Monday, July 6, 2015


After we posted about Archbishop Apuron's direct attempt to get "the donor's representative" to outright lie for him (see The Ultimate Treachery), some commenters began to refer to "the next shoe to drop."

They were right to identify the blatant and sad attempt by a successor to the apostles to get someone to lie for him as "the first shoe."

Up to that point, and regarding the alienation of The Property, we could only infer that an atrocity had been committed.

With the exposition of Apuron's attempt to get "the donor's representative" to lie for him, and the representative's stern refusal to do so, we had, in writing, absolute evidence of Apuron's attempt to cover for his conspiracy to defraud the Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana.

The second shoe, which came to be called "the bronze shoe" ("Bronze" is the attorney's last name) was referred to as "the second shoe" because, as people rightly suspected, it would provide the final piece of evidence that Apuron clearly meant to give away The Property to the control of the NCW in perpetuity, and that Apuron may also be party to a conspiracy to defraud the faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana of its largest real property asset.

The recently discovered agenda for the meeting of the Archdiocesan Finance Council held on September 7, 2011, has shown us without a doubt that Apuron knew that he was turning over the property to an entity separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and that that entity, RMS, was NOT in his control as he later claimed.

Ever since the discovery in January of the deed giving full control of The Property to RMS "for perpetual use", Apuron has been scrambling to make it known that the property is still in his control. He has done this several times in the U Matuna. And as we now know, this was the main reason he tried to get the "donor's representative" to lie for him. 

Failing that, he sought out the opinion of a Denver legal firm, published only excerpts from it in the U Matuna, pretended to make it available at the Chancery, and then when someone (Attorney Bronze) actually did go to review it, it was completely withdrawn from public view.

Why all this effort by Apuron to convince us that the property was still in his control? 

Because, as we have mentioned before, SHOULD IT BE PROVED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY ALIENATED, Rome would have clear grounds to take action against Apuron. Here are the relevant portions of the law:

Can 1292 §2. The permission of the Holy See is also required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for artistic or historical reasons. 
Can. 1296 Whenever ecclesiastical goods have been alienated without the required canonical formalities but the alienation is valid civilly, it is for the competent authority, after having considered everything thoroughly, to decide whether and what type of action, namely, personal or real, is to be instituted by whom and against whom in order to vindicate the rights of the Church.
Initially, Rome was under the impression that Apuron still had control of the property. Thus, if it could be proved that he did not, then Rome, being the "competent authority" in this matter, would be required "to decide whether and what type of to be instituted by whom and against whom in order to vindicate the rights of the Church."

In order to prove this, an opinion of counsel from a licensed Guam attorney was needed. The CCOG contracted Attorney Jacques G. Bronze, a real property specialist, to investigate the matter. Mr. Bronze's opinion does two major things:
  1. Determines that The Property is in fact alienated and that Apuron (the Grantor) has given up all rights to the property.
  2. Determines that Apuron does NOT have control of the property (which you shall see).
Upon receipt of the completed opinion in May, the CCOG forwarded copies to Archbishop Krebs and to Archbishop Hon. 

This "opinion" is not just a personal opinion, it is an "opinion of counsel". This means we can take it to court. I will talk more about civil action in my next post. But for now, the first course of action was to hand Rome the hard evidence that Apuron had 1) given the property away, and 2) does not have control of the property. 

Once this was in hand, Rome had hard evidence that Apuron had violated the canonical norms governing the alienation of property and had specifically violated the norm requiring the approval of the Holy See - which now makes the Holy See, and not just the faithful of Guam, the aggrieved party, clearing the way for the Holy See to take direct action against Apuron.

To be continued

Sunday, July 5, 2015


 What can we say about Apuron's "A personal letter to the people of God in the Archdiocese of Agana" (published in today's U Matuna) other than SHAMEFUL!

He positions the "attack on me personally" in the context of ISIS massacres and the Supreme Court attack on Christian marriage. 


And he calls on us to return to "decency and respect" and to "seek reconciliation among our brothers and sisters"!!!!!!


  • Have you apologized personally and publicly for your public humiliation of Father Paul and Msgr. James and have you made amends with both? NO!
  • Have you sought reconciliation with the Lastimoza family and apologized for dragging them into hell, and especially to the Lastimoza children for publicly inferring that their father was in a homosexual relationship with Fr. Paul? NO!
  • Have you apologized to the members of the AFC who you and your Vicar General chastised with the most vile crap when in fact - as we now know - they were doing exactly what they were supposed to do? NO!
  • Have you sought to remedy the fraud you perpetrated on the Catholic faithful of this island by secretly giving away The Property? NO!
  • Have you apologized to "the donor's representative" for asking her to lie for you? NO!

What? And you tell us that these are "pastoral works"???


Oh, and here's the real funny! You say "They have used the media extensively to undermine my reputation and my moral authority." LOL. 

  • You apparently have NO PROBLEM using "the media extensively" - as you do every Sunday in the U Matuna to attack your enemies. 
  • You apparently had NO PROBLEM in sending out a press statement detailing all the alleged crimes of Msgr. James - something you did several times while never permitting Msgr. James himself to see those charges nor did you permit him to defend himself.
  • You had NO PROBLEM issuing a press release accusing Fr. Paul of being a "danger to children".
  • You had NO PROBLEM speaking to a group of thirty clergy and telling the most outrageous lies about Fr. Paul. 

LOL. I guess you got a copy of the "bronze shoe" and you know what's coming. That's why this letter.

And your "moral authority"????? How about your "immoral authority" which you have demonstrated to a sickening degree. 

Here's a reminder of your example of your idea of seeking "reconciliation" - escaping out the back door of the St. Anthony Spiritual Center after the clergy meeting with the Apostolic Visitors last January as dozens of Catholics waited for you at the front door. 

I was going to do a full post with commentary on the BRONZE SHOE. However, Apuron's ridiculous, shameful, and narcissistic attack on those who question him has prompted me to give you the guts of it NOW. A commentary will follow along with a posting of the full opinion.

Jacques G. Bronze. Legal Opinion regarding Real Property Conveyance and Corporate Governance relating to The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation. a Guam Non-Profit Corporation. May 13 2015.

The Declaration of Deed Restriction executed on November 21, 2011, by the Grantor, for that certain land located at 130 Seminariu Drive, Yona, Guam, recorded at the Department of Land Management as Instrument No. 829322, in favor of RMHF operates to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple, of the subject real property to RMHF, divesting all right, title and interest of the subject property from the Grantor, except for the subject restraint in use. (Pg 2)

In the instant case, the Deed executed by Grantor, provides in its granting clause that “…Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed, subject to the covenant and restrictions set forth herein...” (Pg 5)

By examining the four corners of the subject Deed and applying the aforementioned rules of interpretation the only conclusion that can be interpreted is that the Grantor intended to transfer a present interest in the subject property. (Pg 5)

In light of the case authorities from California interpreting the words “transfer” and “convey,” the Deed executed by the Grantor herein evidences a clear intent to transfer a present interest in subject property to RMHF. (Pg 6)

In the instant case, the named grantor and grantee are identified and a description of the real property located in Yona, Guam is provided in the deed. Moreover, as discussed above, the deed contains operative words of an intent by the grantor to transfer a present interest in the subject real property. (Pg 7)

The Grantor’s conveyance of the subject property “…to and for the use, of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam,…in perpetual use as a see of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam…,” operates as a complete divestment of the Grantor’s right title and interest in the subject property, but subject to a restraint in use. (Pg 8)

The Deed executed by the Grantor, must be examined in its entirety. The case law provided above clearly provides that such an instrument can be considered a complete conveyance if it can be determined from the language that there is an intent to convey an interest in the real property. The instrument appears to fit squarely within the definition of a conveyance, as provided by 21 G.C.A. § 40302, despite the property being encumbered by a restriction However the restriction noted in the deed, may be invalid under Guam law, which this opinion letter does not address at this time. (Pg 9)

In this case, the granting clause of the deed conveyed the fee forever, in a strong, unequivocal language as could be used to convey a present interest in real property, subject to a reasonable restraint in use. The Ownership and the Encumbrance Report issued by Pacific American Title and relied on by the Archbishop that the subject property remains in the corporation sole, is legally unsound as there is no basis in law to supper the title company’s legal conclusion. (Pg 12)


Another great Chuck White production!!!


Another recording has been smuggled out of the castle!
Listen to Fr. Edwin “Pius” Sammut OCD, the lead Neocatechumenal catechist for Guam, Saipan, and Hawaii, muse about his eternal destiny...

Saturday, July 4, 2015


Chuck White treats this issue more politely by calling Kiko's "new aesthetic" (his design for our liturgy and church buildings)...


I prefer to label it as I have above.

Read Chuck's story here.


What's up, Barrigada? Fr. "meeeellions and meeellions of dollars" on vacation? What about Harold? Maybe he could give up a little pool time?

"...there will be no 8:30 am masses the chapel."
"We appreciate you patience..."

BTW. I was always taught to capitalize Mass - as in "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass." But then they don't believe in "sacrifice" either. 


Note: While it looks like the storm is going to miss us, we're saving our own storm for Monday. Meanwhile, there are several good items to share with you including this one:

frenchie has left a new comment on your post "DEAR ROME: READ THIS CAREFULLY. IT'S YOUR TURN.":

Dear R Yaeger, and anons, 

Those that know me would most likely tell you that I am the prince of cynics.
Yet at the same time, I have faith. This is not something that is easy to come to, you have to cultivate it, to nurture it.

For every act of evil around us, you have the choice to either ignore it and hope someone else will handle it, or you can try to do something about it.

To many on this blog, the evidences of AAA and the NCW ilks' crimes are evident. Hence the high level of frustration some might have in this perceived lack of actions.

Lets look at it in a more neutral way. Only a year and a half after the start of the denonciations of the abuses by Apuron, Pius and their minions, Rome did take actions. 

This is actually quite astounding considering the track record of Rome.

We were sent a high level delegation to investigate the issues on island. Not some whitewash commission, like the kikobots in Rome would have liked to, but a real investigative team.

They took the time to meet with everybody, even those, I would say especially those the Chancery had tried so hard to silence.

Now what you have to understand is how things work, after such facts finding group comes back with their report.

We saw this spring, that the Arch was pressured to try to make good with the priests that had been slighted by the Chancery, before Easter. 

The half hearted attempt from Tony and the denunciation by Tim on this Blog of such attempts as sandbagging, ended that initiative.

This means that the corridors of the State administration at the Vatican are the scene of a muted but savage struggle between Kiko and his goons, and the foreign affairs nuncios and several key players against Kiko.

When I met with my connections back in December, they made no secret that Kiko and his defrocked girlfriend were putting a lot of pressure on their allies there, to bury our little problem.

We are a small Diocese, not the smallest of course, nor a big one, but the faithful of this diocese have friends and allies not only in Rome but also close to us in the Pacific Region.

Our Nuncio has done a great job, communicating with the powers in Rome without getting entangled in all the bureaucracy. He is probably our best advocate, but he also knows too well the pitfalls along the way.

Like Tim has said many times, and that Typhoon Toves has underlined in his unique style, it is ultimately up to us to move forward to the next step.

The next step might be a lawsuit, or two or three. It might be a victim or victims of Apuron or Pius that find the courage to face their abusers, it has to be big enough to force the roadblocks and the delaying tactics of Kikos allies in the Vatican. That is the only thing that will overpower them, once and for all. (at least for our small island)

There are also some glimmers of hope regarding the financial shenanigans of Genarini and Co.
But as I was told by officials investigating that side of the story, it might take months, may be years to retrace that complex web of financial coverup, and get some action on the federal level.

Keep the faith.

Pray for help and discernment .

The shadow knows. 

Friday, July 3, 2015


On the eve of letting the "bronze shoe" drop, I discovered a copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Archdiocesan Finance Council (AFC) for September 7, 2011. This was the meeting at which the transfer of title of The Property to RMS was discussed. On September 8, as we have seen in the previous post (MIND BLOWING EVIL), the AFC denied the request. But now, here for all to see - especially Rome, are the  fully exposed machinations and evil neo-designs of Apuron and Gennarini.

The full copy of the agenda can be accessed here (or viewed below). Following is the pertinent excerpt:

“…in the current Articles and By-laws of the RMS, the Archbishop is a member of the Board, but does not have the same ultimate powers (1). He is just one of six votes. This situation, should the Archdiocese transfer the property and building and facilities in Yona to RMS, could appear to make the transfer an alienation of property because the Archbishop relinquishes ultimate control of the asset. In order to keep it an Archdiocesan asset, Ed (2) has recommended that the RMS Articles and By-laws would need to be amended to allow the Archbishop ultimate control of RMS and its assets. However, after several meetings, the RMS incorporators are hesitant to do so, but have asked that the assets be deeded to RMS without modification.

The AFC has an obligation to advise and assist the Archbishop in temporal matters, especially in the alienation of property, so we need to discuss if we can move forward with any transfer of property, and under what circumstances would the AFC authorize a transfer in order to safeguard Archdiocese assets. 

Also attached for your review are applicable sections of the Archdiocese statutes and Canon Law which Ed has studied and is ready to answer any questions you may have.

(1) A reference to his "ultimate powers" as the incumbent Archbishop of Agana, a corporation sole.
(2) Attorney Edward Terlaje, Archdiocesan Legal Counsel

This is MAJOR. This document shows that the AFC, the Archbishop, the Legal Counsel, and "the incorporators" (we'll get to them in a minute) ALL KNEW that what "the incorporators" were asking was for the Archbishop, and thus the Archdiocese of Agana, to relinquish "ultimate control of RMS and its assets."

So who are "the incorporators"? The RMS Articles of Incorporation show only one "incorporator"

...yet, the agenda refers to "the incorporators".

This is an obvious reference to Giuseppe Gennarini and direct evidence that Gennarini is the mastermind behind all of this and is using Apuron as his imbecilic obedient little puppet. Of course we've known this all along because of what we have heard from the people who were at the "several meetings" referenced in the agenda, but here we have it in writing.

We also see that the AFC was DOING ITS JOB in protecting the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana by seeking to amend the Articles and By-laws in order to ensure that the archbishop maintained full control of The Property, but "the incorporators" (Apuron and Gennarini) refused ("hesitant to do so") and obviously insisted ("have asked") that "the assets be deeded to RMS without modification." !!!!!!!!!!!!!

It also shows that the AFC was mindful that it had the "authority" to deny the request and was not just a consultative body as the Vicar General had intentionally and falsely tried to make them out to be. (See MIND BLOWING EVIL.)

So there is NO DOUBT, that Apuron both intended and insisted on giving away the single greatest real property asset of the Archdiocese of Agana to a corporation wholly controlled by members of the Neocatechumenal Way, an action which significantly harmed the patrimony, and thus the faithful, of this diocese.

And when the AFC said NO, Apuron deeded the property to RMS anyway. He then berated and fired them to cover up his evil and canonically illegal deed.


So dear Rome, up till now, as you have seen, I have been asking people to hold back on their criticism of your apparent inaction. I have argued in your favor saying that "the Church moves slowly" and that you must always act with the "care of souls" in mind.

I still hold all that to be true, but there is simply now NO DOUBT that Giuseppe Gennarini intended to wrest The Property away from the faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana, and to do so, has used his servile "tony" to screw the faithful out of a significant asset as well as bilk them out of the millions of dollars they have contributed to its support over the years.

With this reference to "the incorporators" - and the refusal of those "incorporators" to modify the documents which would have enabled the Archbishop of Agana to retain control over said property, this document proves beyond doubt that a grave injustice has been perpetrated on the Catholic Faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana, and we are calling on you to "vindicate the rights of the Church" (Can. 1296). And we are calling you to do it NOW!

We know that you have both shoes: the first from "the donor's representative" and the second shoe, the "bronze" one. Thus this is no longer a matter of what we will do that could bring further embarrassment to you, but what will YOU do so that you no longer embarrass our Church.

However, embarrassment is the least of your worries. Given what you have and what you know, NOT TO ACT NOW makes silence and even perceived inaction a cause for debilitating and faith-destroying scandal.

It's your turn.

Thursday, July 2, 2015


This is not the "breaking" document I was referring to in the previous post, but thought I'd share it now.

While people are free to give their personal property however they'd like, we already know that for many years RMS was marketed to Guam's Catholics under false pretenses. RMS was NEVER a diocesan seminary - which is why Apuron, once caught, opened the JP2 seminary as a "diocesan" seminary.

This means that many people and families may have been defrauded of their assets when giving to RMS, including this one:


Amazing! I just came across a document that will make THE BRONZE SHOE shine like gold. No time right now. Back soon.


As Part II* of our preparation to understand the significance of THE BRONZE SHOE, we are now going to review the following section of Church Law. I will highlight the main points and provide layman's notes. Yes, it's a bit difficult to read, but give a go. 



Can. 1290 The general and particular provisions which the civil law in a territory has established for contracts and their disposition are to be observed with the same effects in canon law insofar as the matters are subject to the power of governance of the Church unless the provisions are contrary to divine law or canon law provides otherwise, and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1547.

Note: This means that whether or not property is actually alienated is determined by civil law, not church law. In Apuron's "Denver opinion" he tried to justify what he did canonically and purposely stayed away from what his actions meant civilly, especially in regards to Guam law.

Can. 1291 The permission of the authority competent according to the norm of law is required for the valid alienation of goods which constitute by legitimate designation the stable patrimony of a public juridic person and whose value exceeds the sum defined by law.

Can. 1292 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 638, §3, when the value of the goods whose alienation is proposed falls within the minimum and maximum amounts to be defined by the conference of bishops for its own region, the competent authority is determined by the statutes of juridic persons if they are not subject to the diocesan bishop; otherwise, the competent authority is the diocesan bishop with the consent of the finance council, the college of consultors, and those concerned. The diocesan bishop himself also needs their consent to alienate the goods of the diocese.

Note: The value of The Property falls outside the "maximum amount" as defined by the conference of bishops (CEPAC), and thus alienation requires "the consent of the finance council, the college of consultors and those concerned." According to the AFC at the time, the maximum amount was million dollars and the current amount is two million dollars. The Property is estimated to be valued between 40 and 75 million dollars. Thus Apuron needed "their consent to alienate the goods of the diocese."

§2. The permission of the Holy See is also required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for artistic or historical reasons.

Note: Here's the biggie. "The permission of the Holy See is also required." A permission Apuron DID NOT get.

§3. If the asset to be alienated is divisible, the parts already alienated must be mentioned when seeking permission for the alienation; otherwise the permission is invalid.

§4. Those who by advice or consent must take part in alienating goods are not to offer advice or consent unless they have first been thoroughly informed both of the economic state of the juridic person whose goods are proposed for alienation and of previous alienations.

Can. 1293 §1. The alienation of goods whose value exceeds the defined minimum amount also requires the following:

1/ a just cause, such as urgent necessity, evident advantage, piety, charity, or some other grave pastoral reason;

Note: There was none of these.

2/ a written appraisal by experts of the asset to be alienated.

Note: There was NO appraisal.

§2. Other precautions prescribed by legitimate authority are also to be observed to avoid harm to the Church.

Can. 1294 §1. An asset ordinarily must not be alienated for a price less than that indicated in the appraisal.

Note: The price was ZERO.

§2. The money received from the alienation is either to be invested carefully for the advantage of the Church or to be expended prudently according to the purposes of the alienation.

Note: There was no money.

Can. 1295 The requirements of ⇒ cann. 1291-1294, to which the statutes of juridic persons must also conform, must be observed not only in alienation but also in any transaction which can worsen the patrimonial condition of a juridic person.

Note: The removal of a forty million dollar asset from a diocese this size can hardly not "worsen the patrimonial condition" of this diocese.

Can. 1296 Whenever ecclesiastical goods have been alienated without the required canonical formalities but the alienation is valid civilly, it is for the competent authority, after having considered everything thoroughly, to decide whether and what type of action, namely, personal or real, is to be instituted by whom and against whom in order to vindicate the rights of the Church.

Note: " is for the competent decide whether and what type of to be vindicate the rights of the Church." The competent authority in this case would be Apuron's superior. And he only has one. We already know that Apuron did not follow the required canonical formalities. The only question left is whether or not the alienation of The Property is "valid civilly." The "Bronze Shoe" will tell us.


Wednesday, July 1, 2015


In preparation for the "bronze shoe" which will drop in the next day or two, we now need to recall the evil events surrounding RMS.

First, some terms:

"The Property": The old Accion Hotel property, purchased by the Archdiocese of Agana in 2002 for approximately 2 million dollars.

RMS: Redemptoris Mater Seminary - a non profit, 501(c)3 corporation, incorporated in the U.S. Territory of Guam

"The Gennarini's": Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini are the "Neocatechumenal Responsibles" for the United States and the Pacific. 

AFC: the Archdiocesan Finance Council

Vicar General: Msgr. David C. Quitugua (Note: Msgr. David I. A. Quitugua is the pastor of Ordot church. He is NOT the Vicar General.)

Sometime during 2011, the Gennarini's told Archbishop Apuron to convey the title of The Property to RMS. We know this because Apuron himself told the AFC how the request came about. 

But WHY did the Gennarini's want title to The Property conveyed to RMS if RMS is supposed to be owned and operated by the Archdiocese of Agana? 

Because they knew that the next bishop might not support the NCW, and they wanted to have The Property as leverage. Their Plan A was to get one of their own into the bishop's chair - which is why they have worked so hard to advance the Vicar General and Adrian - both known kikobots. But if that didn't work out they needed a Plan B. And Plan B was to use The Property as ransom. 

Because of the value of The Property, Church law (Canon Law) required Apuron to procure the approval of the AFC, the college of consultors, and the Holy See. However, Apuron never had to seek further approval at this time because on September 8, 2011, the AFC officially denied the request to convey the title of The Property to RMS.

On November 16, 2011, Apuron wrote Richard Untalan, president of the AFC, that his request to convey the title to RMS was not an "alienation" but an "assigning of a title" of the property to a separate legal entity (RMS) which was nevertheless still subject to him.

The letter, though dated November 16, 2011, was not delivered to Mr. Untalan's office until November 25, 2011. In the meanwhile, unbeknownst to Richard Untalan and the AFC, Apuron, three days prior to delivering the letter, had conveyed complete control of The Property to RMS on November 22, 2011 through a Deed of Restriction.

Also, here's an excerpt from a recent Title Report:

Since the November 16 letter from Apuron to Untalan was not delivered to Mr. Untalan's office until 3 days later (Nov 25), Apuron could have notified Mr. Untalan of his having recorded the new deed. He did not.

Upon receiving the letter and not knowing what Apuron had already done, Mr. Untalan assumed that Apuron wanted the AFC to revisit the issue of the conveyance of title to The Property and added the issue as "Item 5" to the agenda for a meeting of the AFC scheduled for December 6, 2011. 

Upon receiving a notice of the meeting and its agenda, archdiocesan legal counsel, Ed Terlaje immediately wrote:

On the morning of the meeting, the Vicar General, knowing full well that the deed restricting use of The Property to RMS forever (for perpetual use) had already been recorded with Land Management, chastised the AFC for placing the item on the agenda:

We must remember that the AFC had NO knowledge that The Property had already been restricted, but the Vicar General did. All the Vicar General had to do was to advise the AFC that the deed had already been recorded and that there was no need to discuss the item.


Instead, the Vicar General accuses the AFC of the most vile things: "a vulnus towards the bishop", "disrespect towards his person", and harming "the dignity of the Ordinary." In addition, he blatantly violates church law by telling the AFC that their role is only consultative and "not binding", when, in matters of property of this value, church law REQUIRES the consent of the AFC. This was confirmed by a subsequent letter from the Apostolic Delegate to Apuron:

Mr. Untalan was surprised at the vicious attack from the Vicar General and wrote him saying so:

But then Apuron piled on with his own insults to Mr. Untalan, saying he was "appalled" that Mr. Untalan had "insisted to have No. 5 on the agenda", when in fact, Mr. Untalan had taken it off, and accused Untalan of stirring up "nonsense". 

The attacks by the Vicar General and Apuron have to be seen in light of the fact that they both knew that control of The Property had ALREADY been deeded to RMS and in NONE of their communications with Untalan did they say so. Instead they attacked and berated him.

At this point, it does not matter whether what Apuron did was legit or not (it wasn't - as the bronze shoe will show us). What matters is that Apuron and the Vicar General are exposed as worse than liars: attacking a man to hide their corruption, subterfuge, and lies.

And using their authority in the Church to do it makes their attack an act of mind-blowing evil. 

The AFC under Mr. Untalan never met again. On January 11, 2012, Apuron terminated the service of the four members of the AFC who had voted against giving The Property to RMS (Richard Untalan, Msgr. James Benavente, Sr. Mary Stephen Torres, RSM, and Joseph Rivera).

And now?

The Property is firmly in the control of RMS. Forever. Unless...unless, the bronze shoe fits.

We will soon find out.

P.S. RMS board members and new members of the AFC. Are you ready?

Tuesday, June 30, 2015


I received the following message. If anyone has facts related to this story or to anything similar to it, please contact the Apostolic Delegate immediately. You may also contact me and I will see that the information is forwarded to the Delegate.

There is a family on Guam. The father died and was survived by his wife. Fr. Pius pressured the wife to give him her land assets. He arranged the changing of the will and the wife signed. When the wife died the couple's children found that their parents property had been willed to Pius. According to one of the children, Pius had told the mother that if she failed to will him the property she was going against God. He told her that her kids were evil in not following the way. There were big fights between the mother and daughter before the mother died. Now the daughter is in emotional pain. There are other families being pressured by Pius to do the same. Pius even gives them the language to use in the will. People who are old and lonely need to be warned. There is a pattern to Pius' pressuring of the elderly and the sick.

Contact info for the Apostolic Delegate

H.E. Archbishop Martin Krebs
Apostolic Delegate
PO Box 22-004
Wellington 6441

Fax +64 4 4791046

Monday, June 29, 2015


I had to add the (s) because there's more than one. They're so stupid - thinking that we can't tell the difference in writing style. 

So here's some advice for you. Rather than playing your empty hand with all the threats, simply discredit me. I would have absolutely no ability to influence anybody if you do so. Show me where anything I have claimed is not true. In fact, show everyone. It's simple. Show everyone I'm a liar and I'll go away. Your beloved Apuron will be the restored hero and I'll have to live in shame the rest of my life. 

Here's a short list of things to discredit:

• Show us where Apuron did NOT violate canon law when he appointed a parochial administrator for Santa Barbara before canonically removing Fr. Paul as pastor.

• Show us why Mr. Lastimoza in 2011 was suddenly a "danger to children" when Apuron permitted him to work in the same parish upon his parole in 2000.

• Show us where Apuron permitted Msgr. James due process to defend the charges made against him, charges Apuron made public but never permitted Msgr. James to see.

• Show us the current certificate of affiliation between RMS and the Lateran.

• Show us where it states in its founding documents that RMS was constituted to form men for the diocesan priesthood.

• Show us where all these guys who are being ordained from RMS have been vetted as per all the norms normally required in an accredited seminary.

• Show us evidence that these guys are actually formed according to a standard diocesan seminary curriculum and have actually passed those classes.

• Show us where the money collected at every neo gathering is turned in for normal parish accounting.

• Show us the report on the investigation of Cunnilingus "taste of consistency" Louie.

• Show us that Apuron didn't write "the donor's representative" and tried to get him/her to sign a document which in his/her words was "not true".

• Show us that the Yona property has not been alienated - and this time use a legal firm licensed to do business in Guam. 

I'll be back with more. 


Aguon to re-introduce abortion reporting bill

SEN. Frank Aguon Jr. is expected to re-introduce a proposal to enforce abortion reporting, according to his office.
Aguon withdrew his Bill 129-33 on June 19 in order to revise it and include a provision for due process for providers who would be subject to fines for not complying with abortion reporting, according to a statement from the senator’s office.


"Jokers Wild" insists on giving us wonderful material to work with, and so we shall. We'll take his little twit thoughts apart one by one. Let's start with this one:
A Seminary formed in all of this. After ten years of formation, we started seeing the fruits, Priests! Not once was any priest ordained and assigned to a neo community. No, they were assigned to parishes, they filled the void of so many years. Parishes that were being managed by "borrowed Priests" or "contract priests" were now getting a taste of some consistency. 
So before we were using "borrowed priests". Really? What's different about the RMS guys? What's the difference between borrowed and imported? I'll tell you. At least the "borrowed" guys were already priests, ready, willing, and able to serve our diocese. The imported guys have to be brought in and educated for 6 years or more at $17,000 a year (as per Apuron's own number), not to mention their many trips "back home" and all around the world with Archbishop Sugar Daddy. And when you add in the drop out rate - a number Apuron would never share - the cost per badly formed "Jesus is a sinner" neo-presbyter is probably 10 times that. 

And "not once was any priest ordained and assigned to a neo community"??? 

LOL. If only they would be. That's where they should stay. They were not trained for diocesan parish work. That's more than obvious, and it even says so in the RMS Articles of Incorporation. These poor guys are pure failures, and that is Apuron's fault, not theirs. But let's see now, where are the several guys who are supposedly currently "on mission". What are they "on mission" too? Oh, that's right, a "neo-community". BTW, where's that famous Cunnilingus Louie? How many years did it take him to get through RMS before he learned how to help himself to an altar girl? Ten?

You're right, we ARE getting a "taste of some consistency", consistently rotten. 

Sunday, June 28, 2015


I am posting the following at the request of someone I respect. I have some thoughts of my own as to the liability of our church leaders for permitting the development of a culture which has led to this, not the least of which is their role in the serious damage to our church over the many years they looked the other way while minors were sexually abused. I will share those thoughts another time. Nevertheless, while our own bishop plans his next trip with his boy toys and relegates the issuance of any moral statement to his ghost writer, we would do well to be reminded that there are still bishops in our church who are solicitous for our salvation. 

Supreme Court Decision On Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President Of Catholic Bishops’ Conference

June 26, 2015

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court decision, June 26, interpreting the U.S. Constitution to require all states to license and recognize same-sex “marriage” “is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us,” said Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). 

The full statement follows:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home. 

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions. 

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.


I would like to follow this with my own Facebook statement, posted after I heard about the ruling:

For those who care about "traditional marriage", start practicing it.
  • Stop cheating.
  • Stop divorcing. 
  • Stop contracepting.
In short, stop preaching about God's plan and go back to it: "male and female he made them, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth."


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DEAR ROME": 

Timothy! Timothy! Timothy!

You just dont know when to stop. Im not sure why you would want to imply something wrong or even suppose something more worse just from a simple picture of the Archbishop and two priests. Im just in disgust by all the sexual comments that you do allow. 
My question to you is this:
Will you continue to fight for what is right even when the tables turn? When I meet with you and share with you the truth of an incident very central to Guam? Will you continue to fight for what is right even when it criminalizes one on your "side"? Will you?
What is so sad is that you and others have created a big divide in the church based on falsehoods. The neos have existed for quite awhile but have never tempted to approach the people with propaganda. It was simple, share the catechesis of the church, invite people to listen, ask them if they would continue, if not, move one. This happened year after year, catechesis after catechesis. There was never any ploy to divide.
A Seminary formed in all of this. After ten years of formation, we started seeing the fruits, Priests! Not once was any priest ordained and assigned to a neo community. No, they were assigned to parishes, they filled the void of so many years. Parishes that were being managed by "borrowed Priests" or "contract priests" were now getting a taste of some consistency. But this didnt satisfy you at all. So many fruits, enough to share with missions around the world and yet you still complain.
Instead, we now have a true and obvious divide. People being told to stop their donations. People being told to go celebrate the sacraments somewhere else. People printing shirts and stickers distinguishing themselves. All this divide. Never seen before til now.
You see, you ultimately want the church to return to an era that worked for you and many others but a few Popes ago, they decided that the church needed to move into a new era, hence the New Evangelization. When will you accept this?
Again, I do have some sense. Im not as dumb as you think and despite your attacks on Fr. Adrian I assure you I am not he.
So as I asked in the beginning, Will you continue the fight? Even when it is one of your own? Your answer to this will prove to me and others that this is not a war between two sides, its a fight for what is right.
Let me know.

-Jokers Wild 

**** MY REPLY****

LOL. You’re such a fool. I know a helluva lot more about these people that you want to bring down than you think I do. But unlike you I don’t have a fetish for people’s past or personal sins. That’s why I haven’t posted any of the pictures John Toves sent me. I don’t care what you all did in the seminary 30 years ago. I don’t even care about all the allegations about your beloved Apuron molesting boys in Agat and elsewhere (though one says he's ready to talk).

What I care about is the abuse of power to ruin other people. What I care about is a bishop who blatantly lies, cheats, steals, and is willing to hurt anybody who stands in his way. What I care about is bishop who abuses the people he is tasked to shepherd in order to serve the filthy likes of Pius and Gennarini. 

So go ahead fool. Spill your trash. The floor of hell is waiting.

Oh, and P.S., you dirty minded fool. I didn’t post the picture to imply something sexual. I posted the picture to show the arrogant, un-vetted asses Apuron is willing to ordain (or should I say ORDERED to ordain), and as I noted in the following post, the sick sadness of how Apuron treats these fools versus our own men. I intend to explain why, and it has nothing to do with sex. But since you’re into that, we shouldn’t be surprised that that is what you thought, should we.

Saturday, June 27, 2015


What's really sad about the picture below is that you will never see a picture like that with Apuron and his own local priests. He's only happy with his imported neo boys - because of what they do for him...and what he does for them. I'll talk about that soon. 


Thought you'd enjoy this shot of Apuron's bad ass boboy's. He sure does like these two. But then they're just his latest toys.

Friday, June 26, 2015


Diana is the gift that keeps on giving, exposing all that is supposed to be secret in the Neocatechumenal Way. It's supposed to be secret because the Kiko leaders KNOW that they have no permission to do what they do but have convinced their followers that the pope has given them said permission - convinced them by consistently lying to them. Check this out:

  1. And here's another revealing comment by her Diananess:

    "DianaJune 26, 2015 at 7:29 AM

    Dear Anonymous at 11:06 pm,

    It is our responsibility to be obedient to the Pope. He gave us permission to celebrate the way we celebrate the Eucharist. That permission had always been found in Kiko's 2006 thank you letter to the Pope. kiko thanked the Pope for many things, and one of them was giving them the permission to consume the Body of Christ sitting down. "

    So there it is - after all this time referring to some supposed verbal permission granted to the NCW by the pope, we can see that "she" is referring to a period of time immediately after the letter of Cardinal Arinze, and some two years prior to the promulgation of the final Statutes. If anyone needs reminding what those Statutes state, suffice it to say there is no permission for sitting down at the distribution and consumption of the Eucharist. In fact Cardinal Arinze's letter is referenced in the Statutes - but, you guessed it - Kiko's reply is not.

This little diatribe permits us to examine EXACTLY what was said. Upon the occasion of the letter from Kiko to the Pope to which Diana refers, the veteran Vatican blogger Sandro Magister had this to say (my comments in italics):