Sunday, September 11, 2016

THE SEMINARY PROPERTY SCAM CONTINUES (THANKS TO HON AND JEFF)

Posted by Tim

Bob Klitzkie has written two very important letters regarding the absurdity of Hon's appointment of Msgr. David C. Quitugua, rector of RMS. Quitugua was deeply involved in the giving away of the property in the first place and the ensuing cover up. I will comment further in an upcoming post. For now, I want to get these letters to you immediately.


Robert Klitzkie, Esq.
22 Baki Ct., Yigo, GU 96929
(671) 653-6607

September 1, 2016

Re: Yoña real property deeded away by Apuron

Dear Archbishop Hon and members of the Presbyteral Counsel:

When David Sablan, Richard Untalan and I made our presentation on August 11, I volunteered  to make suggestions that might help the Archdiocese recover fee title to the referenced property.  I indicated that in order for me to be sure that Archbishop Hon sincerely desired return of fee simple title unencumbered by the deed restriction which reads in pertinent part,  “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” two actions on his part would be necessary:

1) a correction of Hon’s “the is no doubt” comment re the ownership of the referenced property
2) a correction in the Umatuna Si Yu’os for November 29 that deliberately ran a grossly misleading , bogus certificate of title for the referenced land. (See accompanying copy of the Umatuna and VI, supra.)

I will postpone reiteration of those  matters at least temporally in favor of explaining  what I think could be done to recover the Yoña property free of the  “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction so that it once again becomes an unencumbered part of the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agaña and not the private fief of the Neocatechumenal Way.  The reality is that the Yoña realty is no longer part of the patrimony of the Archdiocese because Apuron gave it a way on November 22, 2011 by means of the Declaration of Deed Restriction (DDR)  as aptly demonstrated in the Bronze Opinion.* Unfortunately Archbishop Hon has repeatedly said that the Archdiocese owns the property but subject to the “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction.

Archbishop Hon’s position is unfortunate for three  reasons:

First, reference to the to the language of the DDR itself and to the explanation contained in the Bronze Opinion* shows that it is incorrect;
Second, Archbishop Hon’s stance gives credence to the position of the very person who gave the property away, Apuron;
Third, it ignores the fact that only a conveyance, i.e. a deed, from the RMS Corporation to Archdiocese (i.e. the corporation sole) can remove the “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction.
Neither the Archbishop of Agaña nor the board of directors can remove the “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction. Only a conveyance back to the Archdiocese can.

Several considerations are involved in the return of the property to the patrimony of the Archdiocese:
  1. Archbishop Hon must come to grips with the fact that Apuron gave the property away.
  2. Archbishop Hon should not continue to empower Apuron.
  3. Archbishop Hon should tender a draft corporate resolution to the board of directors of the RMS Corporation authorizing the execution of a Grant Deed in favor of the Dioceses.
  4. Archbishop Hon should tender a draft resolution to the board of guarantors of the RMS Corporation authorizing the execution of a Grant Deed in favor of the Diocese.
  5. The properly executed Grant Deed must be recorded in the chain of title of the real property.
  6. Papers as per 3), 4) and 5) were displayed at the August 11 meeting.
  7. I presented the papers along with suggestions as to how to “dust them off” to Ed Terlaje, Esq.  on August 19.
  8. If 5) were accomplished fee simple title would vest in the Archdiocese.  Because of the doctrine of merger the “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction would merge into the Archdiocese’s title and be nullified.
  9. CAVEAT: 3) through 9) depend on Archbishop Hon’s ability to procure several signatures, e.g. Apuron’s, the Gennarinis’ and Fr. Pochetti’s.  Since Archbishop Hon has steadfastly maintained that he doesn’t know Apuron’s whereabouts this solution may not be feasible.
  10. Absent the cooperation of Apuron, the Gennarinis and Fr. Pochetti et al. this solution won’t work.
  11. Archbishop Hon as Apostolic Administrator of the Archdiocese must consider the necessity of litigation in order to “bring the property home.”
Archbishop Hon has impliedly committed himself to litigation in his News Release of August 19 which reads in pertinent part:

“Thus, I hereby sincerely ask the collaboration of all the faithful to act with obedience to the directive of the Holy See. And, in particular, I request that community which now enjoys in perpetuity the use of the "property" to spontaneously and effectively renounce, without any litigation, such a benefit obtained from the Archdiocese of Agaña. Such a courageous act of renouncing will certainly earn respect and recognition from the Holy See, as well as many faithful, the Presbyterial [sic] Council, and myself.

The Church will update the faithful as it progresses in this area.”

The implication is that if “the community” doesn’t “spontaneously and effectively renounce,” litigation may lie. The faithful will be looking forward to the updates.

The Apostolic Administrator and the Presbyteral Counsel would be well advised to review the August 31 Statement Concerning the Yoña Property by former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council. I especially call your attention to the last paragraph of the statement which reads:

“Unbeknownst to us, Archbishop Apuron, with the help of Monsignor David, Fr. Pius, Fr. Adrian, and the NCW, secretly and without consulting and securing the consent of the AFC, let alone the College of Consulters and the Vatican, transferred the Yona property to the RMS and recorded the deed on November 22, 2011. This is why the November 16 letter was never delivered to us until after November 22 and why the Vicar General and Archbishop were so vehement in their reaction to us that we were holding a meeting to discuss the issue. They wanted to eliminate and preempt the possibility that we will discover during a meeting of the AFC that they had already secretly transferred the property, a disclosure that would have ignited a canonical firestorm. We were fired to hide the fact that the archbishop and others secretly and in violation of canon law, and perhaps civil law as well, not to mention their fiduciary responsibility to the Catholic faithful, gave away the Yona property to the RMS, a separate entity controlled by the NCW, for free.”  [Emphasis supplied.]

That statement needs to be read through the lens of 18 GCA § § 10105, 10106 and 10107 which are set out, with my emphasis, in pertinent part below:

§ 10105. Property to be Held in Trust. From and after the filing with the Director of Revenue & Taxation of the said articles of incorporation, verified by affidavit or affirmation as aforesaid and accompanied by the copy of the commission, certificate of election, of letters of appointment of the bishop, … shall become a corporation sole, and all temporalities, estates and properties of the … church theretofore administered or managed by him as such bishop, … shall be held in trust by him as a corporation sole for the use, purpose, behoof, and sole benefit of his religious denomination, … or church, including hospitals, schools, colleges, orphan asylums, parsonages, and cemeteries thereof. …
§ 10106. Successors, Commissions, or Certificates of Election. The successors in office of any bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder incorporated as a corporation sole shall become the corporation sole on accession to office, and shall be permitted to transact business as such on filing with the Director of Revenue & Taxation a copy of their commissions, certificates of election, or letters of appointment duly certified to be correct by any notary public or clerk of a court of record. For filing of every such copy of a commission, certificate, or letters the said Director of Revenue & Taxation shall collect the sum of Five Dollars ($5.00). During a vacancy in the office of bishop, … of any church incorporated as a corporation sole, the person or persons authorized and empowered by the rules, regulations, or discipline of the religious denomination, society, or church represented by the corporation sole to administer the temporalities and manage the estates and property of the corporation sole during the vacancy shall exercise all the power and authority of the corporation sole during such vacancy.

§ 10107. Purchase, Sale, etc., of Property. Any corporation sole may purchase and hold real estate and personal property for its church, charitable, benevolent, or educational purposes, and may receive bequests or gifts for such purposes. Such corporation may mortgage or sell real property held by it upon obtaining an order for that  purpose from the Superior Court; but before making the order proof must be made to the satisfaction of the court that notice of the application for leave to mortgage or sell has been given by publication or otherwise in such manner and for such time as said court or the judge thereof may have directed, and that it is to the interest of the corporation that leave to mortgage or sell should be granted. The application for leave to mortgage or sell must be made by petition, duly verified by the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, acting as corporation sole, and may be opposed by any member of the religious denomination, society, or church represented by the corporation sole; Provided, however, that in cases where the rules, regulations, and discipline of the religious denomination, society, or church concerned, represented by such corporation sole, regulate the methods of acquiring, holding, selling, and mortgaging real estate and personal property, such rules, regulations, and discipline shall control and the intervention of the courts shall not be necessary.

The August 31 Statement Concerning the Yoña Property former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council indicates that the requisite  § 10107 approvals and consents were not obtained.

In summary Apuron, assisted by at least two others, gave the Yoña property away. The fee simple title to the property, absent the “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction can be returned to the Archdiocese of Agaña by-means-of a grant deed authorized by the board of directors and the board of guarantors of the RMS Corporation. The ability to obtain the necessary signatures of Apuron, the Gennarinis and Fr. Pochetti is necessary to pursue this option.

