The donor's intent is protected by American law. According to Wikipedia:
On November, 2002, an anonymous donation of two million dollars was given explicitly and solely for the purchase of the Hotel Accion to house the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. That was the donor's intent, which is protected by law. It appears that the commission that is pushing for the sale of the properties for the Chancery is not taking into account the intention of the donor.In philanthropy, donor intent is the purpose, sometimes publicly expressed, for which a philanthropist intends a charitable gift or bequest. Donor intent is most often expressed in gift restrictions, terms, or agreements between a donor and donee, but it may also be expressed separately in the words, actions, beliefs, and giving practices of a philanthropist. Donor intent is protected in American law regarding charitable trusts, and trustees' primary fiduciary obligation is to carry out a donor's wishes.[1]Fidelity to donor intent is sometimes distinguished from grant compliance, and "donor intent" refers to the actions of a grantmaking entity and grant compliance refers to the actions of a grant recipient, but the term donor intent is commonly used to refer to both the guiding principles of a grantmaking entity and the purposes of a specific gift.[2]There have been many controversies, including litigation, over donor intent at private foundations, universities, and arts organizations.[3][4][5]
There are other non-essential properties that were donated by Guam families to the church. Do these properties also have donor's intent like RMS? If so, is the church aware of it? Selling RMS and any properties donated to the church with donor's intent could be a violation of the law.
ReplyDeleteEagerly waiting if litigation would begin.
DeleteWho is eligible to sue for donor's intent? RMS?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:29 am,
DeleteRather ask the question: Should the Archdiocese violate civil law? It was bad enough that the Catholic Church had covered the sex abuse by clergy in the past. If they continue to violate the law, then obviously they have not learned anything from the sex abuse scandal. Should the Church cover up financial mismanagement and the violations of civil law as well?
Diana, your presumption that the Archdiocese violates civil law is extremely biased. Please, raise the issue with Archbishop Byrnes! If you are right, he will listen to you.
DeleteViolation of civil law.
DeleteViolation of moral law not to follow intention of a donar.
Dear Anonymous at 11:02 am,
DeleteRight now, Archbishop Byrnes is surrounded by Rohr's group. The information was already forwarded to someone I know. Furthermore, the information is also placed here in my blog for the brothers in the community to spread the information.
Actually the donors request wasn't to house the RMS Seminary specifically BUT to be used as a seminary meaning any other catholic seminaries besides RMS COULD use the property. However you NEOs think it's just for the sole use of RMS. So please let's not twist the facts ok.
ReplyDeleteSo your saying that it was supposed to be used as a seminary like how we always it was to be used as a seminary so when archbishop Anthony put the deed of restriction on the seminary to protect it and honoring the donors request so it won't be a casino and to even help when the archbishop is gone like what happened last year when lfm went barging into the seminary
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:48 am,
DeleteOn the contrary. There is a document signed by the former Archdiocesan Council dated September 6, 2002, stating:
"The Archdiocesan Finance Council unanimously supports and recommends the purchase for $1.9 million for the note and mortgage from Tomen Corporation. This purchase will give the Archdiocese the sole right to acqure through foreclosure or any other legal means the property known as Hotel Accion, for the purpose of permanently housing the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary."
That document exists, which Tim Rohr hid from the public. However, Richard Untalan, Joe Rivera, and the rest of the former Archdiocesan Council are aware of that document, which they never mentioned to the public. That document was signed when Archbishop Apuron requested for a loan from the Bank of Guam.
Then on November, 2002 (two months after the former Archdiocesan Council unanimously signed that document) a donor from the United States donated 2 million dollars to Archbishop Apuron. The purpose of the donation was to house the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, which was the ONLY seminary on Guam at the time. The donation was used to pay off the Bank of Guam loan. The Bank of Guam loan is another document stating that the purpose of the loan was to acquire the Accion Hotel to be converted to a seminary.
When the former Archdiocesan Council drew up the papers for the purchase of the Accion Hotel on Sept. 6, 2002, the name "Redepmtoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary" was specially mentioned in that document. The donor who gave the $2 million was aware that the seminary was the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. You do not give $2 million, not knowing that it was going to be pay off a loan for the purchase of the Accion Hotel, which the Archdiocesan Finance Council unanimously approved to "permanently house the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary."
Dear God is one,
DeleteYes, Archbishop Apuron placed the deed restriction on the property for two reasons: 1) so that the intention of the donor would be protected and 2) to keep the property from being sold. Archbishop Apuron claimed that the former Archdiocesan Council later wanted to sell the seminary to pay the debts of the Archdiocese to which Archbishop Apuron responded, "Over my dead body."
Diana, the fraudulent handling of the donor's intent by NCW has been established. The donor denied your statements. It is your interpretation of the facts that you won't take to court for good reason.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:59 am,
DeleteThe donor never denied the statements. Archbishop Apuron was communicating with a Mother Stella Maris. There are emails between the Archbishop and Mother Stella. I have no idea who Tim Rohr got, but it was not Mother Stella Maris.
You had said the donor was dead. A dead person cannot deny anything. While facts are being distorted, your smoke screen is becoming more and more transparent.
DeleteFYI, email is not considered legally acceptable proof at court. Emails are easily forged.
Dear Anonymous at 11:11 am,
DeleteI never said that. The news media was the one who said that.
Diana, Rick Eusebio said that at his press conference last year that you have eagerly published. Thanks.
DeleteAnonymous at 11:17 AM is correct, Diana at 11:13 AM. I was watching Dr. Ric Eusebio's press conference when he said that the donor was dead. The media only reported what he said.
DeleteYou stated in your post "Dr. Eusebio Produced Evidence" that " This is my take on this whole thing. Archbishop Apuron was NEVER dealing with Mother Dawn. He communicated with a Mother Stella Maris, who is currently deceased. The emails that Dr. Eusebio produced showed that the Carmelite nuns in Missouri DID know that the money was for a Redemptoris Mater Seminary. Now THAT is what Tim Rohr and Mother Dawn did not know. Tim Rohr got the wrong nun, which would explained why she was unaware of the name of the Seminary. She simply did not have the full information." You yourself said that the nun was deceased based on what Dr. Eusebio said.
Source: http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2016/11/dr-eusebio-produced-evidence.html
Dear Anonymous at 12:53 pm,
DeletePlease do not twist what I wrote. This is what I FIRST stated:
"According to KUAM news (the bold is mine):
Former member of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary's board of directors hasdisputed the claims of a Carmelite nun who said Archbishop Anthhony Apuron asked them to lie about a $2 million gift to buy the seminary.
Dr. Ric Eusebio says Mother Superior Dawn Marie may have been misinformed when she said Archbishop Apuron asked them to confirm that the Carmelites knew the money would go specifically to a seminary for the Neocatechumenal Way. Dr. Eusebio produced email, which he says shows Mother Stella Maris, now diseased, did know from the start."
Therefore, I was going by what the news reported stated. Why did you think I made it clear in my post when I wrote, "ACCORDING TO KUAM NEWS." What I stated in bold was what KUAM news reported? By any chance, are you Tim Rohr? Only someone like Tim can take words out of context.
The point in the OP is not about Mother Stella. That's only a distraction from the real point Diana is making. There is a law that protects the intentions of the donor. The seminary isn't the only property that has a donor intent. Some properties were donated to the Archdiocese by familes on Guam. Does the Archdiocese intend to follow the civil law or not? Because if they don't, there's a possibility that some of these families can sue the Archdiocese.
DeleteThe point is the donor's intent was seemed to be violated by Apuron and Sammut when they restricted all benefits of the donation for the purposes of NCW. I challenge you that you guys will never ever sue on this because there are good chances the truth would not be found on your side!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:40 pm,
DeleteThat is only a rumor passed by the jungle. There was no restrictions to benefit the NCW because the RMS priests were for the Archdiocese and the Catholic Church. These priests were never restricted to serve only the NCW. The evidence is before your eyes. These priests serve the parishes in the Archdiocese.
