Thursday, December 4, 2014


Is this true about the real reason behind J. Toves coming to Guam as per Diana.

Dear Ernie,

Before John Toves came to Guam, he also spoke to Patty Arroyo. Tim Rohr has the John's interview with Jesse Lujan and Ray Gibson, but somehow he missed the interview with Patty Arroyo, which can be found on this weblink:

According to that Interview, John Toves admitted that the real reason he came out was to reinstate Monsignor James and Father Paul. It was not about his cousin who he claimed was sexually molested by the Archbishop. In fact, he admitted in this interview that he never communicated with his cousin about his plan to launch the allegations against the Archbishop. So, he was not even speaking on behalf of his cousin.


First, the interviews on Patti's show are not as regularly recorded and posted on the PNC website as are the interviews on Ray Gibson's shows, so I probably didn't think to look for it. 

Second, I don't catch every media happening and I don't remember hearing the interview with Patti. In fact, I know I missed it because I also missed the one with Ray earlier. 

Third, Mr. Toves has been very clear about the objectives of his visit: 1) to confront AAA about the molestation of his cousin, 2) to demand the reinstatement of Msgr. James and Fr. Paul, and 3) to demand that the Archbishop step down. 

The only reason demands two and three have any weight is because of demand number one. Otherwise Toves would pose no threat to AAA and AAA would not be threatening to sue him. 

Mr. Toves in fact did not communicate with his cousin about this, but not for lack of trying. He has tried on several occasions. However, he didn't try very hard because he was well aware of the emotional trauma his cousin took years to recover from, a trauma that led to an attempt to take his own life. And Mr. Toves was aware that bringing this up with his cousin could cause a relapse, so he let it go and decided to go it alone.

However, now with AAA threatening to sue, a defamation suit could force the victim to be deposed and his life could collapse. If this happens it won't be Mr. Toves' fault. It will be the Archbishop's since this scenario can only happen if AAA presses his suit. 

All AAA would have to do to discredit Mr. Toves and get rid of him is to say the charges are false and go on about his business. This is what other bishops have done. But AAA is threatening to sue and pleading the 5th. This is the worst thing he could have done...if he is innocent. 

Mr. Toves also knows that he is not alone in what he knows. Many on Guam know. And many have said so in comments to this blog. I have left them unpublished because there was no name attached. I have also been approached by several people who have relayed their knowledge of the molestation, not just of John's cousin, but of others. 

However, they are unwilling to come forward and I understand their reasons. The victims and their families have spent years in recovery and putting this behind them and do not want to go through the pain again. The molestations occurred during a period where these kinds of things were not known. And most did not know how to respond other than to bury it. 

Today, with the exposition of 50 years of this kind of behavior in what Pope Benedict called "the filth in the Church", we are incredulous as to why someone didn't come forward earlier. But back then there was no precedent for it. 

In the 70's my dad and I went to the Archbishop of Los Angeles to report our pastor. It was learned that he was having an affair with a neighbor man who was also helping himself to parish funds. As a boy, I personally had been uncomfortably touched by this priest. With me it was not sexual, but I have since learned it was a type of "probing" to see if I would respond. I didn't, other than to send a signal that I didn't like it. So he left me alone. But who knows who else he "touched"?

My father and I were told by the Archbishop (his secretary) to "get out". The Archbishop of Los Angeles and my pastor had been seminary classmates. And while I don't think they were any great friends, back then, mid 70's, that was they way the hierarchy handled complaints about their priests. 

But none of this really matters in the present case. The Kikocats know that the clock is ticking and they are scrambling to destroy anyone who might take down their Sugar Daddy. 


  1. Maybe John Toves has a respond to this post regarding using his relative without his relative's "a okay"

    DianaDecember 4, 2014 at 10:20 AM
    Dear Anonymous at 10:08 am,

    The truth is.......if they were really after justice, they would not put any weight on demand number 2

    Furthermore, they claim to care about this relative who is so traumatized by this so-called allegation that they did not even bother to communicate with him about his feelings regarding John Toves' plans to USE him in their campaign against the Archbishop. Where is their respect for this person when they used his name to launch their plan to attack the Archbishop? They did not think nor care that his name was used without his permission?

    1. At this point, the "justice" that John is after and that I am after and that many are now after is NOT justice for a solitary victim, but justice for Apuron and to STOP him from wreaking further havoc on this church and destroying even more people.

      Oh and by the way, the victim's name has yet to be used. Must be difficult to be both a coward and a fool.

  2. That blog is run by an anonymous coward who allows comments by other anonymous cowards. They have no credibility and are as empty as their convictions.

    They want to counter what I or others who use their real names have to say? Have them come out of the shadows and show some resolve for what they dishonorably promote. Otherwise, let them keep drowning in that cesspool of filth of their own making.

    Until then, can we please stop referencing that joke of a blog and stop giving them credence by responding to them in this forum and theirs? I tire of their infantile rationalizations and arrested development.

    Of course some chucklehead over there will reference my name or this post; it's to be expected from predictable cowards.

    1. My opening sentence as I intended: That blog is run by an anonymous coward who allows comments by other anonymous cowards to malign non-public persons who have the courage to post their real names here on JW.

    2. Jose at 11:43AM and 12:01PM, not only will some knucklehead reference your name and/or post on "The Dianas" blog, I'm also fairly certain that your name will be inscribed — along with those of Tim Rohr, Chuck White, several priests and others, including mine — in their newest list of people whom they have deemed must suffer EXCOMMUNICATION for daring to express our thoughts here in The Jungle.

    3. You are correct, Jose, about the unintelligible drool dribbling from the mouths of Edivaldo and Pius. However, their drool has driven the numbers on my own blog like nothing else. I could not have done a better job of exposing to the world what happens to Christians who drink KAKA than they have done themselves. So while I don't bother to visit their little cesspool, I appreciate, from time to time, the exposition by this blog's readers of the excrement the kiko's deposit onto the internet as it has proven to be useful fertilizer for the growth of my own blog. However, your point remains very valid and it is fair warning to Pius and Edivaldo's visitors. Just remember to check your shoes before you walk into your house after visiting theirs.

  3. The media are baffled (for lack of a better word) at Deacon Larry's statement that there is NO investigation. Who's truly scrambling?

  4. What is troubling is that as the Sexual Abuse Response Coordinator, Deacon Claros demonstrated that he should recuse himself by declaring the Archbishop innocent sans investigation.
    This does not bode well for any victim who are struggling to muster the courage to approach this investigative committee if it is know that the SARC (Deacon Claros) has already stated a prejudicial slant.

    This is truly concerning and unfortunate.

  5. I don't know how this is going to unfold at the Cathedral procession. As much as I want to go as I do every year, I am so disgusted by the Archbishop and how the chancery responded to the allegations.

  6. All this is just another confirmation of what we already knew. The NCW knowingly promote the protection and hiding of sexual predators within their ranks and through their network of friendly parishes, monasteries and other establishments. Some of the key members being themselves predators in hiding. This is very serious and in some case criminal.
    The Arch is trying to pull a Wadeson on us. But then, he can hardly throw himself under the bus.....
    Which still leaves open the question about Pius escape from Malta and it's reason, as well as the lack of vetting of the seminary students.
    This ship is leaking from all sides

    1. For the 50th time, I repeat, SCREENING for the seminarians. All of them. Including police clearance.