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.


  1. Good-Bye, ELizabeth Barrett-Anderson. Merece!

  2. Then take it to court already. Use Klitzkie if Bronze is to expensive. Get a court ruling so this is resolved once and for all. Why keep it dragging? For drama and blog views and the $$$donations$$$?

    1. Well, yes, thank you very much. LOL. In fact, thank you for the reminder, I meant to publish an updated public thank you to those who recognize what this all costs me in time and money. Being on the side of RIGHT is its own reward, but unfortunately the bank doesn't care what side I'm on when I write a check. So thank you very much to those who support what goes on here. And thank you commenter for bringing it to my attention. LOL. Go ahead and click the Donate button on the right side bar. The bank doesn't care that you are on the side of WRONG. It will take your money anyway. LOL. Courage.

    2. Now, as per going to court, there is no reason to rush this. We are having quite a bit of fun watching the LIARS make stumble after stumble. And after each stumble, our eventual law suit becomes easier.

      In fact, truth be told, we were sort of at a stalemate a few months back. It was questionable whether anyone had standing to be even be able to bring a suit, and because of the ambiguous nature of a corporation sole, it was going to cost many thousands of dollars to determine if we could even file a suit.

      But then stupid Jackie got that false certificate and gave it to stupid David and stupid David published it, handling us a gift. Once they did that, they took it out of the arena of an internal corporate dispute and made it a much larger civil issue, requiring the legislature to now get involved since the AG herself has even "concurred" with a violation of Guam law.

      So you see, we are saving lots of money, not having to hire expensive lawyers and at the same time letting Jackie and the Fools hand us damning document after document. And wait till you see the smoking gun we just got.

      LOL. This is too good to be true. And it's FREE! LOL. Courage.

    3. And of course, here's the real thing. Jackie the trained lawyer could have ended this already. Now that she's the "legal counsel" for the archdiocese, it was completely in her power to let the issue go before the court as the AG originally prescribed to Mike Borja. As of January 20, the date of Borja's letter to Klitzkie, this was the plan. But then Jackie started jacking with Kristan Finney, the asst. AG, and "voila," no need to go to court.

      And this wouldn't have cost the archdiocese a dime, since it would have been an operation of the law and DLM's duties. It could all be over by now.

      Don't you think this is what Apuron, et al, wants? Don't you think they want us to shut up and go away?

      They could still do it. They could simply ask that the AG's original advice be followed and let the court rule.

      But Jackie derailed this. Why? Because they don't want it to go to court. Why?

      LOL. Courage.

    4. @11:24 AM, justice will be served one way or another. You see, you obviously are on the WRONG side and the suspense is killing you, as the flames surely will surround you and your cult and eventually engulf ALL of you.

    5. Timmy Timmy Timmy getting a little rattled maybe the Attorney General need to look into Tim's donations

    6. @Anon 1:41 AM. Donations to Jungle Watch/Tim Rohr are considered gifts since he is not a non-profit organization. People donate to Tim realizing the time he takes away from other more profitable pursuits to do the investigating necessary to keep this blog going and to uncover the truth. As a gift, Mr. Rohr is not accountable in regards to the Department of Taxation to report the gift. If someone gives Tim Rohr, a substantial amount of money $14,000, the giver is required to pay taxes on it. I highly doubt Mr. Rohr is receiving donations in that amount and even if he is, it is not his responsibility to report.

      As a gift, Mr. Rohr can use the donations or gifts to buy cigars and alcohol, donate to priest in need, or support his family. It is his choice. I just don’t see where this would be a matter for the AG. Mr. Rohr is not claiming to be a non-profit organization using the money for a certain purpose and then using it for something else.

    7. Thank you RYaeger. In fact, one does not even have to be a non-profit organization. One can received gift as an individual:

      Who pays the gift tax?
      The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement.

      What is considered a gift?
      Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return.

  3. Archbishop Apuron morally intellectually and religiously bankrupt.
    An example of a mitered birdbrain who should be removed.

    1. Heard the schools are being audited by the chancery for their fundraisers. Are they going to tap into the school funds now because of cash shortage? We fund raise for the sole purpose of repairing and improving our schools. Keep your dirty hands out of our funds! The funds are raise from our hard work as parents and students.

    2. Sorry, but if you've been paying attention to this blog or ever came to a CCOG village meeting I already warned you that none of the dollars you raise for any church, school, or Catholic group in this archdiocese are yours. Everything falls under the Archbishop of Agana in one way or another. And it is all his if he wants to take it. I warned you that you would have to stop all monies, that you would have to shut your parishes and schools down and be willing to have Mass said in a field. This is war, and that's the cost. But it appears that most people in this diocese do not mind to be taken prisoner. Of course one of the real reasons is that there are lots of people who make a living of this way or another.


