Sunday, August 28, 2016

HIGH NOON FOR FOR ARCHBISHOP HON

Posted by Bob 
“High Noon (1952) [starring Gary Cooper] is possibly the all-time best Western film ever made - a successful box-office production by Stanley Kramer and director Fred Zinnemann (who also directed From Here to Eternity (1953) and A Man For All Seasons (1966)). The Western genre was employed to tell an uncharacteristic social problem tale about civic responsibility, without much of the typical frontier violence, panoramic landscapes, or tribes of marauding Indians.” AMC Filmsite
                                     My plot summary

In a territory a man was sent in to clean up a really bad situation. He does and sends the really bad dude away. Just as he’s about to begin living happily-ever-after news breaks that the really bad dude has been let out and will arrive at high noon.  The man is faced with a choice. He can face down the really bad dude and in what amounts to a winner-take-all battle or move on and leave his honor behind. 



Well, AB Hon is no Gary Cooper but finds himself facing his own high noon. Hon came in to clean up a really bad situation. On Friday Apuron called Hon out. There can be only one winner. Will Hon, like Gary Cooper, stand up for what’s right or will he skip and leave his honor behind.  If Hon stands up to the really bad dude, unlike the movie, the townspeople will stand with him. If he doesn’t choose what’s right  not only will the people not stand with him; AB Hon could be caught in a “crossfire.”


17 comments:

  1. Who's gonna blink first?

    ReplyDelete

  2. Archbishop Hon i pray you take the high road supporting truth and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who is the fastest Decree writer in the west (pacific)? "Don't cha worry pilgrim, we got this here varmint rite wear we want him. BTW what time is noon?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's definitely going to be an interesting week. I think I've already heard the opening salvo . . . stealthy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. how pathetic. a duel between a double-speaker and someone who's in hiding.

    in the Office of Readings for today, the 22nd sunday in ordinary time, are these words from the prophet jeremiah:

    "Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard,
    they have trampled down my portion."
    --jer 12:10

    as these so-called leaders duke it out, the laity, the ordinary people, will have to keep fighting for the faith. don't rely on these "shepherds" to do the fighting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Advice to AB Hon: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."

    Own up to the fact that Apuron gave the Yoña property a way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Excerpt from the Declaration of Deed Restriction

    "..... that the Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the covenants and restrictions herein: ....."


    I am not an attorney (in spite of countless hours watching Law and Order) but I can read. I read those words from the Declaration of Deed Restriction and I can come to only one conclusion: THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN AWAY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A question for the brilliant legal minds in the jungle:

      I am the fee simple owner of a house lot. I sign a deed transferring the property to myself. Can I do this? Isn't this what Arpuron claims to have done: deeded the Yona property to himself?

      I realize Apuron actually deeded the Yona property to RMS Corporation. The RMS Corporation is now the fee simple owner. Apuron being on the board of directors and board of guarantors doesn't change this fact.

      Delete
  8. Even Judge Judy would rule that way, Andrew!

    ReplyDelete
  9. By law, statements made first in a Deed, govern any statements made thereafter. Thus, the statement: ". . . the Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed. . ." controls the rest of the language in the deed restriction. Therefore, the next phrase after the governing statement, which is: ". . . subject to the convenants and restrictions herein. . ." means nothing as far as restricting the new owner of the Property. It is the same as me telling my son, "Son, your grandfather gave me this land to be used as a farm for the benefit of our family forever. By this Deed, which I signed, and which I filed and recorded with Land Management, I give you this property in Yona. It is yours. But, Son, do not use the property for anything else but to plant and cultivate banana trees. And I put this restriction in the Deed as a condition with regard to the use of the property. The son then takes the Deed, thanks his father, and builds a mansion with a swimming pool on it. Who do you think the Court will say owns the property and as every right to use it as he or she sees fit? Right, the son. In this case, the RMS corporation is the "son"; Apuron is the father; the family is us, the Church. Apuron signed a deed giving away the property, but tells us, the family, don't worry, the RMS corporation (the son in my story above) is restricted to "only use" the property as a seminary; but the title of the Yona Property is still owned by the father on behalf of the family. Wrong. So, who can confirm this? The Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the subject to" refers only to the requirement that the property be used by RMS corporation, and not even as a seminary. But even this is unenforceable for as you rightly point out, the words which come first are what count, and the words which come first effect an "absolute conveyance in fee simple." Apuron or his successor would have not right to enforce the "subject to" after the deed is signed. (And it IS a deed.)

      Delete
  10. Unfortunately, You're stuck with Apuron because:

    1) He knows where all of the metaphorical bodies are buried and he must be placated. Rome won't allow Hon to risk exposure of Curial perverts. He's just a talking head: as useless now as he was on his past apostolic visitation to Guam. He knew what was wrong then, but did absolutely nothing about it.

    2) Wealthy Italian Neocats bought off corrupt B16 when he was in office. He turned a blind eye to their heresies and liturgical atrocities. The Vatican is the Neocats' active partner in ecclesial crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - There has got to be a way that we are not "Stuck With Apurun"! There are always "Loop Holes" and We Definitely Need to Know what those are! Apurun cannot get away with all the Deceitful and Underhanded Things He Has Done! The True Katolikus on Guam Have Completely Disowned Him!

      Delete
    2. 7:12 AM, join us on the picket line Sundays, 9 AM at the Cathedral.

      Delete
    3. Bob - I need to know what to do to undo "The Plot Thickens"! Not that I am too simple but I need to know the legal way to get things going since this seems to be the only way to go at this time!

      Delete
    4. Bill 326-33 in it's current form would permit law suits going back several years.

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch