Friday, July 28, 2017

Some Interesting News

A couple of things have been brought to my attention:  

News #1: Tim Rohr claimed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction had a statutes of limitations.  According to Rohr:
LOL. It's called the statute of limitations which was due to expire on 11.22.16
Tim Rohr was actually the first one to start this rumor about a statutes of limitations on the Deed Restriction.  According to the Junglewatch blog dated October 7, 2016: 
This is the time left for Hon to file a complaint against RMS if the Archdiocese is ever going to see the return of the Yona property. At 12:AM on November 22, the statute of limitations (SOL) will expire on the claim on title to said property and the Archdiocese of Agana will be forever banned from making that claim.  
And what did Rohr use as his evidence to show that there is a statutes of limitation on the Deed Restriction?  He used the September 7, 2011 minutes of the Archdiocesan Finance Council.  Any intelligent person knows that the minutes of a meeting is simply a record of what was discussed at the meeting. Furthermore, did anyone read the minutes?  Nowhere in the minutes did it mention a 5 year statutes of limitations.  

One would think that the document of the Deed Restriction, which was established on November 22, 2011, would be used as the evidence.  But it was not. Nevertheless, even if it was used as evidence, nowhere in that document did it mention a 5 year statutes of limitation.  You can find the document of the Declaration of Deed Restriction here.

Most baffling of all is that none of the junglefolks questioned Rohr.  They simply gave up all their faculties of reason and relied on everything Tim said without even reading the documents themselves.  It appeared that even the media was brainwashed.  

Archbishop Hon may have also been convinced by Rohr that there was a statutes of limitations when in truth, there was none.  Then again, it may not have taken very much to convince him anyway, considering the fact that he did much to appease the jungle. This led to my suspicion that Archbishop Hon may have also convinced Archbishop Byrnes into thinking that there was a statutes of limitation. The Deed Restriction did not have any time limit on it.  There was no mention of a 5 year statutes of limitation on the November 22, 2011 document when it was established.  Archbishop Byrnes could have waited until he arrived on Guam, review the issues surrounding the Deed Restriction and decide how to approach it.  Because he rescinded it before his arrival, it appeared that pressure was applied on him to get it rescinded before November 22, 2016, which Rohr claimed was the deadline.  

Now, to the junglefolks, go back and ask Tim Rohr to show you where exactly did it say the Deed Restriction had a 5 year statutes of limitation, which would be November 22, 2016.  

News #2: Speaking of Archbishop Hon, I have just learned from some sources in Rome that Archbishop Hon got into an accident.  He fell in his bathroom and cracked one whole side of his ribs.  Prayers are needed for his recovery.  

News #3: According to the Guam Daily Post (the bold is mine):
Six people who were on the board of federally funded Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority, and the agency's executive director, face a combined 47 misdemeanor charges for allegedly holding secret meetings that violate the Open Government Law.
The misdemeanor charges include violation of the law that requires keeping meetings open to the public, as well as official misconduct and conspiracy.
"Illegal secret meetings (were) held to facilitate the award of $4.1 million in tax credits," according to one of the allegations stated by Chief Prosecutor Philip J. Tydingco in his declaration supporting the filing of charges. 
"The investigation revealed that the (board of commissioners) specifically David J. Sablan, Cecile B. Suda, Deanne Torre, John Ilao, Roland Selvidge and Rosie Blas, conspired, held secret meetings, decided GHURA business and made illegal votes outside of the public eye, in violation of various provisions of the Open Government Law," said the chief prosecutor. 
"Executive Director Michael Duenas shared in the conspiracy as a willing facilitator of the (board's) secret meetings and associated illegal conduct." 
 Yes, this is the same David Sablan, President of CCOG.  He was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly holding secret meetings, official misconduct, and conspiracy.  Oh my......conspiracy!!!  Well, now that Mr. Sablan is one of the accused......I wonder what he now thinks about the democratic principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"  This is the reason why you should not judge.  There will come a time, when you will be wearing the same shoes as the accused.  Do you think CCOG, LFM, and the rest of the Junglewatch Nation should label David Sablan guilty without due process of a trial?  


  1. Rather than restricting the use of the Yona property for one purpose, it would have been better to embed it more into diocese's functions. The building was large enough to house a convent, a school, a hospice, a cultural/ recreational center or anything else. Bringing any of these functions into Yona would have been an exhibition of good will of Archbishop Apuron. But this did not happen. The bigger part of the facility remained unused and abandoned.

