Saturday, April 2, 2016


LOL. Just as I was about to write about this, someone emailed me the following comment from The Diana:
DianaApril 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM

Dear Anonymous at 12:16 pm,  
It was actually Tim Rohr who first said that the RMS seminary does not belong to the Archdiocese. It was Tim who concocted the fairy tale of the former finance council being removed so that the Archbishop give the property to the NCW.
Unfortunately for The Diana, "she" hasn't yet learned that when you lie you have to remember to keep all your lies straight otherwise smart guys like me will expose you.

The Diana forgets that on August 3, 2014, "she" already supported the claim that the title to the property was transferred to RMS

On her blog, on this date, in a blog post titled "Thank You, Father Pius", The Diana copied the Pacific Daily News interview with Guam's chief catechist, Pius the Samnut, wherein he explains the reason for the transfer of title. I will copy what The Diana posted here:
Regarding the transfer of the title, the legal adviser of the archdiocese, five years ago, asked that the title be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp. to respect the intention of the donor and to safeguard the property. This corporation is a 'corporation sole' where there is only one member, namely the archbishop, who has all power. He is assisted by a board of directors who (oversees) the daily administration. The only member, namely the archbishop, chooses all directors. Then there is a board of guarantors that guarantees that the corporation follows the original purpose for which it was created. The Archbishop chooses, confirms, or dismisses freely these guarantors.
So as you can see, according to Pius the Samnut, and as posted by The Diana, title to the property was "transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp." Pius then goes on to give the reason: "to respect the intention of the donor and to safeguard the property." 

Pius does not argue that title to the property was not transferred. He clearly states that it was, and, according to him, for good reason. 

Pius also refers to "This corporation" and names it as "Redemptoris Mater Corp." Thus Pius confirms what we have said all along: 1) the title was transferred to RMS, Inc., and 2) RMS is its own corporation. 

At least Pius and Apuron are on the same page. 

In his Nov 16, 2011 letter to Richard Untalan, Apuron did not argue that he was NOT transferring the title, only that in transferring the title to RMS it was technically not an "alienation" because RMS, though a separate "juridic person" (a corporation), was still subject to him. 

So, again, both Pius and Apuron clearly state: 1) that the title was transferred to RMS, Inc., and 2) RMS, Inc. is a separate legal entity (a Guam corporation). Then The Diana backs all of this up by posting this on her blog and arguing for Pius. 

Taking Pius and Apuron exactly at their words, there is no question that they are in agreement with Part 1 of the Bronze opinion: the Declaration of Deed Restriction was an absolute conveyance in fee simple, i.e, the document functioned to transfer title from the Archdiocese to RMS, Inc. 

Thus, as per what both Pius and Apuron have clearly stated, the latest version of the certificate of title is STILL WRONG because the holder of the title is NOT the Archbishop. It is RMS, Inc. 

Even if the second part of Pius' argument is true, and even if RMS, Inc. is still subject to the "same Ordinary" as Apuron argued to Richard Untalan, the certificate of title, since the title was transferred to RMS, Inc, must show RMS, Inc. as the title holder. And it does not. 

This will make it to court in time, and it will be the undoing of everyone involved, from the trained lawyer right up to the soon to be former Attorney General. 


BTW, the PDN story quoting Pius the Samnut was also posted on the website for the CULT EDUCATION INSTITUTE.

Recommendations by JungleWatch