Thursday, April 26, 2018


On May 17, 2016, the Umatuna posted a story about the upcoming ordination of 4 transitional deacons (a step towards the priesthood) who were the product of Guam's Redemptoris Mater Seminary, which, as we have long since learned, was established to form priests "following the life and practice of the Neocatechumenal Way" (RMS Articles of Incorporation, Art. III).

The 4 seminarians who were supposed to be ordained on June 4 were:  César Javier Izaguirre González (from Nicaragua), Kenneth Paul O’Reilly (from Ireland), Preston Daniel Peredo Perez (from Guam), and Victor II Luna Vitug (from the Philippines)

On the same day of the story, May 17, 2016 (providence??), Roy Quintanilla became the first person to publicly allege that then-Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron had molested him in the 1970's when Apuron was the pastor of the parish in Agat and Quintanilla was an altar boy.

52-year-old Agat man alleges archbishop molested him from Undercover Neo on Vimeo.

The ordination of the deacons, per the May 17, 2016 story, was set for June 4. But by June 4, 2016, Apuron, apparently spooked by this lone allegation, had already "skidaddled out-a-here" and had run to Papa - where he crashed a papal receiving line - as caught on film by a Vatican photographer:

Archbishop Apuron runs to the Pope from Undercover Neo on Vimeo.

Two days after the ordination of deacons was supposed to happen, Apuron would do a video-selfie-address, with the grand Basilica of St. Peter's in the background, and assure us that all was well, and that he had merely been paying the pope a visit to request the appointment of an apostolic administrator while he exonerated himself to Papa.

Archbishop Apuron from Rome: "The Holy Father has granted my request..." from Undercover Neo on Vimeo.

In hindsight, with over 160 abuse allegations and a clergy abuse scandal 400% larger (per capita) than the infamous Boston scandal which precipitated the award-winning movie "Spotlight," not to mention the now 5 (that we know of) accusations of Apuron personally (including one which places him raping a teenage nephew in his chancery home bathroom while the nephew's family lounges just feet away in Apuron's living room)...

....we can clearly see why Apuron was spooked after one, little, measly 40 year-old allegation from a guy who hadn't lived on Guam in decades.

Nevertheless, the reality was, that with his midnight flight "out-a-here," there was no bishop to ordain the 4 deacons. And with the arrival of Archbishop Savio Hon Tai-Fai on June 7, 2016, the same day that Walter Denton came forward with his bombshell allegation of RAPE...

....the ordination was given the kibash.

However, at least one of the four who was supposed to be ordained on June 4, 2016 by the former Archbishop Apuron, has finally found his way to ordination. Victor Luna Vitug II was ordained by Cardinal Sean O'Malley in Boston this past April 20.

O’Malley, like the other U.S. Capuchin bishops (Apuron and Chaput) has been very Kiko-friendly:

In fact, the main money-arm of Kiko’s cult funnels through O’Malley’s diocese:

"Domus Jerusalem, Inc. is a registered US non-profit charity under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Boston and the Roman Catholic Church. 
The board of Trustees of Domus Jerusalem, Inc. includes Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, chairman, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, together with Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez, and Fr. Mario Pezzi, initiators of the NeoCatechumenal Way."

The Domus:

The Domus is the Neocat "vatican."


A friend sent me this post from The Diana.


I had posted about it before here, but thought I'd complete the story now that the property (as far as I know) has been sold. 

Here are the facts:

1. The former Carmelite Monastery property was never the property of the Archdiocese of Agana, so Monsignor James would have had no authority over it. The November 2016 Ownership and Encumbrance Report shows the property is owned by LITTLE FLOWER GUAM, LLC CARE OF MOTHER STELLA MARIS FREUND, OCD.

If the name "Mother Stella Maris" rings a bell, it is because she is the Carmelite Prioress from St. Louis who gave Apuron the $2 Million to pay off the Bank of Guam loan he had secured to initially purchase the former Accion Hotel Property. The Neocats own catechist, Ric Eusebio, spoke loudly about that fact in a Guam Daily Post article here

2. While I was initially retained to list the property for sale by the property owner, I did not sell it. The listing agreement was cancelled in October 2017:

3. So, not only did I not make a dime on this property, I spent at least $1000 on an open house, advertising, and many hours of time. So much for me being a greedy real estate agent. LOL.

4. I do not know the status of the property. I heard it was sold. But not by me. 

COURAGE, Diana. 

P.S. This was kind of fun. Just like the old days: using facts and documents to expose the lies and lies and lies from the other side. I think I'll see what else I can find to expose now that the VATICAN has decided. :)

Monday, April 23, 2018


PACIFIC NEWS CENTER: Archdiocese still has not heard from Father Adrian Cristobal

Guam – Since being accused of sexual abuse, former Chancellor to the Archdiocese of Agana Father Adrian Cristobal has still not returned to the island.

This despite being summoned to return back to the island since last week. Archdiocese Spokesman Tony Diaz says their current Chancellor, Paul Fisher, has not heard from Father Adrian.

The former chancellor was named in a sex abuse lawsuit filed against the church by a 35-year-old man with the initials L.J.C. who alleged that Father Adrian sexually assaulted him when he was a teenager at the San Vicente Church in Barrigada.

Father Adrian left the island to the Diocese of Phoenix over a year ago after he refused an assignment to the San Dionisio Church in Umatac.

The archdiocese has opened a preliminary investigation which examines the allegations and other related information. That report will then be forwarded to the Independent Review Board for review.


Sunday, April 22, 2018


A little late. Listen in. Important stuff. Will be back on air, Monday morning, 7:00AM

Saturday, April 21, 2018


There is a movement afoot to collect the signatures required to endorse me (Tim Rohr) as a candidate for senator in the next election.

You will not find a copy of the petition for said signatures linked here (nor shall I tell you where to find it) because my position thus far has been:

1) If I do nothing to collect the required signatures, and yet
2) the required signatures are obtained, and
3) if I do not campaign a single bit, and yet,
4) get elected,

I will take it as a sign of God's will that I take the seat....which is kinda how I approach everything in this life (by the way.)

One might think that with this post I may be campaigning, but it's a risk I'll take.

And I am willing to take said "risk" to broadcast a CAMPAIGN PLATFORM I think worth broadcasting.

And here it is:

If elected to the next Legislature, I will immediately introduce the following legislation:

1) A bill to change any street name that contains the name "Apuron" (I am aware of two - Adacao and Santa Rita. Apologies to his relatives) to anything BUT "Apuron."

2) A bill to rescind Resolution 259-30, honoring the now discredited, disbanded, dysfunctional, dissolved, and generally "dissed..." Redemptoris Mater (fake) Seminary. The resolution read:

"Relative to expressing Biba Complianos and congratulations to the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam celebrating its Tenth (10th) Anniversary and to extend a sincere 'Un Dangkolo na Si Yu'os Ma'ase' for their continuous contributions towards improvement and betterment of the quality of life for our Island Community and its people."

As we now know, thanks to the honoree in this "resolution," the "quality of life for our island," not long after this resolution, soon descended into chaos, making Guam the scandal of the world in terms of clergy sex abuse, and with RMS...the head of the snake.

Saturday, April 14, 2018


December 2014 - John Toves delivers Fr. Adrian Cristobal an early Christmas gift

PACIFIC NEWS CENTER. (Oct 18, 2017) Victim reported sex abuse to Apuron and Cristobal but was allegedly “shunned away”

Guam – The most recent sex abuse lawsuit filed against the Archdiocese of Agana details sexual abuse that went on for a period of 8 years. The former altar server says he even reported the abuse to Archbishop Anthony Apuron and former Chancellor Father Adrian Cristobal but was “shunned away.” CONTINUED


In opposing the current legislation banning abortions after 20 weeks gestation, Attorney Anita Arriola argued:
"The decision to continue or end a pregnancy is one that must be made by a woman in consultation with those she trusts - not by the government of Guam.  
The United States Supreme Court has long recognized as much in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-64 (1973), the Court held that: (1) a state may never ban abortion prior to fetal viability-that is, before the fetus has reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside the woman’s body; and (2) a state many ban abortion after viability only if there are adequate exceptions to protect a woman’s life and health." 
Arriola references pages 163-164 of Roe. The text from these two pages is copied in bold below:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. 
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. 
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Arriola claims that Roe gives the woman the right to decide "to continue or end a pregnancy," and further posits that the government has no role in that decision.

However, nowhere in the referenced pages do we see any mention of a woman's right to to decide "to continue or end a pregnancy.

Rather, Roe, here, makes the case for the "State's important and legitimate interest in potential life," after the pregnancy reaches "the compelling point" (viability), and further states that "it (the government) may go so far as to proscribe abortion...

And even prior to "the compelling point," the decision belongs not to the woman but to "the attending physician:"
"...for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated."
Note that Roe assumes that it is the attending physician who is consulting with the woman and not, as Arriola says, "a woman in consultation with those she trusts," (obviously) the attending physician, in whose "medical judgement" Roe leaves the decision to terminate the patient's pregnancy.

Continuing on, not only does the remaining text on these pages NOT support Arriola's claims, it underscores and affirms: 1) that the decision initially belongs to the physician, and 2) thereafter, the right of government to intervene:
Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. 
This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 67-72.
To summarize and to repeat: 
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. 
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. 
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Arriola and other abortion advocates would have us believe that Roe gives the woman an absolute right to privacy relative to her decision to terminate her pregnancy. However, once again, Roe doesn't say that:
[154] "...a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization). 
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
[159] " is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly."
So not only does Roe state that the privacy right is NOT "absolute," it goes on to essentially defeat the "it's my body" argument.

This post is also posted at The Esperansa Project website

Friday, April 13, 2018


(We'll get back to the Adrian thing, but for now, we choose to address this.) reports that Dr. Annie Bordallo, a well known local OB/GYN, at a public hearing relative to banning abortions on Guam after 20 weeks, said the following:
"The procedure itself involves, the procedure that Dr. Freeman does, involves an injection of medication into the amniotic fluid that stops the baby's heart.  The patient is then given medication that puts her into labor and she delivers a stillborn fetus.
While Dr. Bordallo posited the above in opposition to the legislation (Bill 232-34), pro-life advocates could not have asked for more!

In declaring this, Dr. Bordallo has affirmed:

  1. The object is a "baby" (not just a tissue mass). 
  2. The "baby" has a heart and it is beating.
  3. The "baby" is capable of feeling pain (otherwise there would be no need to stop his or her heart - even though Bordallo argues that the baby "most likely" does not feel pain until the 29th week). 
  4. Stopping "the baby's heart" kills a human being (since the "baby" is not a baby elephant or a giraffe). 

As all of this was said at a public hearing, it has been officially read into the record, and can be used to support a different version of the bill (should this one stumble), and all abortion regulation going forward. 

Dr. Bordallo's, April 10 declaration, essentially confirms the humanity of the "object" of abortion, and in doing so, lays out the real question before us as a civilized society:

When, and by what means, is it moral, licit, legal, and humane, for one human being to kill another?

Our answer to this question, via this legislation, will define us. 


This story is also posted at

KOLG. APRIL 13, 2018

Today we address priests "on mission," and the recent abortion legislation.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018


Former Archdiocese of Agana chancellor accused of clergy sexual abuse

A new priest stands accused of clergy sexual abuse.  Father Adrian Cristobal is named in the latest filing in the District Court of Guam.  The victim, 35-year-old L.J.C. is identified only by his initials to protect his privacy.

The former Barrigada parish altar boy alleges he was sexually molested and abused by Father Adrian on several occasions from 1995 to 1997.  One incident occurred after mass. CONTINUED

Saturday, April 7, 2018


Letter: Apuron effectively a prisoner of the church

There has been much wringing of hands over the Vatican’s penalty levied on former Archbishop Anthony Apuron.

Much of the press, both church and secular, has characterized it as only a “slap on the wrist” and Apuron’s allies have used this angle to craft a narrative which casts doubt on whether he was found guilty of child sexual abuse. 



Thursday, April 5, 2018



Can.  1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018


"I probably would have stayed a priest, honestly, if I had been smart enough not to follow the fucking law." - Patrick Wall

The speculation is getting funny. So the PDN once again seeks out priest-defector (he calls himself that)-turned-lawyer-lackey, Patrick Wall, for even more anal gazing into the Apuron verdict. 

According to the PDN, Wall thinks Apuron was found guilty for solicitation in the confessional and not sex abuse. 

Why does Wall care so much about the Apuron case? And if he cared so much, why didn't he volunteer his services to help out when we could have actually used the help?

Wall works for Anderson and Associates, which has made a name (and a fortune) for itself by suing the Vatican. Not that any suit against the Vatican has ever met any success (they haven't), but suing Rome has catapulted Anderson to national prominence and brought his firm big business. 

The Apuron case presented a special sort of carrot for Wall and Anderson. Up till now their lawsuits against the Vatican have been dismissed because 1) the Vatican is not the direct employer of priests or religious, and 2) the Vatican does not receive information about each and every priest or religious throughout the world. Priests and religious are subject to a local superior, not the pope. 

However, Apuron is a bishop. And to some degree, the pope is the direct superior of a bishop. Thus, the Apuron case gave Anderson and those like him the best shot at the pope and the Vatican that they have ever had and explains why it is critical that they do their utmost to discredit the Apuron verdict in order to maintain a clear shot at the pope. 

If Apuron really was found guilty of sex abuse by the Vatican tribunal then the years-long quest to discredit the Vatican, and the money trail which fed the quest, would dry up. Thus, the near diabolical squirming to spin the very obviously severe penalty imposed on Apuron as only a "slap on the wrist," which in turn is used to impugn and discredit the verdict. 

I am simply amazed at the sycophant media rushing to worship at the altars of guys like Wall. Why not ask Apuron directly, or at least his own attorneys? Why not ask him and them what he was found guilty of? 

While the Vatican might be bound by a certain secrecy, Apuron is not. And you can bet that if he was not found guilty of sex abuse he would have already made sure that we knew it. 

But he hasn't. 


Posted by Tim

"Vatican verdict against Guam archbishop likely not for sexual abuse, say canon lawyers." So reads the headline in a story from National Catholic Reporter. And it is just one of several stories saying the same. 

Are these people really trying to say that Apuron is innocent? 

No. In their lust to go after the big tomato (the Vatican itself and the pope as well), these people are willing to minimize the Apuron story (and even exonerate him) so they can shoot at the Vatican. 

They base their assumption on what they call a "light sentence," given that it did not include laicization for Apuron. 

In fact, even the use of the word "laicize" as reportedly used by the canon lawyers in the NCR story, draws into question their expertise, as not only is "defrock" not a word used in church law, but, according to canonist, Father Damián Astigueta, SJ, a professor at the Faculty of Canon Law at the Pontifical Gregorian University with a specialty in criminal proceedings, neither is the term "laicization:"

While frequently used in the media, the term “laicization” doesn’t really exist anymore among canonists, Astigueta said, and has been widely replaced by the term “loss of the clerical state.”

I have already demonstrated the absurdity of the "light sentence" argument elsewhere. Apuron was not only the first bishop (at least in modern times) to be tried by a Vatican tribunal, he is one of a very few bishops to ever be forcibly removed from office, and the only bishop known to be prohibited from ever returning home. 

Astigueta notes that "dismissal from the clerical state" is sometimes not employed against elderly clerics as it essentially puts them out on the street. And while some would like to see that happen to Apuron, in Apuron's case, because he is privately wealthy, such a dismissal would have been a "get out of jail free card." 

