Thursday, April 26, 2018


A friend sent me this post from The Diana.


I had posted about it before here, but thought I'd complete the story now that the property (as far as I know) has been sold. 

Here are the facts:

1. The former Carmelite Monastery property was never the property of the Archdiocese of Agana, so Monsignor James would have had no authority over it. The November 2016 Ownership and Encumbrance Report shows the property is owned by LITTLE FLOWER GUAM, LLC CARE OF MOTHER STELLA MARIS FREUND, OCD.

If the name "Mother Stella Maris" rings a bell, it is because she is the Carmelite Prioress from St. Louis who gave Apuron the $2 Million to pay off the Bank of Guam loan he had secured to initially purchase the former Accion Hotel Property. The Neocats own catechist, Ric Eusebio, spoke loudly about that fact in a Guam Daily Post article here

2. While I was initially retained to list the property for sale by the property owner, I did not sell it. The listing agreement was cancelled in October 2017:

3. So, not only did I not make a dime on this property, I spent at least $1000 on an open house, advertising, and many hours of time. So much for me being a greedy real estate agent. LOL.

4. I do not know the status of the property. I heard it was sold. But not by me. 

COURAGE, Diana. 

P.S. This was kind of fun. Just like the old days: using facts and documents to expose the lies and lies and lies from the other side. I think I'll see what else I can find to expose now that the VATICAN has decided. :)

Monday, April 23, 2018


PACIFIC NEWS CENTER: Archdiocese still has not heard from Father Adrian Cristobal

Guam – Since being accused of sexual abuse, former Chancellor to the Archdiocese of Agana Father Adrian Cristobal has still not returned to the island.

This despite being summoned to return back to the island since last week. Archdiocese Spokesman Tony Diaz says their current Chancellor, Paul Fisher, has not heard from Father Adrian.

The former chancellor was named in a sex abuse lawsuit filed against the church by a 35-year-old man with the initials L.J.C. who alleged that Father Adrian sexually assaulted him when he was a teenager at the San Vicente Church in Barrigada.

Father Adrian left the island to the Diocese of Phoenix over a year ago after he refused an assignment to the San Dionisio Church in Umatac.

The archdiocese has opened a preliminary investigation which examines the allegations and other related information. That report will then be forwarded to the Independent Review Board for review.


Sunday, April 22, 2018


A little late. Listen in. Important stuff. Will be back on air, Monday morning, 7:00AM

Saturday, April 21, 2018


There is a movement afoot to collect the signatures required to endorse me (Tim Rohr) as a candidate for senator in the next election.

You will not find a copy of the petition for said signatures linked here (nor shall I tell you where to find it) because my position thus far has been:

1) If I do nothing to collect the required signatures, and yet
2) the required signatures are obtained, and
3) if I do not campaign a single bit, and yet,
4) get elected,

I will take it as a sign of God's will that I take the seat....which is kinda how I approach everything in this life (by the way.)

One might think that with this post I may be campaigning, but it's a risk I'll take.

And I am willing to take said "risk" to broadcast a CAMPAIGN PLATFORM I think worth broadcasting.

And here it is:

If elected to the next Legislature, I will immediately introduce the following legislation:

1) A bill to change any street name that contains the name "Apuron" (I am aware of two - Adacao and Santa Rita. Apologies to his relatives) to anything BUT "Apuron."

2) A bill to rescind Resolution 259-30, honoring the now discredited, disbanded, dysfunctional, dissolved, and generally "dissed..." Redemptoris Mater (fake) Seminary. The resolution read:

"Relative to expressing Biba Complianos and congratulations to the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam celebrating its Tenth (10th) Anniversary and to extend a sincere 'Un Dangkolo na Si Yu'os Ma'ase' for their continuous contributions towards improvement and betterment of the quality of life for our Island Community and its people."

As we now know, thanks to the honoree in this "resolution," the "quality of life for our island," not long after this resolution, soon descended into chaos, making Guam the scandal of the world in terms of clergy sex abuse, and with RMS...the head of the snake.

Saturday, April 14, 2018


December 2014 - John Toves delivers Fr. Adrian Cristobal an early Christmas gift

PACIFIC NEWS CENTER. (Oct 18, 2017) Victim reported sex abuse to Apuron and Cristobal but was allegedly “shunned away”

Guam – The most recent sex abuse lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Agana details sexual abuse that went on for a period of 8 years. The former altar server says he even reported the abuse to Archbishop Anthony Apuron and former Chancellor Father Adrian Cristobal but was “shunned away.” CONTINUED


In opposing the current legislation banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation, Attorney Anita Arriola argued:
"The decision to continue or end a pregnancy is one that must be made by a woman in consultation with those she trusts - not by the government of Guam.  
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized as much in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1973), the Court held that: (1) a state may never ban abortion prior to fetal viability-that is, before the fetus has reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside the woman’s body; and (2) a state many ban abortion after viability only if there are adequate exceptions to protect a woman’s life and health." 
Arriola references pages 163-164 of Roe. The text from these two pages is copied in bold below:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. 
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. 
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Arriola claims that Roe gives the woman the right to decide "to continue or end a pregnancy," and further posits that the government has no role in that decision.

However, nowhere in the referenced pages do we see any mention of a woman's right to to decide "to continue or end a pregnancy.

Rather, Roe, here, makes the case for the "State's important and legitimate interest in potential life," after the pregnancy reaches "the compelling point" (viability), and further states that "it (the government) may go so far as to proscribe abortion...

And even prior to "the compelling point," the decision belongs not to the woman but to "the attending physician:"
"...for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated."
Note that Roe assumes that it is the attending physician who is consulting with the woman and not, as Arriola says, "a woman in consultation with those she trusts," (obviously) the attending physician, in whose "medical judgement" Roe leaves the decision to terminate the patient's pregnancy.

Continuing on, not only does the remaining text on these pages NOT support Arriola's claims, it underscores and affirms: 1) that the decision initially belongs to the physician, and 2) thereafter, the right of government to intervene:
Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. 
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 67-72.
To summarize and to repeat: 
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. 
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. 
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Arriola and other abortion advocates would have us believe that Roe gives the woman an absolute right to privacy relative to her decision to terminate her pregnancy. However, once again, Roe doesn't say that:
[154] "...a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization). 
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
[159] " is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly."
So not only does Roe state that the privacy right is NOT "absolute," it goes on to essentially defeat the "it's my body" argument.

This post is also posted at The Esperansa Project website

Friday, April 13, 2018


(We'll get back to the Adrian thing, but for now, we choose to address this.) reports that Dr. Annie Bordallo, a well known local OB/GYN, at a public hearing relative to banning abortions on Guam after 20 weeks, said the following:
"The procedure itself involves, the procedure that Dr. Freeman does, involves an injection of medication into the amniotic fluid that stops the baby's heart.  The patient is then given medication that puts her into labor and she delivers a stillborn fetus.
While Dr. Bordallo posited the above in opposition to the legislation (Bill 232-34), pro-life advocates could not have asked for more!

In declaring this, Dr. Bordallo has affirmed:

  1. The object is a "baby" (not just a tissue mass). 
  2. The "baby" has a heart and it is beating.
  3. The "baby" is capable of feeling pain (otherwise there would be no need to stop his or her heart - even though Bordallo argues that the baby "most likely" does not feel pain until the 29th week). 
  4. Stopping "the baby's heart" kills a human being (since the "baby" is not a baby elephant or a giraffe). 

As all of this was said at a public hearing, it has been officially read into the record, and can be used to support a different version of the bill (should this one stumble), and all abortion regulation going forward. 

Dr. Bordallo's, April 10 declaration, essentially confirms the humanity of the "object" of abortion, and in doing so, lays out the real question before us as a civilized society:

When, and by what means, is it moral, licit, legal, and humane, for one human being to kill another?

Our answer to this question, via this legislation, will define us. 


This story is also posted at

KOLG. APRIL 13, 2018

Today we address priests "on mission," and the recent abortion legislation.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018


Former Archdiocese of Agana chancellor accused of clergy sexual abuse

A new priest stands accused of clergy sexual abuse.  Father Adrian Cristobal is named in the latest filing in the District Court of Guam.  The victim, 35-year-old L.J.C. is identified only by his initials to protect his privacy.

The former Barrigada parish altar boy alleges he was sexually molested and abused by Father Adrian on several occasions from 1995 to 1997.  One incident occurred after mass. CONTINUED

Saturday, April 7, 2018


Letter: Apuron effectively a prisoner of the church

There has been much wringing of hands over the Vatican’s penalty levied on former Archbishop Anthony Apuron.

Much of the press, both church and secular, has characterized it as only a “slap on the wrist” and Apuron’s allies have used this angle to craft a narrative which casts doubt on whether he was found guilty of child sexual abuse. 



Thursday, April 5, 2018



Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.

Recommendations by JungleWatch