We are going to be getting back to the Certificate of Title issue shortly. And make no doubt, the publication of that false certificate was either the stupidest thing Apuron and his defenders have ever done or it is a blatant criminal act. We shall soon see.
Meanwhile, let us review something that has come up before and, in light of new information that I can't share yet, now plays a more significant role:
WHY DID APURON WANT TO ASSIGN TITLE TO THE YONA PROPERTY TO RMS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
That Apuron wanted to assign title to RMS is not a question. This was clearly noted in the finance council agenda for September 7, 2011.
Why he wanted to assign the property away is another matter.
On the surface, it simply looked like Apuron was kowtowing to his neo friends. In 2011, Apuron had heart trouble and it appeared that Gennarini et. al. believed it in their best interest to have Apuron assign title to the property to them before he kicked the bucket and Guam got a bishop they couldn't bait and control.
But later I learned of another matter and have only made brief mention of it on this blog so far. The real reason for moving the title from the Archdiocese to a separate corporation was to limit liability. Liability from what? A law suit.
Dioceses across the U.S. have had to pay billions of dollars in restitution to sex abuse victims, and in 2011, a law lifting the statute of limitations on sex abuse crimes for a period of two years, had just been enacted.
Gennarini, being the chief catechist, would have known about those sex abuse crimes, who committed them, when, and exactly how it exposed archdiocesan assets, particularly the Yona property, since both its value and potential for liquidity provided an easy target.