Sunday, April 3, 2016

WHY THE TITLE HOLDER IS STILL WRONG

AnonymousApril 3, 2016 at 6:55 AMBut 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.

Okay. Let's say that this is true. It's not, but let's say it is. Let's say that "the owner transferred it to himself." Let's say that "RMS is a corporation sole." It isn't. But let's say it is. Then what is the legal name of the corporation sole?

Here is a copy of its most recent government-filed document. 




The legal name of the corporation, as per the Government of Guam, is Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Arcdiocese of Agana.

However, the most recent version of the certificate of title says Archbishop of Agana:



The Archbishop of Agana is a corporation. Redemptoris Mater Seminary is a corporation. The Diana says they are both corporation soles. Fine. But as per government records, they have different legal names:

  1. The Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole, Anthony S. Apuron, Incumbent
  2. Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana

So, we will accept their premise that both are corporation soles and both are "subject to the same Ordinary" as Apuron says. Fine. BUT EACH HAS A SEPARATE LEGAL NAME and also separate government assigned identification numbers. 

Legally, the certificate of title must show the title holder to be Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana EVEN IF the corporation is still subject to Apuron. 

This is extremely simple. Title to the property has been assigned to Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana, and the latest version of the title DOES NOT reflect that. Thus the above Certificate of Title, the latest incarnation of it, IS WRONG. 

This is why you should never trust Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson again. By concurring with a subordinate to bypass the section of Guam law specifically instituted to protect land titles from such errors, the WRONG corporation is now the title holder of a SEVENTY MILLION DOLLAR property.

It's not a problem for RMS, the real title holder, since the idea from the beginning was to camouflage the transaction. 

But what about everyone else's titles? What if a conniving "trained" lawyer could convince more Elizabeth Barret Anderson's and Kristan Finney's to bypass 21 GCA 29195, instituted in Guam law for YOUR protection, and do other back room deals like this one?

Meanwhile, let's accept what The Diana says. Let's accept that both corporations are corporate soles and Apuron is the main guy in each one. Fine. But since the two "corporate soles" have different legal names, then let's at least get the title fixed. Don't you agree, Diana? 





10 comments:

  1. Can we now use this latest certificate of title to re-claim the Yona property in the name of the Archdiocese of Agana, and tell the RMS corporation and their Board of Governors to go to Hell?

    After all, this is a title CERTIFIED by Mike Borja, Director of Dept of Land Management, and even our respected (formerly) Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson says that Mike Borja did the right thing.

    Let anybody else who wants to dispute this new title go to court against the Dept of Land Management and the Archdiocese of Agana,
    and, of course, our respected (formerly) Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, will defend this new certificate of title (if she is still the Attorney General, that is).

    Oops! What's to stop them (Borja and Barrett-Anderson) from "working something out" and correcting this corrected Certificate of Title once more? And when these two are gone, what's to stop the next Director of Land Management from changing the Title to reflect another owner again? and so on ad infinitum.


    ReplyDelete
  2. Now tell me, why would an owner transfer a property to himself unless he's trying to deflect or maybe has a hidden motive. Brother tony, only you could've easily fixed this but you continue to remain silent and act as if you are clueless to why your flock is protesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tim, the Guam Annual Report says the name is "Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana." It doesn't say "Redemptoris Mater Seminary". You left out "Achdiocese of Agana."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll fix it though I already have it that way the second time I mention it. Note: the legal name of the archdiocese is NOT Arxhdiose of Agana, but ARCHBISHOP of Agana.

      Delete
  4. what happened to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana website
    i'm thinking it went from bad to worse just see http://www.seminaryguam.com/

    ReplyDelete
  5. and why is this...

    http://www.aganaarch.org/st-john-paul-the-great-archdiocesan-seminary-of-guam/

    http://www.aganaarch.org/redemptoris-mater-seminary-of-guam/

    http://www.aganaarch.org/blessed-diego-luis-de-san-vitores-catholic-theological-institute-for-oceania/

    for people who lie a lot, it shows that they are bad at it...

    someone is not as diligent as jt in keeping the website current...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These sites are one of many examples scam artist use to con their prey into falling into their trap...Like most KAKA Filled Zombies, they are fed lie after lie after lie to a point where they no longer can see the truth even if the facts are presented in front of them.

      Delete
  6. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did your feelings hurt?

      Delete
  7. So even if we take the Diana's arguments at face value, the question still remains, if he effectively was only transferring title unto himself or unto his office in the case, why bother recording a deed restriction at all? Clearly the intent was to deprive the archdiocese and its beneficiaries from any future use of the property once Tony was out of office. It was done to safeguard against the possibility of a new archbishop wishing to utilize the property for other purposes. And if such is the case, then the current archbishop is not acting in the best interest of the archdiocese, he is acting in the best interest of the RMS and in this case his actions demonstrate that he has violated his fiduciary responsibility as the trustee for the archdiocese. Furthermore, it has already been shown that this was not in keeping with the intent of the original donor's wishes.

    Someone needs to remind Tony that the archdiocese of agana is not his personal empire to do with as he pleases.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch