Does this news have anything to do with Guam? Yes. You see.... the sexual abuse ad, which targeted Archbishop Apuron and published in the PDN by Tim Rohr and CCOG, was actually FIRST published by SNAP on November 8, 2015. It was Tim who gave the ad to SNAP to be published in the Bishop accountability website six months before he put it in the PDN.
After SNAP published the sexual abuse ad, Tim copied the ad he gave to SNAP onto his blog on November 10, 2015, which you can see in his Junglewatch blog here. Below is a screen shot of the junglewatch blog. Notice the dates SNAP and Tim had the sexual abuse ad posted against Archbishop Apuron:
With the help of Tim Rohr, SNAP targeted Archbishop Apuron by publishing the sex abuse ad first in November 8, 2015. Rohr and CCOG then placed their sex abuse ad six months later in May, 2016. We know that Tim was against the Archbishop because Father Paul and Monsignor James was removed. But why would SNAP be interested in accusing Archbishop Apuron? Could it be because as the news article pointed out: "In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church. These cases often settle, to the financial benefit of the attorneys and, at times, to the financial benefit of SNAP, which has received direct payments from survivors' settlements."
Will SNAP get any "kickbacks" from the Guam's lawsuit against the Archdiocese? They can because they were involved in publishing the sex abuse ad, which Tim Rohr provided for them. There is also evidence showing that Tim Rohr knew these alleged victims before November, 2015. Why? Because this is what Tim Rohr stated in his blog on August 19, 2015:
You can find the above statement here. Below is a screen shot of Rohr making that statement. Again, notice the date: