Sunday, January 18, 2015


Too funny. Nice try though. Come back later and I'll fill you in. ROTFL. LAMAO. LOL

This is a good opportunity. For once we see in one place everything "the other side" thinks of me. Of course the only reason they think of me at all is not because of me but because of what I do. And because what I do (tell the truth) is a grave danger to the lie they live (which is why they yet cower behind a pseudonym) the very survival of the myth they live depends on their ability to discredit me. I have no problem with that. Try all you want, but at least do it with the some facts. So here, let me help you.

"Tim has a history like all of us and he suffers like all of us." 

Actually I don't suffer at all. Here's why. I am too busy caring about others to even know that I "suffer". I have 11 children who need me and I fight for them every day. I don't have time to navel gaze like the "Dianas" and think about "history". To wallow in your history is to deny that in Christ "all things have been made new". But wallowing is what they do, which is why you hear them drag out their personal histories again and again. So you guys go ahead and suffer. I don't have time for it. Besides real suffering is the burning and butchering of our fellow human beings in the Middle East and Africa. The personal melodramas of the "Dianas" are a discredit to those who truly suffer and to Christ himself who has given us all we need to "get over it."

"...he has also called the Archbishop 'evil'"

Actually, no. I have called what he does "evil". 

"...and that shows a personal grudge."

Actually, no. I simply hate bullies and liars.

"Removing a priest because of disobedience is not considered evil".

Let's say that Fr. Paul was disobedient. He proved that he wasn't which is why AAA changed the charge, but let's say that he was. How about having the locks changed on his office even while he was at the meeting where he was told to resign? Is that evil? How about kicking him out of the rectory and leaving him no place to go (he was only assigned to St. Anthony much later)? Is that evil? How about stripping him of every opportunity to celebrate the sacraments without notice? Is that evil? How about kicking him out of the diocese and then blackballing him to other bishops? Is that evil? How about accusing Mr. Lastimoza of a crime he didn't commit? Is that evil? How about saying Mr. Lastimoza was a danger to parishioners when it was later discovered that AAA himself had permitted Mr. Lastimoza to work at the parish for three years? Is that evil? How about insinuating that Fr. Paul and Mr. Lastimoza were in a homosexual relationship? Is that evil? How about accusing Fr. Paul of using parish funds to build a private stairway to his room to facilitate late night drunken homosexual trysts? Is that evil? How about going to the media with a list of charges against Msgr. James before even giving Msgr. James a list of those charges or giving him the decency of responding? Is that evil? 

"...there is a grudge that Rohr is holding against the Archbishop and i think it has to do with his history when he fought against the same sex bill proposed by B.J. Cruz."

Actually, quite wrong, but I will explain.

"Tim Rohr has made a comment on my blog (and even his blog), complaining about his ordeal as he fought against the same sex bill. He felt alone in that battle despite that God and His Church were with him. I remember the Archbishop and Deacon Jeff Barcinas speaking out against the bill in the media. Tim was up against both B.J. Cruz and Bill Pesch. Cruz was a judge and a lawyer before he was elected a senator. Pesch is a family law attorney fighting for gay rights. Tim asked the Archbishop if any of the attorneys (especially those in the Way) could take the lead in the fight. The Archbishop could find none."

Now you're on to something. Why was it, for all we hear about the wonders of the Way, that your people cower when it comes to putting faith to action? Where are you on the front lines of the abortion wars? Where are you on the front lines of any of the social challenges our church calls us to confront? Jesus did not just pray that the world would change, he publicly confronted evil wherever he found it, well knowing the price it would cost him. But you cower in your communities, venturing out only to pull practicing Catholics out of their pews. Such courage. What a bunch of fakes. 

Let's get to the bottom of this. First of all, other than fixing my own toilets I am not a plumber and never have been. Second, I did not defeat the same-sex bill, so no, I did not think that it was my "determination and effort that defeated the bill rather than God." 

Joe T. San Agustin, president of the Gov Guam Retirement Fund defeated the bill. Despite my efforts, public opinion showed that the bill would pass. Mr. San Agustin took the bill down with one letter to the legislature. The letter questioned the economic impact of same-sex unions on the retirement fund since it would create a whole new class of dependents for which the fund had no actuarial tables. 

