Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Due Process Is A Right

The reason for having statutes of limitations is so that justice can take place.  There is no justice if anyone can bring a lawsuit from 50 years ago when the evidence and witnesses are long gone. It would be word against word.  It is also ludicrous to bring a lawsuit against the dead who cannot defend themselves. According to the Guam Daily Post:


Suspended Archbishop Anthony Apuron believes every citizen should be afforded due process and the right to defend against a cause of action that has long expired, according to court documents filed in four civil suits filed against the leader of Guam's Catholic Church.
In a motion filed by his attorney, Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, Apuron contends the District Court of Guam must dismiss the lawsuits filed against him and the Archdiocese of Agana because the victims' claims are time-barred and Public Law 33-187 is "inorganic and unconstitutional."
Apuron and his attorney maintain that the law that amended Guam's statute of limitations for child sexual abuse did not "retrospectively revive" the plaintiffs' time-barred and lapsed claims to file suit against him.
Terlaje wrote, "Every person who cannot defend him or herself due to the passage of time and loss of evidence suffers extreme hardship and oppression."
Allegations of sexual abuse
Plaintiffs Walter Denton, Roy Quintanilla, Roland Sondia and Doris Concepcion, on behalf of her late son, Joseph "Sonny" Quinata, filed lawsuits against Apuron and the archdiocese. The four alleged they were sexually abused by Apuron when they were young altar boys in the 1970s.
The plaintiffs' attorney, David Lujan, alleged that Apuron's motion to dismiss was being used to "scare" the plaintiffs into a quick and cheap settlement through mediation. Lujan accused the defendants of choosing to dodge responsibility by challenging the legality of the law that allowed sex abuse victims to sue for past abuse.
Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan of the District Court of Guam is scheduled to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss on Aug. 29.
Apuron has declined to participate in non-binding settlement discussions and has asked the court to act on his motion to dismiss. He is also awaiting a decision from a Vatican tribunal regarding his canonical trial for sexual abuse.
The parties in the other 73 child sex abuse cases have agreed to a stay of the cases to participate in mediation that will be held in Guam beginning Oct. 30.

30 comments:

  1. Most of brother Tony's accusers are still alive. They aren't dead. So how can brother tony not want to face ANY of his accusers if he's innocent of the allegations against him? Why run and hide if he's really innocent is my take on all this? Wouldn't you want to face your accuser if you were innocent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ummm, if brother tony is so innocent, why is he afraid to face any of his accusers who are still alive? Why hide and try to change his look? Doesn't look so innocent when he does these things. Also, if he really wanted his day in court then why not just go to court? Nothing hard about that if you wanna allow the truth to prevail.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 10:14 and 11:22 am,

      He is already going through court just as he said back in May 13, 2016. He requested for a canonical trial to clear his name.

      All you have is word against word. There is no substantial evidence. Even the witnesses are dead. Two accusers say they confided in Father Jack. Father Jack is dead, and there was no written report from Father Jack. One accuser claimed he saw Apuron in a sexual act with Father Antonio Cruz and an altar boy. Both Father Antonio and the altar boy are dead. Another accuser said her dying son confided in her that Apuron molested him. Her son is dead and no one else was in the room to hear the confession, not even a nurse or doctor. So, word against word. 

      Furthermore, the media and the jungle already branded him guilty BEFORE the trial even started. One then has to wonder why the jungle puts in such great effort in trying to convince the Vatican in defrocking him without due process If a trial. If they truly believe in his guilt, why not allow the trial to take place? Why put so much effort in taking away his "Due process" of trial? 

      This us why it is important to have a statutes of limitations. Having this kind of trial is a waste of time and taxpayers'money.

      Delete
    3. The canonical trial seems to be taking too long despite that it's in the last stage. Someone told me that this is most likely good news for AN Apuron. If the judges are taking a long time, it's because there is some doubt to the accusers' testimonies.

      Delete
    4. Due process is a constitutional right. It protects a person from false accusations. And in this case from defrauding the church.

      If a crime is committed the person should report it immediately and not wait for the statutes of limitations to expire.

      Delete
  2. Jungelwatch denied His Excellency due process for fair treatment as a citizens entitlement. Further to Junglewatch impossible for Archbishop to avail of fair treatment of law in Rome/civil courts. Caution delay safest path for Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AB Apuron needs to come back as archbishop of Agana. There's work that needs to be done. And AB Byrnes is too weak. He said he will listen to both sides, but he has ear only for one side. Apuron needs to return as our archbishop. He's the only archbishop strong enough to stand up for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree with you. AB Apuron is physically frail and will not be effective here in Guam. I agree, however, that AB Byrnes is one-sided.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 9:09 am,

      I think that Archbishop Apuron is a strong bishop despite his health issues. I agree that Archbishop Byrnes is one-sided. I find it ironic that he blames Archbishop Apuron for being one-sided when he is actually one-sided. The only two priests whom Archbishop Apuron removed was Father Paul and Monsignor James. He never did an overhaul of assignments the way Archbishops Hon and Byrnes did. Nevertheless, Archbishop Apuron still retains his title as "Archbishop of Agana". We continue to pray for him.

      Delete
    3. Hon is also one-sided, but I give him credit for a couple of things. Hon met with the NCW when Carmen Hernandez passed away. He did evening prayer with the NCW; however, I'm confused about his speech to us. Is it the acoustics? I didn't understand what he was trying to say. Byrnes never met with us. His interest appears the same as Hon. Appease JW even if it means to kill the NCW.

      I also give Hon credit for coming out and saying the RMS still belongs to the Archdiocese. Byrnes never came out and said that RMS was always under the Archdiocese. The removal of the deed restriction never changed that. His silence puts Apuron and the NCW in a bad light, considering that JW believed that it was Byrnes who took the seminary back under the Archdiocese. He did no such thing. The seminary had always been under the Archdiocese. It never left.

      Delete
    4. Yea, I agree. Hon and Byrnes are one-sided. They remove priests to please CCOG and JW. Byrnes might as well step down and give Rohr or David Sablan his hat and staff. Apuron removed Fr. Paul for disobedience and Mon. James for financial mismanagement. Everyone else stayed in their place. It was only Hon and Byrnes who moved priests around for no reason other than to please a hate group.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 11:24 am, 

      This whole controversy began with the removal of those two priests. We also need to include Archbishop Byrnes when we pray for our persecutors.

      Delete
    6. Diana, please tell us who is now head Catechist for Guam. We don't want Rohr version. You didn't say it, did you? Perhaps I missed it.

      Delete
    7. Father pius is but he is in Malta and is still thinking of us and is praying for us

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 12:21 pm, 

      The head catechist for Guam is still Father Pius. His name is still listed in the Archdiocese of Agana together with David and Maruxa. See the Archdiocese of Agana weblink below: 

      http://www.aganaarch.org/groups-ecclesial-realities-and-organizations/neocatechumenal-way/

      Itinerant Catechist team for Guam
      Rev. Fr. Pius Sammut, OCD, David & Maruxa Atienza and Mateusz Ratajczak

      Delete
    9. Diana look at what Tim said in his comment section for father pius being in Malta No worries. I'll fix it. The website is notoriously out of date. The fired four still had their names there until a few days ago even though they were all fired July 24. LOL

      Delete
    10. Dear God is one,

      And how is Rohr going to remove Father Pius as the head catechist of Guam without violating the approved statutes of the Way?

      Delete
    11. It is finished:

      http://www.aganaarch.org/groups-ecclesial-realities-and-organizations/neocatechumenal-way/

      Delete
    12. Dear Anonymous at 6:39 am,

      You only took out his NAME from the list. He is still the head catechist. Father Pius was never appointed by Archbishop Apuron or Archbishop Byrnes. You cannot remove what you never appointed in the first place.

      Delete
    13. We understood Archbishop Byrnes doesn't allow Fr Pius to function in this Archdiocese. Why do you say that he is lead when he left Guam? You are confusing us, Diana.

      Delete
    14. The statutes off the Way above what Local Ordinary says? Doubt it. Clarification, please.

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 9:01 am,

      Father Pius did not leave Guam. He was being humble.

      Delete
    16. If Pius is still the catechist, then the NCW leadership on Guam is lying to Archbishop Byrnes as they are representing differently.

      However, even though you claim Pius maintains his role as the lead catechist, the fact that his name was removed on the archdiocese site and his faculties were suspended on Guam by Archbishop Byrnes, this means that Pius is being disobedient to the Local Ordinary and has chosen to follow his own authority.

      No matter how you spin the story, he still loses.

      Delete
    17. Humble to the Coajutor? Why?

      Delete
    18. Dear Anonymous at 12:33 pm,

      How is the NCW lying when in the first place they never went around telling people that Father Pius is not the catechist? The one who has been doing that was the jungle. If there was a change in the itinerant catechist team, do you not think that the NCW would know about it? When Pat Cottmam was assigned to another team, the NCW was informed.

      Furthermore, Father Pius was already an itinerant catechist before he came to Guam. Archbishop Hon can tell Father Pius to leave Guam, and he responded with humility, but even Archbishop Hon cannot remove his title as the head catechist. All they did was remove a name from a website.

      Delete
    19. Sorry Diana, according to your "approved Statute, your NCW is at the SERVICE of the bishop:

      Art. 1. § 2. The Neocatechumenal Way is at the service of the bishop as one of the forms of diocesan implementation of Christian initiation and of ongoing education in faith.

      Delete
    20. Dear Anonymous at 3:34 pm,

      Read further into the statutes at how the itinerant catechist are appointed. Father Pius is still our catechist, and as catechist he humbled himself to follow Archbishop Hon who never had the authority to remove him as rector.

      Delete
  4. Rohr continues to discredit Church trial Cardinal Filoni Pope Francis. Justice for Archbishop through Pope Francis.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Diana I don't know if this is good news or not because pope Francis had sent out a magisterium order for all the church he said that Vatican reforms are irreversible I don't know if it's good news for us or bad news

    ReplyDelete
  6. Happy anniversary archbishop Anthony love you and miss you

    ReplyDelete