Blog Song

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

So Far Only One Alleged Victim

An anonymous commenter made the following statement, which can be found here:

Diana. This came from JW:

NOTE FROM CNMI LAWYER

CNMI LawyerMay 31, 2016 at 9:33 AM

The decedent’s statement is admissible hearsay.

When molestation survivor Joseph A. Quinata made his statement to his mother Doris Concepcion about what happened to him at age 11, he expressly did so because he was about to undergo surgery for a perforated intestine, with only a 30% likelihood of survival, and did in fact pass away shortly thereafter.

Under the law, statements made under the belief of imminent death about the cause of death, such as “He shot me,” are an exception to the normal rule excluding hearsay testimony from court proceedings. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2).

Statements in the face of imminent death about other matters are also admissible under the Residual Exception, where “the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1).

This is significant because it greatly increases the likelihood of admissibility of Joseph A. Quinata’s statement in any civil or criminal case where it may be relevant.

The hearsay statements of other survivors who are now unavailable (whether through death or an unwillingness to relive the psychological trauma) may very well also be admissible under the Residual Exception, based upon independent indicia of reliability.

But because Joseph A. Quinata’s statement was made under the belief of imminent death, it is quite literally a nail in the coffin of the clerical careers of Guam NCW Cult leaders Archbishop Apuron, Father Sammut, Father Cristobal, et al.

St. Thomas Aquinas posited at least four possible reasons for human suffering, as when a loved one passes away. (1) Free will. (2) Imperfect knowledge. (3) Good from evil. (4) Redemptive suffering -- in union with Christ.

The grief and sorrow experienced by his family upon the death of Joseph A. Quinata may indeed lead directly and proximately to a great spiritual good (# 3), the dissolution of the Guam NCW Cult Leadership.

They should step aside temporarily before they are removed permanently. Let us pray that their counsel gives sound legal advice.

May the faithful of the Archdiocese be strengthened to stand up and speak out for what is right, and to support those in our midst who have suffered and continue to suffer from this criminal conspiracy.

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!

This is my response:

First of all, the Federal Residual Exception is rarely used.  According to Birdsong's Law Blog:
 It was intended that the residual exceptions would be used sparingly by the courts and only in rare and exceptional circumstances.9  The Advisory Committee cautioned that the residual exceptions “do not contemplate an unfettered exercise of judicial discretion, but they do provide for treating new and presently unanticipated situations which demonstrate trustworthiness within the spirit of the specifically stated exceptions”10
Secondly, in my country, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  And the accusations are called "allegations."  The judicial system of Guam and the United States was established to protect a person's rights especially the rights of the accused so he/she can get a fair trial.  This does not mean that the person accusing is telling a lie. 

Recently, I posted a story about Cardinal Bernardin and Cardinal Pell.  Bernardin was also accused of sexual molestation in the 1970s by Stephen Cook.  However, this does not mean that he was lying. Cook later dropped the charges.  Cook later said that he had relied on people who told him things that were not true, "asserting that he is absolutely convinced of Bernardin's innocent.

Although the statutes of limitation prevents Mr. Quintanilla from bringing the Archbishop to court, it does not prevent the Archbishop from bringing Quintanilla to court.  For the past three years, we already know that the jungle has been desperately trying to remove Archbishop Apuron.  This was not the first time the Archbishop was accused of sexual molestation.   These are things that has happened so far: 

  1. The first charge of sexual molestation came from John Toves in November, 2014.  John Toves was not molested, but he claimed that his cousin was sexually molested by Archbishop Apuron.  He spoke on behalf of his cousin whom he had never spoken to for several years.  And he heard of the sexual molestation of his cousin from other people. John Toves is known to be a good friend of Father Paul who even walked with him to the chancery and who was with him at the cathedral.  What does John Toves want?  He wants Father Paul and Monsignor James to be reinstated, and he wants the Archbishop to step down.  Although his relative never came forward, John called on other victims to step forward.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said that he did not sexually molest John's cousin.
  2. Then on May 17, 2016, Roy Quintanilla came into the limelight of the media's cameras claiming that he was sexually abused by Archbishop Apuron.  His lawyer, who happened to be a relative of Monsignor James, was there representing him.  His reason for finally coming out after 40 years was because he learned that he was not the only victim, and has called out to other victims to step forward.  And what does Mr. Quintanilla want?  He wants the Archbishop to apologize to him and to step down.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said he did not sexually molest him.
  3. Now today, a dead person from the grave comes out to claim that he was sexually molested by the Archbishop.  Of course, the dead person cannot speak for himself.  His mother spoke on behalf of him.  Doris Concepcion is also a very close friend to the family of Roy Quintanilla.  And what does she want?  She wants the Archbishop to admit the truth and do what is best for the people of Guam.  The Archbishop, on the other hand, said he did not sexually molest her son. 
So far, only ONE person has come out claiming sexual abuse.  John's cousin did not come out and neither did Joseph Quinata.  Only Roy Quintanilla came out.  The reason he came out was because he now understands that he is not the only victim and even continues to call for other victims to step forward.  Forty years ago, Mr. Quintanilla thought that he was the only one.  Today, he says that he is not the only victim.  However, he is the only alleged victim who came out. 

