Friday, August 15, 2014

NOTE TO TONY DIAZ, EDITOR, UMATUNA

Dear Tony,

Please tell us that you did not have a hand in this lie. Most people I know still respect you and believe that you are doing your best in a difficult situation. But this is a lie. There were not "errors in the original edition". The original edition had a full hit piece on Msgr. James (AGAIN) and it was only recalled when the Archbishop got "that letter" stamped "Received" last Friday at 4:10PM. Don't you know that I and others have the full copy of that article? Please distance yourself from this grossly corrupt group while you can. 


10 comments:

  1. The UMSY has become an entertainment tool opposed to spiritual nourishment. Ever since the unveiling of Apuron's corruption, I now look forward to see what the idiots on San Ramon have for public display.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Say the first printing and it was an attack on Msgr. James. Too late to cover up...here again is the evidence of a slip up...no not a slip up....someone wants us to know the truth....Lemon soju anyone?

      Delete
    2. Newspapers do not make errors especially in the first page, and errors are usually typos or incorrect information(hmmm...remember Ms. Dulla), and no newspaper would call back an entire printing. They would simply print a correction on the following issue. And why this note? Why go out of their way to print this note? I mean, if they recall it, so be it, unless of course, they read the Junglewatch(who gets more hits in one day than the Umatuna's total readership) and is in reaction to Junglewatch. Mr. Rohr: you have them worried and sweating! LOL.....

      Delete
  2. My God. It is Friday night weekend and horrible news concerning Archbishop Anthony Apuron circulates social media. How can he be trusted. Very serious.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is corruption. Beginning to think Fr.Blockley account is true.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Another "HOGWASH" article!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What more of as mess in the financial status of the Cathedral and the Cemetery be in? Just wondering after reading Diana's post....which I have copied and pasted here.It was brought to my attention that Junglewatch claims to have three copies of the Umatuna of last week, August 10th. Well, I also have one copy. The Umatuna was withdrawn due to the fact that the report on finances was not complete, and much worse things are coming out. That is the reason why it was recalled as far as I know. It was also brought to my attention that the financial mess of the cathedral and the cemeteries is much worse than we originally thought. More to come as soon as I can get more information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. So Edivaldo and Holly know more than Deloitte and Touche. The letter from D & T that the Archbishop used to falsely smear Msgr. James was a result of the investigation into the Cemetery finances. As we now know, all but one of the issues noted by D & T had been addressed even to the Archbishop's satisfaction as he himself stated in a letter to Msgr. James dated June 26. But now we're supposed to believe Edivaldo and Holly.

      But let's say there really are "worse things coming out". Why are they "coming out"? What sort of a bishop persistently smears his priests publicly? What sort of a bishop takes problems that any self-respecting manager of even the smallest organization would normally handle internally and runs to the media instead?

      Imagine Archbishop Balvo sending a letter to the PDN showing that Archbishop Apuron had NEVER filed the proper financial reports for this diocese. Imagine even the owner of any company publicly smearing an employee instead of dealing privately with the employee.

      What sort of a bishop do we have?

      Delete
    2. A brainwashed bishop with no backbone to defend and protect his church and the catholic community. Neocrats are much more important to him. Money and power has taken control over his dignity.

      Delete
  6. So there are TWO versions of the 10 August 2014 issue of the U Matuna Si Yu'os — the "official" (AKA "on record") edition AND the "wrong" ("unofficial" … "off the record" … "just plain messed up") one — and it looks like we're supposed to only read the "OFFICIAL" edition.

    Has the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum" (List of Prohibited Books) been reestablished for the Archdiocese of Agana? And has the "wrong" edition of the UMSY been added to that list?

    I must say that this effort to emphasize that there is an "official" and "on record" edition sounds like there's a sense of urgency to minimize what was featured in the "original print edition.” This Note only serves to add fuel to the flames of curiosity: Just what did "that letter" stamped “Received” at 4:10PM contain, prompting the panic attack at the Chancery?

    If this feeble attempt to “clear the record” is all that the Chancery will offer, I hope we will learn more from future JungleWatch posts about what the REAL problem with the “wrong” edition was.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch