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.


11 comments:

  1. With their mountain of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence you would think the archbishop and company would happily and confidently walk into court for their slam dunk victory, with the added satisfaction of rubbing it in the noses of their opponents. So why are they avoiding the court like the plague?

    Tim, do you have any speculation about the consequences if a court declares the Yona property is owned (in fee simple) by the archdiocese? However this plays out the archbishop is "between a rock and a hard place."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. There are NO negative consequences to the Archbishop should the court decide that RMS is the title holder. The Archbishop of Agana was the legal owner and title holder of the property which means he can give it away or sell it to whoever he wants - at least from a civil point of view. The only exception would be if it can be proven that a corporation sole would be required to conform to the laws which govern the actions of a trust (but that's not in the bag at this point.)

      Canonically, it would be violation of canon law, but given how the church works these days, and how prelates are so easily bought off by Kiko, I doubt whether there would be any consequences there either.

      So with NO consequences for letting the court determine the title holder, why are they squirming with all their might to keep it out of court? And why have they lied about it all along?

      That's the real story...and they know it. I just can't tell it yet as real harm could come to those who have been hiding since 1977

      Delete
  2. Janet B - MangilaoApril 4, 2016 at 10:46 AM

    1977 aside, there is a growing fear in my mind. The tony obviously gave away the seminary property, even though he had no canonical right to do so because he bypassed all the safeguards to prevent such a tragic situation from happening. And, the weak kneed leadership in Rome appears to have no stomach for policing their own bishops who have run amok. And, the kiko's have no moral conscience because of their thirst for money and power.

    These three realities mean that a crooked bishop, the likes we have seen operate with impunity on our island, can do virtually anything he wants. So my question is:

    If tony has already given away/stolen the most valuable property in the Archdiocese, has he also already done the same with other properties? And will he continue to give away church assets in the future?

    What if our beloved Cathedral already belongs to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary Corporation? Or maybe a different name, like the Kiko Kingdom Hall , Archdiocese of Agana?

    What if all the Catholic Cemeteries now belong to the Neocatechumenal Killing Fields, Archdiocese of Agana? Could this be why tony was so anxious to get Monsignor James out of the way, so he could secretly transfer title of these properties to the New Jersey NCW?

    And then we have kiko presbyters in Merizo, Umatac, Agat, Santa Rita, Chalan Pago, Barrigada, Tamuning, and Yigo. They would most certainly stand by quietly if tony wanted to transfer these assets to the Kiko's control.

    And has anyone noticed that the Catholic Schools head - Agbulos - has been off-island for long periods of time recently. Is her absence a convenient way for tony to start transferring schools to kiko control?

    My uncle used to be a police detective in the old DPS days, and one thing he used to say to us kids was about the nature of thieves. He said most thieves he caught started off small. They stole something small and got away with it. That small success emboldened them to steal again, and more. Soon they were big time crooks who couldn't stop themselves, they felt like no one could touch them.

    Doesn't that sound a lot like our bishop pretender? Tony probably started off by just taking more than his usual cut from parish funds, and diocesan fund raisers. Having not been challenged by anyone for his previous thefts and unethical behavior, tony has adopted an attitude that he is untouchable.

    How can we assure ourselves tony doesn't give away the farm, the parishes, and the schools? Jungle Watch vigilance is a good first step. But all people need to help cut the head of the snake off. Stop all money!!! This single act will quickly drive the kikos and tony off-island. Then when Rome brings in a new bishop, we need to support him to restore the Church tony has ruined.

    STOP THE MONEY...or else tony will just give it away to his New Jersey pals and himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given all that we now know about the corruption in the Vatican and as echoed by you, we cannot trust that Rome will give us "a new bishop" we can support. WE WILL REMAIN VIGILANT.

      Delete
    2. With all the terrible publicity and eyes they got from the sale of the Seminary to Gennarini and his mob, I'm sure if the Archbishop transferred more property to these guys he would be more careful in how they go about doing it. If already done, unlikely we would find out about it because everyone is too afraid to confront evil.

      Delete
    3. To Anon 2:19PM - "...I'm sure if the Archbishop transferred more property to these guys he would be more careful...".
      Seriously? Did you forget you were talking about the three idiots on the hill? They are so stupid, their inept actions are why they keep fanning the fires of hell upon themselves. And everytime there is a flare up, we know tony is up to no good.
      Hopefully we will soon find the truth about the other properties that he would like to sell/give away.

      Delete
    4. Glad to be Back to Holy Mother ChurchApril 4, 2016 at 2:47 PM

      Yes. The Archbishop is already being much more careful about how he goes about giving our property to the NCW. First, get rid of all the Archdiocesan Finance Council "AFC" members who voted to save the seminary for the people and voted no to transfer it to the RMS Corporation.
      With them out of the way, make sure you fill the positions of these highly respected professionals with weak individuals who will vote however the Archbishop and Vicar General, and Chancellor tell them to vote. So now the bishop can get their approval to do whatever Pius and Giuseppi want him to do.
      Current AFC members are a stacked deck. The Vicar General, Sonny Ada, and Danny Quichocho, all very strong neo members. That's three of five members so their vote will always prevail. Other two members are Marilyn Megofna and John Weisenburger (former AG so that puts some doubt on his independence).
      Definitely a board filled to outvote any voice of reason.

      Delete
    5. Isn't there also a sixth member, Dominic Kim, the CFO. Of course, because he is the CFO he will do whatever his boss the Archbishop tells him to do. He is just a weak yes man to whatever the Archbishop says anyways, so he can keep his job.

      Delete
    6. Was Weisenburger ever the boss of the current AG?

      Delete
  3. Yes Kim also a member of this fetid group. The Church's finance guy is always a member and subject to the whims of the bishop. Each has probably been corrupted by the bishop's influence. Truly sad that these people take advantage of the good name of the Church!

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch