Monday, April 4, 2016

LOL. THIS IS GETTING FUNNER AND FUNNER

The Diana says "Bob Klitzkie loses."

  1. The KAKA filled Dungbat continues to proclaim victory....

    DianaApril 3, 2016 at 9:58 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 7:27 pm,

    All you have is an interpretation of the Bronze lawyer. That is what you will have on the day of the information hearing. The Archbishop, on the other hand, will have the following information:

    1. The report and encumbrance report from the Pacific American Title stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
    2. The report from the Denver law firm which specializes in religious institutions and corporation soles stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
    3. The report of the Pontifical Council stating that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because the Archbishop owns RMS.
    4. The corrected Certificate of Titles certifying the Archbishop as the legal owner of RMS.
    5. The Articles of Incorporation of RMS showing that the Archbishop is the sole member and only incorporator of RMS.
    6. The Bylaws of RMS which stated that the Archbishop is the corporation sole of RMS and have the authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.
    7. The Declaration of Deed Restriction which has been filed by the Department of Tax and Revenue as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed."

    As for Bob Klitzke, what will he bring to the Information Hearing? He will only have the opinion of a real estate lawyer who has absolutely no experience of religious institutions or corporation soles.

    This is an information hearing. The person who will have the most information is certainly NOT Bob Kliztke. He can argue all he wants that the Certificate of Title should have RMS as the legal owner, but he will be asked the question, "WHO" in RMS is the legal owner. We already know he is not going to say the Archbishop. His only choices are "Gennarini" or "I don't know." Either way he answers, he loses.
Dear Diana. Despite your obvious lack of education, please try to improve yourself. Here, let me help you:


1. "The report and encumbrance report from the Pacific American Title stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place." 

LOL. "The report and encumbrance report!" Got that? What The Diana is referring to is the Preliminary Title Report. What a PTR does is simply show all the documents on file relative to the subject property. It is just that: a report. A PTR does NOT interpret the effects of those documents. It only shows them. It is up to the affected party or parties to deal with the effects of the recorded instruments (such as an outstanding mortgage, etc.)

Oh, and BTW, Diana, the PTR from Pacific American Title notes that Apuron is the GRANTOR. Please try to figure out what that means. (This is probably why Apuron never made the PTR public.)


2. "The report from the Denver law firm which specializes in religious institutions and corporation soles stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place."

Really? The Archbishop is going to use a legal opinion by a firm not licensed to practice law in Guam? LOL. If the Denver law firm wants to stay in business I am sure whatever report Apuron paid for was supplied with the caveat: DO NOT USE THIS in Guam. This is probably why Apuron never released it in the first place and withdrew it from it even being seen at the Chancery after Attorney Bronze went to have a look. Plus the idea that canon law trumps civil law is asinine. The church is ALWAYS subject to ALL civil laws wherever it is at unless it is specifically exempted. 

3. The report of the Pontifical Council stating that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because the Archbishop owns RMS. 

Same deal here. A Pontifical Council has no civil jurisdiction in Guam. It can say whatever it wants, but whatever statement it makes would be laughed off the table at any legal proceeding. Again, this is why the document - if there was one - was not made public in the first place. 

4. The corrected Certificate of Titles certifying the Archbishop as the legal owner of RMS. 

LOL. No Title Company would EVER accept a Certificate of Title as certifying anything. The legal ownership is determined by researching the chain of title and then examining the instruments impacting the title. And as stated in my previous post, even IF the Archbishop is the legal owner of RMS, RMS is (as of Nov. 22, 2011) the legal owner of the property itself and this is NOT reflected on the latest version of the certificate of title

5. The Articles of Incorporation of RMS showing that the Archbishop is the sole member and only incorporator of RMS. 

As you can see from the latest version of the certificate of title, whenever a corporation sole is named, IT is named. Thus, whenever the corporation sole that is the Archbishop of Agana is named, the words "corporation sole" always follow it: Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony S. Apuron, Incumbent. 

Such is not the case for whenever you see the name Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana. The designation "corporation sole" does not follow this name because RMS is NOT a corporation sole. 

The Diana seems to think that because RMS has a "sole incorporator" that this automatically makes RMS a corporation sole. LOL. Any corporation can be formed by a "sole incorporator":

18 GCA § 28201. Incorporators.One or more persons may act as the incorporator or incorporators of a corporation by delivering articles of incorporation to the Director of Revenue & Taxation for filing.
http://www.guamcourts.org/compileroflaws/gca/18gca/18gc028.pdf
The Diana will say that I am twisting words and if you believe her then you are as stupid as she is. Read the law for yourself. In fact, the law addresses the formation of a corporation sole in an entirely different chapter: 18 GCA § 10102. Religious Corporations. Corporation Sole. 

6. The Bylaws of RMS which stated that the Archbishop is the corporation sole of RMS and have the authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.

LOL. This should really be fun. We have already demonstrated the difference between a sole incorporator and a corporation sole. And while, as the sole incorporator, Apuron would have the authority to appoint or dismiss the Board of Directors (only after proper noticing as required by the incorporation documents), he has NO such authority to appoint or dismiss the Board of Guarantors. Here's what the Bylaws of RMS state:
Article VII.2.
The members will be the same as the Pastoral Council as foreseen in the canonical statutes of the Seminary, presided furthermore by the Archbishop. In particular, the Neocatechumenal responsible Team for the United States is part of this Board. 

Very cleverly crafted. The first part of this bylaw gives a nod to the Archbishop (presided by) but then inserts the real deal: "In particular, the Neocatechumenal responsible Team for the United States is part of this Board."

Does the Archbishop appoint the NCW Team for the U.S.? NO. Must the NCW Team for the U.S. always be "part of this Board?" YES. Thus, Apuron DOES NOT control the Board of Guarantors. In fact, they control him 3 to 1:





7. The Declaration of Deed Restriction which has been filed by the Department of Tax and Revenue as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed."

Ah, yes. Very clever. And it shows that The Diana is getting her talking points directly from Pius if not Gennarini. The title of the instrument was part of the camouflage...except for one thing, it still contains the word DEED. In fact (LOL) the title "declares" that it IS a DEED albeit with a restriction. 

Had Apuron et al only wished to limit use of the property to the seminary then all that was necessary was the normal filing of covenants and restrictions common to any property wherein use is limited - such as by a condo homeowners association or a developer of a subdivision. 

But Apuron declares this document to be a DEED wherein the property is "held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed"...to RMS with the only restriction being that it be "for the use of RMS for PERPETUAL USE" (and NOT even as a seminary!!!).



This is why Jackie the trained lawyer was desperate to work the back room deal with Kristan Finney. She had to keep this out of court in order for the lie to be perpetuated. There is no denying the language. This is a DEED. And not only does it say so in the title, the title DECLARES it to be a DEED. LOL. 


And as for Bob Klitzkie...LOL. Really Diana? You better stay behind your pseudonym. LOL.

*****

Still, we must wonder, if The Diana is so sure of the Archbishop being able to prove his position, then why was the trained lawyer so anxious to thwart the legal process which would have required the title to be reviewed by the court where a court decision - costing the archdiocese nothing - would have put an end to all this?

LOL. We know why, don't we.


Recommendations by JungleWatch