Monday, October 12, 2015


Vindication with the revelation from the Concerned Catholics of Guam 
The Concerned Catholics of Guam reveals proof that Archbishop Anthony Apuron gave away a multi-million dollar diocesan property to the Neocatechumenal Way sect. With Greg Perez, President CCOG.

Vindication with the revelation from the Concerned Catholics of Guam that the archbishop gave away a multi-million dollar church property to a controversial religious sect. With Tim Rohr

Group may sue after lawyer says church no longer owns former hotel
The former Accion Hotel, worth tens of millions of dollars before an anonymous donor donated it to the Archdiocese of Agana almost a decade ago, is no longer an asset of the local Catholic church, according to a Guam law firm retained recently by Concerned Catholics of Guam Inc.

Help the CCOG raise funds to get the property back: 


  1. Janet B - MangilaoOctober 13, 2015 at 5:14 AM

    Jesus spoke often about the religious charlatans only looking to pad their own pockets or pet their overinflated egos.

    Jesus called them a


    We should refer to Tony and the organized crime syndicate he belongs to by the same biblical term.

    After all, the kilos want to revert the church to its earliest form. So let's use the language of the day! Maybe they will finally get it.

    We will not rest until the "brood of vipers" has been vanquished from our pearl in the pacific.

    Tony be gone
    Pius be gone
    Adrian be gone
    Giuseppe be gone
    Diana be gone
    All presbyters with hearts of stone be gone
    All kikos with hearts of stone be gone

    St Patrick-intercede and drive these demons from our shores!

    1. A Tree Recognized by its Fruit (Matthew 7:15-23; Luke 6:43-45)

      Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

      O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

      A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

      But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

      For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

  2. Any comment from the donor who made the purchase of the Yona property possible?

    1. Opinion of donors has been made clear. Hasn't it?

  3. Not withstanding all the feeble denials that the property was still in the possession of the Archdiocese, the language is quite clear even to those without a legal degree that the property was deeded to RMS in perpetuity, but CCOG had to engaged the services of an attorney to make it perfectly clear that indeed the property was indeed stolen from the laity and gifted forever to the RMS Neo seminary. Now money has to be spent in court to take back what rightfully belongs to the Guam Catholics. Evil to know that while Kiko has millions and millions of dollars, Apuron choose the route of stealing from the poor to gift to the rich. Shameful. Kiko, do what is right for the first time in your life and gracefully return the stolen property. I will however, not hold my breath.

  4. Let's see if her lady ship answers. ------ posted Tues.

    Why must property be RESTRICTED? If it belongs to Archdiocese as the Archdiocesan Seminary as it was intended by the donor then this restriction seems very uneccesary....explain why the deed of restriction,Diana, and many will be understanding. The property not willy hilly offered. It was given for a special purpose. That purpose never was specifically for the NCW.

  5. Diana deep thought: DianaOctober 13, 2015 at 11:11 AM
    Dear Anonymous at 10:52 am,

    The restriction states that the property should be used as a seminary. So, why do you have a problem with this restriction? Is this not a good restrict its use for a seminary?

    Let us say that I own a house, and I put a restriction on my house. The restriction I put on my house is that it will not be used for rental purposes. I and my children can live in the house but due to its restriction, my children cannot put up the house for rent without my permission. Who does the house belong to? It is still my house because I did not sell it nor give a deed of gift to anyone. There was no transfer, only a restriction.

    1. See:

  6. Wow, picture becomes clear! TWO DOMUS PROJECTS. And then we have Fabulous Fabio's project. Oh, boy.

  7. Aside from public protests, public rosaries and getting petitions signed, which are all well and good, may I suggest also that we carry out a person-to-person campaign of suggesting to people we know, one person at a time, that they stop contributing to the collection box on Sundays and whenever the collection box is passed out?

    You readers are wise enough to know the effects of such a suggestion, so I won't belabor the point.


Recommendations by JungleWatch