I recognize tht Bill 326 has several legal and technical concerns. A major concern is over the bill's retroactive application of the civil statute of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. Whether such retrospect will pass constitutional muster is unclear. Also unclear is what tpe of actions or omissions constitute "child sexual abuse." For example, does the definition of "child sexual abuse in Bill 326 include child pornography for which, unlike other sex crimes against minors, there exists a three-year criminal statute of limitations? Additionally, how far does an individual or institution have to go (or not go) before being considered an "enabler" or an "aider or abettor" under Bill 326?Were these concerns ever addressed in the Guam Legislature? Did they discuss the retroactive application of the civil statute of limitations? Did they specifically define "child sexual abuse" as Governor Calvo pointed out? Did the Guam Legislature discuss how far does an individual or institution have to go before being considered an "enabler"?
I think that we can surmise that the 33rd Guam Legislature was in a hurry to get Bill 326 passed simply because it was election year, and they hoped that the passage of the bill would earn them more votes. JW, CCOG, LFM, and Silent No More, on the other hand, were also in such a hurry to get this bill passed and one has to wonder why? As a matter of fact, they were in such a hurry that according to Zoltan, Tim Rohr came up and stood behind him as he was giving his testimony in the public hearing. According to Zoltan:
It can be seen on the video recording of my testimony on Bill 326-33 at the August 1st public hearing that Tim Rohr, who was present at the hearing, stood up one point and approached my seat from behind in a threatening manner while I was reading my testimony. His intention of intimidation can be deduced. Chairman Aguon would have had the duty to ask Rohr to sit down and not make any threatening move toward the person who was making a public testimony. Chairman Aguon failed to do so.So, what are they afraid of that they have developed a climate of fear and intimidation in these public hearings and accuse anyone who oppose the bill as supporters of child abuse? Are they afraid that inconsistencies will later be found in their testimonies in both the media and public hearings? Now that the legal counsel of the Archdiocese have requested all information regarding Public Law 326-33, let us hope and pray that the law can be found inorganic.