35 comments:

  1. Cardinal Pell stepped aside as Archbishop when a single person accused him, to allow for an independent investigation (ie an investigation in which he had no authority). The Archbishop should do the same. The idea that he retains authority over an investigation to which he is subject is at the least distasteful, and more probably, corruption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:39 pm,

      Stepping aside or stepping down is exactly what the jungle wants him to do. He is the Archbishop. He will know best what to do.

      Delete
    2. But Diana you said that Cardinal Pell set a precedent for what is happening here on Guam. Doesn't it make sense that the Archbishop do what the Cardinal did and step aside until the investigation clears his name? That's not a permanent move. It will just be long enough to give the process a chance to clear the Archbishop's name once and for all. Then the jungle will be quiet.

      Delete
    3. And the best way for the investigation to progress is for AAA to step down. Delikadesa is the word.

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 3:13 pm,

      The Archbishop,was not the first one to be accused of sexual molestation. There were other bishops before him accused of the same crime.

      Delete
    5. Diana, you said that the archbishop was not the first to be accused of sexual molestation. Are you saying that other local bishops were also accused of sexual molestation???

      Delete
    6. Dear Anonymous at 12:28 pm,

      I was speaking in terms of worldwide rather than locally.

      Delete
  2. That's true. Before Roy, no other victim came out. So, who gave Roy the courage to come out? Didn't Roy say that he knows of 2 other people who were abused by Apuron? Obviously, whoever those 2 are, it can't be Joseph Quinata cuz he's been dead for 11 years. It can't be John's cousin too. If John hadn't spoken to his cousin in God knows how many years, why would he speak to Roy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid of copycat 'victims' coming out from the grave. These would further cloud the truth.

      Delete
    2. What seems ironic is why wait 11 years to say something or report the incedent? Im a parent...and if an accusation like that came to my attention about my child... I would have reported it a.s.a.p. to protect my child. Not wait... its my duty as a parent to protect my child. All these accusations come out at a time when certain groups have an agenda to remove the archbishop just because all else failed to do so regarding the seminary and the NCW....
      Hmmmmm..... very fishy here.....

      Delete
    3. Why would she not come out? Because she knew you, the archdiosees, and all on this blog would bash her and the others who came out. Just as you are now W/out a fair investigation.

      Delete
    4. @9:06 am. I agree with Anon. 10:25 pm. The mother said after learning about the sexual molestation from her dying son, she felt bad forcing her son to go with Apuron when he was a child. When she learned that 11 years ago, that would have been her opportunity to make up to her son, not 11 years later. I'm a mother, and if my boy confided in me that he was sexually molested, I would damn well do something and not wait 11 years.

      Delete
    5. @937 People are different, I'm a parent of 4. She gave her reason for coming out. Do youhonestly believe her ccrying was fake, or planned by Tim? Your comment shows your bias, as noone other than those involved know the truth. You question the mother's motive but fail or donot seem to question archdiosees lack of action pertaining to the investigation or communicating w potential victims.

      Delete
  3. Diana said "Although the statutes of limitation prevents Mr. Quintanilla from bringing the Archbishop to court, it does not prevent the Archbishop from bringing Quintanilla to court."
    The thing is Mr. Quintanilla said he had no intention of bringing the Archbishop to court BUT the Archbishop clearly said that he plans to sue those who are lying AND he said that Quintanilla is lying.
    So we just have to wait for the Archbishop to file his lawsuit. Right, Diana? We just have to be patient because that's what will happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:09 pm,

      The Archbishop never said that Mr. Quintanilla was lying. That statement originally came from Tim Rohr and Quintanilla copied what Rohr said. The Archbishop said that he did not molest Quintanilla or anyone.

      Delete
    2. Diana, when AAA made that statement, isn't that the same as saying Roy is a liar?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 7:58 am,

      There is a difference between the person and the behavior. What the person says and does is the behavior. The Archbishop denied the allegations (statements made by Roy) as being false. He did not deny Roy, the person.

      Delete
  4. Diana, did you watch and listen to Doris Concepcion? How can she fake such agony?

    ReplyDelete

  5. One guy gathering up victims.
    He goes all over usa looking for victims. who pays for all this?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been walking for about 14 years. I have gained so much, spiritually, learned so much, accepted, and most importantly to me... I know the Lord loves me.

    I am distressed, deeply distressed over the situation with the Archbishop. When people talk about the Archbishop he is immediately tied in with the Neocatechumenal Way and vice versa. The Archbishop may be walking in community but his is not the Neocatechumenal Way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like Diana said - only one victim has come forward so everything is okay.

    ReplyDelete
  8. See...you didn't post my response about you twisting this story. The dead is not alleging. It's a mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:13 am,

      We already know that the mother claimed it came from her dying son, who was dead 11 years ago.

      Delete
  9. Diana, the title of this post is So Far Only One Alleged Victim and you also write that "So far, only ONE person has come out claiming sexual abuse."

    As a mother, don't you think that ONE victim is enough? What if that ONE victim was YOUR child? Would you not want action to be taken? Or would you say "Oh well, it's only my son (or daughter) that's not so bad"? Would you as a mother not want to protect your child from further harm, even if he (or she) was the ONLY VICTIM???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:37 pm,

      Do not twist my words around. I never said that Roy was not important. I said that he is the only alleged victim who came out so far. That is a fact.

      Delete
  10. No Diana, there are two victims that came forward. One is Mr. Roy Quintanilla and the other one is Mr. Joseph Quinata. Just because one of them is deceased doesn't mean that he wasn't a victim. There will be more coming forward now that they know that the bullying tactics from the archbishop will no longer be tolerated. Anthony Sablan Apuron is just a man and we all fall short of the glory and are not infallible. Just because he said he didn't do it doesn't make him innocent either. He should step aside and let an independent investigation be conducted to verify his innocence of the alleged crime. That is how a real justice system works and that is a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:11 pm,

      The dead does not count because they cannot speak. In the same way, Father Jack is dead and cannot testify. Roy Quintanilla stated that he confided his sexual abuse to Father Jack, but he has no idea whether Father Jack did anything about it. What I find very odd. Mr. Quintanilla never once said that Father Jack covered up the sex abuse. Everyone is so quick to say that the Archbishop covered up the sex abuse for a decade, but it was Father Jack whom Mr. Quintanilla confided in, and there was no record of him reporting the abuse.

      Delete
  11. I beg to differ. Think about the holocaust and how they managed to have the Neuremburg trials. The dead have a voice and that's a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:05 am,

      It was not their voices that spoke. Mass graves of bodies were found, and the Jewish prisoners in the concentration camps came forward. Furthermore, the crime was not decades old.

      Delete
  12. Ms. Concepcion did come forward on behalf of her deceased son for a crime that was committed decades ago. You said it, I didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:25 am,

      Mrs. Concepcion is not a witness to a crime and neither was John Toves. In the holocaust, the ones who came forward were witnesses to the crime.

      Delete
  13. Diana, another eye witness has come forward with a report of Archbishop Apuron in a 3-way homosexual act long before Roy Quintanilla who you described as So Far Only One Alleged Victim.
    Since Roy Quintanilla, there have been ADDITIONAL victims who have come forward accusing the Archbishop when he was a priest : Walter Denton and Roland Sondia.
    Are you still so cavalier in your attitude of Only ONE Alleged Victim?
    Are you still sure that the sexual abuse victims are being malicious and calumnious liars?
    What do you make of today's revelation by a former altar boy from Chalan Pago who reported "I saw Apuron, kneeling on the floor...sucking the altar boy's penis"???
    Three months after Roy Quintanilla shared his story we continue to learn that there were MORE than your Only ONE Alleged Victim.

    I doubt you will publish this. But I just had to get it off my chest. You had such a dismissive attitude toward Roy back in May. I think that you're in DEEP DENIAL of just how seriously depraved your precious Archbishop Apuron is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:35 pm,

      As I said before, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      Delete
    2. We shall see now that Bill 326-33 passed with 13 votes. If the Governor signs it, the door will be opened for CIVIL LITIGATION which doesn't rely on "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
      Your precious Archbishop Apuron will share the experience of OJ Simpson. Even though his criminal prosecution ended with a Not Guilty verdict, OJ was found liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.
      While he will not undergo criminal prosecution in a court of law your precious Archbishop will most likely be found liable for the death of innocence of the altar boys he sexually assaulted.
      And if he is only found liable for one, that is still one too many.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 1:49 pm,

      The bill is not a law yet. Also, Archbishop Apuron will not be charged with liable for a wrongful death because he did not kill anyone.

      Delete