The letter had been delivered to the legislature at the outset of the debate over the bill and even before I got involved, but the letter was not publicly known until several months later when Ray Gibson hosted an on air "argument" between San Agustin and B.J about the impact of the legislation on the retirement fund. B.J. knew that once the people realized that there could be a danger to the retirement fund they would no longer be supportive. He withdrew the bill the next day. So there you go. The real history.

But about my agenda. The "visitors" too tried to get to the bottom of my "agenda". There was some suspicion that I was on a personal crusade to exorcise past demons or on a personal crusade to "purify the church." I don't mind saying that I stopped Archbishop Savio at that moment, looked straight at him and said: "No archbishop, I'm not trying to do either. I am the father of eleven children and I'm trying to get their souls into heaven and I am having to fight against my own bishop to do so." They knew what I was talking about and any discussion about my personal motivations came to an end.

But let's go on to why I'm "mad" at the archbishop. Actually I wasn't mad at him until I saw how he treated Fr. Paul, threatening him with a "arduous and painful closure to his assignment." This is pure bullying since Fr. Paul has no life outside the Archdiocese of Agana. Everything he has, even his ability to take care of himself materially depends on the archbishop. 

But I was particularly motivated to come to Fr. Paul's defense because 3 years previously I had come to the archbishop's defense when he was being similarly bullied by B.J. Cruz, not about the same-sex bill, but about allegations of sexual molestation. Cruz did not outright accuse Apuron of sexual molestation, but he introduced two bills which if passed in the form he intended, would have surely brought the archbishop down - if not for his own actions, then for covering the actions of others. 

To assist Sen. Cruz in flushing out Apuron, SNAP was recruited to come to Guam. SNAP had a long history of flushing out offending clerics everywhere and producing some handsome sums for their clients, and Apuron knew he was in trouble.

At the time, despite persistent rumors about Apuron, I believed him to be innocent, and for several weeks I publicly battled both Cruz and SNAP. At the height of the battle, when SNAP director Joelle Casteix came to Guam to investigate, I was called to the chancery to meet with the archbishop's defense team. No one on that team wanted to go public in Apuron's defense. I didn't know why. But I was about to find out.

I was handed a document with a statement and was asked to take it to the media. The statement was written to discredit Sen. Cruz' attempt to pass the "windows legislation" bill. The bill was designed to lift the statute of limitations for any sexual molestation related case. The real danger of the bill was not that it exposed Apuron but that it exposed the assets of the archdiocese. As you know, it was not the bishops who were made to pay in dioceses like Los Angeles and Boston, but the dioceses themselves, which is why victims were awarded hundreds of millions of dollars. 

After reading the statement - which was designed to discredit both BJ and SNAP, I looked at the team and asked why we needed to do this, why don't we just call SNAP's bluff? Why don't we just demand that SNAP produce the evidence of what they are accusing the archbishop of? We don't have anything to hide do we?

I wish I could have video-recorded that moment. Eyes darted back and forth to each other and mouths started flapping without words. In my innocence, I had asked the dreaded question. There WAS something to hide and probably a lot to hide which is why no one on that team wanted to go public, so they recruited me. They recruited me because up to that point I had been the archbishop's fearless defender, or so I thought. In reality, I was just cannon fodder.

I am not going to use any names, but those who remember that period will remember that to appease the attackers, a certain priest was publicly thrown under the bus, a sacrificial lamb, fresh meat for the wolves to keep them happy and throw them off the scent of more dead meat. There was a problem with the priest, and it needed to be dealt with. But the real issue was Apuron's own liability in the matter. 

Even at that point I did not turn on the archbishop. Even though he was willing to send me out to the wolves to cover a lie so he could (once again) escape out the back door while I kept the wolves at bay, still I did not turn on him.

Instead, I turned my efforts to protecting the church itself. In the end, and I wasn't alone in my efforts, we were able to get the bill defanged. The passed version of the bill permitted only individuals to be sued for damages, not organizations. This took the money out of it, and in most of these sexual molestation cases, money is the only real reason to come forward because the pain of having to come forward simply for justice appears to be hardly worth it for most. 

With the ability to sue for millions out of the picture, the bill, which was signed into law, died a quiet death after its two year window with no takers. And even though there is still a provision in force for minors, there is still no money in it, which not only takes away a major motivation for the victims, but for any attorneys who might otherwise represent them.

So in a roundabout way, I (with the help of others behind the scenes) was able to save the archbishop from certain destruction since a major sexual molestation law suit against the archdiocese would have caused Rome to take him out in short order.

All of this cost me a lot. I am not wealthy. My wife and I have eleven children. We are a one income family. Neither my wife nor I have family on Guam to assist us. At the time I was running a Catholic bookstore, not because I wanted to but because no one else wanted to. At best it broke even -  if I didn't pay myself. We were also recovering from some major medical bills relative to the birth of our 10th child and had just given birth to our 11th. However, (while the "Dianas" cowered in their holes) I didn't think twice about defending our church or its bishop, no matter what the cost.

And even after I found out about the attempt to use me to cover skeletons, the record shows that I had nothing to say about the archbishop and continued to defend both him and the church in the press until July 2013 when I learned about what he had done to Fr. Paul. 

In 2010, I had helped to save Archbishop Apuron from his own "arduous and painful closure to his assignment", an arduous and painful closure that in fact he certainly would have merited all by himself. And yet, here was the man who I helped save, using the power that I had helped save for him, threatening a priest, regardless of whatever he accused him of, with an arduous and painful closure to his assignment and having the locks changed on him while they whipped him.

So yah, you might say I have a grudge. The archbishop was willing to arm me with a lie to save his office from the clutches of Sen. Cruz and SNAP who were out to prove that Apuron himself was a "danger to children". And here he was, 3 years later, flogging a helpless priest with a made up charge about another man's record. 

Yah, that's what I call "evil". Even a plumber can figure that out.


  1. Following the topic of "plumber" here is my exchange with Diana a couple of days ago. I indicate the word plumber like ---> plumber <---- where it appears. The girl went totally nuts already. Lol!
    Diana January 13, 2015 at 10:50 AM
    Dear Jolene,
    This is exactly what I mean. I already said that Dr. Eusebio is a member of the Board of Directors of the Seminary and has seen the financial report. He actually wrote to the PDN assuring everyone that the parish money from Sunday's collections are NOT going to the seminary.
    Yet, you chose to believe a ---> plumber (Tim Rohr) <--- who says that the Sunday Mass collections are going to the seminary without any evidence to show for it. But you refuse to believe the Board of Directors of the Seminary (Dr. Eusebio) whose job is to look at the financial report of the seminary.
    Jolene January 13, 2015 at 11:03 AM
    Diana, Dr. Eusebio is a neo, isn't he? He says what neos want to hear. So honestly, what are you talking about? Are you trying to fool me? It won't happen. Lol!
    What I am asking is this: when you collect money for RMS are you aware that you are collecting money inside the church for Catholic cause? Now, collecting money inside the church for Catholic cause should be administered BY the church and not by neos. It also should be a Catholic cause, not a neo cause. Then an official church body should account for all the money raised and distribute according to particular needs. If a parish is in need then money should be given to that parish first. The church is ONE just as the Holy Ghost is ONE and belongs to our God!
    Diana January 13, 2015 at 1:07 PM
    Dear Jolene,
    How do YOU know that Dr. Eusebio says what the neos want to hear? How are you 100% certain of this??
    You say "collecting money inside the church for Catholic cause should be administered BY the Church and not only by the neos." This is where the problems lies. You think that we are NOT the Church. We are also part of the Church. If you do not believe us, you can fly to Rome and ask the Pope.
    Jolene January 13, 2015 at 9:07 PM
    How is that Diana? Why would I make up my mind? I don't understand your point. I am trying to make a conversation. But you only pontificate and make one sided declarations without supporting evidence.
    Diana January 14, 2015 at 6:42 AM
    Dear Jolene,
    You have already made up your mind not to believe anything that a "neo" says. I already told you that Dr. Eusebio is a member of the Board of Directors df the Seminary, and he has already said that money collected from Sunday Masses do not go to the seminary. You chose not to believe him simply because he is in the Way......thereby judging that those who walk in the Way are not to trusted. Yet, you place your trust on a ---> plumber <--- who did not even provide any evidence of his accusation.
    You stated above that Dr. Eusebio says what neos want to hear. This is your opinion and you have nothing to support your opinion. You have already judged Dr. Eusebio for lying simply because he walks in the Way. You say that you are in the 4th community of Barrigada. So what are you doing there? If you disagree with everything about the Way, you are free to leave.
    Jolene January 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM
    You are the one who is judgmental Diana. I did not make up my mind. I am waiting for evidence. Evidence is some document that has been published and can be inspected. What is your concept of evidence? I am not in the 4th community of Barrigada, although I had visited them a while ago. I hope you have the basic courtesy to allow this correction to appear.

  2. Another deflection. Defending the theft of our church property. We see right through it. We are not the dumbasses we were before. Neos tell your arch to take care of the poor. Enough already. Too much baloney from tony.

  3. Gosh, Aristotle is crying right after reading the reasoning process and logic of Diana's comment at 11:17 AM. Her convenient use of God to explain things is maddening. How she concluded from the facts that Mr. Rohr is holding a grudge is beyond me. For example, she said that does Mr. Rohr "not see that God will not send another lawyer to battle another lawyer, and that is not how God works?" This is absolutely bizarre! Does Diana speak to God directly? If not, how does she know this is not how God works? Can she read God's mind? Does she have an in with God that none of us have? And do you get from there to Mr. Rohr holding a grudge because the archbishop did not send a lawyer? This is kooky logic! Good God, please help us!

    1. Faulty logic and reasoning are Neo trademarks. It's the way they're indoctrinated. If they stand with God, going against them means going against God, which seems logical to a simple mind.

    2. Yes, "tell a lie often enough..."

  4. Tim Rohr -"The Holy Plumber Of God" LOL! Where did these kooks get plumber?

  5. Plumber?

    What's wrong with being a plumber?

    The plumber unclogs your toilet so that your crap could be flushed out and not stuffed in your latrines to stink up and contaminate the place!!!

    But see, neos see plumbers as the enemy because you enjoy swimming in your own feces in the form of kikocathecism. Gross, disgusting, demented people!

    1. I love this comment! hahaha!

    2. Yes, a plumber, who discards of the kiko-kaka. A plumber is that person who can be relied on to get the problem fixed. I'd call on Tim anyday when this happens.

    3. Yes, maybe I'll keep the title plumber. After all, I certainly having been roto-rootering a lot of kaka, that's for sure. Reminds me that we used to have this enzyme product that kept the drains clear. It was called Biozyme. Guess we'll call our kaka fighting enzyme JungleZyme. I like the sound of that. Now to package and sell it so I can that money the Dianas accuse me of wanting.

  6. Diana, you neos are hilarious; you are small minded, one track mind and brainwashed. Only you would think that way of Tim. So funny. Why don't we just wait and see what the Vatican does. Maybe that'll shut all of you up. Better yet, maybe you'll all finally realize how embarrassing you all are. Take a close look - your communities are weakening. You must feel so threatened. Let me respond in a way you might understand: Nannie Nannie Boo boo! Calm down brother Diana. Yes, we ALL know who you are. We are not stupid. Let's see how long you can stay out of the jungle.

    1. "Take a close look - your communities are weakening."

      Is this why the "Invitation to Joy" campaign has started up again? Why aren't they campaigning outside rowdy bars or strip clubs, abortion clinics or pachingko places? Or, even outside non-Catholic churches?

      The people in pews already have listened to their conscience to at least come to church to pray for their transgressions and keep holy the Lord's day.

  7. Diana likes to simplify things, like a child. I have an image of a 10-year-old whenever I read a Diana response.

    The NCW is riding a wave of popularity these days the same way another "NC" did a while ago -- remember when the New Covenant was popular, and Governor Camacho was a member? The Church will overcome. God will see to that. Our job here is to remain strong in faith, and not to let the distraction of an insolent child's words guide us down a path of evil thoughts that stifle our faith. As sad that it is that we are now a flock with no Shepherd, we need to band together so the Good Shepherd knows our scent.

  8. I recall when the Charismatic group started in the Catholic Church here in Guam. It was sad to see how children of devout Catholics follow the group when it broke away from the Catholic Church. Some of them moved from one denomination to another. Poor lost souls.

    1. While the movement did not officially break away, groups within the movement certainly did. It was a disaster in my parish in Los Angeles in the 70's.

  9. Just remember: God doesn't send lawyers to fight other lawyers. Oh, and in the early church everyone did Flamenco dance around the altar, or I mean table, at Mass. Oh, and in the early church everyone took possession of communion while standing but then sat down at a table to consume it. --The Gospel according to Kiko.


Recommendations by JungleWatch