(NOTE: It may very well be that the Vatican is playing it smart here knowing that Apuron's real penalty - deprivation of his assets - will come in his civil trial.)

And by the way, dismissal from the clerical state is not always a punishment. In fact, there is evidence that such dismissal is actually REQUESTED by at least half of the priests who leave the priesthood (aka "defrocked, laicized"). 

The problem for both Apuron's defenders and these unwitting canon lawyers is Apuron himself. Apuron has already told us what he was found guilty of. Following the Vatican announcement, Apuron, through his civil attorney, immediately stated:

"I have been informed of the conclusion of the first instance canonical trial against me.   While I am relieved that the tribunal dismissed the majority of the accusations against me, I have appealed the verdict. God is my witness; I am innocent and I look forward to proving my innocence in the appeals process." 

One finds it hard to imagine that Apuron would be calling on "God is my witness" if he was only found guilty of mismanagement, especially since he so recently invoked "God is my witness" in direct relation to the sex abuse accusations against him:

"As I lay sick after another surgery and I face the final judgment approaching evermore close, having lost interest in this world, God is my witness: I deny all allegations of sexual abuse made against me, including this last one." - Apuron, Jan 19, 2018

There is NO question what Apuron was referring to when he said "God is my witness," both in his January 19 statement and his statement following the announcement of the Vatican verdict (sentence). 

And then there's this from EWTN:

A source told CNA that the credibility of the witnesses will be a major factor of the appeal. 

Really? The "credibility of witnesses?" In what? Financial mismanagement? 

The real problem here is what I already tried to engage in my issues with the people from SNAP. Their real interest, as well as their lawyer friends, is not justice for victims. In fact, it isn't even rooting out bad guys like Apuron. 

It is the destruction of the Church. 

Plus, they are not happy that we were able to do this without them. 


Tuesday, April 3, 2018


On March 16, the Vatican announced that former Archbishop Anthony Apuron had been found guilty by a tribunal of five judges. The same announcement pronounced the two-fold penalty on Apuron: privation of office; and prohibition of residence in the Archdiocese of Agana.

Due to the stunted English version of the original announcement, which referred only to "the canonical trial of minors" and the awkward phrase "certain of the accusations," there was some question as to exactly what Apuron had been found guilty of.

However, the Italian version, the official language of everyday business at the Vatican, was clearer: "The canonical process in relation to the accusations, including those of child sexual abuse..." The Italian went to say "some of the accusations" versus "certain of the accusations."

The English was later amended to say the same, however, the vague language of the original English announcement created a quick storm of confusion, during which Apuron's defenders seized the moment to cast doubt as to whether or not he was found guilty of sexually abusing minors.


Additionally, both supporters and critics noted that Apuron had not been "defrocked," a typical penalty for priests found guilty of sex abuse.

"Defrock" is a strong word and served as a rallying cry for those who wanted Apuron gone, but actually defrocked is the last thing we would want the Vatican to do to Apuron.

Defrocking, more properly called "laicization," returns a cleric to a layman state, essentially setting him free to live life as he pleases.

By not laicizing Apuron, the pope, who is the ultimate authority in the disciplining of a bishop, has not only decided to keep Apuron on a leash, he has also imposed an unheard of penalty by banishing him from ever again living in his home diocese.

And while Apuron's sentence would be suspended in the event of an appeal, there is no appeal until the Vatican says there is one, and it has not.

Archbishop Michael Byrnes is now the Archbishop of Agana and will remain the Archbishop of Agana until the Vatican says otherwise.

Monday, April 2, 2018


Copied from a Facebook post by Jose Martinez

Guamboy tells us who he is by his fetish for trying to destroy Msgr. James. 

But beyond that, the belief that the priests named have anything to do with the CCOG or LFM is laughable. In fact, it has been very public that the CCOG has targeted some of the actions by Fr. Mike in its investigation of Kamalen Karidat. 


Concerned Catholics seeks Kamalen Karidat's annual reports since 1994 CONTINUED

Request for nonprofit's records 'ignored' CONTINUED