David Lujan, on the other hand, has made it clear that he is in it for the money. And even Tim Rohr agrees that David Lujan is only in it for the money According to Tim Rohr:
David Lujan will also not care at all because he knows he cannot collect against Apuron. But he knows he can collect millions against the Archdiocese of Agana, with all its assets in land, buildings(schools and churches), and other properties, the same assets that so many Catholics have contributed and help built these past decades. That is the prize David Lujan seeks, one that will pay him millions.Naturally, this explains why David Lujan is so insistent on seeing the assets of the Church. According to David Lujan: “I want to see everything the church has. I’m not going to go in there and the church is hiding what it has,”
However, I was surprised to hear what he stated to the Guam Daily Post. According to the Guam Daily Post:
With many clients in their 60s and 70s and several of them ill, Lujan said he believes his clients would want to get “something” for their families before they pass away.They want to get "something" for their families before they pass away????? What happened to justice for the victims? Did the clients of Mr. Lujan expressed this to him???? And why is the jungle not concern? They were the ones who pushed for the passage of this law. Are they not concern that these alleged victims have expressed to their lawyer that they want money to give to their families before passing away rather than justice? A client who expressed this to his lawyer should be a RED FLAG that he may not be a victim but is out to defraud the Church. Is the jungle not concern about this "red flag"? The news report further stated:
Did not the jungle say that they wanted Archbishop Apuron's case to go to court rather than settle out of court? I guess David Lujan is operating outside the jungle. Never mind the fact that it was Tim Rohr who chose David Lujan to represent Archbishop Apuron's accusers.Apuron’s efforts to dismiss four civil complaints of alleged sexual abuse have prompted Lujan to further question the motives of the Catholic Church.Of the 76 cases Lujan has filed on behalf of his clients, the defendants of 72 of the cases have agreed to mediation while Apuron has not agreed to participate pending the outcome of a canonical trial that is currently in the deliberation phase at the Vatican.Apuron has also filed a motion to dismiss the sex abuse lawsuits, alleging the law that allowed victims of sexual abuse to pursue legal action is “unconstitutional and inorganic” and the plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred, court documents state.Lujan believes the church is attempting to try to separate itself from Apuron’s motion to dismiss when the Archdiocese of Agana continues to pay his salary and legal fees.“I really believe this thing about Apuron is a scam by the church,” Lujan said.He questions why the church agreed to enter into settlement discussions in 72 cases and then “act as if Apuron is out there, operating on his own, acting like a maverick,” insisting on proceeding with his motions to dismiss the lawsuits.
I think its the other way around.. david lujan is the one who is scamming the church...you have a valid point Diana about david lujan that he admitted to media. He was all about the yona property from the get go. Wasn't it mentioned from the start that he had inrerest in the sale of yona property but dissapointed the owner sold it to the church for a seminary? All his actions are deceiving because wasn't he the same lawyer who scammed an innocent palauan boy of his inheritance from DHL? Very evil acts all for money.... using the media to focus and brainwash people and deter thinking about their motives. That was a wartime tactic "dropping letters to the people announcing false status of the war to motivate its people on the mission". Sad to say that tim r. is also a part of that sceme and now going to media about how bad snap is on their point of destroying our church on Guam. Is he now backing out of the support he sought from snap? What a shame...maybe afraid to go all the way? I am happy that their are carisms of the church that proceed forward to evangelize. I hope that they "don't shake the dust of their sandles" on our island home and move on because their are children on this island that deserve to know the love of Christ that the lfm, ccog, snm, timmy and dave lujan never figured out was for them too.....
ReplyDeleteSelling the soul to the devil...
How much?? 30 pieces of silver?
Who know the new judas.
SMH....
Dear Anonymous at 9:41 am,
DeleteYou are correct. According to KUAM news dated April 22, 2010:
"Guam - A California court may have thrown out a civil suit filed against him, but prominent local attorney David Lujan isn't out of the woods just yet. A new civil suit has been filed in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, alleging Lujan and others went out of their way to get more than what they were entitled to.
DHL heir Junior Larry Hillbroom isn't giving up on his claims that Lujan, his former lawyer, conspired with others to take tens of millions of dollars he received from his father's estate. In the latest complaint filed in the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, Hillbroom, who is represented by Saipan attorney Mark Hanson, is alleging legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy, and racketeering. Because a similar lawsuit filed in California against Lujan was dismissed, because the court lacked jurisdiction, Hillbroom is now taking the case to the CNMI, where he alleges many of the events in question occurred. "
http://www.kuam.com/story/12353849/dhl-heir-files-new-suit-against-david-lujan
Hmmmmm......interesting that the people Tim associates himself with (SNAP, David Sablan, David Lujan) have questionable characters and backgrounds.
DeleteWhat happened to inoccent till proven guilty?
ReplyDeleteDear Patrick,
DeleteIt is still there. This post raises the need for an investigation because the possibility exists that there may be some who are out to defraud the church. It is imperative that we determine who the real victims are. It is unfortunate that there are some people who are scammers. It only makes it more difficult for real victims of abuse.
Where is the concern that Lujan may be scamming his clients?
Delete....a righteous concern bit I think this article is really about Mr. Lujan, in the words that were actually generated for the above article Mr. Lujan is mentioned 7 times(victims 5). Perhaps thats how this article started for you but its not what your final message is,, a vast majorityof the content is about Mr. Lujan (I beleive this is 100% for the inserted content) look at anon 203pm above. His response and perspective (guilty) are derived from your post. ..so yeah think we need to revisit my first question
DeleteDear Patrick,
DeleteThe concern is connected to Mr. Lujan because he was recommended by the jungle. As for Anonymous 2:03, he/she stated that Mr. Lujan MAY be scamming his clients. By using the word "may" he/she is not branding him guilty, but making an allegation.
Dear Diana,
Delete'Because he was recommended by the jungle'......what does this have to do with the possibility of scammers? And yes anon 2:03 used the word 'may'....why are you choosing ONE word from their quote to define the gist of their statement which, when done again shows the 'spirit' of the commentators . Please be fair when you try to present your argument.
Dear Patrick,
DeleteWhen a person says he MAY be scamming his clients vs a person who says he scammed his clients, one of them has already made a judgment without giving due process. In other words, he has already made up his mind that he is guilty. The other is making an allegation, leaving it open that he/she may be in error.
Anonymous 10:39 pointed out that the jungle's association with SNAP, David Sablan, and David Lujan was interesting. He/She probably find it interesting because as the phrase goes "birds of the same feather usually flock together." I find it a coincidence that all three are involved in alleged conspiracy.
Dear Diana,
Deleteyou are doing it again, using the same methodology to advance your argument... instead of focusing on one word we are now focusing (only) on the statement itself acting as if it stands alone. Anon 2:03's comment is a retort to my post NOT some unbiased declaration of what may or may not be true in regards to the matter at hand. Again a call for fairness,,may as well invoke the attribute of honesty as well.
I'm your second paragraph you refer to anon 10:39's post to answer the question 'what does Mr. Lujan; being referred by the jungle; have to do with the possibility of scammers?'......'birds of a feather flock together? ????' I have spent some time now trying to come up with a tactful response....let's just leave it at the question has not been answered.
Diana, we have spent 3 days pursuing your false narrative I feel that it is starting to obscure/replace our original talking point so I would like to return to that by responding to your message asking for specifics of my second post. Which I will do in a few.
Dear Patrick,
DeleteEffective communication is more than looking at one word or one sentence. The first question you ask was "what happened to innocent until proven guilty? ". And you point to Anonymous 2:03, believing that he/she had already judged Mr. Lujan guilty. I pointed out your error by telling you that he/she used the word "may". You did not refute what I said, but instead questioned why I used that one word. Yet, you have nothing to show to support your mistaken belief that Anonymous 2:03 was making a judgment without due process of a trial. Rather, it is your argument that is going around in circles.
I am responding to.the spirit of the wording of your commentators,,including yours
ReplyDeleteDear Patrick,
DeleteCan you be more specific as to which wording you are referring to?
Asking questions is not an accusation. Diana asked some good questions. Why isn't JW concern that Lujan raise the issue that some of his clients want money to give to their families before they pass away? These folks know the church is willing to settle without any investigation so long as they drop their lawsuits. Are these folks looking for justice or money?
DeleteI guess people are still in shock there are people out there that simply do their jobs for money.
DeleteAnon @ 2:35 PM do you know for a fact that "the church is willing to settle without any investigation so long as they drop their lawsuits"???
DeleteI seriously doubt that our Church is that desperate to settle the lawsuits out of court.
For one thing it would be incredibly irresponsible of our Church to do as you suggest. At this time when our Church is doing its best to be as transparent as possible in all areas it would not be wise to settle "without investigation" as you claim.
Diana has said that it is possible that there are bogus accusations. I'm pretty sure she means the 4 against Archbishop Apuron and the female who claimed that she was abused by Fr. Louis Brouillard. While I agree with her about the female I strongly disagree about the accusations made against Apuron. (Actually whether or not I agree with her is not important.)
Another thing: I believe that Archbishop Byrnes is committed to help our Archdiocese heal and that he has directed everything should be done in the open with no more secret deals. My guess is that Archbishop Byrnes would not approve of the lawsuits being settled "without investigation."
Dear Anonymous at 11:13 am,
DeleteActually, there are a few more others I suspect may not be legitimate. The female is not the only one.
Anon @ 11:13, you heard what Byrnes said in the news. He said he's only here for the victims. He doesn't call them "alleged" victims.
DeleteYou're right Anon @ 12:04 Archbishop Byrnes called them "victims" instead of "alleged victims."
DeleteThere may be bogus claims among those who filed lawsuits but I believe that many of these victims are legitimate. I have heard some men joking about filing lawsuits just to jump on the bandwagon. But I also know 2 people who have suffered at the hands of clergy but refuse to file a lawsuit because their families will be embarrassed if they do.
To add the word "alleged" to their status as victims would be to victimize them again which is something Archbishop Byrnes doesn't want to do. I agree with Anon @ 11:13. There will be an investigation and the scammers will be weeded out. They can then be called out as "alleged victims." Until their accusations are proven to be lies, it is better to just call them victims like Archbishop Byrnes does.
If Apuron had raped me you better believe justice in my mind included getting money that's how the justice system works. How is he to compensate me for what he did to me? With Pugua and a Christmas Cd?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 4:01 pm,
DeleteActually, justice works when you let the perpetrator pay. In this case, innocent parishioners will be paying.
Diana I believe that their plot is being figured out because when Dave lujan talked about Jackie's small victory today how did Dave lujan react he said so what judge manibusan doesn't make the decision but judge tydingco gatewood does and then look at what the archdiocese said that if the archbishop is victorious in court for a dismissal how did they react they said it messes up their assets liquidation and I believe what was messed up was getting rid of the seminary because I believe that they know that the archbishop is coming back full facility and they are worried Becca they are trying to influence the canonical trial to get rid of the archbishop
ReplyDeleteDear God is one,
DeleteIf the court finds that the law is unconstitutional and inorganic, It will have an impact on the mediation. It will put a stop to all lawsuits against the Archdiocese. Also, no one can influence the canonical trial.