    Smart sharing in the spirit of Christ would have prevented the sale of this beautiful real estate more than a piece of paper that excluded everybody but NCW from its benefits.

    1. Building a hospice, school, or recreational center can always come later. The priority at the time was to protect the Yona property from interested people who wanted to sell it to pay off the debts of the Archdiocese. The deed restriction that was put in place to do just that. It protected the intent of the donor and kept the property from being sold.

      Also, because the Archbishop of Agana or his successor was fully in charge, the deed restriction can either be rescinded or extend its use to other things. But at that time, the priority was to protect the property. Ask yourself, why all the misinformation from the jungle?

      Why accuse Archbishop Apuron for allowing a sex offender to work at the Dededo parish and show a document from the Guam Parile Board that does not have the Archbishop's name and signature. Why accuse Father Palblo or RMS of requesting a transfer of the property to RMS when no document actually exist? Why did Rohr change his story when he was caught? Why say the statutes of limitations for the Deed restriction exist and show the minutes of a meeting that does not mention any 5 year statutes of limitation?

      The jungle claimed that the property cannot be sold without Archbishop Apuron's signature; yet, they found a way to put the property up for sale without his signature.

    2. It's pretty obvious that Rohr is out to get AB Apuron no matter what. This is a personal vendetta for him. He says he's doing it for truth and justice, but where is the truth and justice when you use lies to take someone out?

    3. Seems to me that the real cult is the jungle that they don't allow anyone to think for themselves or ask questions.

    4. "Do you think CCOG, LFM, and the rest of the Junglewatch Nation should label David Sablan guilty without due process of a trial?"

      Yea. Give him a taste of his own medicine.

    5. Ouch David Sablan is dealing with the Feds.

    6. Diana @ 4:15 PM claims that "The priority at the time was to protect the Yona property from interested people who wanted to sell it to pay off the debts of the Archdiocese. The deed restriction that was put in place to do just that. It protected the intent of the donor and kept the property from being sold."

      But that is not what Giuseppe Gennarini said when he was on K57 with Patti Arroyo. My friends and I were listening together when we heard Mr. Gennarini say that the deed restriction was done to protect the property from potential lawsuits IF people would decide to sue the Archdiocese. We looked at each other and asked "What potential lawsuits is he talking about?" (Remember this interview happened several weeks before Roy Quintanilla came forward with his accusation against Archbishop Apuron AND several MONTHS before the passage and signing of Bill 326-33, so there were NO LAWSUITS in sight.)

      So now we have 2 people (Diana and Mr. Gennarini) with 2 different reasons for the Deed Restriction on the Yona Property. In July 2017 Diana tells us that the Deed Restriction was put in place to prevent the property from being sold to pay off debts (no mention of lawsuits) BUT back in April 2016 Mr. Gennarini told us that the Deed Restriction was done to protect the property from potential lawsuits brought against the Archdiocese.

      My friends and I are confused. Who is right? Diana or Mr. Gennarini???

    7. 4:42pm:

      “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

      But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,

      that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

      For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?

      And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?

      So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

      Mt 5:43-48

    8. Dear CTR,

      Exactly. Any lawsuit against the Archdiocese would endanger any assets of the Archdiocese has. To protect it from being sold, it would need a deed restriction. That is the only way to get the land sold without the Archbishop's signature.

    9. Diana, you say about the deed restriction: "because he [Byrnes] rescinded it before his arrival, it appeared that pressure was applied on him".

      Don't you think the deed restriction was an awfully selfish thing? The only pressure Archbishop Byrnes could have had on him was to correct an awful thing that happened in and with the Archdiocese of Agana as soon as possible.

    10. Dear CTR, I also quoted Gennarini to Diana, but she removed my comment. Why? What is wrong with Gennarini?

    11. Dear Anonymous at 8:07 am,

      I did not publish it because it had nothing to do with the OP and would only divert the conversation. The comment by CTR, on the other hand, is aligned with the OP.

    12. Dear Anonymous at 8:04 am,

      The former Archdiocesan Finance Council unanimously agreed that the Yona property was to be used to permanently house the RMS. According to the document dated September 6, 2002:

      "The Archdiocesan Finance Council unanimously supports and recommends the purchase for the $1.9 million for the note and mortgage from Tomen Corporation. This purchase will give the Archdiocese the sole right to acquire through foreclosure or any other legal means the property known as Hotel Accion; for the purpose of permanently housing the Redemptoris Mater Seminary."

