Wednesday, February 3, 2016


Continued from Part 2

Before we move on to the more egregious and despicable elements of this story (tampering with a public record is illegal), let us examine even more evidence that the issuance of the certificate of title without the memorial showing the Declaration of Deed Restriction and its subsequent publication in the U Matuna could NOT possibly have been an oversight. 

In the same April 2015, U Matuna story bragging about the findings of the Lewis Roca law firm, Apuron references a title report obtained from a local title company, Pacific American Title:

The footnote [1] is significant. Here's what it references:

This was a LIE. The minute we sent someone to the Chancery to "consult the whole document," it was withdrawn from public view. 

Here's why:

In a copy of the Pacific American Title Report which we obtained separately, there is this:

Now, do you see why Apuron and his crooks did NOT want you to see the "whole document?" The "ownership" of said property is "SUBJECT TO the interest of RMS." And what is this "interest?" The rest of the sentence answers that question:"in perpetual use of a see of RMS."

A "see" is an ecclesial jurisdiction, such as the Apostolic See or the See of the Archdiocese of Agana. Notice that in the language of the Declaration of Deed Restriction, Apuron clearly recognizes that RMS is a "see," an ecclesial jurisdiction, distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana. And he is "subjecting" the entire property FOREVER (perpetual use) to the control of that separate "see," which, other than being only one vote on both boards, he has no control, even though he is the sole incorporator. 

(By the way, you may also want to note that the title report references Apuron as "grantor," whereas the Declaration itself only references him as the owner. This means that the title company recognized that the Declaration effectively conveyed - "granted" - property from one entity to another. But we'll come back to that.)

Title reports do not interpret the effect of deeds, liens, and encumbrances. They simply report them. The effect of a deed, lien, encumbrance or any instrument impacting title to real property is, when contested, something that would have to be legally determined. 

Not having yet withstood a legal scrutiny, Apuron was able to declare that, as per PATICO's report, "ownership" of the subject property given that his name was still on the title. But he DID NOT WANT YOU TO SEE item 7 just as he never wanted you to see the The Declaration itself - which is why it lay undiscovered for four years after it was recorded. And as per David's publication of the certificate of title WITHOUT the said Declaration of Deed Restriction, he still does not want you to see it. 

Sadly, David's little scheme worked....almost. Many people, not understanding that a certificate of title does not actually mean ownership of a property (the way it does a car), bought the lie that David the VG fed them on November 29, 2015. I say "almost" because....of what IS to come. (David, did you call Jackie yet?)

I wouldn't doubt, given the absolute criminality of the publication of a false, if not intentionally falsified, public document, that David's instructions came directly via the filthy Gennarini-Pius sewer. 

But first they had to obtain a copy of the certificate of title, signed by the registrar (and signed recently) that did NOT include a memorial for the Declaration of Deed Restriction recorded on November 22, 2011. 

How did they do that? Jackie? Do you know?


Recommendations by JungleWatch