Tuesday, September 13, 2016

IN THE NEWS


Pacific Daily News, Tuesday, September 13, 2016, page A03
Shawn Raymundo
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/09/12/lawmakers-lift-limitations-victims-sex-abuse/90252572/

9 comments:

  1. What was Senator Mary Torres' amendment to the bill? I did not understand what exactly was changed and why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know exactly what it was, but I was present with Bob Klitzkie, and he appeared to be satisfied with the amendment. Maybe Bob can weigh in on what it was.

      Delete
    2. Senator Camacho’s amendments can best be described as fine tuning.

      Substitute bill that went to the floor on Monday can be found at in the Committee Report for Bill 328 at http://www.guamlegislature.com/Committee_Reports_33rd/Bill%20No.%20326-33%20(COR)%20ComReport.pdf go to pp. 59,60 and check our § 2. Compare § 2 with § 2 in the bill as passed below

      Bill 326-83 as passed including Senator Camacho’s amendment:

      Section 2. A new § 11301.1 is added to Article 3 of Chapter 11, Title 7, 5 Guam Code Annotated, to read: 6 "§ 11301.1. No Limit for Child Sexual Abuse.

      (a) Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse may be commenced against a person, a legal entity, abusers, their enablers, their aiders or abettors, those acting in concert with them and their institutions at any time.
      (b) Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse that occurred on Guam which has been barred by virtue of the expiration of the previous civil statute of limitations shall be permitted to be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction."

      [If any member of Junglewatch Nation can convert the pdf in the committee report into a word document I could redo this comment so that it wouldn’t be so clunky.]

















      Senator Camacho’s amendments can best be described as fine tuning.

      Substitute bill that went to the floor on Monday can be found at in the Committee Report for Bill 328 at http://www.guamlegislature.com/Committee_Reports_33rd/Bill%20No.%20326-33%20(COR)%20ComReport.pdf go to pp. 59,60 and check our § 2. Compare § 2 with § 2 in the bill as passed below

      Bill 326-83 as passed including Senator Camacho’s amendment:

      Section 2. A new § 11301.1 is added to Article 3 of Chapter 11, Title 7, 5 Guam Code Annotated, to read: 6 "§ 11301.1. No Limit for Child Sexual Abuse.

      (a) Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse may be commenced against a person, a legal entity, abusers, their enablers, their aiders or abettors, those acting in concert with them and their institutions at any time.
      (b) Any claim arising from an incident of child sexual abuse that occurred on Guam which has been barred by virtue of the expiration of the previous civil statute of limitations shall be permitted to be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction."

      [If any member of Junglewatch Nation can convert the pdf in the committee report into a word document I could redo this comment so that it wouldn’t be so clunky.]




      Delete
    3. Thanks again, Bob.

      Delete
  2. The Diana / Pius blog has mentioned the filing of a Motion to Dismss (MTD) the defamation lawsuit.

    Since court pleadings are a public record, it would be helpful to upload the Complaint and the NCW Cult-inspired MTD.

    Parties get free digital copies of filed documents, while members of the public have to pay per page.

    Indeed, it would be enlightening to see the whole public docket uploaded. That is what a blogger did in the CNMI several years back when the government retirement fund collapsed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)September 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM

      I’m interested, too, in reading the motion. I was expecting that one or each of the defendants would make that move right out of the gate. It’s a run-of-the-mill strategic move and it's worth a try even before discovery especially since discovery is the part of this litigation that the main defendant (Fr. Apuron)wouldn't want to enter into. I want to see which of the defendant(s) filed that motion. Without knowing for certain, but relying on their experience, I’m sure the Plaintiffs’ counsel was waiting for such a motion. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have already mentally prepared their responsive arguments.

      Delete
    2. Here's the news report from KUAM. We'll have more info later.

      Defense in the $2 million libel and slander suit against Archbishop Anthony Apuron and the Archdiocese of Agana are asking the court to dismiss the complaint. In court filings made late Monday, defense calls the defamation suit "unusual", as it was sparked by paid ads by the Concerned Catholics of Guam.

      Defense states the archdiocese has publicly recanted and retracted Apuron's statements at issue and notes plaintiffs fail to plead special damages.

      The plaintiffs listed are Roy Quintanilla, Walter Denton, Roland Sondia, and Doris Concepcion on behalf of her son Joseph "Sonny" Quinata. Each of the plaintiffs alleges Apuron molested them decades ago. The suit follows press release and video statements from the archdiocese and Apuron, which defended Apuron's innocence and called his accusers liars who were out to destroy the church.

      The church is represented by local attorney Jeff Cook and Apuron represented by Attorney Jacque Terlaje.

      http://www.kuam.com/story/33069783/2016/09/12/defense-lawyers-asking-judge-to-dismiss-defamation-lawsuit

      Delete
    3. Thank you. Sorry for hijacking this thread. Please feel free to move these four posts to the new one whenever you create it. Or not. :-)

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch