Thursday, March 31, 2016


I'll be back.

Meanwhile, read or re-read these.


Yesterday I wrote:

The choice before Barrett-Anderson is this: 
"I am the chief legal officer of the Government of Guam and as such I stand by my original counsel to Michael Borja which is rooted in Title 21 Guam Code Annotated §29195 and wherein I stated that 'a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title.'" 
"I am the chief legal officer of the Government of Guam, but so what, I will stand by my employee who worked something out behind the scenes with someone who calls herself a "trained lawyer," and is sometimes the legal counsel for the Archbishop of Agana and sometimes not." 


Roman underground reports Apuron has his neo-operators working on getting David the Villain appointed bishop. David the Villain better hope those rumors are false or Guam will get real famous real fast. 


Thursday, 31 March 2016

Bob Klitzkie with Phill Leon Guerrero

More on the possible shenanigans at the Department of Land Management involving the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, the Yona property belonging (maybe) to the Archdiocese of Agana.

Bob Klitzkie addresses Rotary Club recently on the RMS Title issue.
Guam Post photo. 


I normally only share portions of letters along with explanations, however, if you have been following this story, Mr. Klitzkie's letter here needs no explanation and provides us all with a thorough review of the problem. Read and understand. (The official copy with attachments and stamped received by DLM can be found here.)

Robert Klitzkie, Esq.
22 Baki Ct., Yigo, GU 96929
(671) 653-6607

March 30, 2016

Michael J. B. Borja
Director of Land Management as
Ex Officio Registrar of Titles and as
Director of Land Management

Subject: Erroneous certificates of title for parcels:
90-2-R1-RNEW-2-R/W s

Re:  A plea.

Dear Mr. Borja:


Since the Kiko's are accusing me of wanting to turn RMS into a casino (LOL - the guys there have already proven to be a gamble if not a bad "bet"), we might as well take bets on which way Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson is going to swing: 1) with Jackie Terlaje and the Kikos or 2) with what the law actually requires and she herself has already prescribed. 

Of course, should Barrett-Anderson swing with the Kikos it won't be pictured as that. Rather Barrett-Anderson will make some milquetoast statement about her "office" this and her "office" that. She may not even mention Kristan Finney's name. 

However, the effect would be the same. In Kristan Finney's own words, she said she had to meet "with Jackie" and "work something out." And there is NO DOUBT who "Jackie" is. 

Wow! How many of you would like to have someone who could get inside the Attorney General's "office" and "work something out" when it comes to the issues regarding land titles - of which there are many?

Here's the real deal:

Wednesday, March 30, 2016


So with his March 28 letter, Director of Land Management, Michael Borja, has thrown his much too-hot potato into the lap of Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, the Chief Legal Officer of the Government of Guam, aka the Attorney General.

Okay, we'll bite. Let's go there. 

Barrett-Anderson has stated publicly that she was going to "follow up" on the "administrative correction," aka the back room deal worked out between the trained lawyer, Jacqueline T. Terlaje and Kristan Finney, Barrett-Anderson's employee. 

So we await Barrett-Anderson's verdict and hope that it's an educated one - befitting her office and her (so far) illustrious career as a lawyer, judge, and senator. 

The choice before Barrett-Anderson is this: 
"I am the chief legal officer of the Government of Guam and as such I stand by my original counsel to Michael Borja which is rooted in Title 21 Guam Code Annotated §29195 and wherein I stated that 'a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title.'" 
"I am the chief legal officer of the Government of Guam, but so what, I will stand by my employee who worked something out behind the scenes with someone who calls herself a "trained lawyer," and is sometimes the legal counsel for the Archbishop of Agana and sometimes not." 


Go here for PDF copy
On March 28, 2016, Director of Land Management, Michael Borja, sent a letter to Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson saying:

On December 29, 2015, I sought legal assistance on a matter concerning the correction of Department of Land Management issued certificates of title for four properties in Yona where an instrument was missing after the titles were recorded. In response, on March 15, 2016, I received instructions from your Solicitor Division on a remedy for the situation and immediately executed the prescribed action.."

Seriously, Mr. Borja, what are you trying to do? Are you trying to fool us like the fools on the hill? Have you become a BIG LIAR just like them?

This letter to the Attorney General is designed to make us think that the AG did not answer you until March 15 and that the only advice you got in response to your Dec. 29 letter was from the "Solicitor Division." 



After we ask and answer these three questions, then we must ask THIS ONE:

Why was Apuron...
- despite the advice of his legal counsel
- despite the objection of his finance council
- despite knowingly violating canon law
- despite the fact that he was robbing the Catholic faithful of a mega-million dollar asset determined to give the property away?


Too bad nobody in the government appears to be intelligent enough or willing to ask them:
  1. Does the Declaration of Deed Restriction rename Title to the property from the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole to RMS, Inc?
  2. Is the Archbishop of Agana, Corporate Sole, legally separate from  RMS, Inc under Guam law?
  3. Is RMS, Inc. "subject to" the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporate Sole?
  1. Apuron says it does.
  2. Apuron says they are.
  3. Apuron says yes. Guam law says no.
The end.


What is so terribly comical about this is that Apuron, David, and Cristobal cannot remember their own lies.

On November 16, 2011, Apuron wrote a letter to then-president of the finance council, Mr. Richard Untalan, saying that, as per David's counsel, the transfer of title to the property was not an "alienation" because Apuron was "only" assigning title to the property to another entity that was still subject to himself:


Klitzkie seeks court petition over seminary land

Former Sen. Robert Klitzkie continues his search for documents related to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary property, including a reported court petition that Department of Land Management Director Michael Borja told Klitzkie about in January.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016


Oversight hearing being planned to tackle Yona property

In light of issues surrounding a certificate of title for a multimillion dollar property in Yona, an oversight hearing is being planned by the Guam Legislature to not only address the matter, but look into all the land titles within the Department of Land Management.


Monday, 28 March 2016

Klitzkie Requests Corrected Certificate of Title for Yona Property, If Any Exists

Despite a statement from the Department of Land Management regarding the disputed Yona seminary’s ownership, former Senator Bob Klitzkie says he’s still unconvinced and is now filing a Sunshine Law request. In a letter addressed to Director of Land Management Mike Borja, Klitzkie is requesting to see all public records including the petition and other associated documents Borja claims to have given to the Office of the Attorney General of Guam. Klitzie says he doubts any of that paperwork ever existed. According to a letter from Borja in January, Land Management has prepared and forwarded a petition, and other associated documents to the AG's Office with instructions for the petition to be filed in the Superior Court in an effort to correct the certificates of title. 
"I have a filed a Sunshine Law request. I want to see those drafts because there's no pending litigation. Kristen Finney says nothing further has to be done. What I'm doing is calling Mike Borja's bluff. I want to see the petitions etc and said he has drafted. I want to see what it looks like. See what he has. What I hope to get out of this is I want to get the Redemptoris Mater Seminary back in the patrimony of the Catholic church, back into the Archdiocese's property," says Klitzkie. 
Klitzie cites a law that states that upon a request for a copy of public records, Land Management shall, within four working days from receiving the request, comply with the request. With that in mind, Klitzie says he expects a response from Borja no later than Friday, April 1.


P.S. Note to Rome: Pay attention. This is going to come back at you...especially the Kiko sympathizers. 


According to Bertha Evangelista, Executive Vice President of Title Guaranty, Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney* ORDERED - through Title Guaranty - a copy of the certificates of title for the 4 parcels of property which comprise the "seminary property." 

*Jacqueline T. Terlaje refers to herself as a "trained attorney" in her "press release" of November 17, 2015.

According to Land Management records, Bertha Evangelista and Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, paid for those copies with personal checks on November 19, 2015, while the copies of the certificates were picked up by a Title Guaranty employee

Since Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, ORDERED the copies of the certificates, then we must assume that Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, picked up those copies from Title Guaranty. 

We next must assume that Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, knew that the Declaration of Deed Restriction should have been recorded in the memorials section of the certificates because she had just sent out her "press release" two days earlier (November 17, 2015) detailing the effects of said Declaration. 

Since Jacqueline T. Terlaje is a trained attorney, we must then assume that she actually looked at the certificates to make sure they were what she ordered (otherwise she would be a careless attorney). 

Assuming Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, is not a careless attorney, we must next assume that Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, saw that the Declaration of Deed Restriction was MISSING from the memorials and she KNEW that the certificates were in error. 

We must next assume that Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney but not a careless attorney, delivered those erroneous certificates of title to Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Agana.

We must assume this because one of the certificates, obtained by Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, was published on the front page of the Umatuna on November 29, 2015, accompanied by a supporting story quoting Msgr. David C. Quitugua saying that the copy of the certificate of title was proof that the Archbishop was the owner of the property. 

Let's review. 

If all of the facts and logical assumptions above are correct, Jacqueline T. Terlaje, despite the fact that she is a trained attorney, is either an extremely careless attorney, or she KNOWINGLY gave Msgr. David C. Quitugua false copies of the certificates of title, one of which was subsequently published in the Umatuna and then shopped to the Pacific Daily News. 

However, let's just chalk up trained attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje's giving Msgr. David C. Quitugua a WRONG certificate of title to a mistake - an extremely careless mistake for a "trained" attorney to make, but still a mistake.

We must then assume that Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, KNEW about this mistake as of December 15, 2015 because as per the December 15, 2015 email from the office of the Deputy Registrar of Titles to Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, corrected copies of the certificates showing the memorial were sent to her. 

We also know that as of December 23, 2015, when Bob Klitzkie sent his first letter to Director of Land Management, Michael Borja, Jacqueline T. Terlaje, a trained attorney, had done NOTHING to right the error published by Msgr. David C. Quitugua in the November 29, 2015 Umatuna.

To be continued

Monday, March 28, 2016


Monday, 28 March 2016

Bob Klitzkie with Patti Arroyo

Interview between Patti Arroyo and former Senator Bob Klitzkie about the legal process for correcting a land title.

Or listen here:


AnonymousMarch 28, 2016 at 8:40 AM
  • Your explanation is right on point, and you hit the nail on the head in saying "expectation that the organization acted in good faith in obtaining the charter." The reality is indeed that neo has not acted in "bona fide," which should automatically nullify this charter. Thus neo leadership has to pile lies upon lies in order to exist. At the very onset, it seems that ncw was merely a mechanism to amass wealth in the guise of charism, when in reality it is a sham deception to extort money and property from vulnerable and gullible followers. Enforced strict obedience and hellfire fear are employed to guarantee adherence. It is a cult that has infiltrated the Catholic Church, not to sanctify souls or promote evangelization but to feed the huge ego of its founder and to sate the ginormous appetite for money by the board members. The so-called seminary is a cover-up while its leadership makes a mockery of vocation and people's trust.
  • Sunday, March 27, 2016


    Was going to take a little break for Easter, but just came home from Easter Vigil and saw this comment which deserves a response.

    1. The Dungbat continues to blog deceptive messages on its interpretation on the Popes call for unity.

      DianaMarch 25, 2016 at 11:20 AM

      Dear Anonymous at 3:56 am,

      I can only speak about the NCW on Guam as I walk in the community here. From what I see, there are a few brothers in the Way who are arrogant and feel they are better than others, but these brothers so not represent the entire NCW. We are all human and can make mistakes. However, some of these brothers have come to realize that they were wrong.

      As for unity, we are in unity, the Pope calls us into unity. We are called to be in unity with the Bishops and Pope. And we will strive for that. Do you see us opposing the Archbishop??? Of course not. What You want is for the NCW to oppose Archbishop Apuron. Is that correct?
    The reference is to the pope's recent lecturing of the Neocatechumenal Way in which the dominant message was unity. And it is not for naught that the pope hammered on this. We'll take a deeper look at the lecture another time (I call it a lecture on purpose). 

    And now to the Dungbat's point.

    For those who don't know, The Dungbat is the affectionate name for The Diana, a group of people who speak for Pius the Samnut and are too fearful of the truth to let their identities be known.

    My answer to the above was left as this comment:

    It is the archbishop who is not in unity. He publicly rejected the authority of the pope and not only has never recanted nor apologized, not only did he try to get me and others to lie for him to cover it up, he continues to reject that authority by persisting in performing the ncw's illicit communion rite.