Another option is to litigate the matter as per Archbishop Hon’s statement of August 19. The August 31 Statement Concerning the Yoña Property by the former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council ought to be of great assistance here. (Once again, I recommend that you show this letter to your lawyer.)

Another option is to do nothing or its functional equivalent, talking about removal of the  “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction as though it can be affected without conveying the fee back to the Archdiocese.
Employing the third option, i.e. doing nothing, amounts to a surrender to Apuron and Pius and the humiliation of Archbishop Hon, a result that to loyal Catholics would be abhorrent.

As per final sentence of  Archbishop Hon’s August 19 statement, “The Church will update the faithful as it progresses in this area,” we eagerly anticipate the update.

Sincerely,

Robert Klitzkie

*I have sent the Bronze Opinion in a separate email. The Bronze Opinion is certainly not easy reading. In an attempt to help you get through the verbiage, I took to liberty of highlighting key portions of the Opinion. Below is the directory to the key points.  Set out also are links to the terms “fee simple” and “conveyance.”

  1. The key parts of the opinion are on pp. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 15, 17, 20 and 28.

  1. Pages 2 and 20 are Bronze’s finding that the Declaration of Deed Restriction (DDR) conveyed the fee simple interest to the RMS Corp. 
Here’s a link to a  definition of fee simple:

  1. Pages 3, 5, 9 and 20 opine that transferred, sold and conveyed are words of conveyance.
Here’s link to the definition of conveyance:

  1. Page 8 “…complete divestment of the Grantor’s right, title and interest…”

  1. Pages17 and 20 opine that the transaction is governed by civil, i.e. Guam, law not Church law.

  1. Page 28 is the Decree of Designation showing the name of Msgr. David C. Quitugua who was named in the Decree of Designation incorporated into the DDR which enjoined the Vicar General Quitugua to:

“…PERFORM EVERY ACT AND THING THAT IS NECESSARY OR APPROPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE HEREIN,…” [all caps in the original]
Quitugua was also responsible for the November 29 Umatuna in which the bogus certificate of title was published.

PDF copy here


Robert Klitzkie, Esq.
22 Baki Ct., Yigo, GU 96929
(671) 653-6607


September 7, 2016

Re: Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Yoña property and the RMS

Dear Archbishop Hon and members of the Presbyteral Council:

“I FURTHER AND DECREE AND ENTRUST TO THE VICAR GENERAL, MONS. DAVID C. QUITUGUA THE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO PERFORM EVERY ACT AND THING WHATSOVER THAT IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE HEREIN, AND I HEREBY RATIFY AND AFFIRM ALL THAT THE VICAR GENERAL LAWFULLY DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE BY VIRTUE OF THIS DECREE.”

Set out supra  is the penultimate paragraph of the penultimate page of the DECREE OF DESIGNATION   that is in incorporated into the Declaration of Deed Restriction (DDR) of November 22, 2011 by which Apuron gave away the Yoña property. And from the Umatuna Si Yu’os for September 4:

The Archdiocese of Agaña announces three new priest appointments made by Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, SDB.
Avisos were issued for the following:
***
  • Monsignor David C. Quitugua, JCD has been appointed Acting-Rector of Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yoña effective Sept. 1, 2016.
***
Even a casual reading of the DDR as it incorporated the Decree of Designation shows that it gives Monsignor David C. Quitugua full power to perpetuate that which Archbishop Hon on August 11 asked us for our help to terminate.

Reading the three documents in their entirety makes it clear that Archbishop Hon has appointed Monsignor David C. Quitugua to be in charge of the very Yoña realty that he assisted Apuron in giving away. Now Archbishop Hon has appointed Monsignor David C. Quitugua to the ideal position in which to comply with the Decree of Designation perpetuating the alienation of the Yoña realty.

My letter of September 1 read in pertinent part:

“When David Sablan, Richard Untalan and I made our presentation on August 11, I volunteered  to make suggestions that might help the Archdiocese recover fee title to the referenced property.  I indicated that in order for me to be sure that Archbishop Hon sincerely desired return of fee simple title unencumbered by the deed restriction which reads in pertinent part,  “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” two actions on his part would be necessary:

“1) a correction of Hon’s “there is no doubt” comment re the ownership of the referenced property.
2) a correction in the Umatuna Si Yu’os for November 29 that deliberately ran a grossly misleading, bogus certificate of title for the referenced land. (See accompanying copy of the Umatuna and VI, supra.)

“I will postpone reiteration of those  matters at least temporarily in favor of explaining  what I think could be done to recover the Yoña property free of the  “IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE …” restriction so that it once again becomes an unencumbered part of the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agaña and not the private fief of the Neocatechumenal Way.” [footnotes omitted]
***

The day after this email was sent I was confronted by this line in a PDN story:

Quitugua, meanwhile, replaces in a temporary capacity the Rev. Pius Sammut as rector of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yoña.”

So Archbishop Hon chose to assign Apuron’s key accomplice in the giveaway to serve as rector of the RMS. This caused me to see the error in my not laying out the details of Msgr. David C. Quituqua’s central role in the  giveaway.  I will now correct that error.

What follows are edited parts of my May 3 letter to Attorney General Elizabeth Anderson and Director of Land Management, Michael Borja entitled, “Making a Record.” (I have attached the entire letter for you easy reference:)

“1. The appropriate place to start is with the Umatuna Si Yu’os for November 29 of last year. A picture of a  certificate of title (Certificate) for one of the subject parcels was prominently displayed on the front page of the Umatuna along with narrative by Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Agaña. The Certificate displayed only two memorials, both from the last century. There was NO memorial for the Declaration of Deed Restriction which had been recorded in the chain of title for the parcels on November 22, 2011. A compelling legal argument lies that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is, inter alia, a conveyance in fee simple from the Archbishop of Agaña, a  Corporation Sole, Anthony S. Apuron, Incumbent, to The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam. The Catholic Faithful maintain that Archbishop Apuron by executing the Declaration of Deed Restriction conveyed, i.e. gave away, the realty where the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam is located to a non profit corporation under the control of  three New Jerseyites: two Gennarinis and Pochetti plus Archbishop Apuron. The Vicar General’s narrative to the contrary was bolstered by the publication of the false certificate. Cf. Guam Pacific Daily News for December 1, “Church Owns Hotel.”

2. The false Certificate was seen by nearly every Catholic on island. The importance of the Vicar General’s publication of the false Certificate cannot be overestimated. NB  Borja’s memo to Governor’s counsel, Sandra Miller, Esq. et al., stating,

“As you may know, this matter is controversial within the Catholic Church.”

3. The controlling question here then becomes, “Where or how did the Vicar General get the false Certificate? …The Certificates contained NO memorial showing the Declaration of Deed Restriction.  …

4. … And as per supra a picture of one of the Certificates appeared on the front page of the Umatuna ten days later.

5. On November 17 Terlaje issued a press release which provides context for the November 29 Umatuna showing the bogus Certificate and the Vicar General’s propaganda:

“ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA IS THE OWNER OF THE SEMINARY PROERTY DESPITE NAYSAYERS.”

The two and a quarter page press release can best be described as propaganda, stating the position of the Archdiocese, the second ranking official of which is Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General. The tone of Terlaje’s screed is quite hostile and aggressive. Here are a couple samples:

“…one simply does not go knocking on the door of his neighbor’s house and insist that the house does not belong to him, nor does one demand by media frenzy that he will insist on an execution of a grant deed to compel compliance. I am a Chamorro woman, and my extremely local response to this insanity would be “Håyi håo?” (“Who are you?”)”

***

“Why? Why do these people continue in this false charade? Is it ignorance, or is it malice?” Neither one is an acceptable answer. Or perhaps, the answer is somewhat more simplistic – perhaps the obvious explanation is greed; that there are some who prefer their blindness and prefer to remain in darkness, because there is a desire to cash in on the sale of the Seminary Property (for which a handsome commission would be garnished [sic]). Greed can easily blind even the smartest man from seeing the absolute truth to what this Seminary truly is for Guam and the Pacific, a vital organ of our Church. 

6. Because of her Op/Ed Terlaje may be characterized as an ally of the Vicar General.  Terlaje describes those whose viewpoints differ with hers, as “these people [who] continue in this false charade.” Terlaje’s press release was  covered by the media. Ironically, Terlaje said she did NOT represent the Archdiocese, yet she procured the October 30 Certificate that the Vicar General published in the Umatuna and shopped to the PDN--a tremendous propaganda  victory for the Vicar General.  