  4. Anthony takes the flesh of the sheep to eat it, exploit it, or trade in it. Anthony always was a worldly boy desiring a large house lots of cars endless spending money. The church the people of Guam gave this to him in 30 years. He has amassed millions of ill gotten wealth. He even makes use of the wool of the lamb for his own vanity to boast. It is a tradedy that his episcopal example which amounts to an episcopal identity crisis enabled him to become a wolf in shepherds clothing.

  5. If your intention of donating to the Church is to help it, then, yes, continue to donate, but donate to CCOG! CCOG is helping us get back our Church.
    Giving to the Church on Sundays only helps to finance Apuron and his ilk maintain their personal luxurious lifestyles.

    In the comfort and privacy of your home or office, you can help by going to the CCOG website and making your donation via credit card or debit card. Or, you can mail CCOG a check.

    What I used to give to the Church on Sundays, I now give, on a weekly basis,
    to CCOG. In the words of Mr. Tim Rohr, "Let's do this!"

  6. Did someone say morally bankrupt ? Oh, my!


  7. What does morally bankrupt mean?
    Can't make out what comment means?

    1. My take on moral bankruptcy is a person who has lost his/her moorings, such as the absence of a moral compass to guide daily decisions. Put simply, it happens when the difference and distinction between right and wrong are blurred. In this case, a person decides rightness or wrongness in terms of his/her subjective perception and not through an objective lens. We have seen this in the degradation of society wherein political accommodation or correctness becomes a dangerous slippery slope. Unfortunately the Church on Guam, which is supposed to be a bastion of stability and mentor on universal principles, has a very weak leader whose leanings are not only suspect but outright in its repudiation of objectivity.

    2. ArchNEO Cult Presbyter Anthony Sablan Apuron lost his moral compass the moment he abandoned his flock in favor of the NCW cult. Thanks to this blog; we all learned that many priests on loan were sent back to the Philippines because they did not share Brother Tony's love of this NEO Cult. Both Monsignor James and Father Paul, two very charismatic priests were chastised in a public forum simply because they were a threat to the future existence of this evil cult.

  8. A cut and paste here from Di's blog on Pius's interview:

    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.

    Love the phrase to "respect the intentions of the benefactors and to safeguard the property." Maybe that letter that Archibald wrote himself and wanted signed by the donors should be published again. Me thinks they forgot what the donors' intentions were.

    1. The counter in the sidebar says it has been 172 days since DIANA was asked to show the document stating that RMS is a corporate sole. LOL

    2. The simple question is this. If RMS is still owned by Apuron then how did he protect it by giving it to RMS as they quote Pius saying?

    3. But the KAKA filled Dungbat claims that RMS is a Corporate Sole belonging to ArchNEO Cult Presbyter Anthony Sablan Apuron...

      DianaApril 2, 2016 at 5:49 PM
      Dear Anonymous at 11:25 am,

      I said it was transferred to the same person. In other words, the owner transferred it to himself. I stated that RMS is a corporation sole, with the Archbishop as the only corporate sole. The transfer was from Archbishop Apuron, corporation sole of the Archdiocese of Agana to Archbishop Apuron, corporation sole of RMS. The owner is the same and has always been the same.

    4. Sounds legit. Like a business owner with two different stores transferring assets from one to the other. End result is he still owes said asset.

    5. Unfortunately for you and for them, that's not what their incorporation documents say.

    6. @10:28 AM, Apuron is banking on people like you..people who don't care to research the issue yet form an opinion that favors him.

    7. safeguard and protect indeed ... as in, it's a protection racket.

  9. Here we go again; the KAKA filled Dungbat continues to brainwash its NEO Cult followers that the RMS is a Corporate Sole...even when the evidence uncovered proves otherwise...It tiles the latest blog "Correcting the jungle".

    DianaApril 2, 2016 at 11:27 PM
    Dear Anonymous at 10:07 pm,

    You read what Tim Rohr wrote. He accused the Archbishop of subjecting" the entire property FOREVER (perpetual use) to the control of that separate SEE.

    And for your information, St. John's Seminary in Los Angelos is also a corporation sole with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the only member and corporate sole. According to the weblink below:

    "Like most Catholic diocesan seminaries St. John's is a "corporation sole," and the archbishop of Los Angeles is the "corporate sole," the single legal owner who passes authority to his successor in office. At St. John's, the archbishop also serves as chair of the board of directors, which is legally an advisory group, not a board of trustees with final authority."

    So, you see, Anonymous, St. John's Seminary is a corporation sole with a Board of Directors and with the Archbishop of Los Angelos as the only corporate sole and only member. Sound familiar?????? So, who turned out to be asinine in the end? RMS follows the same structure as most seminaries in the U.S. do. This will be the jungle's downfall.