Wednesday, July 8, 2015


Joke's on you Guam. We screwed you. - Lv Giuseppe & Kiko
I have taken very little personal credit for all the atrocities we have exposed on this blog, mostly because the data and documents were provided by others and all I had to do was post and comment on them. However, just for fun, I would like to take credit for blowing the whistle many months ago on the clandestine presence of the Board of Guarantors in the RMS Articles of Incorporation.

While Fr. Adrian and others continued to protest that RMS was fully under the control of the Archbishop and the Board of Directors, I continued to cry foul, demonstrating over and over again that Apuron was NOT in control of RMS, that the Board of Directors were mere puppets, and that Giuseppe Gennarini had reserved all power to the Kiko's.

When it was discovered this past January that Apuron had in fact deeded The Property to RMS four years earlier, it became even more clear why Gennarini and his neocatechumenal bullies had masterminded the corporate structure as they did: The Property is now fully in the control of, not RMS, but Giuseppe Gennarini himself.

Attorney Bronze spells this out in Section II of his opinion which you can read in full here. Below is the relevant section which I separated into paragraphs for easier reading and added emphases:

The establishment of the Board of Guarantors by this non-for-profit corporation calls into question as to how the Board of Guarantors are to be elected or removed from such position once he/she becomes a member of said board, as the bylaws do not address the election or removal procedures of such Board of Guarantors and neither does Guam law. 

Since Guam law does not recognize a Board of Guarantors* and in the absence of any provisions for the removal or election of such board in the articles or by-laws of RMHF, the Archbishop, despite being the sole member of the not-for-profit, cannot remove the members of the Board of Guarantors unless the Archbishop files for an application for the dissolution of RMHF.

Even the filing of such petition for dissolution has its own legal complications as 18 GCA § 5105 requires a majority of the board of directors or “other officers having management of the affairs of the corporations” to execute the application for dissolution.

In such a case, if the Board of Guarantors objects to the action of the board of directors or officers in relation to such possible dissolution application requested by the Archbishop, it could veto their action per Article X of the Amended Articles of Incorporation.

It is the opinion of the undersigned that the drafter of these organizational documents purposely and deliberately designed the structure of the organization so that the Board of Guarantors shall have veto power over all decisions including the decisions of the archbishop and his successors.

Thus, we are faced with the unusual practice of a separate, unelected, and un-removable board having veto power over a board of directors, the officers, and the sole member, the Archbishop of Agana and his successors.

*Attorney Bronze earlier demonstrated in Part II that Guam law does NOT recognize a Board of Guarantors in a corporate structure, ONLY the Board of Directors. However, the presence of a the Board of Guarantors is valid until a court invalidates Article X of the RMS Articles of Incorporation.

So there you have it. Just as we thought from the beginning. Apuron completely gave this deca-million dollar property to the Neocatechumenal Way since the RMS by-laws mandate that the Neocatechumenal responsible team for the United States always be a part of the board and can never be removed.

That Neocatechumenal responsible team is Giuseppe Gennarini, his wife, the Kiko-presbyter Angelo Poschetti, and guess who? Anthony Apuron personally! and NOT the Archbishop of Agana, Incumbent.

This means that even if Apuron should be run out of town, he, along with his Kiko-buddies, remain in control of RMS and will have authority over the next bishop in any matter relative to the running of RMS. That means, as I have said before, Apuron, as Archbishop of Agana, has deeded control of The Property TO HIMSELF personally and FOREVER!

And now, are you ready for this?

Gennarini cleverly structured the language of the Deed Restriction so that RMS does NOT have to operate as a seminary and can morph into any business he and Apuron want to run.

Check out the deed restriction again. Here it is:

Note that the Declaration does NOT say that RMS must operate as a seminary, ONLY that is for the USE of RMS and Blessed Diego Institute. RMS is a corporation. It can amend its articles to do anything its directors want it to do. In this deed Apuron did not guarantee that we would have this seminary forever. He only guaranteed that the property would belong to a particular corporation forever and to the Neocatechumenal responsible team that controls it, which includes HIM!

With this fact in mind we can now see that the rumor that RMS is talking to investors may be true. RMS is horribly in debt and hemorrhaging. There never was any long term way of keeping such a massive operation going on this tiny island. The directors are seeing the same writing on the wall that the former AFC is alleged to have seen: either sell the property or turn it into an income producing property and use the proceeds for the true betterment of the archdiocese.

Except now the property no longer belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. All the proceeds which could have once gone towards the betterment of the diocese of the people who supported it for many years will now go to the crooks who, with their Apuron puppet, set up this scam from the beginning. 

Quoting again from Bronze:
"...the drafter of these organizational documents purposely and deliberately designed the structure of the organization so that the Board of Guarantors shall have veto power over all decisions including the decisions of the archbishop and his successors.

Dear Rome:

This has now gone beyond the atrocities of just these local crooks. The Neocatechumenal Way would have no authority in our Church if not for the sanction you gave it. You (specifically the relevant congregation and/or dicastery) have the duty of policing it and calling them in when they abuse the faithful as they have done in Guam through the groveling willingness of their puppet bishop. In matters like this where the competency of the local Ordinary is so obviously compromised, the good of the local Church falls to you. Or has Kiko bought you too?

I'll leave it at that...for now.

Recommendations by JungleWatch