ORAL ARGUMENT - ON VIDEO

By Tim Rohr

On July 25, 2023, I presented oral argument before the Supreme Court of Guam relative to Governor Lou Leon Guerrero's request for declaratory judgment on certain questions relative to the standing of "Belle's Law" (P.L. 20-134). 

A previous post set forth the text of my argument. This is a link to the YouTube recording at the point where I begin to present oral argument.

For those deeply interested in the full scope of the matter, you are encouraged to listen to all oral arguments from the beginning of the recording. 

The curious point is that between 1989-1992, when "Belle's Law" (P.L. 20-134) was all the rage and was being hotly debated all the way to the Ninth Circuit, the specter of a case known as Webster v Reproductive Health Services dominated the debate. 

More than three decades later when "Belle's Law" raised its previously buried head via the Dobb's Decision, it's curious that no one on either side of the debate referenced Webster. 

It's even more curious given that all one has to do is read the history of the case to know that Webster was the direct impetus for "Belle's Law," as well as the basis for the 9th Circuit finding Guam's argument unpersuasive. 

As an aside, I will thank a personal friend and mentor for urging me to present oral argument. 

After filing my amicus brief, I really had no interest in the case thereafter. However, said friend insisted that I present oral argument. The original date for oral argument before the Supreme Court of Guam was May 24, 2023, the day Typhoon Mawar "decided" to attack Guam. 

Prior to the advent of Mawar, I had filed papers with the court to present oral argument remotely since I was off-island at that time. Later, the court issued a memo identifying July 25 as the date for oral argument. I made early plane reservations and made sure I was here.

Full recording of Oral Argument is posted below.

 

TEXT of Oral Argument linked here. 

LETTER: WHY BILLBOARD FACES?

By Tim Rohr

My letter to the editor of the Guam Daily Post as published on July 26, 2023.

TEXT

I was disturbed a bit, or maybe a lot, by Atty. Gen. Moylan’s threat to “billboard” the faces of moms and dads (and it's usually dads) who have failed to meet their child support obligations:

“We have Child Support (Awareness) Month coming up…We’re still looking at maybe putting up several of the convicts upon one billboard…” (Guam Daily Post, July 18, 2023)

While I agree with Moylan’s decision to publish the faces of convicted felons as a way to possibly deter crime, I am concerned that Moylan’s eagerness to publish the faces of parents who fail to meet their child support obligations is “a bridge too far.”

To give some context to the problem, imagine a father (because it is usually the father) who is unexpectedly deprived of the company of his children because Mom doesn’t like Dad anymore.

One day Dad comes home to an empty house. Mom has taken the kids and run somewhere (usually to her parents - who are often complicit in the scheme). Dad calls Mom and is answered with a screaming fit filled with a barrage of accusations.

A few days later, Dad is served divorce papers including a declaration from Mom accusing Dad of domestic violence, child abuse, and worse.

Dad knows that none of this is true and is anxious to defend himself and assert his rights to his children.

However, Guam’s child support law (5 GCA, Ch. 34) doesn’t care. Dad, prior to any trial or even an evidentiary hearing, is forced to pay child support to Mom simply because she has the kids and he doesn’t.

And when I say “forced” I mean “forced:” the courts and the police are the collection agency.

Once again, per Guam law, nothing need be proven other than Mom has the kids and Dad doesn’t -  and Dad must pay. Functionally, this means that Dad is not just presumed guilty, but is guilty, without a trial or hearing, and is financially punished under pain of prison, simply because Mom has the kids and Dad doesn’t.

Meanwhile, Dad is not only left with the mortgage or rent and all the usual household expenses, he now must muster the cash to retain an attorney if he ever hopes to see his children again.

Amazingly, our courts (Guam law) only care about collecting and not about how the money is spent. Mom is free to spend Daddy’s money on whatever she wants - including booze and boyfriends.

Meanwhile, Dad, before he ever has the opportunity to plead his case, is scrambling to pay court-ordered child support, the mortgage, household upkeep, the children’s educational expenses, attorney fees and court costs, and maybe huge travel costs to see his children - depending on where Mommy has run to, all the while dealing with emotional collapse which is severely impacting his ability to financially produce.

Some men - many men - give up: 

“Divorced men were eight times more likely to commit suicide than women…” (Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 57, Issue 12)

And these are the Dads - at least some, if not many - whose faces Mr. Moylan wants to “billboard” alongside convicted murderers.

That’s a “bridge too far,” Mr. Moylan.

Tim Rohr is a resident of Hagat

THIS IS A WARNING

JW doesn't need "the papers" and has no fear of being canceled. We continue to average 30-50k views per month from every corner of the globe. 

 

ORAL ARGUMENT

By Tim Rohr

Following is a copy of the text of the oral argument I presented before the Supreme Court of Guam, Tuesday, July 25, 2023 relative to Case Number CRQ23-001. The case is about the governor's request for declaratory judgment regarding the status of P.L. 20-134, otherwise known as "Belle's Law." The governor's position is the 20th Guam legislature had no authority to engage in anti-abortion legislation pursuant to Roe v Wade and that the legislation was void from the outset. I argued otherwise. 

TIMOTHY J ROHR - ORAL ARGUMENT

CRQ23-001

SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

JULY 25, 2023

Mr. Chief Justice. May it please the Court. I am not a lawyer and have never argued before an appellate panel before, so in order to make the best use of these few minutes please allow me to read my remarks.

Mr. Chief Justice, my amicus addressed only the question of whether or not the subject law has been repealed by implication. 

However, after reading the petitioner’s Consolidated Reply, I opt to use these few minutes to address the petitioner’s other question relative to whether or not the legislature exceeded its organic act authority  - and from a point of view nobody else seems to have touched on yet.

The petitioner argues not only that the legislation is defective, but “that the act of passing the legislation itself was defective.” 

While the legislation would ultimately be held unconstitutional and subsequently inorganic, it appears to me that the legislature at the time was within its Organic Act authority to enact legislation that it believed “had a shot.”

By saying “had a shot,” I am referring to a March 16, 1990 NY Times story which reads: 

“Senator Arriola said that … she drafted [the] bill as soon as the Supreme Court opened the way for new restrictions.” 

The “way for new restrictions” is a reference to the Court’s 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.

Indeed, Senator Arriola did draft her bill “as soon as the Supreme Court opened the way for new restrictions.” 

Webster was decided on July 3, 1989, and Senator Arriola introduced Bill 848 seven days later on July 10, 1989.

And, quoting from a March 23, 1990 Washington Post story:  

“… in the aftermath of last summer's Webster decision, legislators in Guam, like their counterparts in many states, decided to test the scope of Webster by placing restrictions on abortion.”

One can empathize with Senator Arriola’s optimism given the Webster court finding a crack in Roe, a crack held especially loathsome by none-one other than Justice Blackmun, the architect of Roe.

In his dissent in Webster, Justice Blackmun exclaimed:

“For today, at least, the law of abortion stands undisturbed. … But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 560 (1989)

While we may not get many “chill winds” in Guam, we do get big ones, and it appears that Typhoon Webster went right through the legislature in 1989 and blew all the way to the 9th Circuit in 1992.

In its 1992 decision, the 9th circuit memorializes the fact that Guam enacted P.L. 20-134, not in defiance of Guam’s Organic Act, nor even in defiance of Roe, but pursuant to a perceived opportunity under Webster. 

I hereby quote the 9th Circuit: 

“Guam contends that Roe has no force after Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Putting Webster together with non-majority opinions in other cases…” 

The court goes on to identify the other cases and then says:

“From this mix, Guam derives the conclusion that its interest in fetal life can overcome the woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, and that Guam's Act is therefore not unconstitutional on its face.” 

- Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992)

Ultimately, of course, the 9th Circuit found Guam’s argument unpersuasive. 

In fact, one of the 9th circuit judges, in a later decision related to the same case, called the whole matter “laughably easy” and characterized the plaintiff’s lawyers as “having reeled in a fat and rather sluggish fish.” Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 100 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 1996)

While I did not find the legislation “laughable”, I did find it irresponsible. 

Given that I never dreamt of ever seeing anything like Dobbs in my lifetime, I believed that the constitutional slap down of P.L. 20-134 would have a chilling effect on future constitutionally-permissible abortion regulations in Guam for a long time to come. 

And for the next 28 years, there were none, leaving so-called Catholic Guam, by 2008, the easiest place in the nation to procure an abortion. 

Nevertheless, while “Belle’s Bill” went wide of the hole in Roe opened by Webster, Webster did present such a hole and the record shows that Guam took a legislative shot at it. 

Dobbs would later turn Webster’s hole into a bullseye. 

In summary, the record in this matter demonstrates that the legislature set out to protect unborn life pursuant to Webster and in doing so, did so legitimately within its organic act authority. 

From that point it was up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of the law, and thereafter its organicity, and they did. 

I argue that because the legislation was enacted pursuant to Webster, P.L. 20-134 was not unconstitutional nor inorganic until it was found by the court to be so.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

_________________________

LINKS:

Guam Soc. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada, 776 F. Supp. 1422 (D. Guam 1990)

US District Court for the District of Guam - 776 F. Supp. 1422 (D. Guam 1990)

October 13, 1990 - LINK

Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992) - LINK

Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 100 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 1996) - LINK

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) - LINK

NOTE TO AG: DON'T EQUATE "DEADBEAT DADS" WITH CONVICTED MURDERERS

By Tim Rohr

Re: the Guam Daily Post story "Moylan says billboards displaying convicts help deter future crimes."

Atty. Gen Douglas Moylan believes these types of signs will deter crime. I'm inclined to agree. However, re the subject sign, the first thing that jumped out at me was the question as to how the convict got so visibly beat up? 

Was he beaten up in prison by other prisoners, by prison guards, by the police? A picture of a person that badly beaten, and behind bars, may evoke sympathy if not an investigation. So yes, show us the criminals, but be careful. Looks like the AG may need some marketing help. 

Moving on, the Atty. General also makes an important point here:

Moylan also made the point that, unlike mug shots shown in the media, which are often published before a defendant is found guilty through a trial or plea – something that Moylan argues injures a person's presumption of innocence – the policy of the AG's office is to only post those already convicted of a crime. 

This is so absolutely true. I'm not sure what can be done about the publication of mug shots, but such publication does in fact, as Atty. Moylan says, "injure a person's presumption of innocence" - a key precept in our nation of laws and "one of the most basic requirements for a fair trial." And, in the case of wrongful arrest of an innocent person - which is not uncommon - mug shot publications may ruin the rest of an innocent person's life.

Meanwhile, Moylan goes on to mention something that I found disturbing:

“We have Child Support (Awareness) Month coming up. … We're still looking at maybe putting up several of the convicts up on one billboard, (that) sort of thing. Kind (of) mixing it up, so it grabs people's attention. … We've got to be able to communicate,” Moylan said. 

I found it disturbing because, in short, our child support laws immediately punish whichever parent doesn't have the children, even if the children were clandestinely removed and sequestered away from the abandoned parent by the abandoning parent.

Nothing has to be proven other than the children are residing with the parent who took them. The abandoned parent is immediately forced to pay with the full force of the courts and the police as the collection agency. 

In other words, abandoned parents, usually dads, are guilty till proven innocent, and some end up in prison while just trying to get their kids back. 

Meanwhile, Atty. Moylan may want to hold off on equating so-called "deadbeat dads" with convicted murderers by putting their faces on the same signs. 

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

By Tim Rohr

A couple days ago, Tall Tales talk show host, Bob Klitzkie, gave a "class" on the so-called "separation of church and state."  

I say "so-called" because there is no such phrase in the U.S. Constitution, but it has come to be thought of as such, and Bob explains a bit how this happened. 

The "separation" issue is one I often engage, and in 2011 I wrote a column for the Umatuna, the then-newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, in an attempt to set the record straight on this "separation" thing and for the intelligent people who cared...much as Bob is trying to do now. 

Here's the 2011 column:

The Wall of Separation; Published in the Umatuna 7/5/2011

Note: the article was one of several published in the Umatuna from 2011 to 2013 under the weekly column heading "VIEW FROM THE PEW." All of the columns for that period can be accessed here. 

GUAM SENATOR DEFROCKED?"

By Tim Rohr

Yesterday, Tall Tales talk show host, Bob Klitzkie, spent quite a bit of time (here) on the Guam Daily Post story: "‘I had nothing to do’ with alleged conspiracy, says Sen. San Agustin."

Note: Bob hit this again the following day here. 

In sum, the story ties sitting Senator, Joe S. San Agustin, despite his protestations, to an apparent SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLAR gambling and money laundering scheme via Bingo, and under the auspices of charity fundraising by the GUAM SHRINER'S CLUB. 

Bob does a very thorough job of laying it all out, so I'm not going to repeat what he has already said. Rather, my interest in the story was piqued, not by another government official caught in a scandal (what's new?), but by the involvement of the GUAM SHRINER'S CLUB, and particularly Sen. San Agustin's involvement...or not.

The Post story starts out by referring to Sen. San Agustin as 1) "[a] Guam senator with former ties to the Guam Shrine Club;" and then 2) - about a paragraph later - the same story states that Senator Joe has been "a part of the Guam Shrine Club for around 20 years:" 

"Sen. Joe San Agustin this week told The Guam Daily Post that while he has been a part of the Guam Shrine Club for around 20 years..."

So which is it? 

Does Sen. San Agustin have "former ties to the Guam Shrine Club" or is he still ("has been") "a part of the Guam Shrine Club for around 20 years...?" 

And this brings us to a deeper point. 

Being "a Shriner" is no small thing. You are not just "a part" of a small club - which is apparently how Sen. Joe now wishes to portray himself. 

Shriners are the very pinnacle of Freemasonry and the analogous equivalent to the Vatican cardinaliate relative to the rest of the Catholic population.

According to "All Shriners Are Masons, But Not All Masons Are Shriners:"

Shriners have temples; Masons have a Blue Lodge or Craft Lodge. Members of the Masonic lodges are required to learn about their fraternity and earn a series of Masonic degrees. When a member has completed the third and final degree he becomes a Master Mason and is then eligible to become a Shriner.

Apparently becoming a Shriner is no small thing. It's a very, very exclusive club, but more than a club, it is a fraternity - in the strict sense of the word, i.e. no women allowed:

...women are not eligible to join the Shriners fraternity - SOURCE

I'm sure Sen. San Agustin's female constituents will be happy to know this. But, back to the point.

Given the apparent extreme exclusivity and seeming strict achievement of what it takes to be admitted to the ANCIENT ARABIC ORDER OF THE NOBLES OF THE MYSTIC SHRINE (the real name of the Shriners - SOURCE), why is Senator Joe S. San Agustin now trying to distance himself from his exclusive inclusion into this sacred Freemasonic Nobility by referring to his functional consecration into this Freemasonic equivalent of the Catholic College of Cardinals as being only "a part of" or even a "former" member. 

Really? Can Catholic cardinals, upon the exposition of scandal relative to their own, simply say: "I was a former member? 

Was Sen. Joe S. San Agustin kicked out? Was he defrocked? Or is he just another gullible nobody who thought he was only joining some adult version of the Boy Scouts and out to get votes.

Yah. Probably. 

GOV. LEON GUERRERO'S MONKEY TRIAL

By Tim Rohr

Today (July 10 - when I started working on this post) in 1925, the "Trial of the Century," the "Scopes Monkey Trial" began in Dayton, Tennessee. 

As copied here from a post on History.com, the "trial of the century" was a set up:

In Dayton, Tennessee, the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial begins with John Thomas Scopes, a young high school science teacher, accused of teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee state law. The law, which had been passed in March, made it a misdemeanor punishable by fine to “teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” With local businessman George Rappleyea, Scopes had conspired to get charged with this violation, and after his arrest the pair enlisted the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to organize a defense.

Does that sound familiar? If not, it should. Almost one hundred years later, a very similar conspiracy, perpetrated by Guam's own governor, is presently playing out here and now.

2019

In 2019, Governor Leon Guerrero ("Lou"), through her abortion lieutenant, Jayne Flores, began recruiting two abortion doctors from Hawaii to get licensed in Guam. 

The purported reason for recruiting these doctors was to provide abortions in Guam since none of Guam's 300 plus doctors would do them after Guam's last abortion doctor, William Freeman, retired in 2018.

However, as the following will demonstrate, it appears the real reason for Lou's recruiting these doctors was to set up a law suit, with "the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to sue "us." By "us" I mean "us," the people who live, work, vote, and pay taxes here. 

The suit lists the names of several Defendants. But they are merely names of people in their official capacities. Functionally, the suit is against us in that: 1) the suit seeks to enjoin a law that we, through our elected lawmakers, "said" we wanted (informed consent for abortion); and 2) forces us, the taxpayers, to pay for the suit to sue ourselves. 

One wonders where in the rest of the civilized democratic world do we find a governor who clandestinely conspires to undermine laws said governor is sworn to uphold, and then punishes her own people by forcing them to pay for a lawsuit she herself conspired to bring about. But hey, you voted for her, Guam.

There is much to suggest that Lou is the "Scopes George Rappleyea" in that she appears to have fronted a couple of stooges (Drs. Raidoo and Kaneshiro) in order to enlist "the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to organize a defense" - exactly as Rappleyea did in Scopes. 

The Evidence

Let's start with the correspondence between Jayne Flores, Lou's abortion lieutenant (since it appears Jayne - as Director of Bureau of Women's Affairs - does nothing else but track down baby killers to do business in Guam), and these Hawaii people.

The following is copied from papers retrieved via a FOIA by the Vigilance Committee (the originals of which can be accessed here). I will add my comments in RED:

June 24, 2019, 10:17 AM

Jayne Flores to Bliss Kaneshiro

Subject: Situation on Guam

Hafa Adai Dr. Kaneshiro,

I am the director of the Bureau of Women’s Affairs and am coordinating the effort to bring a doctor (or doctors on a rotational basis) to Guam willing to help our women (and unfortunately some girls) who have a choice to make. Can you please give me a call at your earliest convenience?

Jayne refers to abortion as "a choice to make." As you will see from Kaneshiro's reply, the doctors Jayne is attempting to recruit have no qualms about using the real word: ABORTION. Pay attention to the word "girls." We'll get to that in a minute.

*****

June 25, 2019, 1:10 PM

Bliss Kaneshiro to Jayne Flores

Subject: Connecting you to Planned Parenthood

Jayne,

I’m connecting you to Deb Nucatola, the medical director of the PP clinics in Hawaii. She is cc’ed on this email and is aware of the lack of an abortion provider in Guam.

Kaneshiro doesn't hesitate to read through Jayne's code ("a choice to make"). Kaneshiro blatantly and unapologetically replies with the word "abortion." Why is Jayne so cowardly to call it what it is? 

*****

June 25, 2019, 1:19 PM

Deborah Nucatola to Jayne Flores

Subject: Connecting you to Planned Parenthood

Hi Jayne!

Nice to meet you virtually! 

I do believe you have been in contact with staff at our Patient Access Center. Our Area Service Director, Deighton Kavarne, was planning to reach out to you by phone. I’m not sure if you have already spoke but to close the loop I’m cc’ing him on this email. And, FYI, we have been discussing the need in Guam for several months now and are eager to speak with you to see how we might be able to meet the need.

*****

June 25, 2019, 2:40 PM

Jayne Flores to Deborah Nucatola cc: Bliss Kaneshiro, Deighton Kavarne, Anita Arriola, Dr. Ellen Bez

Subject: Connecting you to Planned Parenthood

Hafa Adai Deborah (and Deighton)!

Thank you for reaching out to us here on Guam. Yes, we are in need of abortion services for our women (and unfortunately some pre-teens). We are also in great need of the other services Planned Parenthood provides (free birth control, STD/HIV testing, HPV vaccines, cancer screening, family planning, etc.) We are currently trying to quietly survey clinics on Guam that would allow visiting physicians to perform surgical abortions. Another option, if PP wanted to open a clinic here, is that we do have a medical clinic that recently closed. Would there be a possibility that PP would be interested in leasing this space to set up its own clinic?

I would describe the atmosphere on our island, with its 165,000 population that is majority Catholic, as initially hostile toward this issue. However, over half of the voting public cast ballots in favor of our first female governor, Maga’haga Lourdes Leon Guerrero, in November 2018 despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope. 

Here, we have a lot, beginning with a cc to Atty. Anita Arriola and Dr. Ellen Bez, two well-known abortion advocates in Guam; and, in the case of Arriola, not just well-known, but famous, given Arriola's role in opposing her own mother's "Belle's Law," in 1990. 

In the last paragraph, Jayne clearly lays out what we in JW have said many times: Guam is Catholic in name only and is pro-abortion in all measurable metrics.  So according to Jayne: "there is hope." Of course Jayne's "hope" is that we can continue to kill even more CHamoru children. 

SOURCE

Meanwhile, the real red flag in this email from Jayne is the reference to "pre-teens," previously referenced by Jayne as "unfortunately some girls." Hmmmm. "Pre-teens." So 12 and under. WHERE IS THE POLICE REPORTING for girls 12 and under being impregnated? Impregnated by whom? Let me say that again - since Jayne won't: Girls age 12 and under impregnated by whom? Why aren't you asking, Jayne? Instead of asking who the hell is impregnating girls age 12 and under, Jayne and Lou are out there begging for someone to come to Guam and kill their babies - and the evidence. So much for the Bureau of Women's Affairs. Damn.

*****

June 25, 2019, 2:50 PM

Jayne Flores to Bliss Kaneshiro

Subject: Situation on Guam

Thank you Dr. Bliss. I really appreciate your reaching out to me. I just sent an email to Deborah and Deighton. Thank you for connecting us. I look forward to speaking with you at our meeting later this week.

If for no other reason, Lou should fire Jayne for begin stupid enough to subject critical correspondence to a possible FOIA, a FOIA neither Jayne, nor her arrogant employer probably anticipated. But perhaps they didn't care. After all, like Jayne says: "over half of the voting public cast ballots in favor of our first female governor, Maga’haga Lourdes Leon Guerrero, in November 2018 despite her openly pro-choice stance. So there is hope." 

*****

Feb. 6, 2020, 1:40 PM

Jayne Flores to Drs. Shandhini Raidoo, Bliss Kaneshiro and Dr. John Rivera

Subject: Possible UOG collaboration with UH research project

Hafa Adai Drs. Shandhini and Bliss from UH and Dr. John from UOG

Dr. Shandhini and Dr. Bliss, allow me to introduce, through email, Dr. John Rivera, Program Chair of the Public Administration program at the University of Guam. His Mast of Public Administration students often assist with research issues. I think his UOG program would be a great partner for your research project on abortion attitudes on Guam. I spoke briefly with Dr. Rivera about your intent to find a local partner for the project, his email address is cc’d above. Good luck with the project. 

*****

Feb. 17, 2020, 10:15 AM

Dr. Shandhini Raidoo to John Rivera, Jayne Flores, Bliss Kaneshiro, and Jesse John Quenga.

Subject: Possible UOG collaboration with UH research project

Hi Dr. Rivera,

Thank you for your email. We have just submitted our proposal for this project. We are very excited about it and will definitely be in touch with you once we know more about the next steps. Thank you Jayne for the introduction.

 I know John, and have known him for many years before I saw this email. So I contacted John to see what was up. Not much is what I gathered. He was contacted in his capacity as noted above and as far as I know, no such survey was ever done, probably because Lou and Jayne weren't really interested in a survey, they were only interested - as we shall see - in getting the ACLU to sue us.

*****

The FOIA'd paper trail between Jayne Flores and the Hawaii abortion docs ends here, but apparently there were other private communications between the LLG regime and the baby-whackers from Hawaii, because suddenly, both Raidoo and Kaneshiro are licensed to practice "MEDICINE and SURGERY" in Guam:

Jul. 16, 2020 - (LINK to copy of letter)

Nathaniel Berg, MD, Chairperson, Guam Board of Medical Examiners to Shandhini Raidoo, MD

Dear Dr. Raidoo:

Congratulations! The Guam Board of Medical Examiners approved your application for medical licensure during their board meeting held on July 15, 2020, and herby issues you medical license No. M-2222 effective July 15, 2020 to practice MEDICINE and SURGERY in Guam. The expiration date of this license is December 31, 2021….Welcome to the practice of medicine on Guam!

 

Nov. 20, 2020 (LINK to copy of letter)

Nathaniel Berg, MD, Chairperson, Guam Board of Medical Examiners to Bliss Kaneshiro.

Dear Dr. Kaneshiro,

Congratulations! The Guam Board of Medical Examiners approved your application for medical licensure during their regular board meeting held on November 18, 2020, and hereby issues you medical license No. M-2234 effective November 18, 2020 to practice MEDICINE and SURGERY in Guam. The expiration date of this license is December 31, 2021…Welcome to the practice of medicine on Guam!

 It's curious as to why there was nearly a four month space between the licensure of Raidoo in July 2020 and Kaneshiro in November 2020. But it's not hard to figure out given what came next.

On Jan. 28, 2021, barely two months after Kaneshiro retained licensure to practice "MEDICINE and SURGERY" (i.e. surgical abortions) in Guam, Kaneshiro and her buddy, Raidoo, sued you and me.

The ACLU, a la the "Scopes Monkey Trial" joined Raidoo and Kaneshiro's lawsuit on the same day. 

Of course, it's laughable - for the intelligent - that doctors who 1) have never been to Guam, 2) have never practiced in Guam, and 3) never intended to practice in Guam, would file suit in Guam and against Guam for not letting them practice in Guam. 

Talk about MONKEY BUSINESS.

 

CHILD SEX-TRAFFICKING - THE REAL ISSUE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND

By Tim Rohr

Upon posting my take on the movie "Sound of Freedom" and the issue the movie addresses, I was heavily criticized by one reader for comparing sex-trafficked children to parent-abducted children. 

Perhaps the reader missed the connection between the following facts...

• In the US, 2300 children are reported missing per day 
• Strangers abduct less than 1% of missing children
• Parents are accountable for over 90% of abductions - SOURCE

...and how it follows that parent-abducted children then are at greater risk of being sexually exploited.

Perhaps this fact will help:

"...fatherless children are at greater risk of suffering physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, being five times more likely to have experienced physical abuse and emotional maltreatment, with a one hundred times higher risk of fatal abuse; a recent study reported that preschoolers not living with both of their biological parents are 40 times more likely to be sexually abused." - SOURCE

Certainly, children can and do become fatherless because the father is the abandoner - which is usually how the father is painted - however, as already demonstrated, parental-abduction accounts for 90% of child abductions and:

"statistics on child abduction indicate that 60% of the time, the person is the mother or another female relative." - SOURCE 

 And there's this from World Population Review:

The most common form of kidnapping in many developed countries is the abduction of a child by a parent, who is typically estranged from the other parent and does not have legal custody of the child. The parent resorts to kidnapping either to cause the other parent emotional distress, because they fear the other parent will keep the child from them, or because they feel the other parent poses a threat to the child's well being. Though much less common, there also exist instances of children being kidnapped for more nefarious purposes, such as human trafficking or sexual exploitation. - SOURCE

For sex-traffickers, sex-trafficking is simply business. And business is simply about supply and demand. And while it is right and necessary that we back all efforts to rescue children already abducted and trafficked, if we are going to do anything more than wring our hands and swear at Disney * we must do something about the supply and demand. 

* Disney had the rights to the movie for several years but did not produce it. 

The good news is that we, regular people, at least in the U.S. can do much more about supply and demand, and particularly supply, than we can about rescuing children caught in the child sex-trafficking cartels in Latin America. 

Before addressing the supply side of this "business," here's what the real-life hero of Sound of Freedom, Tim Ballard, said about the demand:

The United States is the number one consumer of child exploitation material. We are the demand. So, that means that traffickers want to get children into that dark market. There's a lot of money to be made here. The United States, also according to the State Department, is in the top three countries for destination countries for human trafficking. So, there's every incentive to get children into America, into the black markets here of pedophilia. - SOURCE

There's a lot that can be said about how to address the evils of the "demand," not the least of which is speaking and acting up against the near constant sexual eroticism that permeates our culture in almost everything from full-throated porn to sexy news anchors. 

Normal people may "pooh-pooh" this as prudish, but remember, when it comes to the consumers of child-sex we are not dealing with normal people. We are dealing with sick people whose minds and morals are already darkened and set to go off upon the slightest trigger.

But to the problem of supply. Ballard already suggests what to do about the supply in his above quote about the demand. He goes on to say:

And so, when I find out that in the last couple of years that at least 85,000 — I think it's much higher than that — that at least 85,000 unaccompanied minors [have shown up at the border], thousands of them, I've seen the CBP reports, are under five years old. Why is a three-year-old showing up at the border? - SOURCE

And how to address this problem?

Ballard says that the only compassionate border policy is border enforcement, including barriers and walls, because, as emphasized in Sound of Freedom, "the walls and the barriers lead the children who are being hurt into that funnel of rescue. Trained women and men in uniform are there. Those kids want to go through the port of entry. Those kids pray for a wall. The wall will save their lives! But let's take it all down. Let's open it all up. Kids are being abused by the thousands and our taxpayer dollars are actually funding it." - SOURCE

While we "regular people" can't build a wall, we can elect a president and lawmakers who will. 

So that's one way we can do something. Meanwhile, there is something much closer to home that we can do about the supply side and that's working for laws that at least reduce if not eliminate government incentives for mothers to get rid of fathers. More on that in a future post.

SOUND OF FREEDOM VS "HOME SWEET HOME"

By Tim Rohr

Currently, there is much being said about the movie SOUND OF FREEDOM starring Jim Caviezel.  

And that's a good thing. 

The movie draws much needed attention to the horror of child sex-trafficking, for which the United States is the world's largest customer. (See the above link.)

So how appropriate that the movie opened on the Fourth of July!

America, the land of the free and home of the brave, which is not only the world's largest consumer of child sex, but has as its president the world's most ardent chief executive calling for the killing of children in the womb. And a Catholic at that. 

Yah. Happy Fourth of July. 

But I digress. 

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've read enough to know what it's about. And it's about the kidnapping, trafficking, and sexual exploitation of underage children. 

That's horrible, and kudos to the real life heroes who have been risking their lives and families to fight this satanic war. (I know a bit about risking life and family to fight satanic wars.)

Meanwhile, and not to take away from the atrocity of truly sex-trafficked victims, the large majority of abducted children - who then become part of the "at risk" population for sexual exploitation - are victims of their own parents, or at least one of them.

Do we need to read that again? VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN PARENTS.

So while SOUND OF FREEDOM credibly sounds the alarm on "stranger-abducted children," 99% of THE REAL CROOKS are those children's own parents (SOURCE):

• In the US, 2300 children are reported missing per day 
• Strangers abduct less than 1% of missing children
• Parents are accountable for over 90% of abductions

In case you have trouble with these facts and the source, here is reference to a controlling court case which makes reference to similar facts as far back as 1989:

Between 100,000 and 750,000 children are stolen from one parent by the other parent each year. L. Karp C. Karp, Domestic Torts: Family Violence, Conflicts Sexual Abuse, § 5.01 (1989). Often the parent who abducts the child is aided by friends and family. Id. Seventy percent of these children are never returned to their custodial parent. Note, Tortious Interference With Custody: An Action to Supplement Iowa Statutory Deterrents to Child Snatching, 68 Iowa L.Rev. 495, 495 (1983).

Larson v. Dunn, 449 N.W.2d 751, 754 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)

As much as we want to join the outrage in what is presented to us in SOUND OF FREEDOM, the real outrage needs to be directed at our own U.S. Courts and the legal system which functionally and immediately criminalizes THE ABANDONED spouse and forces him (it is usually him) to fund (via child support) the real crook, i.e. the parent who makes off with the children, not because she wants them or loves them, but because she can and will use them to hurt the spouse she left or use the children as ransom in exchange for the marital property. 

And this is why we read (almost daily in Guam) about children being abused, molested, and/or raped by "the mother's boyfriend." 

So while child sex-trafficking in Honduras and Columbia makes for a good movie, the real movie is happening right here in Dededo, Agat, Yona, Tamuning, and "home sweet home."

THANKS KANDIT

By Tim Rohr

I only made a very brief and parenthetical passing reference to Kandit News in this top post and the views exploded. So thanks, Kandit. Views are over the last 7 days. 

  

ABANDONING ADULTERERS WILL GO TO HELL

By Tim Rohr

Okay, so the title and the pic is a bit of clickbait. But it ties in if you read on, or care. 

The National Catholic Register has posted a "nice" piece titled: 

"How to Save a Troubled Marriage: Advice From Couples Who Have Been Beyond the Brink."

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, the article is another example of one of those things local (Guam) talk show host, Bob Klitzkie, terms "systemic rice-ism," a metaphor for the penchant of the establishment to propagate its narrative of choice in the face of facts which are usually the absolute opposite.

The Catholic Church, particularly in the U.S., otherwise known as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, has spent all sorts of money in trying to prop up marriage as the rate of divorce among Catholic couples is competing with the national average. 

The bishops (of course not all) seem to think that if they can just throw enough money and touchy-feely platitudes at the problem that the problem will go away. 

But it hasn't and it won't. 

And it won't because the real problem with Catholic marriages isn't "the world," the "seductions of modern society," or America's "divorce culture, nor any of the other grasping excuses the bishops offer up. 

The real problem is the bishops, their polices - or lack of them, and specifically the marriage tribunals they govern.

There are many problems, some of which are rooted in the 1983 reformulation of canon law, a reformulation which created a new purpose for marriage out of thin air, something called the "good of the spouses." I wrote more about that here. 

However, on a more immediate and practical level, and something each and every bishop has the authority to immediately fix, is the nearly unilateral requirement - by church authorities - that Catholics seeking a Decree of Nullity ("annulment") first procure a civil divorce. 

This is insane.

First, there is nothing in Canon Law that requires this.

Second, the Catholic Church officially does NOT recognize the dissolution of marriage, civil or otherwise. and it never will - because it cannot.

Third, requiring a civil divorce before initiating annulment proceedings functionally forces Jesus to bow to Herod, or, to be less metaphoric, said requirement functionally acknowledges the premier power of the state over the secondary power of the church.

And then we Catholics wonder why "the state" mocks us when it comes to our speaking up on social-moral issues? 

By requiring a civl divorce prior to the initiation of an annulment proceeding, our bishops continue to relinquish church moral authority to the state. Thus, it, the state, has every right to tell the church to "shut up and sit down." And it does, and we do. 

Note: Notice how we closed our churches without question upon order of the state as soon as the government forbid "sacramental services" but it was fine to go to Home Depot, Kmart, and your grocery store of choice - where you could buy all the booze you wanted but couldn't buy birthday cards or magazines.

Sumay Payless (during pandemic). 

Birthday cards and magazines off limits. 

But booze - all you want. 

Governor's orders. LOL.