      It was the NCW who helped found this property. The fact that you are jealous is not our problem. I am certain that given time, the property would be used for other means. but that is the Archbishop's decision to make, not yours.

    13. Dear Diana, I have to apologize if I made the impression that I want to decide what should be housed in the RMS building. I do not have the intention. My point is that other church function could have been housed in the RMS building, if there would have been a willing to share.

      Let me remind you that the language of the AFC you quoted is not exclusive in saying that the purpose was permanently housing the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. God willing, you may be able to house several function in the same building. That was my point.

      The fact that NCW helped to locate the building does not constitute an exclusive right to use the building for its own purpose. In reality, finding a good property is charity is a free will offer to your church. The archdiocese recognized the charity of the NCW toward the church. However, this recognition turned into questioning when the deed restriction was enacted in 2011.

      I assure you I am not jealous. Just imagine what could happen if there would be a hospice housed in the RMS building right now, utilizing the unused rooms and facilities of the RMS that are left empty and abandoned right now. Would it be possible to sell? I don't think so! You would never sell a building that houses a hospice!

      I hope you acknowledge my good intention.

    14. Dear Anonymous at 4:41 pm,

      That is the Archbishop's decision. For now, let us focus on dispelling the misinformation that the jungle has been spreading about the ownership of the property because that was the controversy surrounding RMS.

  2. I mentioned a while back about David Sablan and his role in GHURA.....
    Because of his history which was questionable corruption, his position in church matters is not trusted...its all about money...sorry to say.....

  3. Honesty is the best policy....
    Dishonesty is out the door....
    Should not be involved in church matters.

  4. I wonder if he is going to step down as President of CCOG until his name is cleared by the courts.

    1. Diana you yourself have said that CCOG only represents a HANDFUL of Catholics. Why in the world do you care about whether Mr. Sablan will step down as President of a SMALL GROUP? I think your energies can be better used in other areas instead of being petty.

      Your suggestion of having Sablan step down as president of this small group of lay people until his name is cleared sounds like you're putting Sablan on the same level as Archbishop Apron who was the shepherd of THOUSANDS of Catholics when he was accused and CCOG demanded that he step down until his name was cleared.
      The status and influence of the two individuals are not comparable. Please don't demean yourself by suggesting that they are.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 9:42 pm,

      On the contrary, the size of the group does not matter. I was simply wondering if he was going to practice what he preached now that he is on the other end of the stick.

    3. Could it be that David Sablan is following the example of Archbishop Apuron who didn't step down from his position as Archbishop when the accusations against him were first made by John Toves in 2014?

    4. Anon @ 9:42 and Just Wondering at 8:10pm,

      Shouldn't right action and right judgment be conducted at all times regardless of the scope of influence one has? Otherwise, what use is a conscience?

      According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
      Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50

      Diana seems to merely be stating publicly how she feels about the irony of the situation that the leader of CCOG, David Sablan, now finds himself in. It kinda comes off a bit spiteful in a "Ha ha look at you now! How does it feel now?!" kind of way, but we're all human. It's a completely human reaction. I can't really blame her for feeling that way, regardless of how distasteful it is to state it publicly.

    5. Dear Anonymous at 2:32 am, 

      I can see how it can be perceived that I was being spiteful. If I really wanted to be spiteful (and I know I can be), I would have a post on David Sablan alone. But I downplayed his situation by putting it together with other news.

      Nevertheless, the David Sablan news is worth mentioning. Why? Because there is a valuable lesson to be learned here, which is what I pointed out in the OP. I stated: 

      "This is the reason why you should not judge.  There will come a time, when you will be wearing the same shoes as the accused."

    6. Sometimes, people learn that lesson the hard way.

  5. Diana, there are interesting news published in Rorate Caeli. Bishop Athanasius Schneider criticizes the excesses of Vatican II:

    "Benedict XVI expresses his reservations regarding specific content in the documents Gaudium et spes and Nostra aetate. From the tenor of these words of Benedict XVI one can see that concrete defects in certain sections of the documents are not improvable by the “hermeneutics of the continuity.”

    The fully canonical presence of the SSPX in the life of the Church of our days could also help to create a general climate of constructive debate, in order that that, which was believed always, everywhere and by all Catholics for 2,000 years, would be believed in a more clear and in a more sure manner in our days as well, realizing thereby the true pastoral intention of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council."