    Of course we are not called to be in union with a bishop who demonstrably lies and steals from us, nor should we be in union with a bishop who himself publicly rejects the magisterial teaching authority of the Church. 

    The Church throughout history has had its share of such scoundrels and each time it was ultimately the laity who stood up against these impostors and rid their Church of them. And we shall do the same with this one.

    While I would like to delve into a rant at this point - since the despicable deeds just mentioned are only a fraction of what this man has perpetrated on this Church and some of its most vulnerable members - in the spirit of Easter I want to address a more tame point.


    For years we have been spit upon by the Dungbat and its cadre of Kiko's whenever we mention their illicit communion rite. Their common refrain is "well, write Rome," or "Rome hasn't stopped us," or "the Pope knows and he hasn't said anything, " etc. 

    My answer is EXACTLY. 

    Those of us who actually know something about our Church know enough to know that when the Church does not say something then what has come before is to remain. The Church doesn't go around policing  liturgies. It provides the liturgical books and unless it manifestly approves a particular departure, the Church expects us to be mature enough to know that we are not to make stuff up and wait for Her to spank our hands.

    Archbishop Socrates Villegas, THE HEAD of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, made this point when he recently addressed the illicit practice of standing after the consecration until the AMEN:

    March 22, 2016, 11:11a.m. - THE HEAD of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has announced that kneeling during the most important part of Holy Mass would be returned, as is practiced in the rest of the Universal Church.
    In a pastoral letter dated March 19, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, the CBCP president, said the practice of standing during the Memorial Acclamation, in which the faithful affirm Christ’s death, resurrection and future return, was a mere liturgical adaptation that did not have Vatican approval.
    “We must abandon the practice of standing after the consecration until the Amen as we do not have the authority to make such an adaptation nor do we have the authority to implement it,” Villegas said in his pastoral letter. 
    As a result, the faithful must kneel “after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy Lord …) until the end of the Eucharistic prayer” or the “Great Amen.”
    The decision was made by the CBCP Permanent Council, based on the Philippine Edition of the Vatican-approved Roman Missal of 2011. The issue was raised during the 112th CBCP Plenary Assembly in Cebu last January, when the country hosted the International Eucharistic Congress.
    In 1990, the “Guidelines for the Eucharist” allowed the faithful not to kneel during the Memorial Acclamation. This was also included in the Philippine Adaptations to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal 2002 proposed during the 86th CBCP Plenary Assembly. Liturgists wanted the faithful to stand during the Memorial Acclamation and kneel after the Agnus Dei or Lamb of God.
    Villegas said no “recognition” or formal reply was granted by Rome as regards the two proposed guidelines. According to canon lawyers, no answer or silence from Rome means that the recognition has not been given, he said.
    The prelate pointed out that kneeling is an important part of Christian culture. “We cannot abandon or set aside the culture of kneeling in favor of the culture that says as free men we must face God on our feet. Bending the knee before the tabernacle in genuflection, kneeling down at the celebration of the Eucharist, kneeling down to adore the exposed Blessed Sacrament—these are little but sublime acts of adoration that we must preserve and protect.

    Now, let me draw your attention to the second to the last paragraph:

    Villegas said no “recognition” or formal reply was granted by Rome as regards the two proposed guidelines. According to canon lawyers, no answer or silence from Rome means that the recognition has not been given, he said.

    This is the answer to the Dungbat and the Kiko's: 


    But beyond this, there is the issue that the Kiko's continue to demonstrate that they are NOT part of our Church, for not only do they illicitly stand from the Consecration to the Amen, they STAND even during the consecration as per Archbishop Apuron's instruction and permission to do so:

    Thus, anyone who desires to be in UNITY with the Holy Catholic Church MUST REJECT the example of Archbishop Apuron who continues to violate our Church's Sacred Liturgy and continues to perform an illicit rite according to the "liturgical books" of Kiko Arugello. 

    Archbishop Apuron is NOT our bishop so long as he continues to violate what our Holy Catholic Church requires. He and his neo-cult must be rejected

    Of course there is a reason they do not kneel. They do not kneel because they do not adore. And they do not adore because they do not believe that this is Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. 

    Saturday, March 26, 2016


    Interesting too what they are reading.

    Go here to see the country. Please don't mention the name of the country in any comments. Just now that that's where "he" is.

    Friday, March 25, 2016


    What a shame that we had to wake up on Good Friday and read Archbishop Apuron's once again desperate attempt to say THIIS IS MINE, MINE, MINE!

    Archdiocese: Archbishop still in control of property

    Of course this is a response the PDN editorial yesterday which simply called out both the Archbishop and the Director of Land Management to follow the law. 

    But following the law on this matter is something the Archbishop CANNOT do as it would reveal all the lies and bring the Neo-kingdom tumbling down. So forgetting the day Christ suffered and died, the Archbishop used the day to persecute his own flock by once again lying to us with "THIS IS MINE, MINE, MINE!"

    More than likely though, the information given to the PDN was the work of the same person who "worked something out" behind the scenes with Kristan Finney, the Assistant AG, instead of following the the AG's counsel to petition the Superior Court to correct a certificate of title. 

    It's quite obvious that "that person" who "worked something out" with Kristan Finney is the same "trained lawyer" who has been popping up everywhere in this story. And it is very likely that said "trained lawyer" is scared s___less now that a real lawyer, Mr. Klitzkie, is on to the scheme. 

    So we look forward to more drama. Meanwhile, though, here's a copy of the comments from the online PDN article. Oh, and try to have a Holy Triduum and a Blessed Easter. 

    Tim Rohr ·
    Dear Archbishop Apuron,

    This should be easy. To put an end to the controversy simply request that the certificate of title correction go through the Superior Court as Guam Law requires and as the Attorney General has already advised.

    The correction as it now stands is a result of your neocatechumenal "responsible" for your community, Jacqueline T. Terlaje, (a trained lawyer - her words) working "something out" (Kristan Finney's words - the Asst. AG) in a "backroom deal."

    This has gone on long enough, don't you think? Follow the law, archbishop, and all will be well. That goes for Michael Borja, the Director of DLM, too.

    In the spirit of Easter and Christ is Risen, let's do this.

    P.S. Did you give a second thought to releasing your defense to the PDN for publication on Good Friday. Could you not have waited a couple days. That DOES say a lot, archbishop.

    See you in court. If we don't, then we'll know you are hiding.
    LikeReply17 hrs

    Name withheld
    Klitzkie and the Arch Bishop need to go down on the mat because seems to me both are stubborn as mules.

    I suppose Klitzkie already wrote to Rome to complain and if he didn't then perhaps he should because if Apuron is that bad, wouldn't Rome take action to somehow correct this matter?
    LikeReply15 hrs
    Tim Rohr ·
    No. Rome would not take action unless there is an ecclesiastical crime and even then probably not. A Catholic bishop does not have a boss or anyone to hold him accountable. He is at the top of the power chain in the Catholic Church. Even the pope is only a bishop.

    The pope is not a bishop's employer. He cannot "fire" him. A pope can ask a bishop to resign if there is enough evidence to prove that his continued remaining in office will bring great damage to the faith.

    However, in cases where the pope has acted in such a fashion, such as the recent Bishop of Bling episode in Germany and a Florida bishop removed by Benedict 16, the evidence was compiled and the case was presented by the laity over a period of years.

    While there is a tremendous amount of evidence against Apuron on many fronts, most people on Guam do not want to make waves. Apuron knows this which is why he continues to brag "no one can get me."

    He's right, so long as the people of Guam think that it is up to Rome to do something and not them.

    As for Klitzkie, it is not his opinion that the issue should go to Superior Court, it is Guam law and the AG's own stated opinion as per M. Borja's letter to Klitzkie of 20 Jan 16.

    Klitzkie is not asking Apuron to follow the law, he is asking that the Director of Land Managment follow the law and the AG's direct instruction.

    How many other back room deals have gone on like this with certificates of title? The only reason why we know about this one is because Apuron's people were stupid enough to publsh them in their newspaper. Why did they do this? Because they believe the people of Guam were stupid enough to believe them.

    They almost got away with it. And they will get away with it if the AG let's this one slide. If she does, then people should be thinking about the upcoming election.

    Here is the language from the Declaration of Deed Restriction which gives away 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:


    As can be clearly seen, RMS is recognized both as a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and its own ecclesial jurisdiction (See).

    In fact, Apuron is not contending that he did not convey title to the property to RMS, which this document clearly shows that he did, only that he is still in control of it since he is the sole incorporator of RMS and its chairman of the board.

    By law, the board of directors, not the incorporator(s) is authorized to "direct" the affairs of a corporation. The incorporator can only appoint or replace members of the board, and per the RMS by-laws, this process requires noticing and a minimum number of days, days during which the board can do whatever it wants with the property. And as chairman of the board, he is only one of 5 votes.

    In short, the property per the declaration no longer belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana - so the title is wrong - and neither is it in the control of the Archbishop.

    This is exactly what a court proceeding would find and exactly why Apuron's neo-pal Atty Jackie Terlaje (a trained lawyer - her words) worked the back room deal with Kristan Finney, ignoring the stated counsel from the Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson.

    Let's hope the AG does her job and upholds Guam law.
    LikeReply9 mins
    Name withheld

    The corruption that infects our government appears to be alive and well in Guam's catholic community. Have we no shame anymore on Guam?
    LikeReply24 hrs

    Hmmm, Archbishop. Wonder if the road named after you going up in flames today had anything to do with the abuse of Good Friday??? Maybe it would be smart to start paying attention. 

    Thursday, March 24, 2016


    Pigo Cemetery: holes in the ceiling and infested with cockroaches. Cut the grass while you're at it. Stay away from Land Management for awhile and do the job you took away from Monsignor James.

    P.S. If someone who paid good money for a crypt or a plot and wanted to sue the management for breach of contract or even emotional damage for the management's disrespect of a loved one's remains, could you recommend a good lawyer?


    Dear Robert,

    You got a deal - which I shall detail in full. But first a little help for those who can't figure out what you are trying to say:
    • Archdiasies = Archdiocese
    • caviate = caveat
    Now to business.

    First, thank you for confirming what the Archbishop continues to deny: "The Archbishop transferred the property..."

    It really is comical. Apuron, David, Cristobal, and Jacque are all out there running around spending gobs of time and money trying to prove the Archbishop still owns the property. And meanwhile, you, The Diana, Pius the Putrid, the Zoltan, and all the kikocats are all shouting what you are shouting: that "The Archbishop transferred the property..." 

    We'll get to the reason he transferred the property that you state in a minute. But let's begin with this. YOU, Robert John, state publicly for all to see, exactly what the man you are trying to defend is desperate to deny: that he, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, "transferred the property.

    So thanks for backing up my claim, which is not only echoed by the CCOG, the Laity Forward Movement, etc., and of course proven in a 40 plus page Legal Opinion, and further demonstrated by Mr. Klitzie, but is now publicly echoed by you - though your "echo" of course is simply that of Pius and the Kikos. But anyway, welcome to our side

    Now, let's get to the second part of your claim: "to prevent its sale.

    This is the lie that Pius started when we discovered the 2011 document conveying title to RMS. Pius isn't as stupid as Apuron, David and Adrian. He didn't deny it. He immediately gave a reason for it. It was a lie, but then that's Pius. His life is a lie, which is why he has found a home in the neocatechumenal way, but we'll deal with that another time. 

    But let's accept Pius' lie on its face. In fact, it's actually partly true. In fact, the partly true part is even more fascinating and clandestinely evil than the lie part. Let's deal with the lie part first. 

    The "lie" part

    Pius wanted kiko-ites like yourself to believe that Richard Untalan and Msgr. James wanted to sell the property. The problem is they had no authority to do so. Had they tried, they would have been easily caught and thrown in jail. But Pius relied on your ignorance to get you to think that. He relies on ignorance a lot, you know. But we'll deal with that another time. 

    Mr. Untalan and Msgr. James had no authority to sell the property because they are not the owners. There is only one owner, and it is not really the Archbishop, it is Archbishop, Inc. Let me explain. 

    There is a legal construct used almost exclusively by hierarchical churches like ours called a corporate or corporation sole. Unlike many non-Catholic churches which are non-profit organizations run by boards who hire and fire their pastors, the Catholic Church is run by bishops who are themselves appointed by bishops. Thus, the bishop, or more precisely, his office, is the legal entity, which under civil law, can own property. 

    Thus, our local church, under Guam law is a "corporation sole" - a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole") incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") natural person.

    Here's a fuller definition:

    • Public office...or ecclesiastical office (usually the owner of church land) that has a separate and continuing legal existence, and only one member (the sole officeholder). Contract made with a corporation-sole continues from one officeholder to his or her successor or, if made during a vacancy in office, to the appointee.

    Now, the full legal name for this corporation sole is Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony S. Apuron, Incumbent.

    Unlike regular corporations, a corporation sole has NO Board of Directors that can act independently of its incorporator(s).  Only the Incumbent occupant of the office "Archbishop of Agana" can sell, transfer, convey, grant property registered to the Archbishop of Agana, because ONLY the Archbishop of Agana is the Owner. 

    This means that no finance council, no priest, no real estate group, no anybody could have ever sold or given away that property, ONLY the Archbishop of Agana. Got it? Good. Let's go on. 

    Oh, one other thing. The fact that the Archbishop of Agana has transferred the property to a new owner, RMS, (remember, this is your claim too), ironically, the property is now in danger of being sold and the Archbishop of Agana can do nothing about it. 

    Corporate structure of RMS

    This is because RMS, under Guam law, is a separate legal entity (or juridic person in "church speak"). It is a corporation with a board of directors, authorized by Guam law to act independently of its incorporator, which is the Archbishop. 

    The most the Archbishop can do as the sole incorporator or member, is replace members of the board. But per its by-laws, replacing members of the board is a process which takes noticing and a minimum number of days, days during which any current board could authorize the sale of the property. The Archbishop is also a member of the board. But despite his being its chairman, he is only one vote of however many directors there happen to be. (Currently there are five.)

    By the way, there is also a clandestinely inserted second board, a Board of Guarantors, which truly controls RMS and makes the board of directors irrelevant. It's an illegal board. But apparently it slipped by the licensing people at Rev and Tax and thus remains quasi legal until its existence is challenged in court. And it will be. But we'll get to that another time. 

    The "true" part

    Okay, so we have established that Pius got you to believe the lie that the property was transferred to prevent its sale by the "evil" finance council. But here's what Pius was really referring to. And here's where the pure evil of those who run the Neocatechumenal Way is made manifest.

    Recall that the owner of real property is the current Incumbent of the office of the Archbishop of Agana. Anthony S. Apuron is only the Incumbent, and, due to new rule requiring bishops to submit their resignations at age 75, he is not going to be the Incumbent for very much longer. 

    The Gennarini's and their cadre of neocat lawyers cleverly planned for this by quietly inserting the clandestinely created and empowered Board of Guarantors into the corporate docs of RMS. It's creation did not get past Ed Terlaje, then the legal counsel for the Archbishop. According to one person who was at the meeting about this, Mr. Terlaje protested but he was shouted down, in the Archbishop's presence, by Giuseppe Gennarini. 

    It is particularly pathetic to note that Mr. Terlaje had given decades of his service to the Archbishop, probably mostly pro bono, and was not only abandoned by Apuron, but Apuron permitted his "friend" of three decades to be verbally assaulted, humiliated, and abused by Giuseppe Gennarini. Let that be a lesson to anyone who thinks they are a "friend" of Anthony S. Apuron. 

    Officially, the RMS incorporation docs give complete authority over RMS to the Board of Guarantors. And the Board of Guarantors must always include the "neocatechumenal responsible team for the United States." Currently this is Giuseppe Gennarini, his wife, Claudia Gennarini, the Kiko-priest, Angelo Poschetti (all residents of New Jersey) and one Anthony S. Apuron, personally, NOT the office of the Archbishop of Agana. 

    For a full explanation of the powers of this unelected, un-removable, and unaccountable board, read the Legal Opinion of Attorney Jacques Bronze

    Are you following so far, Robert? I hope so. Now, let's get back to why Pius REALLY said "to prevent its sale." 

    The "next" bishop

    Pius knew that neither the finance council nor anyone else could ever sell that property. But there is one person besides Apuron who COULD sell it. Are you ready for this, Robert? THE NEXT BISHOP. 

    Remember now, the Archbishop of Agana is an office, and the owner of Archdiocesan property is whoever is the Incumbent. The Gennarini's wanted "insurance" that their power and money grabbing syndicate masquerading as a religious movement would continue after Apuron. Thus, they had Apuron secretly deed the property to RMS - which they controlled - so that, should the next bishop not be friendly to the NCW, they could use their ownership of the property as leverage against him. 

    This is why the deed was not called a deed, but just a "Declaration of Deed Restriction." And like the pathetically "trained" (her words) lawyer, Jacqueline T. Terlaje personally opined, one was not supposed to look past the name of the document. LOL. Of course she did not want anyone to look past the name. That was the Gennarini's intent.

    The name of the document was designed specifically to mislead the reader from the outset. Because once one looked past the apparently benign name of the document, one encounters legal language which recognizes RMS as 1) a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, 2) a "See", a church jurisdiction separate from the Archdiocese of Agana, and 3) the words "sell, transfer, and convey" which moved title to the property from the Office of the Archbishop of Agana to RMS and to the control of the Gennarini's. 

    We weren't supposed to find the document

    The problem was, that we weren't supposed to find the document. It was cleverly hidden by its clever name. Thus Land Management did not treat it as a conveyance, permitting the title holder to remain Archbishop Apuron in name. The document was designed to be produced upon the ascendancy of the next bishop who was not the planned for David or The Adrian, or not friendly to the kiko's. A sort of "Surprise!"

    But the surprise was on them. Apuron's hostilities towards Fr. Paul and Msgr. James led to my digging. Something just smelled bad about the whole deal. And well, what do you know. There it was. Fr. Paul and Msgr. James were gotten rid of to make room for either David or Adrian as Apuron's successors, but just in case, the Gennarini's held title to the Archdiocese's most valuable piece of property as insurance against the next bishop. 

    So you see, Robert. You are absolutely right. Archbishop Apuron DID "transfer the property to prevent it from being sold," from being sold by his successor who might happen to believe that the neocats did not need a SEVENTY MILLION DOLLAR seaside palace to themselves. 

    It gets "better!"

    But now we get to the really good part. Why do the neocats need a SEVENTY MILLION DOLLAR seaside palace even NOW? 

    They don't. A much more efficient seminary in more humble surroundings could easily be constructed, fitted, and staffed at a fraction of that amount: a true seminary with real professors, permanent professors, real degrees, real priests - all of that could be possible for a fraction of not only what the Yona property is worth, but with the balance an endowment could have been set up for years to come to take care of all of its needs instead of having to rely on the Archbishop's annual fleecing of the poor Catholics of the Archdiocese of Agana. 

    The Gennarini's knew that, but they did not want a seminary. They wanted the property. And they got it. And even more cleverly, they constructed the language of the Declaration to not only give them the property but give them the ability to do anything they want with it. 

    You see, the language of the Declaration only declared that the property is for the perpetual use of a corporation currently named Redemptoris Mater Seminary. It does not state "for perpetual use as a seminary." Legally, the name of the corporation implies no specific task. And as an independent corporation it can change its name anytime it wants to. 

    And while you sit and salivate over the warped idea inserted into your head by Pius the Yellow Tooth that I or someone else is after a sales commission (LOL), plans are already being made by your side to convert the property back into a hotel to create millions of dollars in revenue for its new owners. 

    Now, there is one more thing, Robert, one more thing. The Gennarini's chose to act in 2011. Think about it. Apuron did not have to retire for another ten years. What was the rush in 2011? Apuron's story was that he was having heart health issues. But the real reason was another issue. And I have a signed affidavit from someone who knows the really ugly underbelly of all of this. And it is many times SICKER than anything anyone has yet seen on this blog. 

    Apuron knows what it is. So does David. So does Adrian. But I'm going to let the story break on its own first...or maybe not. I'll see. People can only handle so much trash, and I've exposed enough this time around. 

    So to your proposal. Well, according to today's editorial in the PDN and yesterday's promise by the Attorney General to "follow up" on this, it looks like it is going to happen. But don't expect Apuron to appear in court. He'll be long gone. Why not help him pack?