At this point I shall yield to a true expert on the matter. The expert's name is Bai Macfarlane. Mrs. Macfarlane sets out the whole problem with great clarity in this 2015 address titled: 

“The Current Marriage Crisis in the Light of the Original Creation and the Code of Canon Law.”

A full PDF of Mrs. Macfarlane's presentation is here. A video recording of her presentation is here. And Mrs. Macfarlane's website, with many other scholarly presentations on this same matter, is here. 

BTW, the Patrick Madrid thing which gave rise to the title of the post can be listened to here. 

RELIGION IN POLITICS IS A GOOD THING

"We have no choice but to have political struggles about the things we can’t agree on. But it’s not ok to tell the other side that it is a bunch of religious fanatics whose values don’t count."

A pro-abortion writer for The Hill speaks to why it is wrong to villainize religious arguments in the abortion controversy and why religion is a good thing in political life.

Religion and the wrong defense of abortion rights

BY ANDREW KOPPELMAN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 08/13/22 

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISCREDIT TIM ROHR

By Tim Rohr

This post at COMPLICIT CLERGY begins:

In late July 2018, a small group of Catholic laymen gathered to discuss the Theodore McCarrick sex scandal. A mix of emotions was in the room that day: sorrow, frustration, anger, disappointment and disgust. How was it that Theodore McCarrick had been allowed to abuse so many young men over multiple decades?

Read the full post here.

By the time this group met (I'll call it "the McCarrick Group"), we lay Catholics in Guam, beginning in 2013, had already dealt with a far larger and longer clergy sex abuse scandal, and the former Archbishop Apuron had already been found guilty and sentenced by the Vatican in March 2018. And, as I read through the post, it appeared that the McCarrick Group had taken a page right out of the Guam playbook. 

Thinking that the McCarrick group had studied the Apuron situation in Guam is no mere fanciful thinking. Though McCarrick was a much bigger player in the Catholic world than Apuron, there is a connection between the two cases. And had the McCarrick scandal not exploded in Pope Francis' face when it did (August 2018), Apuron, despite having been found guilty and removed from Guam, might have regained his office and brought vengeance upon those of us who stood up to him.

Francis himself made the connection between McCarrick and Apuron during an interview on a flight from Ireland to Rome in August 2018. The McCarrick scandal had just blown up and the blow-up was further blown up by a scathing 11-page letter by Archbishop Vigano, former papal nuncio to the U.S., which named Francis and several other bishops as being complicit in a McCarrick cover up. (Note: One of the bishops named by Vigano was Cardinal Edwin O'Brien who personally threatened me in October 2016.) 

Here is what Pope Francis said about Apuron during that interview:

The pontiff revealed that the last bishop to have been judged by such a process was Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who the Vatican announced in March had been found guilty of "certain of the accusations" against him, which included sexually abusing young men decades ago.

Noting that Apuron is appealing the verdict, the pope said that because it is a "very, very difficult case," he had decided to "take the appeal upon myself."

"I took it upon myself and I made a commission of canonists to help me," Francis explained, adding: "It is a complicated case on one hand, but also not difficult because the evidence is very clear."

"But I cannot prejudge," he said. "I'll wait for the information, and then I will judge."

For those who had dealt closely with the Apuron situation here in Guam, it wasn't hard to see what was really going on behind the pope's conflicting statements saying: on the one hand that Apuron's was "a very, very difficult case," and on the other hand - only a sentence or two later - saying that Apuron's case was "not difficult because the evidence is clear."

These two very contrary statements by the Pope on such a serious matter - and public statements at that - pointed directly to the pressure he was under from what we call here in JungleWatch, "The Kikos," i.e. the Neocatechumenal Way leadership, who at that time, had significant influence with Francis via their "Red Pope," Cardinal Fernando Filoni.

Filoni's direct involvement to protect the neocats in Guam, and Apuron specifically, is too long to go into here and has already been demonstrated many times on this blog. Just type "Filoni" in the search bar at the top of this blog if you want to fill yourself in. 

In short, though, Apuron's downfall in Guam was a severe blow to The Kiko's worldwide, and they knew it. Apuron, at the time, was the only bishop in the world who would ordain neocat presbyters upon command from The Kiko's. If Apuron fell, The Kiko empire - a very lucrative one - might soon follow. So upon Apuron's initial conviction and sentencing, The Kiko's, most likely via their "Red Pope," sprang into action to get Apuron's conviction overturned via an appeal.

Thus we see the strange convolution where Francis bypasses the normal course of appeals via the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and tells the reporters that he will "take the appeal upon myself." I mean, really? The pope is going to stop what he's doing for the rest of the Catholic world and focus on what to do with a single wayward bishop from an obscure diocese in the middle of Oceania?

Don't get me wrong. Guam is my chosen home and I want the best for it, but you see where I'm going? There had to be something else at play to cause the pope to take on Apuron's appeal himself when there was a canonical apparatus to otherwise handle it, and then for Francis to have it on his mind in the middle of the interview about McCarrick.

Per my experience, I knew exactly what was going on. The Kiko's had gotten to Francis via the Red Pope and Francis was being pressured to overturn Apuron's conviction - especially since Apuron maintained not only his innocence but also that he was the victim of a "real estate conspiracy" led by ME. 

According to the church they allege he (Rohr) had a personal interest in the plan and was supposed to be involved in the multi-million dollar sale as a real estate mediator. - "Church says there's a plot to topple the archbishop," KUAM NEWS, June 3, 2016

Thus, the first order of business was TO DISCREDIT TIM ROHR. And they did that, or attempted to do that, by getting to certain persons close to me who then colluded with certain other persons close to Apuron, persons who were invested in seeing to my demise...and who were nicely rewarded afterwards, though, for some, those "rewards" are beginning to unravel. But that's a story for another day. (Meanwhile, pay attention to Kandit.)

And this is where McCarrick came to the rescue. Read the full news report and ask yourself why would Apuron's case be brought up in the middle of much larger world-shattering news like Cardinal McCarrick's case?"

Apuron was an outback-nobody, and McCarrick, as the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington DC for many years, was a kingmaker. So why did reporters bring up Apuron in the middle of their interview with Francis about McCarrick?

The answer is found in these words from the interview: "The pontiff revealed that the last bishop to have been judged by such a process was Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron..." 

Apuron wasn't just the "last bishop to have been judged by such a process," he was also THE FIRST. I don't have time to link all the stories, but the main reason the Vatican hesitated in engaging Apuron was because it did not have a process for prosecuting bishops for sex abuse. It only knew what to do with priests. 

This was big news at the time and the Vatican literally did not know what to do with Apuron. And it (The Vatican) would have probably ignored the whole matter (given Apuron's obscurity) had it not been for the FIFTY FOUR SUNDAYS that lay Catholics obstinately marched in front of the Agana Cathedral each and every Sunday during the symbolic 9:30am Mass and the ever present media coverage.

In the end, the pope denied Apuron's appeal. And I am very sure it was because the McCarrick scandal brought a spotlight to the Vatican and Francis was caught in the glare. Once that happened, Francis really had no choice but to be tough on Apuron. The whole world was watching. Otherwise, I think Apuron would have been exonerated by the pope and restored as Archbishop of Agana. 

As it is, Apuron's sentence was quite light. He was not laicized as most priests are once found guilty of similar abuses. He remains a bishop though he cannot present himself as one. And more importantly, for the Kikos, he remains a priest, apparently in good standing, and most likely celebrates their "Eucharist" in their "small communities." 

Meanwhile, I didn't make a dime on my so-called "real estate conspiracy." 

However, we must remember that Apuron is not done. Aside from the archdiocesan cases, there are cases which name Apuron personally as a defendant. When those cases will be brought to trial, I don't know. But if and when they are, we can be sure that Apuron and his defenders will drag up the whole conspiracy story again. I'm looking forward to it. There are certain people I want to subpoena. 

See also: SAVING APURON...THE REST OF THE STORY...FOR NOW (and the comments)

SO WHO THEN SHOULD BE GUAM'S NEXT ARCHBISHOP?

By Tim Rohr

It is a given that the NCW leadership is most likely pressing the papal nuncio to recommend to Rome a bishop for the Archdiocese of Agana who is supportive of the NCW. It's just what they do. 

On the bright side though is this.

Apuron has been a real mosquito on the pope's skin, and we can believe he's tired of slapping the damn thing.

While those of us who live here think we are the center of the world, Rome doesn't. 

We are a side show compared to the pope's other real world problems and he has already spent so much time and energy on Apuron. 

So I'm thinking that the pope will appoint a bishop who he believes will produce the least grief. 

Some are worried that Saipan bishop, Ryan Jiminez, will be appointed bishop of Guam's archdiocese. It's possible. But in addition to Bishop Ryan's problematic sympathies for the NCW, he's also Filipino. 

For those who are honest, there still exists - quite apart from the NCW thing - an ethnic and cultural challenge relative to Chamorros being led by a Filipino. 

Not being of either ethnicity, I don't profess to fully understand the issue. But I've lived here long enough to understand some of it. 

So apart from his NCW sympathies, the appointment of Jiminez would probably lead to more grief for the aging and evermore sickly Francis - who by this point probably wishes he had never heard the words "Guam" and "Apuron."  

So who then, should be Guam's next archbishop?

Contrary to even my own opinion and preference, I am not yet convinced that it shouldn't be a local, and in fact, a local Chamorro ("CHamoru" for those who prefer the spelling.)

However, if the choice is "a local," he should be prepared to be hated by some - if not by many. And that's a good thing. 

Being hated, of course, is right in line with what Christ prophesied when He warned: 

"And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved." - Matt. 10:22

Meanwhile, let us pray that should the new bishop be hated, that he is hated because of his faithfulness to Jesus Christ, His Bride...and nothing else. 

10.5 MILLION AND THANK YOU TO THE DIANA

By Tim Rohr

I just noticed that JW has just surpassed 10.5 Million Page Views. 

This month, July, will mark ten years since JW took off when we began chronicling that Apuron v Gofigan Saga, which began in July, 2013. 

So that's an average of a million views a year, 87,500 per month, or about 3,000 per day. 

Our highest page view day ever was about 14k on this post about Apuron's removal of Msgr. James Benavente as rector of the Cathedral: MSGR. JAMES BENAVENTE REMOVED AS RECTOR OF CATHEDRAL BASILICA

The post which has received the most views overall is actually not a story, but a picture posted in September 2015: ARCHBISHOP APURON WITH CARDINAL SEAN O'MALLEY AT THE VATICAN, SEPTEMBER 2015 It has 77k+ views. 

Additionally, there have been 5,273 posts, and 68,734 comments, everyone of which I have read and sometimes responded to.

After the Vatican took over the Apuron thing, JW essentially took a rest. And I personally took a nearly 5 year break to deal with personal matters. 

While those personal matters will never be fully settled in this world, they are at a place that has allowed me to return to JW and keep the lights on, or more specifically, the "spotlights" on. 

In the relative absence of Apuron-related scandal stuff, JW has kept busy with other matters, especially the abortion issue in Guam. 

However, as already shared many times, Guam really isn't interested in the abortion thing. 

That's understandable. As the legislatively-mandated abortion reports continue to show, Guamanians, and specifically those who ethnically identify as "Chamorro" - despite being a demographic minority - represent the largest number of those who procure abortions.

So, for the last several months - if not years - JW has been bumping along at about 20k page views per month. 

However, as already shared in a previous post, JW, just like the old days, received some wonderful help from our old friend, The Diana, the "spokesperson" for Guam's NCW - or at least its leadership, and we got a nice bump in this past month of June:

From an average of just below 20k views per month to nearly 50k...well that was nice. And it was only a post or two. Thank you to The Diana. Please continue to find fault with JW. Nothing else seems to interest our viewership as much. 

Courage