7. It was a propaganda victory because the false certificate showed that not only did the Declaration of Deed Restriction not convey fee simple title to The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam, etc. (the position of “these people”) but that there wasn’t even such a thing as a Declaration of Deed Restriction!  …




8. One of the Certificates that Terlaje and Evangelista tendered personnel checks to pay for then turned up in the Vicar General’s possession. And the false certificate appeared on the front page of the Umatuna on November 29. All three must have known that that Certificate was bogus. The Vicar General was named in the Decree of Designation incorporated into the Declaration of Deed Restriction which enjoined the Vicar General to,

“…PERFORM EVERY ACT AND THING THAT IS NECESSARY OR APPROPROPRIATE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE HEREIN,…” [all caps in the original]
***
10. The Certificate the Vicar General published the October 30 Umatuna bore this legend on the bottom:
Duplicate Title 20 GCA 29124

probably bringing at least the Vicar General’s conduct within the ambit of 9 GCA § 55.10 which reads:





“§ 55.10. Tampering With Public Records; Defined & Punished. (a) A person commits an offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by, the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept by others for information of the government; (2) makes, presents or uses any record, document or thing knowing it to be false, and with intent that it be taken as a genuine part of information or records referred to in Paragraph (1); or (3) intentionally and unlawfully destroys, conceals, removes or otherwise impairs the verity or availability of any such record, document or thing. (b) An offense under this Section is a misdemeanor unless the defendant's intent is to defraud or injure anyone, in which case the offense is a felony of the third degree.”

11. Of course the crucial question is, “How did the bogus Certificate get from Terlaje/Evangelista to the Vicar General for publication in the Umatuna?” In any case, after the publication of the bogus Certificate not one of the three came forward to correct the record.
***

I close this record the with conclusion that I have reached:

Something very troubling has occurred beginning with the recordation of the Declaration of Deed Restriction on November 22, 2011.” [Footnotes omitted.]
***

Again, I respectfully suggest that reading the entire May 3 letter provides even greater perspective as to the röle of Msgr. David C. Quitugua in the giveaway and the cover up.  This perspective can help you understand my extreme regret in forbearing on my request that the November 29 Umatuna be corrected. I now reiterate that request.

Sincerely,

Robert Klitzkie

cc: David Sablan, Richard Untalan


4 comments:

  1. I don't know why Quitugua the younger attended the cathedral fiesta last night. No one wanted him there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Bob. My "vast" legal knowledge helped me to grasp a fraction of your letter. The main point is very clear: There are several sleazy characters who pulled fast one on the local catholics and are trying to perpetuate the scam.

    Who would have thought that the local catholics are NOT stupid? Who would have thought that the local catholics would stand up and fight for what is right? Who would have thought the local catholics would challenge the hierarchy of the church and demand justice?

    A message to Archbishop Hon, Fr. Jeff San Nicholas and Fr. Lito Abad: I realize you have a monumental task at hand. There are heavy burdens on your shoulders. You are faced with difficult decisions. People's lives and futures are in your hands. I get it. I sympathize with you. BUT . . . . . . . . . .

    You are currently in charge and we, the local catholics, are expecting you to do the right thing based on the truth. We are doing what we can to provide information, documents and facts. We pray that you listen to reason and act responsibly. If there is any hint of a hidden agenda, protecting certain people or groups, or anything which deviates from the truth we will not hesitate to shine a glaring spotlight on you and your actions. You will long for the days when life was merely difficult.

    The flock awaits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob, excellent layout of the facts! Hon is either naive or very cunning. DQ's appointment as the Rectum of RMS leads me to believe the latter.
    Hon's authority has been challenged by his "appointee" to rector the RMS. Bait and switch or dumb and dumber? There maybe truth to the rumor that Hon was sent here as "punishment".
    Whatever "mission' Hon is here for, the faithful must continue to be vigilant,"pound" the pavement and hold Hon accountable.
    And as Andrew so poignantly said, "You will long for the days when life was merely difficult."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)September 12, 2016 at 12:57 AM

    Bob Klitzkie, thank you for writing the letters above. The outlines of the history of the RMS deed, the citations to the statutes, and the suggested ways to properly and legally return ownership to the Archdiocese are helpful background for me who is new to JungleWatch. The same appreciations goes for Tim’s “Orchestrated Series” article. I agree with Bruce, the Faithful must remain vigilant and continue their fight to restore the local Church to good health.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch