Tuesday, March 22, 2016

WHAT "SHOULD" HAVE BEEN IN THE UMATUNA ON MARCH 20, 2016...

...instead of another attempt to prove the ownership of the seminary property with an ill-gotten certificate of title. 

(Sent by a Jungle reader who was apparently feeling a bit satirical. Enjoy! :>)

Msgr. David C. Quitugua
Vicar General
Archdiocese of Agana, Guam

March 20, 2016

My dear Catholics of Guam.

I must apologize and ask for your understanding for something that I did last November. Four certificates of title for the Seminary property came into my hands. The certificates were official documents issued by Andrew Santos the Deputy Registrar of Titles at Land Management. While the certificate looked official, I knew it was wrong because there were only two memorials. The missing third memorial noting the Declaration of Deed Restriction made the certificate deceiving because the Declaration of Deed Restriction is the most important part of the certificate of title.

I knew that the memorial was missing because when the Declaration of Deed Restriction was signed, the Archbishop mentioned my name in a paper attached to it with the instruction that I was ordered to enforce it.



The Declaration of Deed Restriction is so important to the Archbishop because some of our brothers and sisters are saying that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is more than just a restriction on the use of the Seminary land. Our brothers and sisters are saying that the Declaration has the same effect as a deed. Our brothers and sisters are saying that the Declaration is like a deed because it conveys fee simple title for the land to the RMS Corporation which our Diocese doesn't control. In other words by signing the Declaration of Deed Restriction the Archbishop gave away a property that might be worth $70,000,000, they say.

They have published and continually refer to a paper written by a respected real estate lawyer named Jacques Bronze. The paper is 48 pages long and shows that the Seminary property is not in the Archbishop's ownership or control anymore. The Bronze Opinion shows that the Seminary property is now controlled by four people. Three of them live in New Jersey. Their names are Claudia Gennarini, Giuseppe Gennarini and Fr. Angelo Pochetti. Archbishop Apuron is the fourth name but even if he is no longer our archbishop, because he retired or for some other reason, he’s still one of the four, and if the Gennarini's and Fr. Pochetti let him he could talk about the Seminary property.

So when I published the certificate of title in the November 19 Umatuna, I knew that it would trick you into believing that what our brothers and sisters were saying about the Archbishop still owning the Seminary was correct cuz the Declaration of Deed Restriction didn’t even show. When people went to Mass and saw that certificate of title in the Umatuna they knew the Archbishop was right. Then the PDN ran a story about the certificate of title and used my quotes from the Umatuna.  I was able to fool people who weren’t even Catholic.  

Some guys found out that the certificate was wrong and started making trouble. Andrew Santos helped by writing in a memorial on the certificates with the Deed Restriction. Andrew made the Deed Restriction in favor of the Bishop instead of the Seminary!  This was even better than the first certificate which didn’t have the memorial.  Instead of just letting it go, those guys made a fuss that the memorial should be corrected. Those guys made such a fuss that Mike Borja over at Land Management wrote out a letter saying that The Attorney General of Guam said Mike should go to court to correct the title.  Mike wrote out in the letter that he made the papers to file at the court and that he’d told the AG to file them.  

I was really scared because I don’t want a judge to be looking at that Deed Restriction and seeing that the Archbishop doesn’t own the seminary anymore. Lucky for us Jackie Terlaje came along to save us.  She started talking to Mike’s AG and talked them into just fixing the memorial without going to court. Jackie has really helped us a lot. Jackie and Bertha Evangelista got the first certificate that I used to fool you in the Umatuna. Jackie got the titles that Andrew wrote the corrections on but she kept them on the down low. Then she talked Mike’s AG out of going to court. Mike helped us too because he never really made the papers but he didn’t tell that for a long time.  Jackie not only walks in the Way but is one of the responsibles for Brother Tony who some of our brothers and sisters call the Archbishop.

I hope you will forgive me for what I did to fool you. I had to because Fr. Pius told me to. And as you know, since I'm in the Way, I have to obey my Catechist. 

Bye.

10 comments:

  1. Hey Tim do you HAVE a real JOB!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but it is spelled "REEL" JOB, as in "reeling" suckers like you into my blog so I can waste more of your life for you. LOL. Go ahead bite on this hook again. Courage.

      Delete
  2. The irony of this situation would be funny if it weren't so sad.

    One side believes the property was given away and is no longer owned or controlled by the archdiocese.

    The other side believes the property was never given away and is still owned and controlled by the archdiocese.

    It seems everyone wants the same thing in the end: ownership and control of the property maintained by the archdiocese.

    One side has a legal opinion from an attorney with knowledge and experience in real estate transactions.

    The other side has an opposite opinion from a different attorney.


    The stakes are too high to leave it as it is. The dispute must be resolved by having a court with jurisdiction look into the matter and issue an official ruling on exactly who owns the property. If anyone objects to this course of action we need to ask why? Who wouldn't want a definitive answer to this dispute?

    If the court finds that the archdiocese owns the property both sides would be happy.

    If the court finds that RSM Corporation owns the property the board of directors will be shocked beyond belief and do everything possible to return the property to the archdiocese.

    Everyone wins!

    So let's get the ball rolling. Happiness awaits!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Andrew,

      Thank you for your comments. A few things to clarify:

      “One side believes the property was given away and is no longer owned or controlled by the archdiocese.”

      Actually there is a third side. Pius and his Kiko’s (even Diana) have been saying that the property was transferred to keep Richard Untalan from selling it. Of course this conflicts with Apuron and his two sideshows. But when you lie, it morphs.

      “It seems everyone wants the same thing in the end: ownership and control of the property maintained by the archdiocese.”

      Actually, our side does not want ownership or control of the property. We want the archdiocese to have ownership and control because the money to pay off the note was given as a gift to the archdiocese, not to the neocatechumenal way.


      “One side has a legal opinion from an attorney with knowledge and experience in real estate transactions.The other side has an opposite opinion from a different attorney.”

      Actually only our side has a Legal Opinion. A Legal Opinion is a stated position based on research and legal precedent. CCOG hired Jacques Bronze to do exactly that and he produced a 40 plus page opinion researched and rooted in legal precedent.

      Their side only has Jacqueline T. Terlaje who issued a pretend press release with only a personal opinion and emphasized that she was not speaking for the archdiocese but only as an individual. That is not a Legal Opinion. That’s just her opinion.

      “The stakes are too high to leave it as it is. The dispute must be resolved by having a court with jurisdiction look into the matter and issue an official ruling on exactly who owns the property. If anyone objects to this course of action we need to ask why? Who wouldn't want a definitive answer to this dispute?”

      You are right about this, but now we have both the Director of DLM and the AG to contend with. The AG already advised the Director to proceed through the court as Guam Law requires. The Director rejected that advice. It is really now up to the AG to do her job since the Director acted against her counsel and from everything that we have seen so far - possibly illegally. There could be even criminality.

      “If the court finds that RSM Corporation owns the property the board of directors will be shocked beyond belief and do everything possible to return the property to the archdiocese.”

      No, the board will not be shocked. They know full well that the property was given to RMS. Here are the names of the current board of directors as registered at Rev and Tax:

      Archbishop Apuron
      Rev. Pablo Rodriguez (no longer here)
      Rev Julio Sanchez (maybe here?)
      Danny Quichocho
      Susanna Jayasuriya

      Thanks again for you comment.

      Delete
    2. DLM was following the advice of their legal counsel who is an Assistant Attorney General. I suspect that said Assistant AG had consulted with her superiors at the AG's Office before giving said legal advise. They need to make sure that their legal assessment is proper incase it is challanged. Just makes sense given the controversial nature of situation.

      Delete
    3. It has already been demonstrated that the Asst. AG rejected the advice of THEE AG, and followed someone else's....obviously Jackie Terlaje's since she is on record "working something out' with JT.

      Delete
  3. I have a dream. Wait a minute I think someone already used that line. This letter will only happen if pigs fly. Unfortunately swine flu does not count. Really wish we could send this letter to the PDN. Thank you to the writer, I needed a laugh today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Santos, you're right about this letter, the author should consider sending it to PDN, after all PDN is accustom to receiving let alone printing bogus articles from the chancery...

      Delete
  4. Julio, by all means here. With a long scruffy beard to hide in plain sight. Julio, a little humility goes a long way. You have already presumed way too much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Look at the longggg, white , bony, STICKY fingers on the holy card of Saint David the Sickly.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch