Friday, December 18, 2015

PIUS LAUGHED OFF THE REQUEST

One can only be at once amused and horrified at the depths to which this archbishop, his handlers, and his "Diana" defenders are willing to stoop in their cancerous need to continue to defraud the Catholics of Guam. 

The publication of the certificate of title to the Yona property with the conveniently missing memorial on the front page of the U Matuna on the First Sunday of Advent is pure evidence of how rotten and evil these people have become - or rather, just how rotten and evil is the neo-cult movement to which they subscribe, with Apuron and his people merely the decaying stench-filled droppings of the larger beast. 


It is 99.99% IMPROBABLE that the published certificate of title just "happened" to be missing the entry in the memorials section of the title showing the contested deed. Therefore it is 99.99% PROBABLE that Apuron (i.e. David the VG) abused his office and his collar to threaten some poor person with an "arduous and painful closure to his assignment" if he or she didn't produce the version of the certificate of title needed to perpetrate his fetid fraud. 

Because that certificate was published on the front page of the U Matuna, and because Apuron's people pushed the story to the Pacific Daily News, which also gave it front page space, it can now no longer be written off as just an "error" once we identify the source of the misleading certificate. And believe me, we will FIND the source!

That means that some poor person is either going to lose his job or be in someway publicly and grievously hurt once he (or she) is exposed and after Apuron's people throw him under the bus - as they surely will. 

And for what? To prop up a morally perforated bishop? A spiritually withered and cowardly vicar general? A conniving and corrupt chancellor worse than any Da Vinci code villain? Or the comically inept posterior smooching Deacon For Sure For Sure?

How interesting that Apuron and his pathetic band of derelict defenders were so anxious to publish the defective title when four years ago there was not a single mention of the so-called Deed of Restriction and was only discovered three years after it was recorded, buried in the files at Land Management, after my own research. 

AND HERE'S THE MAIN QUESTION:

If there wasn't anything wrong with what Apuron did then why did he secret the deed away? 

If the deed is only a "declaration" of "restriction" on use and does not affect the ownership - as the google-lawyer Diana Susanna continues to protest, then why wasn't said Decree of Declaration and attached Deed Restriction published in the U Matuna as readily and enthusiastically as the pathetic stooges published the (false) certificate of title? Why was it secretly recorded on November 22, 2011? And why did it lay buried for three years until I dug it up?

I will tell you why.

Because Apuron knew that the 2011 Deed in fact gave the property away. He knew because his legal counsel told him so. He knew because he was warned - as the Sept 7, 2011 finance council agenda records, that if he did not amend the RMS corporate documents that said Deed would give all control of the property to another corporate entity and remove it both from the patrimony and control of the office of the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Agana. 



And, once again, let there be no doubt that despite whatever the document was called, the actual language of the document TRANSFERRED absolute control of the property to RMS:
"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..."
The plan was to leave the deed secreted away and only bring it forward if Apuron was replaced by a bishop unfriendly to the NCW. Plan A was actually to make Adrian or David the next bishop. But Gennarini is no fool, and the very fact that he had the foresight to have a Plan B is a testament to what he thought of those two corrupt and bumbling idiots. 

The secretly recorded deed was Plan B. Should the next bishop not be a stooge like Apuron and not be friendly to the NCW, Gennarini would simply walk into the new bishop's office and slap the deed down on the desk and either blackmail the new bishop into letting the NCW continue or make a mega-million dollar deal. 

Witnesses willing to sign an affidavit have described the shouting match that occurred between Gennarini and legal counsel Ed Terlaje over this matter. Sadly Mr. Terlaje, as he has for nearly four decades, and probably pro bono, thought he was defending the interests of the Archbishop. It must have come as a helluva shock when his "friend" of nearly forty years, the despicable child with the pointy hat, sided with Gennarini against the long-serving Mr. Terlaje. 

One of those present approached Pius the Putrid after this horrible event where Apuron allowed Mr. Terlaje to be shouted down by Gennarini and told Pius the Putrid to ask Gennarini to apologize to Mr. Terlaje. Pius laughed off the request. 

Merry Christmas from the Ladrones.







23 comments:

  1. The poor dingbat is so dilerious from all of that KAKA. Please someone send this thingie on the right path. The blind leading the blind is not good for anyone's soul.

    DianaDecember 17, 2015 at 4:48 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 4:40 pm,

    I do not think there is anyone behind him. Tim Rohr changes his story very often. At one point, he claims that the Archdiocese of Agana does not own the RMS property. Then later, he claims that the Archdiocese of Agana owns the property but does not have "control" over it. They cannot make up their mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. What what would you expect from a Malaysian unfamiliar with U.S. real estate language. Ownership and control - especially when that control is perpetual - can be interchangeable. This is precisely why the attorney opined that the language of the deed was an ABSOLUTE CONVEYANCE IN FEE SIMPLE.

      However, as Janet B explained in her example about a the title for a car, the title does not reflect the new ownership until the new owner registers the new title with DMV. RMS did not plan to change the registered ownership of the property at Land Management unless its ownership/control was challenged by an unfriendly bishop.

      Tell Diana Susanna to google a bit more.

      Delete
  2. Let me help out a bit more. Let's say you want to buy a piece of property. The owner shows you a certificate of title with an entry showing that he purchased the property ten years ago. He wants $50,000 for the lot and so you write him a check.

    After you build your house on the lot and are living comfortably there is a knock on the door. It's the former owner's son. In his hand is a deed of gift showing that his father gave him the property after he purchased it and before you bought it.

    Guess what? You are SOL ("s--t out of luck).

    Since most people probably only do one real estate transaction in their whole life (buy a house), they are unfamiliar with the extremely complex issues relative to property ownership. This is why real estate brokerages and title companies exist and why all lending institutions require title reports, appraisals, and retracement surveys before they lend a buyer money to make the purchase.

    As you can see from the above example, a title may mean absolutely nothing. What matters is what is called the "chain of title." And you are a fool to purchase any property where the chain of title has not been researched and documented and any and all documents (liens, encumbrances, deeds, restrictions, etc.) are detailed.

    In the current case, a properly constructed certificate of title to the RMS property would have shown the 2011 Deed and a lender would have had the effect of that deed investigated before lending to a buyer, just as a title company would have done before insuring the title. In any event, neither the bank nor the title company would have relied on a certificate of title. They would have investigated the chain or "abstract" of title and would have discovered the 2011 deed.

    Real Estate is not for amateurs, Diana Susanna. And even though you get to live for free and at our expense at your seaside Yona palace, you don't get to lecture us on matters which you are obviously stupid about. But then as the saying goes "pigs don't know pig stink." Translation: since you are surrounded by stupid you don't know you're stupid.

    LOL. But we do. Courage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i'm very much a real estate amateur, but isn't the possibility of issues and disputes of title the very reason why there's such a thing as title insurance?

      also, does susanna live at the accion hotel property, or is this some other Catholics-of-guam-subsidized house?

      Delete
    2. Yes. Exactly why there is title insurance, and title companies and attorneys. Good probability that she lives there. And if not, then definitely in a place paid for by us.

      Delete
    3. she lives there, alright. Nice digs, Susan.

      Delete
  3. ANON 5:59.....Trying to set Dingbat Diana on the right path is like taking one of those beatup shopping carts....you know the one....that even with all the effort you do to keep it rolling straight, the faulty wheels just keep it wanting to veer right of left, never straight. You can't fix STUPID.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is missing from Christmas Card Greeting? Most obvious is none of our Diocesan and Capuchin's are included. There is no greater proof were his loyalties lie. To All other clergies you are loved and respected by the Faithful for your love and service to us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps that's the real message, Apuron and his RMS boboys are the "Archdiocese of Agana" or so they wish..

