Monday, May 23, 2016


Note: See my 2011 note added to the bottom of this post.
Cruz has said he doesn’t plan to reintroduce the bill again because there could be a constitutional issue of constantly reopening statutes. 
“I don’t want to be embarrassed that it’s going to be challenged constitutionally,” Cruz said. “I can’t keep opening and closing and opening again the statute.”

Dear Mr. Joe Santos,

It sounds like this time around BJ is protecting Apuron. Never mind the coward, BJ, Mr. Santos. You are doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do! And when you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, you don't worry that you might be "embarrassed." Press on, Mr. Santos. Your cause is just and your motive sincere. Plus, you are doing the hard work that The BJ never did, working to get public support. This is what TRULY helping the "little guy" looks like. Press on, Mr. Santos. Press on. 

Free counters!

Silent No More! petition drive

Campaign aims to lift statute of limitations on civil claims of child sexual abuse

Catholics urged to sign "Silent No More" petition

Silent No More: resident starts movement against child sexual abuse

Petition targets sex abuse

Joe Santos with Patti Arroyo

Petition Launched to Lift Statute of Limitation on Sex Abuse

Guam teacher campaigns against stature of limitations

New Guam campaign against child sex abuse

Teacher Starts Campaign to End 2-Year Statute of Limitations of Child Sex Abuse on Guam

The following was sent to an email list which included the then senators. A PDF copy of the original email can be found here

Tim Rohr
February 23, 2011


This is a personal message. No one has asked me to send this. No one has asked me to speak in defense of the Church. 

I am sending this message tonight because Bill 34 was debated today in the Legislature and was moved to the 3rd Reading File, which means it will be up for a vote in the next few days.

Bill 34 enacts "window legislation" which will lift the statute of limitations for alleged crimes against children, so that these alleged crimes - days or decades old - can be prosecuted.

On the surface, the bill is appealing. Who could be against justice for children? And in normal circumstances I wouldn't be opposing the bill or asking you to oppose it.

As a teen, I was a "victim" of unwanted sexual advances by a member of the Catholic clergy. I also had the "hierarchical door" slammed in my face when my father and I went to see the Archbishop (Los Angeles) about the matter.

I shed no tears for the LA Diocese when it had to cough up somewhere near half a billion dollars in law suits over child sexual abuse. 

However, there are a couple things that you should know about Bill 34. First, Bill 34 and its predecessor, Bill 334 in the last legislature, despite what Senator B.J. Cruz continues to publicly disclaim, IS AIMED at the Catholic Church in general and the Archbishop in particular.

Bill 34 is Senator Cruz's personal act of retaliation against the Archbishop for opposing Bill 185 which would have legalized same-sex unions. 

Senator Cruz made this threat after a meeting with the clergy and some members of the Legislature at the Hilton Hotel in 2009 when Bill 185 was being hotly debated. Senator Cruz knows he made this threat. And Senator Cruz knows that his primary purpose of introducing Bill 34 is his personal vindictiveness.

Senator Cruz is welcome to introduce whatever bill he wants regardless of his personal motivations. Its just too bad he doesn't have the courage to stand on his convictions and take on the Archbishop and the Catholic Church publicly. He has to hide behind his supposed concern for justice for children.

But the real reason to oppose Bill 34 is not because of Senator Cruz's childish tirade, but because the Church isn't the Archbishop and the priests. The Church is US. This is especially true on Guam where the assets of the Church are directly linked to the people who sit in the pews and their ancestors.

Window legislation such as Bill 34 has resulted in major financial damage to diocese across the U.S. To pay for this, the dioceses have had to sell its properties, which is the only wealth most dioceses actually have.

In the states, where most members of parishes are not intimately connected to the founding of parishes and where most of the properties sold were already abandoned or scheduled for downsizing anyway, the impact of the sold properties was not personal.

On Guam, it will be quite different. This afternoon I spoke with a person who is running a bake sale to help pay back the loan needed to repair their parish church after the last typhoon. I am sure you are quite familiar with the needs of parishes being met by "the little people", the many people who quietly give, work, and donate to keep their parishes and schools alive.

Churches, schools, chapels... on Guam, these were not built by wealthy bishops and priests, these were built by you, by your parents, your grandparents, your ancestors. The land upon which many church buildings stand was for the most part given to the Church from family lands.

In addition the Archdiocese of Agana educates about 5000 young people every year at a savings to the Government of Guam of about $6000 per child. Its charities feed, clothe, house, and care for more people every day than all the government agencies put together.

Yet, as one Catholic Senator (who supports Bill 34) said:

"The witness that stepped forward to provide testimony against Bill 34 (Deacon Jeff Barcinas) at one point articulated the fact that he was concerned about the financial impact this might have upon the institution that he represented and so in my mind he was saying it was all about money..." (KUAM)

Of course its all about the money Senator, but its not about Deacon Barcinas' money. It's not about the Archbishop's money. It's about the our money. It's about the money that is needed to feed those homeless every day at Kamalin Karidat. It's about the money that is needed to keep an extra 5000 students from knocking down the doors of the public school system for whom our government can't even provide working buses and functioning toilets let alone quality education.

Perhaps Deacon Barcinas could have and should have better made this point. But perhaps we are expecting too much of our elected leaders to understand the implications of financially destroying an institution that is holding up a huge corner of Guam's society and serving the needs of people GovGuam will otherwise be required to care for.

The sad part is that the "victims", if indeed there are any, will see a pittance in financial gain compared to the attorneys who will gorge themselves on the proceeds of the sale of ancestral properties that Bill 34 will force. And most of them won't even be from here as you probably can guess. 

It's quite easy to understand Senator Cruz's blindness or apathy to the damage that will follow Bill 34. It's not as easy to understand the blindness of other senators to the damage they are about to do, NOT to Archbishop Apuron, not to some abstraction called "the Church, but to their own people. I'm hoping that there will be enough who will not be so blind. We shall see.


  1. If Senator BJ Cruz wishes not to introduce maybe it is the people wish to vote him out this election as well. We need people who will take care of it's people representing us all.

  2. Ken AVLegislatureMay 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM

    It needs to come out even though Senator or Vice Speaker Cruz has more class than call out his colleagues name even though he really should since you keep calling him names. He's not a coward your name calling is just too much.

    I work the session hall. Here are the names of who Apuron was working the phones with: Rory Respecio, Tony Ada, Frank Aguon, Tina Barnes and was telling them in detail what to say, what to pull out or off the bill. We in the AV room saw it and heard it as we passed out the change copies.

    It's very hostile to point the ugly finger at BJ Cruz especially since he's not the problem and knows first hand sexual abuse. He came out publicly and tore down social issues by walking the walk, talking the talk. Let's see who the coward is that would re-introduce this bill because for damn sure it won't be any of the ones you think are on your side.

    BJ has got balls and intestinal fortitude to stand up and say the things nobody else will. Uncool calling him a coward unless you think any of the others would step up and do this. I do not. Cowards do not come out publicly about their sexual preferences and win elections.

    Turn your anger somewhere else.

    1. Do you have a real name, Ken? LOL

      And for the record, I am not angry. I believe BJ is a serial liar and I get to believe that because I want to. Oh, and because I don't get paid by the legislature.

      My calling him a coward has nothing to do with his own "abuse" story. It has to do with he himself said: that he doesn't want to suffer any "embarrassment." LOL. What a joke.

      So take you anger somewhere else. Courage.

    2. Oh, and by the way, Ken. It shows that you made this comment at 9:26AM. It's Monday. Are you at work? Are you checking my blog on taxpayer time? You got a real name, Ken?

    3. Hahaha poor AV guys - the Vice Speaker's staff just totally threw you under the bus!!!!!

    4. The problem, Ken, with anyone believing this is that Rory and Tina have never shown the slightest worry for the Church or Her teaching (or the Archbishop's intentions or concerns) since they've been in office. From abortion onward, they've been on their own Judy-esque program. Frank Aguon tended to follow the same course as well until called out on it. So spare me the whole bit about how they are puppets of the Arch.

      To quote OJ, "it never happened." Rather like BJ being sincere or concerned for anyone but himself.

  3. In the name of his legal finesse,
    now BJ blocks legal redress;
    but behind all his diction
    is a self-serving fiction
    neither he nor the Arch will confess.