Sunday, March 20, 2016

ARCHDIOCESE FINALLY ADMITS THAT THE DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION WAS "IN FAVOR OF" RMS!


I wonder how Mr. Michael Borja is feeling today? I wonder if he knows that he is the latest casualty in the ongoing circus to cover Brother Tony's ass.

Harsh words you say? Good. I mean them to be. 

Let's review.

Today's Umatuna says: 
"...the Director of Land Management and Registrar of Titles, Michael Borja, determined that the proper way to proceed with the memorialization was to cancel the former Certificates of Title…which did not include the Declaration of Deed Restriction, and issue new Certificates of Title."
So, Mr. Borja, apparently DETERMINED that "the proper way to proceed" was to ignore the legal direction given him by the Attorney General of Guam, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson? Here, let me quote Mr. Borja's own words in his January 20 letter to Bob Klitzkie:
"I have consulted with the Department of Land Management’s legal counsel and with the Attorney General of Guam regarding a remedy to correct a certificate of title which a memorial had been entered in error. Based on their advice and in accordance with Title 29, Guam Code Annotated, §29195, a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title."
Let's review that last part: "the registrar IS REQUIRED TO PETITION THE COURT." Instead Mr. Borja apparently ignored the direction of the Attorney General of Guam, damned the petition to the court, and hauled off and CANCELED the previous certificates, and then made new ones. 

The question is: DID MR. BORJA HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THOSE CERTIFICATES? In other words, did Mr. Borja act outside his authority? And if he did, then he has put his entire career and personal good name at risk. And more importantly, why did he ignore the advice of the Attorney General?

As already mentioned in QUESTIONS FOR KRISTAN, the subsection of the Guam Code used by Mr. Borja at the recommendation of the Assistant Attorney General, Kristan Finney, makes NO provision for the cancelation of certificates of title. 

This could be tragic for Mr. Borja. But it's nothing new. Mr. Borja will be just the latest piece of meat thrown into the people-grinder by the neo-machine that has trashed Fr. Paul's good name, Msgr. James' good name, Bertha Evangelista's good name, Aaron Quitugua's priestly future, and now possibly the good name and future of Mr. Borja. 

And those are just the names of the people we know. There are so many lives which have been trampled on in the name of the almighty Kiko Arguello, in the name of this money laundering, land grabbing, power usurping, grotesque syndicate masquerading as a religious movement. 

Oh, and then there's this:
"While dissenters and opposers of the Archbishop have claimed that the now cancelled certificates of title were 'bogus', the Department of Land Management diligently acted to address the concerns over the memorialization."
Hmmmm. "Diligently acted??? It's been FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS since the false certificate of title was issued by Deputy Registrar and THREE AND A HALF MONTHS since the false certificate was printed in the Umatuna. "Diligently acted"??? And then only action AFTER nearly three months of letters, phone calls, meetings, and document inspections by Bob Klitzkie, half of which were ignored. And then still, action only came after a couple weeks of a "shaming" by Klitzkie in the media.

I am really sorry to have to question Mr. Borja like this. I was told he was one of the good guys. In fact, while it may not seem like it, I still believe he is. You see, I know how evil the Neocatechumenal Way can be. I've seen how it has twisted and maimed poor Brother Tony and left him a laughing stock. I've seen how it has turned roman collars into dog collars attached to chains held and jerked by Pius the Putrid.

And speaking of Pius the Putrid, let us now turn our attention to the BIG LIE that is sadly named Umatuna.

Let's look again at this statement and pay attention to the highlighted words:
 "...the Director of Land Management and Registrar of Titles, Michael Borja, determined that the proper way to proceed with the memorialization was to cancel the former Certificates of Title…which did not include the Declaration of Deed Restriction, and issue new Certificates of Title."
And now let's look at the Certificate of Title which was CANCELED:



OOPS! Well, what do you know! There it is! The Declaration of Deed Restriction. What? Wait a minute. The fools on the hill just told us that Mr. Borja, CANCELED the "certificates of title...which did NOT include the Declaration of Deed Restriction."

But there it is! The Declaration of Deed Restriction with the big stamp "CANCELED" and Mr. Borja's signature underneath it.

Let's do this again, because these people on the hill do not even know how to LIE right, so here it is:
  • They said that Mr. Borja canceled the certificates of title which did NOT include the Declaration of Deed Restriction. 
  • But Mr. Borja canceled the certificates of title which DID include the Declaration of Deed Restriction. 
Now let me help everyone out here.

You see, the false certificate published in the Umatuna on 11/29/15 did NOT include the Declaration of Deed Restriction.



But the certificate stamped CANCELED did have it:



So where was this copy with Declaration memorialized on it?  Why lookee here. It was with Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje all along, ever since December 15, 2015 when it was sent to Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje by Teresita Toves, the assistant to Mr. Santos. See the evidence here.

So this means that Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, P.C., since she had the "corrected" version as of 12/15/15,  KNEW that the copy of the certificate published in the Umatuna was false and apparently DID NOTHING about it since we saw no updated version published in the Umatuna.

But NOW, here's the big one. Let's look at the canceled certificate:


Note that the Declaration is "in favor of": Archbishop of Agana, A Corp. Sole, Anthony S. Apuron, Ofm Cap D.D., Incumbent.

Do you remember that fake press release that Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, P.C. sent out last November 17? If not here it is. Go ahead and read it. 

Here's how Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, P.C. describes the Declaration:
 "...the declaration declares that the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole, is the “Owner” of the property, imposing on itself a restriction."
Ah, you see, how nice. The Archbishop was only imposing a restriction on himself. 

Really? 

If the Archbishop was only imposing a restriction on himself (or itself since the Archbishop of Agana is an office), then there is NO NEED to record a document at Land Management, is there? He only needed to do a decree. 

But in fact, just as Apuron, David, Adrian, and Pius the Putrid have been lying to us, it appears Jacque Terlaje was doing the same, because now the truth comes out in the March 15 certificate:



Ah, you see. The Declaration is NOT "in favor of" the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporate Sole, Anthony S. Apuron etc. etc. etc. Incumbent. The Declaration -as we have been saying all along - is 

IN FAVOR OF RMS!

And now to the conclusion. 

The certificate of March 15, 2016, shows that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is "in favor of" RMS. What does this mean? 

First, it means that RMS is recognized as a legal entity apart from the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporate Sole - which is why The Diana could never produce the documents showing that RMS was a Corporate Sole as she claimed. There is only one Corporate Sole and that is the Archbishop of Agana. RMS, as the new certificate demonstrates, is a legal entity separate from the Archbishop of Agana. 

Second, the "in favor of" means just that. The Declaration acts "in favor of" RMS. But what is the "favor"? The favor is in the language of the Declaration:


As you can see, the Owner "covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed.." Folks, you can't get much clearer than that. The title of the document is deceptive, pretending only to be a "restriction" and only a "declaration." But when you use the words "sold and conveyed," ummmmm, well, folks, this property is GONE. 

For those who want a detailed explanation of this, see the Legal Opinion by Attorney Jacques Bronze.

We'll get to the part about "subject to the covenants and restrictions" in a minute. Let's now look at the language following the word "Declaration." 

As you can see, RMS is identified as a Non-Profit Corporation (not a Corporate Sole) distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana and distinct from the Archbishop of Agana because the Declaration refers to RMS as its own "SEE" which is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. So the property is forever ("perpetual use) given to a "SEE" separate from the Archdiocese of Agana.

Now to the "subject to the covenants and restrictions.

As you can see the only "restriction" is that it remain in use by a corporation currently named Redemptoris Mater Seminary. It does not specify that it must be used as a seminary, only that it be used by RMS, Inc. 

And guess what? There is already talk about moving the seminarians out of there and turning it back into a hotel since Guam has a shortage of hotel rooms and RMS is broke anyway. 

And guess what else? 

All the revenues generated by Hotel RMS will go to the Neocatechumenal Way via the corporate person of RMS, Inc, a corporation completely controlled by Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini, Angelo Poschetti, and one Anthony S. Apuron, himself, personally, bishop or no bishop. 

Hmmm. "Hotel RMS." Like the Neocatechumenal Way, "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!"


Recommendations by JungleWatch