Saturday, August 26, 2017

GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

Posted by Tim

"She said any settlement discussion also hinges on the result of Apuron's ongoing Vatican canonical trial."Federal judge offers court services for clergy abuse mediation

So, apparently if the Vatican finds Apuron guilty of the sex abuse of children, Apuron will (?) participate in "settlement discussions?" And if not, then apparently he won't?

It appears to me that the "trained lawyer" is admitting that her client is guilty. But it also appears that the "trained lawyer" is aware of what is going on with the Vatican trial and that she and Apuron have been given reason for hope, and probably by Filoni Baloney. 


This tells me that there is probably a war of the titans going on in Rome: Burke vs Filoni. 

In one way Filoni has the upper hand because he's a Vatican insider and Burke is on the out. Yet, Francis personally appointed Burke as one of the judges for Apuron's trial and obviously the prime investigator. 

Since there's no one tougher at the Vatican than Burke, and who, one on one, could make mincemeat of Filoni Baloney, one wonders why Francis chose Burke. 


There's only one explanation. Francis knows Apuron is lying about his innocence, and knew that only Burke could get to the bottom of 40 year old allegations, which for anyone would be tough to prove. 

In fact, the allegations really can't be proved from the individual allegations. The stupid people at the other blog are fond of saying that there are no witnesses. LOL. Of course. If you were going to rape a child would you invite your friends to come and watch? (Hmmm, on second thought, some of them were sick enough to do that!)

So one on one, it's a "he said - he said" situation...EXCEPT! 

Except for the fact that there are at least three allegations against Apuron from living victims from which can be established a pattern of behavior. And there are probably more...many more, which went directly to the Vatican. Remember that David Lujan pointed out that the canonical case on Apuron had been opened in 2008. 

And besides the sex abuse allegations, which I am willing to bet are NOT the focus of Apuron's trial, there is Apuron's history of negligence, incompetence, and downright ABUSE of the episcopal office, which is very demonstrable, provable, documentable, and for which there are plenty of witnesses. 

But meanwhile, how strange is it that the "trained lawyer" is making civil proceedings against Apuron subject to the outcome of church proceedings. Since when is a civil court bound by the outcome of a trial in another country, particularly a country which is a church: the Vatican? 

It's not of course. So the "trained lawyer's" statement tells us that she knows Apuron is guilty, guilty, guilty. Because if he he wasn't, she would not be waiting for the Vatican. She would be demanding that Apuron be given an immediate opportunity to face his accusers in court. And she's not. 

5 comments:

  1. LOL! Train lawyer? Guess again. Bwahahaha. Your delusional, believe your own lies again Timmy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morning Rude-ee. Care to tell us why you got fired?

      Delete
    2. Examine your conscience all neos and ask the Lord to have mercy on you and to show you the truth!
      You cannot defend the indefensible.
      BLIND; "looks and looks and does not perceive"
      You have a huge palm-I only have a handheld. Forgive me you superlatives!!!


      Delete
  2. Innocent people do not go into hiding, In fact one would think that someone accused would be helping the cause of clearing their name. Considering Apuron's tract record, his lies and deceit as archbishop, one can surely say that if he can lie and deceive in matters of his office as archbishop, what would prevent him from lying about grave things. His motivation is clear, he enjoys being recognized, loves to be in the media, and has aspirations to power perhaps being a cardinal. He is one person who will do whatever it takes to get what he wants, his pride and perverse ambitions are biting him in the ass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like double jeopardy in reverse.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch