Monday, July 6, 2015

THE BRONZE SHOE - AN OPINION OF COUNSEL


After we posted about Archbishop Apuron's direct attempt to get "the donor's representative" to outright lie for him (see The Ultimate Treachery), some commenters began to refer to "the next shoe to drop."

They were right to identify the blatant and sad attempt by a successor to the apostles to get someone to lie for him as "the first shoe."

Up to that point, and regarding the alienation of The Property, we could only infer that an atrocity had been committed.

With the exposition of Apuron's attempt to get "the donor's representative" to lie for him, and the representative's stern refusal to do so, we had, in writing, absolute evidence of Apuron's attempt to cover for his conspiracy to defraud the Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana.


The second shoe, which came to be called "the bronze shoe" ("Bronze" is the attorney's last name) was referred to as "the second shoe" because, as people rightly suspected, it would provide the final piece of evidence that Apuron clearly meant to give away The Property to the control of the NCW in perpetuity, and that Apuron may also be party to a conspiracy to defraud the faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana of its largest real property asset.

The recently discovered agenda for the meeting of the Archdiocesan Finance Council held on September 7, 2011, has shown us without a doubt that Apuron knew that he was turning over the property to an entity separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and that that entity, RMS, was NOT in his control as he later claimed.

Ever since the discovery in January of the deed giving full control of The Property to RMS "for perpetual use", Apuron has been scrambling to make it known that the property is still in his control. He has done this several times in the U Matuna. And as we now know, this was the main reason he tried to get the "donor's representative" to lie for him. 

Failing that, he sought out the opinion of a Denver legal firm, published only excerpts from it in the U Matuna, pretended to make it available at the Chancery, and then when someone (Attorney Bronze) actually did go to review it, it was completely withdrawn from public view.

Why all this effort by Apuron to convince us that the property was still in his control? 

Because, as we have mentioned before, SHOULD IT BE PROVED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY ALIENATED, Rome would have clear grounds to take action against Apuron. Here are the relevant portions of the law:

Can 1292 §2. The permission of the Holy See is also required for the valid alienation of goods whose value exceeds the maximum amount, goods given to the Church by vow, or goods precious for artistic or historical reasons. 
Can. 1296 Whenever ecclesiastical goods have been alienated without the required canonical formalities but the alienation is valid civilly, it is for the competent authority, after having considered everything thoroughly, to decide whether and what type of action, namely, personal or real, is to be instituted by whom and against whom in order to vindicate the rights of the Church.
Initially, Rome was under the impression that Apuron still had control of the property. Thus, if it could be proved that he did not, then Rome, being the "competent authority" in this matter, would be required "to decide whether and what type of action...is to be instituted by whom and against whom in order to vindicate the rights of the Church."

In order to prove this, an opinion of counsel from a licensed Guam attorney was needed. The CCOG contracted Attorney Jacques G. Bronze, a real property specialist, to investigate the matter. Mr. Bronze's opinion does two major things:
  1. Determines that The Property is in fact alienated and that Apuron (the Grantor) has given up all rights to the property.
  2. Determines that Apuron does NOT have control of the property (which you shall see).
Upon receipt of the completed opinion in May, the CCOG forwarded copies to Archbishop Krebs and to Archbishop Hon. 

This "opinion" is not just a personal opinion, it is an "opinion of counsel". This means we can take it to court. I will talk more about civil action in my next post. But for now, the first course of action was to hand Rome the hard evidence that Apuron had 1) given the property away, and 2) does not have control of the property. 

Once this was in hand, Rome had hard evidence that Apuron had violated the canonical norms governing the alienation of property and had specifically violated the norm requiring the approval of the Holy See - which now makes the Holy See, and not just the faithful of Guam, the aggrieved party, clearing the way for the Holy See to take direct action against Apuron.

To be continued



Recommendations by JungleWatch