- Have you apologized personally and publicly for your public humiliation of Father Paul and Msgr. James and have you made amends with both? NO!
- Have you sought reconciliation with the Lastimoza family and apologized for dragging them into hell, and especially to the Lastimoza children for publicly inferring that their father was in a homosexual relationship with Fr. Paul? NO!
- Have you apologized to the members of the AFC who you and your Vicar General chastised with the most vile crap when in fact - as we now know - they were doing exactly what they were supposed to do? NO!
- Have you sought to remedy the fraud you perpetrated on the Catholic faithful of this island by secretly giving away The Property? NO!
- Have you apologized to "the donor's representative" for asking her to lie for you? NO!
- You apparently have NO PROBLEM using "the media extensively" - as you do every Sunday in the U Matuna to attack your enemies.
- You apparently had NO PROBLEM in sending out a press statement detailing all the alleged crimes of Msgr. James - something you did several times while never permitting Msgr. James himself to see those charges nor did you permit him to defend himself.
- You had NO PROBLEM issuing a press release accusing Fr. Paul of being a "danger to children".
- You had NO PROBLEM speaking to a group of thirty clergy and telling the most outrageous lies about Fr. Paul.
I was going to do a full post with commentary on the BRONZE SHOE. However, Apuron's ridiculous, shameful, and narcissistic attack on those who question him has prompted me to give you the guts of it NOW. A commentary will follow along with a posting of the full opinion.
Jacques G. Bronze. Legal Opinion regarding Real Property Conveyance and Corporate Governance relating to The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation. a Guam Non-Profit Corporation. May 13 2015.The Declaration of Deed Restriction executed on November 21, 2011, by the Grantor, for that certain land located at 130 Seminariu Drive, Yona, Guam, recorded at the Department of Land Management as Instrument No. 829322, in favor of RMHF operates to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple, of the subject real property to RMHF, divesting all right, title and interest of the subject property from the Grantor, except for the subject restraint in use. (Pg 2)In the instant case, the Deed executed by Grantor, provides in its granting clause that “…Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed, subject to the covenant and restrictions set forth herein...” (Pg 5)By examining the four corners of the subject Deed and applying the aforementioned rules of interpretation the only conclusion that can be interpreted is that the Grantor intended to transfer a present interest in the subject property. (Pg 5)In light of the case authorities from California interpreting the words “transfer” and “convey,” the Deed executed by the Grantor herein evidences a clear intent to transfer a present interest in subject property to RMHF. (Pg 6)In the instant case, the named grantor and grantee are identified and a description of the real property located in Yona, Guam is provided in the deed. Moreover, as discussed above, the deed contains operative words of an intent by the grantor to transfer a present interest in the subject real property. (Pg 7)The Grantor’s conveyance of the subject property “…to and for the use, of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam,…in perpetual use as a see of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam…,” operates as a complete divestment of the Grantor’s right title and interest in the subject property, but subject to a restraint in use. (Pg 8)The Deed executed by the Grantor, must be examined in its entirety. The case law provided above clearly provides that such an instrument can be considered a complete conveyance if it can be determined from the language that there is an intent to convey an interest in the real property. The instrument appears to fit squarely within the definition of a conveyance, as provided by 21 G.C.A. § 40302, despite the property being encumbered by a restriction However the restriction noted in the deed, may be invalid under Guam law, which this opinion letter does not address at this time. (Pg 9)In this case, the granting clause of the deed conveyed the fee forever, in a strong, unequivocal language as could be used to convey a present interest in real property, subject to a reasonable restraint in use. The Ownership and the Encumbrance Report issued by Pacific American Title and relied on by the Archbishop that the subject property remains in the corporation sole, is legally unsound as there is no basis in law to supper the title company’s legal conclusion. (Pg 12)