Dear Diana, Archbishops Hon and Byrnes carried out the instruction of the Holy See to restore church patrimony without litigation. The deed restriction on the RMS property had to be removed. Church patrimony had to be restored because of the restrictions Apuron and Sammut placed on the benefits of the property.
DeletePlease, do not entrap yourself into a one-sided mantra that fails the most basic facts. Vatican looked through the situation and found it deplorable. Archbishops Hon and Byrnes tried to salvage Apuron and the NCW from even larger damage and an ultimate fiasco.
Dear Anonymous at 11:11 am,
DeleteYou stated that emails are not accepted in court because it can be forged. Well, it can be shown if the emails were forged. And even if the emails were not accepted, there are witnesses.
For example, two people were present with Archbishop Apuron at the meetings with the Japanese business men who negotiated the sale price of the Hotel Accion at a considerable loss for two million, when they were already being offered much more for the sale. They chose to sell at such a cheap price as a gift to the people of Guam since they believed that a seminary would be of much benefit not only to Guam but to all the Pacific islands.
Dear Anonymous at 5:29 pm,
DeleteThe document that was signed by the former Archdiocesan Council on Sept. 6, 2002 clearly stated that they unanimously approved the purchase of the Accion Hotel to PERMANENTLY house the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.
The Jungle lied to Archbishop Hon and Archbishop Byrnes because they misled them and the people into believing that the seminary belonged to the NCW. The fact that Archbishop Byrnes was able to rescind the deed restriction and disband the two boards of RMS is the PROOF of what we have been saying all along. For four years, we have been saying that ONLY Archbishop Apuron and his successor have full control of the seminary, and with one stroke of a pen, Archbishop Byrnes proved that we were telling the truth.
Anon. 5:45 pm, Tim tricked Hon and Byrnes. The person Mother Dawn spoke to was NOT the person AB Apuron spoke to about the $2 million dollars. The correspondence over the $2 million dollars and the RMS seminary was between AB Apuron and Mother Stella Maris. Mother Dawn was never in the picture. There was no correspondence between AB Apuron and Mother Dawn or whoever the person is she was referring to.
DeleteThe emails between AB Apuron and Mother Stella regarding the donation and the seminary was shown and published by KUAM. I don't know why Mother Dawn gave out false information. Maybe she was angry at the NCW for sending local girls to the Carmelite monastery in New Jersey rather than Guam and wanted to get back at the NCW.
Dear Anonymous at 6:00 pm,
DeleteThat is correct. The former Board of Directors of RMS has the email correspondence between Archbishop Apuron and Mother Stella on the $2 million donation and seminary.
What does Rohr have? He had the word of an obviously angry Mother Dawn claiming that she was the one who gave the $2 million, but no evidence of any correspondence between her and the Archbishop. Tim Rohr had the WRONG nun.
Yep. And on top of that, when Mother Dawn and her sister Carmelite left island, guess who became the real estate agent for selling the Carmelite convent? None other than Tim Rohr himself. Looks like Mother Dawn was just another one of Rohr's connections.
DeleteDiana, it is not sufficient to talk about an alleged document. Please, produce it. If you don't produce it, the impression remains that no document exists.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:20 pm,
DeleteAsk Richard Untalan about it because I do not have permission to publish it. In order to get the loan from the Bank of Guam requires the input of the Archdiocesan Council. The document exists and is dated September 6, 2002.
Mother Dawn Marie seems quite calm in on tv. She did not say she had 2 million bucks. You said she said that.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/9oZuyURToOs
See for yourself. Mother was very kind to the Seminary.
Dear Anonymous at 6:30 pm,
DeleteOn November 14, 2016, Mother Dawn made the following statement to the media, which you can also find in Rohr's blog:
"So for all the writing and who is this shadow person, and even some of the documents that Fr. Pius had written said that "he is the donor," and "he is still alive, " and "he may cause a law suit," THERE WAS NO "HE!" It was a SHE and it was ME. So, the truth of where the money came from - it's as easy as that."
Donor's intent in the case of donation to purchase Accion Hotel cannot be established clearly. The court of law cannot decide this. There is no official document of stating clear intent in relation to the NCW. Restricting the benefit to NCW was probably hidden from the donor. If the donation was to the Catholic Church then why was Pious Sammut involved? Only the donor's written testimony can establish truth.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:06 am,
DeleteSee my comment above at 10:36 am. It can easily be established in a court of law because at that time in 2002, there was ONLY ONE Seminary in existence in 2002. The John Paul II seminary did not exist at that time.
So please, go ahead and sue. If "it can easily be established in a court of law", then you win! Are you afraid? Of what?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:34 pm,
DeleteI am not the one to sue because I did not donate any property to the Archdiocese. The families and donor who donated the properties will be the ones to take it to court if their wishes are not honored. That is their option because the law protects the donors' intent.
The facts of financial mismanagement came out slowly, little-by-little, when Apuron abandoned all pretense and openly started to channel church monies to fund RMS business. Local parishioners' pew collections were used to fund the education of foreign seminarians who had never had any intention to be incardinated on Guam or in Oceania.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:46 am,
DeleteBoth the Archdiocese and the RM Seminary can show that a large majority of the funds that funded the operational cost of the seminary came from the Neocatechumenal Way communities rather than the Archdiocese. Even Rohr has admitted that the NCW is capable of funding the missionary families and the evangelization of the itinerants, which is something Rohr did not like. Why do you think he always gripes about the trash bags?
"... the RM Seminary can show that ..."
DeleteThen why don't you go ahead and show it? It was published and is publicly available that the archdiocese's budget allocated an inordinate amount of money for RMS under Apuron in the past.
Diana, it is very easy to settle. Please, produce the documents.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:06 am,
DeleteIt was published, but you did not believe. Rohr came out and called the NCW and the RM Seminary "liars" after the information was published in the media.
The NCW also said that the purpose of purchasing the Accion Hotel was to house the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, but again.....Rohr called the NCW "liars" and never showed you the document signed by the former Archdiocesan Finance Council that specifically stated that the purchase of the Accion Hotel was to "permanently house the Redemptors Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary."
@Anon. 11:19 am, why not ask Timmy or Richard Untalan for the documents since you obviously believe them more. Whenever Archbishop Apuron shows you documents, he was always called a "liar" and Timmy would come out and twist the documents around. But this time, read the document yourself instead of relying on Timmy's interpretation.
DeleteDiana already showed evidence of how Timmy twists the documents around. He tells you that AB Apuron approved of having a sex offender work at the Dededo parish, and then he shows you a document that doesn't have the archbishop's name and signature on it as his evidence. That's how Timmy works.
Diana, it is well established that Mother Stella Maris is not dead. Please stop saying that.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:27 am,
DeleteIf she is not dead, then all the better. She will know that her intention of the property were not kept. It is up to her if she wants to file a lawsuit over it. $2 million dollars is a lot of money to give away only to find that her wishes were not honored.
The donor and the people of God in agana were falsely led by Apuron that it was for Archdiocese. Remember??? Not A NEO FACILITY
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:35 am,
DeleteThe RMS is for the Archdiocese. Remember???? There are priests like Father Alberto, Father Julius, and Father Kryzstof serving in the parishes of the Archdiocese performing daily masses, baptisms, weddings, funerals and performing many other pastoral duties. Again, these are information Rohr kept from you.
Diana, are there other properties under the Archdiocese that have a Donor's intent other than RMS?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:41 pm,
DeleteYes. Some of the properties were donated to the Archdiocese by some of the families in Guam. If I am not mistaken, a property in Barrigada is one of them. The families who donated the property can sue the Archdiocese if their wishes are not honored. That is up to them. Since Mother Stella is still alive, she can also sue the Archdiocese if she wants.
You think nun can sue? I don't think so.
DeleteDiana, you mention three priests. Were are the rest of rms priest? Mr Tim did not hide. We know things ourself without him.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:50 pm,
DeleteOf course a nun can sue. See the weblink below:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39501530
A nun sued the Catholic Church after she was raped and became pregnant as a result of the rape. The Catholic Church let her go because of a pregnancy that was not her fault.
Other nuns have also sued Disney because they claimed that Disney stole "Sister Act" from them.
And you think a nun cannot sue just because she is a nun? Today, priests who are falsely accused are now coming out and suing their accusers for defamation. Father Jiang is an example. There are others like him.
Dear Anonymous at 4:52 pm,
DeleteDo you not know that the Catholic Church is a missionary Church. Ask yourself why the Filipino priests are here and not in their own Archdiocese in the Philippines.
It's possible they can sue because it involved a lot of money. 2 million dollars is a lot of money.
DeleteMother Dawn Marie said they will not sue. https://youtu.be/9oZuyURToOs
DeleteDear Anonymous at 6:42 pm,
DeleteThat had nothing to do with selling the seminary.
We visited with Mother Prioress after Mass with Archbishop Byrnes in Pigo. She said she is praying for those who are not willing the truth.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAlways follow intention of the donar. Unfortunately, basic premise rarely followed.
Only those should pay who committed the sexual abuse charges. Who did this heinous act to put down our Catholic Church?
DeleteDiana, things are getting off-topic. This isn't about Mother Dawn or Mother Stella. This is about the donor's intent. I believe both sides can agree that the donor's intent was to establish a seminary with the 2 million dollars. There is no disagreement there. It's also possible that other non-essential lands donated by some of the families on Guam were donated with an intent behind it. That's the OP. So, what is the Archdiocese going to do about this? Do they intend to ignore the law that protects the intent of the donors?
ReplyDeleteDear anon, you are relentless in trying to make trouble to the diocese. FYI, there is no lawsuit if there is nobody to file it! Period. So please, honor the leadership of Archbishop Byrnes in church matters and obey his commands.
DeleteIf the Yona property would have been handled properly, we would not have these issues right now. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We DO have an issue because of greed and land grab by a few who felt entitled to channel the fountains of benefits to their own garden.
As about the human side of the story, nobody will sue the archdiocese because nobody wants to add insult to injury to a suffering local church that already faces a flood of sexual abuse lawsuits.
If the NCW decides to take another path, then everyone will see the truth prevail.
Dear Anonymous at 8:06 pm, nobody really cares about your harrowing obsession with sticking to an artificial "OP". An OP is just an opinion piece put forward by someone who happens to manage a blog.
DeleteTake courage and face the real music, my friend. The things of the past are rightly catching up on the NCW. I'll pray for you that you accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit in righting the wrongs without murmur and back stab. Your communities need to grow up and, in order to survive, take responsibility for past failures.
Dear Anonymous at 8:38 pm,
DeleteArchbishop Byrnes is surrounded by Rohr's group. Did any of them advise him about the Donor's intent???? Because he is our Archbishop, do you not think he should be fully aware of the law protecting the donor's intent so that he and the Archdiocese would be protected? Despite that you think there may not be a lawsuit, that is not a 100% guarantee, which is the reason why following the law is always the better option. AFter all, did not the Catholic Church learn anything from its mistake on how it handled the sex abuse case?
Dear Anonymous at 8:47 pm,
Actually, Anonymous 8:06 is correct and you are in the wrong. The reason for the OP is so that people would say on topic. Can you prove me wrong by showing me that there is no law protecting the donor's intent? Or are you going to simply take for granted that there will be no lawsuit from any of the donors. Have you no principle?
Dear Diana, i have the principle to talk about real things and not about fantasies.
DeleteArchbishop Byrnes is the vicar of Christ on Guam. He is making up his own mind. He does not need your or anybody else's assistance. He only listens to those who tell him the truth, only the truth and the full truth.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:31 pm,
DeleteIf he is a person who can make up his own mind, why would he need to listen to people who apparently did not tell him about the donor's intent? Also, Archbishop Byrnes would do better to listen to Christ through discernment.
Dear Anonymous at 9:28 pm,
DeleteAre you saying that the law protecting the donor's intent is a fantasy????
Your fantasy is that these frivolous lawsuits could stop the settlement process. Archbishop Byrnes is in dire need of huge amounts of cash money to give it to the sexual abuse victims. It is a must for him and a must for the Catholic Church. This comes first before anything else.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 7:12 pm,
DeleteThe only way to put an end to all the lawsuits is to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
ReplyDeleteYes there are other properties that the Church is selling without respecting the donor’s intent. Canon law has been suspended in Guam. I know of at least two properties and the families concerned are irate. Where money is concerned… the Church forgets its obligations. Sad. Sad. Sad.
Who is responsible for the sexual abuses? Is it folks who donated freely to the church? By no means! You cannot make the donors to pay for the settlement costs! The donors are not responsible. Keep the donation intact and free of settlement.
DeleteThis Law savvy CCOG shot themselves on a foot.LOL
ReplyDeleteThe true colors of the jungle blog are starting to show. They blame the NCW for not respecting the wishes of the donor; yet, they're the ones who want to sell the properties without any regard of the donors. When the church turns to rubble after everything is sold, what families in Guam would be willing to donate their properties to the church after the church disregarded their donor intent? This came from JW:
ReplyDeleteTimJuly 23, 2017 at 5:43 AM
Most if all of the material assets "owned" by the Archdiocese of Agana have their origin somewhere in a gift. But none of that matters. The Archdiocese is being FORCED to sell these properties to settle the sex abuse cases that the neocat regime of Apuron, Quitugua, and Adrian long since knew about but tried to hide. If the Archdiocese does not sell the properties, the court will take over and sell them for the archdiocese. Gennarini foresaw this which is why he set up RMS as he did and got Apuron to convey title to the Yona property to his control in 2011.
The families who donated the properties are most likely better off with the courts. At least in the courts, they will not disregard the civil law that protects their donor intents.
Dear Anonymous at 8:16 am,
DeleteThank you for your comment. I will write a post on this soon.
IMO original dolor amount should be returned to families first. Profit to courts.
DeleteNot everybody is realizing that the donation came through the hands of a person, the donor, but in fact it was a gift from God. The donor donated it because she felt the blessing of God and wanted to return it its rightful place, the church for the RMS. It is documented.
DeleteHow should we receive the gift from God then? With gratitude and humility. It must be with gratitude and humility to realize how much God loves us by giving us the wonderful gift of a seminary. Would not you be humble before your God? Would not you thank Him for the abundant gift? I hope and I pray for you that you would!
Selling the RMS for money is not humbleness, not gratitude and not humility before God! We have to correct the archdiocese's Financial Council and tell them not to sell our seminary. We have to tell them to respect God and accept His wonderful gift, His wonderful care for the priestly education of Guam for the eternity.
Yeah even pope Francis says it well he said it's not about money in his angelus address last week Sunday but to trust in god
DeleteA gift from God? Really? Hmmmm... With a deed restriction?
DeleteDiana did you correct the mistake about mother Stella maris because a anonymous poster on Tim's blog put on your mistake about her being alive
ReplyDeleteDear God is one,
DeleteI do not know if Mother Stella is alive or not. Last year, I only went by what the media reported. The media reported that she was deceased, so that is what I went by. The Jungle claimed that she is alive; yet, they have not taken any statements from her. The only person the jungle is putting in the frontline is Mother Dawn who just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Mother Dawn claimed that she was the one who negotiated the 2 million dollars that was given to Archbishop Apuron, but she has no documents to corroborate or support her testimony.
The former Board of Directors of RMS, on the other hand, have email correspondences between Archbishop Apuron and Mother Stella regarding the 2 million dollars negotiation. They have never heard of Mother Dawn. Tim Rohr got the WRONG nun.
There was an interview with Mother Dawn Marie on K57 with Patty Arroyo where she stated that Mother Stella was very much alive. Although, the recording of the interview with that statement is no longer on the K57/Pafific News Center website.
DeleteDiana, why do you only post comments which serve your story line?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 3:00 pm,
DeleteI do not publish comments that are insulting, obnoxious, or vulgar. I understand that sometimes the discussions can get heated, but one needs to control his/her temper. I also prefer that we try to stay on topic with the OP.
3:00pm: It's her blog, and she can choose what she wants people to read and discuss or not.
DeleteNot to boast but there is more comments here than the junk jungle. Tim posted three vice one.
ReplyDeleteIt seems this bother's him more of this op.