Wednesday, December 16, 2015


On 11/29/15, David the VG (he was in charge since Apuron was gone), published a copy of the Certificate of Title for one of the parcels which makes up the property occupied (and now controlled) by RMS.

We have already broached the argument (as did Teri Untalan in the PDN) that a Certificate of Title relative to the ownership of real property means nothing. We all know that one's name can remain on a Certificate of Title to real property while a separate piece of paper gives away all use of that property forever - which is what Apuron's 2011 Deed Restriction did. 

The Deed Restriction actually did more - it in fact conveyed the title to RMS - but we'll let that be for now. 

To illustrate the pure willingness of David the VG to lie and deceive, let's just say that the 2011 Deed did not in fact convey title to RMS. Let's just say that it is what they say it is - just a restriction on the use of the property (never mind that it is forever), and that the archbishop retains absolute ownership and control. He doesn't of course - as illustrated several times on this blog and by the legal opinion of Attorney Bronze - but let's just say that he does.

So if in fact this is the case, then David the VG would have had no qualm with publishing a copy of the Certificate of Title with the 2011 Deed duly noted in the "memorials" section on the certificate - as ALL documents effecting the subject property MUST be. 

However, note that the CT published in the U Matuna completely leaves off the record of the 2011 Deed. 

Here is a cleaner copy:

Now, if the 2011 Deed did not affect the ownership of the property, why would David the VG publish a Certificate of Title omitting it, especially when the actual Title Report from Title Guaranty SHOWS the Deed:

We cannot accept that he did not know it was supposed to be on there. He's the Vicar General - the equivalent to our civil government's attorney general, he's supposed to be the ONE person in the diocese who knows these things. And even if he is ignorant - that's why the archdiocese has a legal counsel. Oh wait a minute? Is that now Jackie Terlaje?

(There is the additional question of HOW this Certificate of Title with the "conveniently" missing memorial just "happened" to find itself onto the front page of the U Matuna - and further carried by the PDN. So be warned. If your fingerprints are on this LIE, we will find you.)

In any event, David the VG, the one who accused Richard Untalan of a vulnus against the bishop when he, the VG, KNEW, that the property had ALREADY been transferred (see The Real Villain), is the author of this latest attempt to defraud the Catholics of Guam.

There is a final point that we again want to make. It really doesn't matter what a document is titled, especially in regards to legal documents. What matters is the operative language in the document. Apuron (or more precisely his handlers) has tried to camouflage the intent of the document with words like "declaration" and "restriction." But as the Legal Opinion shows, the document contains operative language that legally alienates the property:
"NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the covenants and restrictions set forth herein..." (See full document here. )
The property is to be HELD, USED, TRANSFERRED, SOLD AND CONVEYED. The only "covenants and restrictions" the Deed is subject to is 1) it is to be used by RMS, and 2) the deed is effective upon the date of execution (November 22, 2011).

And as also stated several times before, there is NOTHING in the language of the document which demands that RMS remain a seminary.

The extremely tragic and sad part of all of this is not the alienation of a piece of dirt, regardless of its value, but the relentless and systematic lying and defrauding of the Catholics of Guam by their religious leaders.

Stand fast people. Do not grow weary in well-doing. The Lord knows all. And vengeance is His (Deuteronomy 32:35).

This post has been assembled into a document available to download, copy, and share. Find it here


  1. Wow! The Neo connection. We have the Neo who notarized the deed and the Neo who signed the Title Certificate.

    1. Most people dont understand property transactions, because most people dont buy and sell all the time. I too am in the dark on these matters. But what most people understand is buying and selling of cars.

      So if tony sells his Equus luxury sedan to David the VG for $60,000, and David the VG pays the agreed upon amount, Tony signs the ownership certificate indicating that he no longer owns the car.

      But what if sickly David the VG isn't feeling well and never takes the ownership certificate to Motor Vehicles? Well, as far as the Government is concerned the car still is owned by Tony Baloney. But the Government is wrong since David paid the price.

      At any time, if he ever felt well enough to venture outside, David the VG could take that document to Motor Vehicles and have the title to the luxury car transferred to his name. And Tony would have no say about it since he already signed the back of the certificate of ownership.

      The Government continues to show Tony as the owner, Tony already has been paid off by David the VG, and David the Vg uses the car and is the legitimate owner of the Equus. I think that is basically the same scenario with the car example as with the seminary property. Am I right, Tim?

      And if it is the same, there are also some interesting consequences. What if dumb-dumb David the VG decides not to get insurance? The Government wouldn't know since they don't know he actually owns the vehicle. What if after a Saturday evening wine orgy celebration Dumb-dumb David the VG gets into an accident and kills someone? The car is still in Tony's name so will the family sue Tony?

      Regarding the seminary, because no one has filed the change in ownership, that still doesn't change the fact that Giuseppi and his gang of white collar thieves own our valuable property. But will they pay the property tax? No, we will pay because the Government thinks the Archdiocese still owns it. And what if a seminarian, after a Saturday evening wine orgy falls off the fourth floor balcony? Will the family sue Giuseppi and his gang of white collar thieves? No, they will sue the Archdiocese because they are still the owner of record as far as the Government is concerned.

      Seminary gets all the benefits of ownership, without any of the price or risk that goes along with ownership. The Archdiocese (that's us) continue to incur the costs and risk, but have no benefit of use to the property.

      Does everyone see how messed up this whole situation is? How we really are being shafted by our own spiritual leadership is simply scandalous. And the emperor fiddles while Rome burns.

      And when we finally get a new bishop, Giuseppi and his gang of white collar thieves will simply march over to land management and file their claim to have the property duly transferred to their name. And Tony will still be on the Board of Guarantors.

      FYI - there is one big difference between my example of the car transaction and the seminary transaction. In the car transaction, actual money exchanged hands so the former owner benefited as much as the new owner. In the seminary transaction, the new owner benefits, but the former owner (ultimately that's us folks) got nothing in consideration.

      Any guesses as to how much tony got personally for signing away our most valuable asset in the Archdiocese?

  2. Civil RICO conspiracy by members of the NCW Cult?

  3. Can the Yona property (aka Redemptorist Mater Seminary) be sold now by the Neos without any valid legal objection from the Archdiocese of Agana?

  4. Correction to my previous comment: Can the Yona Property (aka Redemptorist Mater Seminary) now be sold without the approval of the Archdiocese of Agana (no matter who the Archbishop may be)? If so, who benefits?

  5. It appears that the plan from Putrid and Genarinis is a constant pounding of the same lie in every media they can reach. Lie,lie,lie
    Something will stick.
    They know the pending lawsuit will unravel the Web. So they are attempting to confuse. The pathetic Zoltan is even testing new characterisation. His latest one in the PDN being:
    "Aclu catholics" implying left wing,anti-family,pro-gay as opposed to the Ncw being the defenders against such positions.
    This would be hilarious, since the same mouth-piece did attack this Web site Chuck's and the CCOG as traditionalists who refused to go with the flow.
    In both scenario of course the NCW is blessed by the pope (sic), which here again implies that we would all be working against the Pope and the Church.
    They are laying it a little thick of course, but it fits into their script to the troops.
    We should be ready for more of the same, in order to show the hypocrisy and inanity of these attempts.

  6. No surprise here. I remember somebody telling the Pope that we have two seminaries here without elaborating. I guess it goes with the territory. And I am not talking about Guam. A U.S. territory.

  7. Does anyone know who are these people from Bethlehem selling goods at the churches
    Are they neo

    1. Is Fr Luis Camacho with them?

  8. If Fr Luis among them hide your daughters!


Recommendations by JungleWatch