Wednesday, May 11, 2016


I have one more part to go in this series. (Here is Part 1 and Part 2.) Meanwhile, Bob Klitzkie is pursuing this shady document separately. Here is his May 9 letter to the Director of Rev & Tax. We are hoping for a much smoother inquiry and resolution with this department than what we got with Land Management...which is not over by the way. Here is Bob Klitzkie's letter


  1. sorry, letter is not showing!

  2. money talks, bs tony walks

    wow tony, the last time i recall you acted fast to respond to an issue, was when i saw you run out the back at St. Anthony...

    when local catholic members requested a moment of your time the response was always "you were busy", or "please leave your number" and upon your return you'll return the call... you never returned the calls...

    but, when it comes to money... you are all ears and jump blindly... talk about a fat jersey cow...

  3. A well laid out, clear and concise letter, which should be taken seriously by the Revenue and Tax director.

    Now, let see, how this play, and if more backroom deals are in the play.

    It should surprise no one if the "trained lawyer" puts her nose into this, to muddy the issue, as she has in the Land management and District Attorney cases.

    If that is what happens, since we are in election year, we should make it very clear, that these issues will be part of the campaign for any person running for office.
    Time to stop being silent.

    1. Apuron couldn't have concocted the deceptive legal papers by himself. He had help by a trained attorney. Watch him claim that it was an honest mistake. John Camacho needs the assistance of an attorney to figure this out so he can decide on the next course of action.

  4. The document mess is still churning.
    Who knows what is right? We are yearning
    To find out the truth.
    Should we get a sleuth?
    No worries, Bob's on it, we're learning.

    Go get'em, Bob!

  5. I am not in any way authoritative in matters of real estate, so my comment here is simply that of a layman, without any basis of credibility other than the interpretation of the English language.

    It seems to be that I have heard and read in many instances where the legal counsel for the Chancery (if in fact she ever held that title) has tenaciously held and propounded that the RMS is a “corporation sole”, and thus the archbishop’s Deed of Restriction of Nov 2011 could not have transferred (alienated) the RMS property to the RMS because the RMS is a “corporation sole” itself, having the same owner and authority over the property owned by the Archdiocese of Agana, a Corporation Sole, Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, Incumbent, as the Trustee – i.e. that the RMS and the Archdiocese are one and the same. The archbishop could not transfer (alienate) property unto himself. Gieuseppe Gennarini said so himself in a radio interview.

    The counter to this scenario is that the RMS is not a Corporation Sole. In fact, the Legal Counsel had been challenged many times to show a document sowing that RMS is a “corporation sole”. To date, she has not produced such a document. Perhaps it is because it does not exist.

    I recently re-read the Deed of Restriction, wherein the Archbishop “decreed to designate, assign the property to the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam, A NON PROFIT CORPORATION…”

    So there you go! The Archbishop himself, from the very start, referred to RMS as a NON PROFIT CORPORATION, not as a Corporation Sole! So what’s the big ado in them (Legal Counsel, Gennarini, and others) wanting it to be known as a “corporation sole”, when the executor of the Deed himself acknowledged it from the start that RMS is a “non profit corporation”. It appears to me that the Archbishop, from the start, acknowledged the RMS and the Archdiocese of Agana to be separate and distinct entities. Thus a transfer was possible, and in fact did take place!

    Am I missing something here? (jrsa: 5/11/16)