Friday, July 14, 2017


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "ONE STUPID PERSON!": 

As per John V. Doe v. Holy See, the sovereign state immunity of the Holy See does not shield it from civil litigation. The Holy See is vicariously liable for negligent bishops. Therefore it is foreseeable that Apuron shall not be found guilty in Rome because although not binding it would be inconvenient for the Holy See to deny it`s liability for Apuron after convicting him in it`s own jurisdiction. 

Of course civil litigation against the Holy See would be prohibitively expensive and it would appeal the ying-yang out of it. Then again; if it was the charitable entity that it represents itself to be, the Diocese of Rome would simply unload a small chunk of it`s billion dollars in assets in it`s jurisdiction and compensate victims for it`s negligence concerning Apuron. 

Even though the commenter has his facts wrong, there is still something very important here. I'll explain. 

First, the case cited does the exact opposite from what the commenter claims. The U.S. District Court judge in the case ruled "the Holy See cannot be held liable because there was no relationship of employment in the case." The mega-lawyer, Jeff Anderson, attorney for the plaintiff, apparently planned to appeal the decision but the case was dismissed in August 2013. 

The second issue is with the commenter's belief that the Church is a "charitable entity" and that the "Diocese of Rome" has billions of dollars. Aside from that ridiculous idea, the problem remains the same for the Diocese of Rome as for the Archdiocese of Agana: the clergy will not be personally penalized. Whatever assets any diocese has are due to the gifts of the laity. 

To penalize "the church" is to penalize the laity who are already abused by the clerics they are trying to clean their church of. We only worked to pass the local legislation permitting us to penalize "the church" because it was the only way to flush out the bad guys. But none of them will personally pay a dime - except for maybe Apuron. But at least we got rid of the bad guys (some of whom we're still working on). 

But now we come to the crux of the matter, and FILONI and the neocats had better pay attention.

Per the District Court's decision, the ONLY protection the Vatican has from being held liable in the mega-billion dollar universal clergy sex abuse scandal is "no relationship of employment." While it was always the case, Vatican II specifically underlined the absolute autonomy of bishops in the administration of their dioceses. That's why Apuron used to brag "no one can get me." He knew that except for something extreme, not even the pope could take him out - which is in fact, why Francis has not done so, only asking him to resign. 

However, Cardinal Fernando Filoni's letter to Msgr. David C. Quitugua of September 7, 2016 forbidding the visit of a few members of the Laity Forward Movement to RMS, clearly casts Filoni as an employer, or at least in an administrative role, while bypassing the local bishop. 

Filoni is a high ranking member of the Roman Curia, the Prefect for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and his direct intervention in the temporal affairs of this diocese EXPOSES the Vatican to liability and law suits from lawyers like Jeff Anderson.  

With this letter, Filoni (aka the "Red Pope", aka "Kiko's pope"), in his lust to protect his neocats, handed hundreds of attorneys the ammunition they need to go after the Vatican. All it will take is one more intervention like this one into the affairs of the Archdiocese of Agana, and the Vatican, or at least Filoni, may well be dragged into a secular court. 

Good thinking, Fernando. But thinking isn't something Kiko's like you ever do. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch