Friday, August 19, 2016

CHINESE CHECKERS AND THE "RETURN" OF THE YONA PROPERTY

Posted by Tim

After Hon's press release hit the news yesterday, as you might expect, I began receiving congratulatory messages. However, for now, I have to say "thanks, but no thanks," and beg the indulgence of my well-wishers. 

Here's why.

Sadly...and confoundedly, it is more Hon double-speak. The first clue is the three-paragraph-long apologia about how he is "ministering" to us in the fashion of Pope Francis and more "the pope sent me" stuff. 

He then proceeds with an almost comical "cover-my-arse" explanation of the Yona property, an explanation which further complicates the issue, misleads the press, suckers the public, and leaves us with little more than a happy face and a lousy game of Chinese checkers. 


After Hon's long self-congratulatory introduction, the first clue that he is up to something is this: "The 'property' was no doubt acquired by the Archdiocese...

LOL. We've got to hand it to Hon. He's good. Those words are a masterful "arse-covering." 

On July 28 in an interview with KUAM, Hon said: "The archdiocese owns that property. No doubt of it." Very slick. Hon knows that the archdiocese does NOT own the property. In fact, he has known since January of 2015 when the CCOG handed him a 62 page report with all the facts about the property, facts which were reaffirmed at a later meeting with Richard Untalan, former president of the archdiocesan finance council. 

The "facts" that Hon "learned" on Thursday, August 11, at a meeting with "some members of the Church on Guam" were no different than the facts he received in January 2015. The difference is that the facts were made known to both Hon and the presbyteral council at the same time and in such a way that made inaction impossible for Hon. 

Hon himself admits that he knew the truth about the seminary property in January of 2015 because in the second to the last paragraph of his Aug 18 statement he says that the Holy See "recognized the problem...more than a year ago." The Holy See "recognized the problem" because Hon told them about the problem!

Let's go back to Hon's July 28 KUAM interview where he says: "The archdiocese owns that property. No doubt of it." Now let's look at what he says next: "And then there's a certain ambiguity who has the right to use it. And on this matter, I'm going to have a review of it."

WHOAH! He's going to "have a review of it." Wait a minute! Hon just told us in his August 18 press release that the Holy See, "more than a year ago," ordered Apuron to "rescind and annul" the Deed Restriction. But "more than a year" later, Hon is telling KUAM that he is "going to have a review of it." 

Who is being disobedient here? According to Hon's own words, the pope has already accepted his "review" of "more than a year ago" and ordered the deed rescinded and annulled. But on July 28, more than a year later, Hon is pretending that the issue has yet to be taken up! That's B.S. 

On June 9, 2016, Hon, by virtue of the pope's authority invested in him, assumed all the powers of the office of the Archbishop of Agana, Guam. That means that on DAY ONE he had "all the power" (his words) to "rescind and annul" the Deed Restriction as ordered by the Holy See "more than a year ago." Yet, two months after taking office he tells us that he has yet to "have a review of it." SMH!

(At my personal meeting with Hon in January of 2015, the one thing he took particular issue with was my calling Apuron a "liar." He didn't like that word. Now I can see why.) 

So we see why Hon worded his August 18 statement "The 'property' was no doubt acquired by the Archdiocese..." He is trying to make us think that his use of the words "no doubt," in his July 28 KUAM interview, were in reference to the "acquisition" of the property and NOT the current ownership. He has to do this because he got caught red-handed. There is no mistaking that what he said to KUAM was about the present ownership of the property, NOT about its acquisition 14 years ago. 

And the subterfuge continues. 

Hon is desperate to make us think that the Deed Restriction is only a "source of grave dispute and division within our Church," and that all one needs to do is "rescind and annul it." Well if that was true then why isn't this August 18 "Announcement" stating that Hon has rescinded and annulled the Deed Restriction? Hon has all the same power as Apuron - who he says was ordered "more than a year ago" to rescind and annul it. So why hasn't Hon done what the pope ordered Apuron to do?

He hasn't done it because he CAN'T. And he CAN'T for the same reason Apuron could not. The property DOES NOT belong to the archdiocese ("no doubt about it!). Therefore neither Apuron nor Hon has the authority to "rescind and annul" the Deed Restriction. In fact, Hon admits this in his last paragraph by imploring "that community" (interesting that he will not name it), "to spontaneously and effectively renounce...the benefit obtained from the Archdiocese of Agana.

L - O - FREAKING L

Ummmmmm, seriously man, we're just not that stupid. If Hon can chastise Apuron for not carrying out the Holy See's order to rescind and annul the deed, then why is he now calling on RMS to do it? 

The truth is that neither Hon nor RMS can rescind or annul anything, and once again, Hon, in his own statement, tells us why: "Such act of concession was not done in a usual way by an internal Ecclesiastical agreement, but by the Declaration of Deed Restriction filed in the local Government of Guam in November 2011.

Hon is saying what we have been saying all along. The "Deed Restriction" acted as an instrument of "absolute  conveyance in fee simple," and what was "conceded" (Hon's word) was title to real property. 

RMS and Hon can shout "rescind and annul" all day long and it won't mean a damn thing because the only thing that can reverse a legal instrument of conveyance of title to real property is another instrument of conveyance of title to real property. 

And then we get to WHO it is that can execute said instrument, and it is NOT Hon! It is only the Board of Directors of RMS or its authorized delegate. But even then, per its incorporating documents, the Board of Guarantors has to approve. And that would be Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini as well as either Apuron or Angelo Poschetti in order to have a majority. 

Well good luck with that. Hon doesn't even know where Apuron is. 

P.S. David C, Jackie T, and Elizabeth B... we haven't forgot about you. 

RELATED








Recommendations by JungleWatch