop with the disrespectful words against him. Disagree and say why, but let's not be like the Jungle folks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So, is this the best you can do Diana?

    We hear now that the supposed suspect transaction by the Cemeteries Board, detailed in the complaint made by Jackie Terlaje, was actually approved by the Cemeteries Board at the time, that she fibbed in relation to the "unanimous" approval for the complaint, and that the current Board did not meet and did not satisfy the requirements of the bylaws of the organization in not meeting.

    So now, what? Are you going to stand by the author of the complaint? Are you going to stand by the substance of the complaint - even though it has all proved to be invalid, unethical and downright vindictive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:41 pm,

      I have always said that there are two sides to every story. So far, I only heard one side.

      Delete
    2. Wrong. You heard TWO stories, one was Jackie's and the other was the Archdiocese response.

      You crack me up.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, but we have heard both sides. We have heard Ms Terlaje's side in the written complaint she filed on behalf of the Cemeteries Board, and now we have heard the other side. What more do you want to hear?

      Are you so blinded by your loyalty that you cannot believe what was said at the press conference today? Do you think that all those in the chancery are lying about these important issues? Do you think that the previous Cemeteries Board members are lying too?

      Or is it more likely that vindictiveness has caused Ms Terlaje to make a serious mistake?

      Again, who else do you want to hear from in order to get "both sides"?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:54 pm,

      I have not heard Jackie's response to Father Jeff's press conference. Furthermore, after reading Archbishop's letter, I found that he contradicted himself. First, he said the RMS property belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana,no doubt about it. Now in his letter he speaks about returning the RMS property to the Archdiocese of Agana??? I am very suspicious of people who sing a different song and dance every now and then.

      Delete