Friday, May 6, 2016


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WHO YA GONNA BELIEVE?":

So much different interpretations. Clarification please on this issue.

AnonymousMay 5, 2016 at 11:29 PM

Diana, what about the minutes that Tim published in his blog?

DianaMay 5, 2016 at 11:36 PM

Dear Anonymous at 11:29 pm,

What about it???? It did not contradict what Mr. Genarinni said to PNC news. According to the minutes of September 7, 2011, it stated:

"Recently, our legal counsel, Ed Terlaje, has reviewed the legal structure of significant assets to assure they are set up as separate legal entities within the Archdiocese. The Redemptoris Mater Seminary ("RMS") is an asset Ed is currently working on."

"Separate legal entities WITHIN the Archdiocese." Sounds like it is still under the Archdiocese but a "corporation sole" of its own.

As you should expect from The Diana or anything with the initials NCW, you will only get a half-truth, and only the half they want you to have. 

Notice The Diana stops at "Ed is currently working on," and then leaves out the next sentence:
"In a review of RMS Articles and Bylaws, as well as several meetings with the RMS original incorporators, an issue has arisen that needs AFC review."
Notice that the reference is to "incorporators" (plural). Keep this in mind. We'll come to this soon.

Now why does The Diana leave out this sentence? Ummmm, do you think it could be because "an issue has arisen"???? And what issue would that be do you think?

According to the same memo there was no problem setting up Catholic Cemeteries and other archdiocesan entities as "separate legal entities," because in the articles and by-laws of the other entities, the ultimate control of the archbishop was clear. But NOT SO RMS

Now why would that be, do you think? What made RMS different than all the other entities of the archdiocese? Well, maybe because RMS was NOT an entity of the archdiocese. LOL. Bingo. 

But here's the biggie. Mr. Gennarini would have been better off NOT remembering Attorney Ed Terlaje's name. As you can hear in this clip, he was stumbling around for it:

LOL! But then his wife "helped" him. That was BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD. And here's why!

Up till now, I have always known that there was ONE person who could expose this whole scam: Attorney Ed Terlaje, the legal counsel for the archdiocese for nearly 40 years. He was there at all the meetings, doing what he was supposed to do: PROTECT the Archdiocese of Agana, even with Gennarini (the kindly professor) screaming in his face. 

However, I had no hope that Attorney Terlaje would ever come out and take sides because the Archbishop was his client, so ethically, he could not. HOWEVER, once he was called out publicly and by name, like he was yesterday on Patti's show and is now being slammed on The Diana's blog, attorney-client privilege no longer applies, which is why he has already released a statement to PNC:
"Attorney Terlaje, however, tells PNC that he had objected to the transfer of the RMS property and he says he had already conveyed this message in a letter he wrote to the archdiocesan finance council."
And now that The Diana is vehemently and publicly bashing Terlaje and making him the scapegoat on her Pius-backed blog, Mr. Terlaje has, with each mention of his name, ever more right, and ever more reason, to go public with absolutely EVERY detail, INCLUDING the reason he was setting up separate legal entities within the archdiocese in the first place. 

AND, and this is a big AND, he has the right to pursue Gennarini, the Archbishop, and The Diana personally for damages. So better hide Diana. Better work extra hard that he doesn't find out who you are.

LOL, Giuseppe. Next time leave Claudia home.

And a P.S. to The Diana: What I have in my hand - as of yesterday - explains a lot. You'll know on Monday. Courage. It's all about to end, sweetheart.

And here's an addendum. The Diana is trying to make it out like the AFC was wanting to transfer the property away from the archdiocese and Terlaje told them not to. You have to be really, really stupid to believe that (but then look at what else the idiot kiko's believe!!).

The AFC is tasked with considering the financial requests of the archbishop. It is then the AFC's duty to seek counsel from the legal counsel before making a decision. Once they received Terlaje's counsel, 4 of the 5 members of the AFC voted NOT to transfer the asset. And guess who voted YES? Msgr. David C. Lurch Quitugua. The AFC's decision was memorialized the next day in a letter to then-rector Pablo Rodriguez (who has mysteriously disappeared). Here's the letter:

In addition, there is clear evidence in the Sept 7, 2011 agenda memo that it was "the incorporators" NOT the AFC who were demanding the transfer of the asset:
"However, after several meetings, the RMS incorporators are hesitant to do so (modify the articles and by-laws to protect the control of the archbishop), but have asked that the assets be deeded to RMS without modification."
So guess who "the incorporators" were? 

Recommendations by JungleWatch