      Delete
  5. Hey, dingbat Diana is saying that the deed is owned by AAA. From Diana's blog:

    In the first place, the Declaration of Deed Restriction does not need to be in the Certificate of Titles. Why? Because the Archbishop owns the declaration. It says so in the fine print at the bottom of the first four pages of the declaration. It stated:
    Declaration of Deed Restriction by owner Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony Sablan Apuron, OFM, Cap., DD., Incumbent.
    Thus, the Archbishop owns the Declaration of Deed Restriction. As Jackie Terlaje pointed out in her press release to the media (the bold with italics is mine):

    One need only look to the first line of the document, “Declaration of Deed Restriction”; the declaration itself does not profess to be a grant deed, quitclaim deed, warranty deed or other similar deed document, which conveys in whole the property to a grantee. The declaration professes to be a document of a limited purpose to grant a right of perpetual use. In fact, the declaration declares that the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole, is the “Owner” of the property, imposing on itself a restriction. By imposing on itself a restriction, the Archbishop, in the same way, can impose further conditions on himself as the Owner of both the Seminary Property, and the seminary itself. It is not necessary to be a legal scholar to know that the same authority who issued an administrative decree, can immediately issue the day after another administrative decree saying exactly the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DIANA: “As Jackie Terlaje pointed out in her press release to the media (the bold with italics is mine):

      One need only look to the first line of the document, “Declaration of Deed Restriction”; the declaration itself does not profess to be a grant deed, quitclaim deed, warranty deed or other similar deed document, which conveys in whole the property to a grantee. The declaration professes to be a document of a limited purpose to grant a right of perpetual use.”

      LOL. Yes, Ms. Terlaje displays an incredible lack of legal acumen by declaring “One need only look to the first line of the document…” Lawyers are paid to look at not just the whole document but the real meaning of documents so that their clients are not defrauded. Here’s my advice, any lawyer who only looks to the first line or the title of a document and gives a legal opinion is dangerous. RUN. Find yourself another lawyer.

      As for the archbishop “owning the declaration.” ROTFL. One doesn’t “own” a deed or a declaration. In fact, that’s exactly how I got a copy. It’s a public document. It’s not the private property of anyone. The larger question is if this was only a self-imposed restriction then why was it recorded with the government?

      Ummm, well because it is not a self-imposed restriction. It is a document - no matter what the title is - which impacts the control and use of the property, and is only valid if it is recorded with the government. Apuron wanted it to be valid so he recorded it. If it had no effect on the actual ownership then he would have had no problem declaring his action to the diocese. Yet, he hid it.

      The really incriminating fact in all this is Apuron’s complete silence on every single matter. If scandal exists in his diocese, he is morally culpable if he does not pursue every means to end it. But the best he can do is to say that he doesn’t know what’s going on and then blame me and Msgr. James.

      And even if Apuron is right about everything, his office does not permit him to just sit back and say I am right while scandal grows. He has a moral duty to address it. Not doing so places his soul in ever greater danger every day that passes. Diana Susanna and her fools may want to spend less time defending his scandalous ways and more time convincing him of the dangerous state of his soul.

      LOL. Courage.

      Delete
    2. "And even if Apuron is right about everything, his office does not permit him to just sit back and say I am right while scandal grows. He has a moral duty to address it." My thoughts exactly. There is no going around it. He has the obligation to right our path if we go astray.

      Delete
  6. "Man thinks he knows how to control the ins and outs of every situation, but he discounts God's Divine Will. But Heaven does not give up so easily when the salvation of souls is at stake. The Liberals vs conservatives. The liberals accept whatever suits their agenda. The conservatives are guided by God's Will, even when it opposes what they want."~Amen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you quote, please provide a source.

      Delete
  7. Diana Susanna says: "By imposing on itself a restriction, the Archbishop, in the same way, can impose further conditions on himself as the Owner of both the Seminary Property, and the seminary itself. It is not necessary to be a legal scholar to know that the same authority who issued an administrative decree, can immediately issue the day after another administrative decree saying exactly the contrary."

    Diana is mostly right, but in an entirely different situation. If tony, with no apparent reason, wants to restrict use of said FD Boys Chapel, he can issue an administrative decree to do so. Then at a later point, when it dawns on him that he was totally stupid, he can choose to reverse course and allow the chapel to actually function as a chapel. So Diana has a point. But not so with the seminary! And here's why.

    The Archbishop is in full control of the diocese and the school. So he can pretty much do whatever he wants, no matter how stupid it may be. But while the Archbishop is in full control of the Archdiocese, he is not in full control of the seminary. In fact, as pointed out by his own trusted legal counsel Ed Terlaje, tony is only one vote of six on the board of directors. But it is even worse, because there is a special board of governors above the board of directors. On that board three members are from New Jersey and have no care for Guam. And even tony baloney stopped looking after our interests a long time ago.

    Anyway, since the Seminary is a separate legal entity which tony baloney chose to give a special favor to, that entity has those privileges forever, according to the deed. So the only way our Archdiocese could get this property back is with the permission of the board of governors. What are the odds of that? None! This was no administrative decree but a legal transaction.

    Further, the transaction regarding the seminary is not merely about who gets to use it. IT IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. The deed is very specific that title is transferred and conveyed. The term deed of restriction was merely a ruse to distract us from its real purpose: to transfer actual ownership to the RMS and defraud the people of Guam.

    In the real example of when idiot tony chose to restrict the use of the FD Chapel there was no need to file any document with the Government of Guam. As Diana Susanna points out is it just an adminstrative act of stupidity. Since it was strictly an archdiocesan issue tony plastered the notice on the front of the Umatuna. That was his notice, which he could rescind at any time.

    But since the (canonically illegal) transaction between the Archdiocese and the RMS was a legally binding action, the deed had to be filed to protect the interests of the party granted the favor, the RMS. So when we finally get a mentally competent bishop who wants to get the property back, the RMS would have to agree.

    Lastly, if it was merely a restriction on who could use the property, the filing of the deed would also protect any future buyer of the property. If the crooked tony ever decided to sell the property, the new owner would know that even if they bought it, they could never use it without the RMS permission.

    Again, this is not just a restriction of use, but an outright transfer of ownership. The language is clear and any idiot can read the deed document, which says,
    "… 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...".

    Practically anyone but Diana’s trained legal monkey Jackie Terlaje knows what this means. All you readers know what it means. Tony gave away our most valuable asset and the Church got absolutely nothing in return. Canon Law was supposed to protect us from this happening, but tony baloney completely violated canon law, and Rome doesn't give a shit! Yet.

    That's why the people of the Archdiocese need to sue Rome to force them to act on the grand theft perpetuated on us by the shepherd forced upon us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Two things:

    1. The posting of Diana is not for us deep-thinking people. It is for the consumption of those who don't think that deep and respond with, "Oh, that's right."
    2. Let's go ahead and sue the Archbishop. What are we waiting for?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow...look at all those local men from Guam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many of the 36 pictured are local?

      Delete
  10. Ai Adai, over at the Diana's .


    Tuesday, December 8, 2015
    Declaration Of Deed Restriction

    AnonymousDecember 12, 2015 at 8:38 PM

    Demand to know how he is corrupt? How dare you write such evil speculations concerning Guam's Spiritual Father. Archbishop is our brother in walking the way. You 6.04pm should be ashamed writing such trash comments. Do you know the Archbishop? Do you know his mind, his good heart, pure soul? Doubt it very much! No. You are just one of those people casting wild stories throughout Archdiocese about a good holy man. Stop speculations. As Diana says " what evidence do you have he is corrupt?" There is no corruption. So stop casting stories go back to where you come from. You do not belong in our island home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For 8:38 pm: which river stone did you just pop out of? It seems you have been underwater for so long that you did not know about the credible documentation accompanying such accusations against your "good, holy man." Yes, by all means, you can have him, we don't want him. We dare write such because there is evidence against your own claim of "his pure soul and good heart" - ignore the mind, he does not have any brains just like you. We will wait for your response but first get acclimated from a dank putrid place where you got pooped out. YOUR island home? No such thing, you have already opened your hearts and legs to foreign clap clap kiss kiss!

      Delete
  11. PUTRID, this is from Diana's blog..AnonymousDecember 22, 2015 at 5:09 AM

    So does this mean our founder may become a Saint after he passes? That would be wonderful.

    Between the two of you, all the money you folks collected in the black trash bags would only put weight on your flight to the pearly gates. Instead of going up, you'll be going down. Uh huh, way down yonder.

    Kiko is nothing but a dictator. A dictator that abuses the mind, body and souls of the ignorant. A dictator of the minds of the innocent ones.

    My big toe would probably be beatified first. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, there is a cost to canonization, $50,000 to $200,000. Those black trash bag collections will help move the process along, plus then you always have the oiling of those that are influential in the process. Yes, money is essential to be canonized.

      https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20217

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch