Saturday, April 16, 2016


The fact that this statement was made by "Joker's Wild" who we know is Adrian makes this especially rich:

LOL. Adrian says "GPD never said that Fr. Luis was caught in the act," and that it was commenters on JungleWatch "who started the rumor."

Okay, we'll give them that. So we started the rumor. Fine. But Adrian CONFIRMED it:
"Father Luis Camacho was accused last year for ‘custodial interference’ and not for sexual misconduct with a minor. Following the accusation, a canonical investigation was begun into the matter and according to the zero tolerance guidelines, the Archbishop applied the precautionary measures according to canon 1722 of the Code of Canon Law, upon opening a preliminary investigation."
Do you see it?

Never mind the reference to Canon Law, that's just a ruse and I'm going to address that separately. It's what Adrian says right before that which confirms that Luis was arrested for "sexual activity": 

"...according to the zero tolerance guidelines." 

The only application of "zero tolerance guidelines" in church policy is in reference to the discovery of sexual abuse, particularly of minors. 

There are no "zero tolerance guidelines" for "custodial interference" or anything else. 

ZERO TOLERANCE is a policy adopted by the U.S. Bishops in 2002 in response to the public uncovering of decades of clergy sex abuse of minors. 

ZERO TOLERANCE is why Luis was immediately removed from ministry. 

Once again, Adrian, trying to sound smart, trying to outwit us, trying to shut us down with his bullcrap, hands us the very thing that he is saying doesn't exist: an accusation of sexual misconduct. 

And once again, it is not we who continue to accuse Luis Camacho of sexual misconduct. It is the Archbishop and Adrian: the archbishop by keeping the investigation open, and Adrian by referencing "zero tolerance guidelines." 
LOL. This is too much fun. Talk about shooting ducks in a barrel. 

Francis tells bishops to back ‘zero tolerance’ on sexual abuse


  1. Adrian should just give it up. The stupid idiot thinks he can make himself look good in hopes he'll be the next bishop?.... Talk about a dumb ass idiot.

  2. please clarify for us readers in lay terms the zero tolerance policy of the archdiocese.
    Does this mean that all I have to do is "believe" that there is/was a sexual act between a priest and another individual and this would be enough reason for the arch to begin an investigation? this is what I come to understand based on Deacon Martinez letter to deacon Claros.
    So If it is my "Belief" that a priest is having a relationship with someone because he took them to eat and then to the beach, should I report it? If it is my "Belief" that a priest is abusing his altar servers because he buys them expensive phones, takes them on personal trips and drops them off at home late, is this a reason for me to send a letter to the archdiocese?
    Let me know cause I have a few letters to write.

    1. It's actually the bishop who has to believe their is an offense - which shows the absolute uselessness of the policy when the bishop himself is the offender. But write those letters anyway.

    2. Write all the letters you desire, it is only the Archbishop who acts on employing the zero tolerance policy. You need to ask him for his specific reasons for accusing Fr Luis of sexual misconduct, but by way that he applied zero tolerance, we can safely assume it was because Fr. Luis violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy.

      The Sexual Misconduct Policy can be read and downloaded from the Archdiocese of Agana homepage. Custodial Interference is not a definition of Sexual Misconduct according to this policy.

    3. Obviously anon @ 2.48, the policy is just a CYA for the Archdiocese and the Archbishop.
      The policy, is only as good as the will to use it.
      We have said for months now, that this policy, is probably one of the most poorly written in a US jurisdiction.

      But it is the Policy of the Archdiocese, for better and for worse. What is obvious, is the total lack of will to enforce it when necessary, and the cherry picking attitude of the Chancery.
      The fact that the Archbishop chose to remove the previous enforcer of the policy to replace him by a straw man, did not give that weak policy a chance to even appear to look believable. For sure, for sure.

    4. Why, Frenchie, that is a damn good point! Why was the truthful SARC replaced with a Yes Man? That action alone warrants a questionable policy and enforcement. Hmmm, "me smell the blood of a fickle man." Or is it the smell of a crime coddler?

  3. regardless of who said what first…

    it appears to me that the jokers wild, the diana’s, and all that come to defend the poor innocent luis, are afflicted with selective memory loss, they all seem to forget that luis is an adult, and a far more important fact, luis is a priest, a supposedly ordained priest…

    it is apparent that in the neo world, luis the priest, is not obligated to higher standards, but these higher standards are required to all non neo priest, who would be severally persecuted and chastise for not looking priestly enough…

    evidently in looking through the eyes of the neo community, luis the priest, is nothing more than an equal to other members in the community, just a peer, on par with someone in the community…

    1. The NCW cult, masquerading as Catholics, are protective of their own. They believe Jesus was a sinner therefore (in Neo logic) it's no big for any of their presbyters or any of their own to commit sins. Imagine how boring their Saturday night fever..oops, I mean gathering would be without the echoes complete with all the juicy details. Right O.J.?

  4. Adrian, stop pretending to help luis…

    if what you're saying is true,(I doubt it) and its not about sex, (I doubt you again) i found a charge that does not hint or suggest an iota of "sex" in fact the word "sex is not even mentioned...

    i believe this charge describes the luis situation justly...

    "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor"

    For purposes of this part:
    “Adult” means a person 18 years of age or older and
    “Minor’ means a person younger than 18 years of age...

    Any adult who commits any act or engages in any conduct which he knows or should know would have the effect of causing or encouraging a minor to commit an act which would be a misdemeanor or infraction criminal violation of any federal or state statute or any county or municipal ordinance if committed by an adult...

    "Class B Misdemeanor

    A person convicted of this offense may be sentenced to:
    Pay a fine, not exceeding $1,000
    Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.

    see adrian, no "sex", and "if" luis was convicted and had to pay the fine, he can rely on guam, it’s catholic faithful has been helping you guys for years, just make the lies plausible...

    had you, or for sure for sure, done your due diligence (your job) and found or used a charge like this "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor", and if luis had to spend time in jail he would have been out already...

    adrian, i see your hate for luis has clouded your judgement, it has been over a year and you are still conducting a pretend investigation, stop pretending, you have been bad mouthing luis long enough...

  5. The fact that Luis committed an unpresitly act is more than enough Adrian, and you continue to defend that act. You're not pulling a fast one Adrian! We are not dumb people you idiot!
    You've always been a wanna be since high school and you continue be! What a crock!

  6. I guess none of the fools on the hill heard presbyter Jucutan's homily on "Remember the duck." Jucutan was so proud of his homily that he repeated it two Sundays in a row.
    Got one for you Tony, "Remember Agat, 1977."

  7. It all smells....

    As a seminarian Fr. Luis knew from the beginning how to conduct oneself in public. The rules are: to always travel with another seminarian in public and never go anywhere with a woman alone in public as well.

    Now that he is ordained that restriction of traveling alone was
    restricted but the other restriction/moral compunction to not engage with a woman alone should've been heavy on his shoulders.

    Why go to that secluded park? If they came from Subway Agat, couldn't he have spoken to her then at a table? Why did't Fr. Luis call her parents at the very onset of her communication to him..

    It smells. There have certainly been other ordained who have done wrong but the way this Bishop so plainly favors the RMS priests is appalling.

  8. What an idiot, Adrian. I guess it's true, stupid is contagious if you're around it long enough! As long as Adrian has been a pimple at the Chancery, he is now the perfect host to spread stupidity to all his community members as well. I hope for their sake they have some immunity left in their conscience.