Sunday, September 13, 2015

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHAT DO WE HAVE TO HIDE?

Dear Diana,

I understand that you are saying that SNAP "investigated" Archbishop Apuron and he was found to be "okay."

A few facts, Diana:


  • First, SNAP doesn't do investigations.
  • Second, SNAP wasn't on Guam (in 2010) to investigate anyone, but to provide a forum for victims of clerical sex abuse to come forward.
  • Third, SNAP went away empty handed for two reasons: 1) Me, and 2) the victim(s) no longer live on Guam.
Diana, let me help you out. But first, thank you for the opportunity to let the whole world know more about Archbishop Apuron. You are good at that. (Are you sure you aren't Adrian?)

A representative of SNAP (Joelle Casteix) came to Guam in 2010, probably at the invitation of someone connected to the support of two bills introduced by Vice Speaker B.J. Cruz. One bill would identify the Archbishop of Agana as a "mandated reporter" - meaning he could face criminal penalties if he did not report sex abuse, and a second bill which would lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors for two years.

Diana, I know that's a lot of heavy duty information for you to process, so go back and read it again. I understand how difficult it is for you to digest actual facts. So read it again. I'll wait. 

zzzzzz...

Okay, ready? 

Good. We go on. 

Senator Cruz had proposed both bills in retaliation to the Archbishop's perceived attack on him after his backing of two same-sex union bills. Of course, as we both know, Apuron didn't write a word of any statement about the bills, but his name was on them - one of which infamously inferred that homosexuals should be beheaded. Ouch! (Google it.)

At the time, I was the Archbishop's lone public defender and was in the media almost daily doing battle with Senator Cruz. When Ms. Casteix showed up, I publicly hounded her. I was so sure that the Archbishop and the archdiocese had nothing to hide that I was willing to stick my neck out in the press almost daily. I should have noticed that NO ONE ELSE WAS!

Now, let me tell you what happened.

Are you listening, Diana?

In April of 2010, while Casteix was on-island, attempting to get victims to come forward, I was called to the chancery by the archbishop's legal counsel. I walked into the chancery conference room and there were several important people seated at the table along with the legal counsel. I knew them all and can name them if need be. 

I was given a letter by the legal counsel and asked to read it. It was a statement intended to discredit Casteix and get her to go away. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the archbishop's people were very much afraid of what would happen if the statute of limitations were lifted and Casteix was able to get someone to talk.

I was asked to take the letter to the media. 

After reading the letter I put it down and looked up at the others. I then asked a question that sent shock through the room:

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHAT DO WE HAVE TO HIDE? LET'S CALL HER BLUFF AND TELL HER TO INVESTIGATE.

I still remember the open mouths at the table - mouths that started to stammer. One person (Sister Ana - she's dead now - and probably took a lot of secrets with her) sat quietly and looked at the table. Then another person said "What about...." and then a name was mentioned." 

I decided to call it quits right then and there. I didn't want to hear any more. I walked out of the meeting and never went back. I was done.

And I was quite willing to keep this all to myself, that is until July 16, 2013 - a day that will "live in infamy" in the "legacy" of Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron, Ofm. Cap. D.D., Metropolitan Archbishop of Agana - and of course thanks to YOU, Diana, who so casually jog my memory. LOL. 

Diana, let me point to something I said above in case you missed it: the victim(s) no longer live on Guam. But they know where Guam is. And more important they know where Apuron is. And thanks to you, they may soon.... 

Well, we'll leave that alone for now. Apuron and Adrian know EXACTLY what and who I'm talking about.

Too bad for them that you don't or you'd keep your mouth shut. 

13 comments:

  1. I knew it was bad. But I didn't realize how low Apuron was willing to stoop. Fortunately, I stand by my integrity. No matter what lies/mis-statements were in that document they wanted you to read, I would never have "gone away."
    Thank you, Tim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Joelle, my opposition to your visit had little to do with you or your group. It's much more complex. It had to do more with what I considered to be an ongoing subterfuge and general dishonesty at the legislative level. I saw you as one of the pawns in their game. Someday I'll write the book. Meanwhile, keep up the good work.

      Delete
  2. Fr. Matthew Blockley.September 13, 2015 at 11:12 AM


    I have the greatest respect for Joelle. she is a lady of great integrity and dedicated to truth and justice. I never doubted her truth and sincerity in all the years I have been reading her articles.
    I always believed if Joelle or Barbara Dorris write a statement it is truth. Never once in studying snap did I find these ladies to be wrong in evaluations. Two amazing ladies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fr. Matthew Blockley.September 13, 2015 at 12:19 PM


      Thanks Tim. By evaluations I mean that SNAP will never identify a person in an article as an abuser unless there is evidence. I must admit there was confusion on the SNAP reporting on The cases you mention. But thanks to you and Joelle it was eventually corrected.
      If you remember and you read the files of August 2008 I am also reported on by SNAP for when I stayed in New York . But I welcome SNAP because I know they do study and get to facts. The case with Fr . Paul did go off center but you did correct it. You are right as you always are. But I always hold Joelle and you in high esteem.

      Delete

  3. Reading this post makes me think Diana really is Adrian. Look closely at language. Diana is saying SNAP " investigated" The investigation found all was ok.

    But now we read the bold black statement of Tim saying to archbishop let's call bluff tell her to investigate. Archbishop knows if there was a formal outside investigation he is in deep trouble.

    They are using the word investigation to now work for them. If Apuron was above board in 2010 she should have followed Tim's advise and given Joelle open house to investigate. He did not His one intention was to get her off island before she discovered truth.

    Diana, now using investigation to make it sound she allowed it welcomed it and result was all I favor of archdiocese . SNAP left saying Archdiocese clear. Reality is Diana, Apuron attempted to fool SNAP. Impossible to fool SNAP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be careful. SNAP wrote in support of Apuron's firing of both Gofigan and Benavente. It took a lot of workfor me to get them to amend those stories. Don't assume you have the facts.

      Delete
  4. Tim, in that meeting there was one person, now not there, who asked that we need to know if we have skeletons in the closet. Now is the time to disclose under attorney client protection so that we can adequately defend. That person went around the room asking each person present. They all said no. From what we know today they all lied. Shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know about that. While I was still there, one name was brought up. He was ultimately thrown under the bus, sacrificed for Apuron. There are others. Apuron knows who he/they are. And he was hoping that they would never surface. This is why he went to Rome to shut me up. He knew.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you were not there at that particular meeting.

      Delete
  5. Query: Is Diana the pen name of Adrian, Pius, or some combination of authors?

    Do they necessarily get their stories straight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diana is a pen name. Diana writes what Pius and Adrian tell "her" to write. No. They don't get their stories straight. But that doesn't matter. "Tell a lie often enough...."

      Delete
  6. What will it take to invite Joelle this time to come back to Guam? After more info has come out, including the hush-hush treatment of Presbyter Luis Camacho, i.e., sending him off to some place as his reward for getting caught having sex with a minor and the chancery promising a bogus " canonical investigation" that never even went off the ground. While apuron went out of his way to discredit Msgr James and Father Paul who both were subsequently found without blame, apuron ferrets away a suspected abuser to San Francisco, and another sicko neo presbyter to Jerusalem and retains both under paid leave. Anything from this chancery under apuron is highly suspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no need to bring Joelle back to Guam. As I said, the victim(s) are not here. And as for cunnilingus Louie, it was consensual, so that's that. But I'm aiming at someone much bigger than Apuron.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch