Thursday, October 26, 2017

Apuron: Judge's report is erroneous, should be rejected

FB Link

Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron said a federal judge's report, stating that the clergy sex abuse lawsuits against Apuron should not be dismissed, is "erroneous and contrary to law, and should be rejected." CONTINUED



12 comments:

  1. Thought brother tony wanted his day in court­čĄö­čÖä. Guess he's just afraid of what the whole world would finally know if he went to court. Truth doesn't lie but guilt continues to run.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The psychopathic s.o.b. remains concerned only about himself. Nary a word about his suffering victims.

    If that fat pervert thinks omnipotent US Federal Judges are a soft touch, he has another think coming. They're appointed for life and this liberal bunch doesn't like the Catholic Church. With a little bit of luck, Apuron is doomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The report and recommendation was by a U.S. Magistrate Judge.

      They serve a term of eight years, not a life appointment.

      A District Judge on Guam and in the CNMI and USVI serves a ten-year term.

      Delete
  3. This "monster" is an absolute disgrace, to the people of Guam, to his family and to the Catholics of this diocese. It angers me to see that this "fruit" refuses to own up to his actions. SMH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Raymond. It looks like Apurun has abandoned the "best defense is a good offense" tactic of 17 months ago. Back then he threatened to sue everybody opposed to his saddistic rule.

      Now that the tables are turned and he is the object of lawsuits, it appears he has developed the opposite strategy. He really should get a different attorney, one who can provide sound advice.

      What is truly sad, but a good indication of the caliber of man he isn't, is the fact that he has expressed no sorrow for all the cases filed. And I'm not talking about the four victims that he had sex with.

      Kikos still hold out the crazy hope that Apurun will make a triumphant return to Guam, and save the NCW day. But they completely ignore the fact that he neglected all those victims in years past. Just Broullard alone has about 75 cases against him, so certainly Apurun knew about him.

      But instead of reaching out to the victims, Apurun did everything possible to suppress the truth from coming out. He never has reached out to these victims, and he never will. How can he? A pervert will never call out another pervert.

      To all you kikos out there, ask yourselves one question:
      If Apurun is still your bishop, are you proud of his silence since all the non-Apurun lawsuits have been exposed?

      Delete
  4. Lady Justice is blindfolded; which means no favorites, Tony. You probably thought the judges would be supportive of an Archbishop, a leader of the largest religious group on Guam. Sorry, Tony. As far as Lady Justice is concerned, you're naked in the courtroom. You have to present your case and prove you did not commit these crimes against four brave men, whom you abuse when they were young, impressionable boys wanting to help their parish. Why not get a hold of other altar boys whom you treated to ice cream, hamburgers, and pizzas and ask them to come to your defense, since you had nearly 200 altar boys serving Mt. Carmel parish in Agat? Why are you taking the hard approach in challenging the law that lifted the statute of limitation on child sex abuse for civil lawsuits? Are you afraid that more altar boys will actually crucify you because you really were a pervert? Justice will be served, Apuron. So stop being a crybaby. . .

    ReplyDelete
  5. All I'm seeing on Guam are slow, incompetent attorneys who don't know how the clergy abuse game is played. Both sides are losing momentum. Hundreds of jumbo Mainland abuse cases were settled much faster. Good chance plaintiff attorneys will make technical errors that filthy Apuron can exploit to his advantage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately, the mainland Sexual Abuse-Industrial Complex holds little or no legal sway on Guam.

      While its purveyors drool enviously over this blog, they should remain mindful of two things.

      1) The Ninth Circuit has the same jurisdiction over Guam that it has over the rest of its states.

      2) The Catholic Faith remains stronger in several ways on Guam than elsewhere in the Circuit:

      - Duration (years its inhabitants have been Catholic)
      - Devotion (importance the Faith has in the life and culture of the faithful)
      - Prevalence (percentage of the population who are at least nominally Catholic, though this is sadly declining).

      Delete
    2. CNMI Lawyer, that's one of the funniest things I ever heard. Who in hell would be jealous of a jungle blog? Most people I know just read it out of curiosity.

      US abuse victims who received huge settlements in relatively record time would be laughing their heads off if they read that garbage. No US diocese has anything near the type of potentially fatal issues Guam is facing. Basically, all people complain about is inert bisbops, then they return to their thriving parishes to do as they please.

      With all of its problems, the US Church is still going strong. The huge Archdiocese of Los Angeles alone has over 5 million Catholics, with Chicago #2 at nearly 4 million. Both places continue to grow and they are doing very well. The L.A. Pueblo was founded by Spaniards in the 1500's and they entrenched
      their religious traditions.

      The US Catholic population is only around 12% of the massive total. This was never a Catholic country. It was founded by freemasons and Protestants who still dominate the place. Guam's total population is less than 300,000 and many of those people are transient, non-Catholic military personnel.

      Delete
    3. This dude is funny. Doesn't even know the population of Guam. But, hey, I got him hooked. Another one who can't stay away.

      Delete
    4. The envy is not over the blog itself, but what they read here.

      Namely, the ability of Guam’s community to address these issues without opportunistic mainland legal interlopers.

      Also, the Los Angeles Pueblo was established in 1781, not in the 1500s.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_de_Los_Ángeles

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch