Saturday, October 22, 2016


Posted by Tim
Continued from Part 3

In Part 3, we dealt with items 1, 2 and 3. In Part 4, we will address items 4 and 5.

4. Tricky Dicks says: "...the Articles of Incorporation, Art. XII(iii), (sic - no need for comma) state that the Archbishop is the sole administrator of all the temporalities of the RMS."

LOL. Tricky Dick is tricky. He doesn't expect you to actually read the Articles of Incorporation. Actually Article XII(iii) does NOT mention RMS at all:

Full document here

This kind of thing kind of makes you wonder if Tricky Dick is just plain Dirty Dick. He's either really stupid or an outright dirty liar (i.e. a "Kiko"). You decide.

By the way, the original articles (recorded in 2002 and amended in 2004) did not have a section enumerating the powers of the sole incorporator. The version of the articles Tricky Dick references here was frantically slapped together and recorded at Rev & Tax on January 29, 2015.

Why, after more than ten years of no amendments to the original articles, was it suddenly necessary to completely overhaul the articles in January of 2015? Answer: a frantic attempt to cover their asses.

Three weeks earlier, on January 6, 2015, we unearthed and published the deceptively titled and clandestinely recorded Declaration of Deed of Restriction (DDR), which in 2011 conveyed title to the Yona property to RMS, Inc.

There was no denying the truth about this document. The only possible defense was that "Apuron was still in control." But per the then-current RMS Articles of Incorporation (2004), HE WASN'T. Thus the Gennarini-Pius-Eusebio machine sprang into action, manufacturing a whole new set of Articles - not just amending - and recorded them at Rev & Tax on January 29, 2015.

The most notable section of this new set of Articles is the section Tricky Dick references here: Article XII, (Article XI in the 2004 version) wherein there is an overt attempt to prop up the idea that Apuron is still in control. Let's compare here the 2004 amended Articles and the 2015 version:

2004 Version
Full document here

2015 Version

Full document here

As you can see, the INCORPORATOR article is greatly expanded.

Let's review. While The Diana and the other idiots (like Tricky Dick) continued to argue that there was no alienation, Gennarini and his smart boys knew better. They knew exactly how a court would view the document. (This is why Jackie Terlaje "worked something out" behind the scenes with the AG to keep the certificate of title issue from going to court.)

The DDR was not supposed to have been discovered - at least until after the statute of limitation ran out (see counter in upper right). But once discovered, there was no defense other than to try to show that Apuron was still in control. Thus, the frantic slapping together of the new set of articles with the new and improved INCORPORATOR section in the 2015 version.

However, Gennarini and Tricky Dick's problem is Guam law. While the Incorporator has authority to appoint and replace board members or even dissolve the corporation, the Incorporator cannot directly govern the corporation. Only the board can. And while Apuron is chairman of the board, he is, as legal counsel Ed Terlaje advised the AFC in September 2011, only "one of six votes."

Full document here

Thus, once again, Tricky Dick is either stupid or a liar (i.e. a "kiko"). You decide.

5. Tricky Dick says: "...the opinion of the Lewis-Roca law firm, specialized (sic - should say "specializing") in corporation sole laws, stating (sic - should say "stated") that the ordinary (sic - "Ordinary" should be capitalized) has never lost control of the property or of the Corporation..."

It would have been so easy for Tricky Dick to attach this opinion. But he didn't. Why not? For the same reason Apuron did not publish the opinion when he supposedly received it. We were told that if we wanted to see it we would have to go to the chancery. 

The only person who got to see this opinion was Attorney Bronze, who when he paid the chancery a surprise visit, was only permitted to read the opinion, standing up, at a counter, supervised by someone at the chancery, and could take no pictures, make no copies, and take no notes. And after Bronze's surprise visit, it was withdrawn from public view altogether.

Now why would that be?

I'll tell you why. If in fact the property was legally alienated, Apuron would be guilty of an ecclesial crime since he did NOT get the canonically required approvals from the AFC and the Holy See. Being guilty of an ecclesial crime would be easy grounds for his official removal.

Now note! The Lewis-Roca opinion does NOT claim that title to the property was NOT transferred to RMS, Inc. (i.e. "alienated"). READ THAT AGAIN. Lewis-Roca does NOT claim that title to the property was NOT alienated. It does not claim this because title to the property WAS ALIENATED and conveyed to RMS, which is exactly the central claim of the Bronze Opinion. Instead, Lewis-Roca only claims that Apuron has "never lost control."

Lewis-Roca is a reputable firm, and not likely to throw that reputation away on some two-bit prelate from an obscure diocese. Thus it could NOT opine that the title to the property was not conveyed to RMS, Inc. because IT WAS. Thus, it opined on all that it could opine on: that Apuron "never lost control."

Now watch! This is very sly. Lewis-Roca found a hole. As the Incorporator, Apuron still maintained control of the property in that he could dissolve the corporation, upon which, the property would revert back to the Archdiocese of Agana. However, he certainly did LOSE control of the property insofar as its remaining part of the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana.

And this is of course why, little Preston could tell the LFM ladies to get the hell off his porch, that this was a "private residence."

Now one more thing. Look at Article XII(iv):

In their haste to appear to be legit, Gennarini et. al. has handed Hon all the authority he needs to get the property back WITHOUT litigation (which he says he doesn't want) and WITHOUT Gennarini or Eusebio's approval.

Per the Articles of Incorporation for the Archbishop of Agana, and now per the 2015 RMS version of its Articles, Hon is the "successor of the corporate sole" even if he is the temporary successor. He thus has, within his authority, ALL THE POWER (Hon's words) to immediately dissolve RMS, Inc, upon which the Yona property will automatically revert back to the Archdiocese of Agana.

Even if he doesn't want to immediately dissolve RMS (which he should), he can, as he recently did with the Cemetery board, simply fire the current RMS board and replace them with people who have pre-agreed to convey title to the property back to the Archdiocese.

Yet, Hon appears to want to run out the clock.

To be continued


  1. Tim, this sentence:

    "I'll tell you why. If in fact the property was legally alienated, Apuron would be guilty of an ecclesial crime since he did NOT get the canonically required approvals from the AFC and the Holy See. Being guilty of an ecclesial crime would be easy grounds for his official removal."

    sheds light on the controversy involving the certificates of title controversy. Although the certificates of title were erroneous they were apuron's defense against a finding that he had committed an ecclesial crime and was therefore subject to removal as archbishop.

  2. You have clearly set forth, Tim, in easily understood language, what Abp. Hon needs to do to regain the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agaña:

    Dissolve the RMS Board and replace it with members who will promptly do his will and cancel the perpetual assignment.

    This should be done forthwith. Surely Abp. Hon must understand that his failure to take this or similarly effective timely measures will leave the CCOG no alternative but to file suit in the Superior Court of Guam.

    Is that what he wants? Is this his way of exposing the many alleged misdeeds of Abp. Apuron to public scrutiny, without having to take the “blame”?

    Does he think the current legal status of RMS somehow insulates it from claims by survivors? (It does not.)

    Does anyone have any other insight into why Abp. Hon would be so recalcitrant on this issue?

    1. I would assume that if Hon has absolute authority to fix this and does not, then we'll sue him too, except that he may even be more liable than Apuron. Apuron could claim that he got bad advice from his vicar general. Hon has no such escape. Hon clearly knows what to do and has the authority to do it. But letting the clock run out he will make himself a target of the suit. What is clearly sad here is that the faithful of the archdiocese have had to scrape together tens of thousands of dollars to sue to get something back that will not even benefit them individually. It will go back to the archdiocese. Hon seems willing to let this burden fall on the laity since he could spare the great expense of the laity having to sue by simply exercising the authority he already has and wouldn't cost him a dime. This is why we must NEVER stop questioning Hon's motives. He is Kiko and Filoni's stooge until he can prove otherwise by actually doing something without having to be shamed and sued into doing it. Geez. SMH

    2. I mentioned the Superior Court of Guam, but if there is Diversity Jurisdiction (I have not researched the issue in close to a decade) there would be several procedural advantages to filing federally in the District Court of Guam.

      It would be far easier, for instance, to serve and enforce subpoenas in New Jersey or Colorado.

      Also, international Letters Rogatory are facilitated through federal court.

      Guam would remain the appropriate federal venue, under applicable forum selection and choice of law principles.

      Any appeal would be to the Ninth Circuit, rather than the Guam Supreme Court -- though there is always the possibility of a certified question to the latter if an unsettled or unclear local law provision is dispositive.

    3. Don't bother with the Superior Court of Guam. Adrian's close relative, Alberto Cristalballs Lamorena, is the Presiding judge. Case closed!

    4. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)October 22, 2016 at 5:19 PM

      Without knowing the final list of named defendants, if diversity is met, I agree with CNMI Lawyer on considering the Federal Court jurisdiction over the Superior Court of Guam for the reasons he/she states. There will be less procedural hurdles in when it comes to dealing with parties who reside off-island. Plus, generally speaking, federal court is so much smoother in which to litigate.

      Thank you, Tim, for the Tricky Dick series.

    5. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)October 25, 2016 at 7:39 PM

      Tim, I have been thinking these past few days about your statement above (on this thread). Abp Hon's inaction about correcting the ownership of the RMS property is very similar to the claims of clergy sexual abuse where the higher-ups knew about a wrong, yet chose not to properly correct the situation. In the case of the RMS, Abp Hon knows that Abp Apuron did a very, very wrong thing by covertly handing over the Yona property to the RMS Corp yet, as of today, he continues to choose not to take the proper steps to remedy the wrong. What's the deal with this "leadership"? They seem to continue the same old practices that have put them and the church in a huge jam. They aren't learning from their mistakes!

    6. We would be foolish to think that their inaction is due to incompetence or negligence. There is a purposeful attempt at every step to cover for the evils and crimes perpetrated under the cover of the Neocatechumenal Way. In the present case, I believe what is being played out on Guam will determine whether or not the next pope will be a kiko: Filoni. The thread of evil and corruption, specifically the NCW's harboring of sexual predator priests, goes right to his office. If we succeed in exposing what really happened with that property, Filoni is done. Hon is hoping to get out of here before all hell breaks loose. He might have been sent here by Francis but he obeys Filoni. And Filoni obeys Kiko.

    7. "In the present case, I believe what is being played out on Guam will determine whether or not the next pope will be a kiko"

      This is a very significant analysis and I merely have a slightly longer list among the Way's "sympathisers". The point being, what is the package deal - what else will they be sympathisers with?

    8. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)October 26, 2016 at 3:11 PM

      Thanks, Tim. Now I get it. Duh on me! If, in the case of Guam, the cover-ups (Abp. Apuron's sexual abuse and his covertly deeding the RMS to the NCW, etc.) are being done so as not to be detrimental to Filoni's possible ascension to the papal seat (agggghhhhrrrrr!) that's even more incentive for the Faithful to thwart any possible road by Filoni to get the papal seat. If I'm understanding you correctly, blocking any possible ascent by Filoni to the papal seat can be achieved by exposing the connection between Filoni and the NCW. In the case of Guam, that exposure can be made via the Abp Apuron sexual abuse lawsuits and any lawsuit(s) that may arise out of the return of the Yona property to the Archdiocese. Abp Hon is keeping silent about the Yona property to keep a lid on possible attention that may be brought to it. "Keeping silent" includes (1) not making any public pronouncements he could make now to follow-up on the two public calls he made last summer for the RMS Corp to return the property to the Archdiocese without litigation; (2) not publicly threaten a lawsuit against the RMS Corp if it doesn't return the Yona property --- if he makes those public statements, he will have the backing of the Faithful, but he doesn't do it! (Ugh!) because he doesn't want to draw any attention to mess re the Yona property created by the NCW. Abp Hon and NCW/RMS folks think we are idiots to not see through this inaction. If the statute of limitations runs out on Nov. 22 and the Yona property is still in the ownership of the RMS (God forbid this won't be the case!), is there a plan in place to file the complaint of a lawsuit against Abp. Hon on Nov. 23 at 12:01 a.m. for not doing his duty in regaining the title of the Yona property back to the Archdiocese? (the complaint can be filed online any at 12:00 a.m. on 11/23 if it's going to be filed in District Court). I hate lawsuits, but if this is a [loud and public] way to make a connection between Filoni and the NCW, this is the way to go. Besides, on principle alone, the Faithful can't just sit back and do nothing! Was Abp Hon informed that he is going to get sued on 11/23 if he doesn't make a hard effort before 11/22 get back the Yona property? Maybe the serious threat of a lawsuit might spur him to take action before 11/22. Also, if his present silence over the Yona property is to avoid any attention that will draw the connection between the RMS/NCW and Filoni, the consequence of a lawsuit against him after 11/22 will certainly draw attention to the RMS/NCW and Filoni connection. I hope he and his puppeteers have considered this situation. As you said, we have to hold his feet to the fire on doing his duty re the Yona property.

  3. Tricky Dick is an outright dirty liar just like apurun and jackie terlaje. That's what the ncw does to its recruits; it converts them to dirty little liars who will do their bidding. Tricky Dick is evidently now part of the big cover up of how apurun and jackie the dumbass lawyer conspired to steal the Yona property. Shame, shame, shame!

  4. Welcome to "the John Does club", soon to be depose for your partaking in cover-up bidding of Yona property. We shall remain hopeful as we continue to picket tomorrow morning while Hon smiles and the clock continue ticking.
    Brother, Andrew, kindly re-write this into a prose...PLEASE?

    1. The pending court cases involving John Does
      Will be quite a spectacle everyone knows.
      The parties must scurry.
      Prepare in a hurry
      For their time is short and disastrous fate grows.

  5. Someone please fly a drone camera to hover above former Carmelite convent for there is something happening there, not sure if it's today or tomorrow for its blessing after being remodled or renovations as a COVER-UP fake diocesan seminary.

    LFM ladies, this is not a rumor...just not sure of the date and time. Who knows you might catch Tony boy there. My source wasn't lying and quite reliable too.



    Good News: One way or another there is legal recourse to return the Yona property back to the patrimony of the Archdiocese. There are two easy ways and one difficult way.

    1. Abp. Hon can use his authority as Tim described (no lawsuit necessary).
    2. The RMS Board of Guarantors and the Board of Directors can sign documents conveying the property back to the Archdiocese (no lawsuit necessary).
    3. The Archdiocese or CCOG can sue RMS Corporation to get the property back. (This course of action will take at least a year, probably more, and will be costly for everyone involved.)

    Bad News: If options 1 or 2 are taken there will be no depositions and discovery process to follow. A lot of information that needs to be officially exposed will remain "under the rug." Some might say, "Don't open that can of worms." Do we want to continue having "worms" slithering under our feet? Let's get this place cleaned up and have a fresh start.

    1. The bad stuff will come out in the sex abuse law suits. No need to sue for the property unless Hon forces us to.

    2. Stop telling the Neos that they are a bunch of stupid and ass holes...I love to see the surprise on their faces when they figured it out all by themselves.

      Si Juan Malimanga yu!

    3. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)October 22, 2016 at 10:26 PM

      I agree with Tim. #1 is the proper and dutiful course of action for Abp Hon. #2 is the honorable thing for the RMS Guarantors and Directors to do, but they don't operate honorably so #2 is a long shot. The bad stuff may come out in the slander law suit, too, in addition to the sexual abuse lawsuits. The return of the RMS deed to the Archdiocese should not have to entail litigation if the key parties do the right thing. But its those same parties who did the wrong thing in the first place, and one who continues to keep the wrong condition still in effect.

  7. My poor opinion is to think of the lawsuit as going from worst to bad and then to good. Afterall, God is good.

  8. Anyone know when the court dates of the lawsuits?

  9. Rev. Father Carlos S. Vila is now the Parochial Administrator for Chalan Pago. His homily is very interesting as well as his demeanor during the mass. I hope to see more of the congregation come back to Chalan Pago for the pews have been but a hand full. Please pass the word for all those that stop going to Sunday Masses or going to other Parishes. Thank you

  10. Lewis-Roca Opinion

    This is a minor point and probably insignificant but I'll bring it up anyway. The Lewis-Roca law firm wrote an opinion to bolster the claim by Apuron that the Yona property was and is still under the control of the Archbishop of Agana. I assume that the Archdiocese made a contract with the law firm for the opinion and paid a fee. I could be wrong. The law firm could have done the work pro bono. Apuron or someone else could have paid out of pocket. The chancery should have some of this information.

    The chancery should have a copy of this document. I'll repeat this with emphasis.


    If a copy of this document cannot be found, who removed it from the files? Why was it removed? WHERE IS THE DOCUMENT?????

    If the document is in the chancery files, is there any reason for not making it available for public viewing?

    As a Catholic in the Archdiocese of Agana I respectfully request Archbishop Hon to publish the Lewis-Roca opinion.

    1. I think it in fact very significant and not minor.

  11. My guess is they are waiting til the finale hour to return RMS....just saying..

    1. Why would they even wait. They have no reason to voluntarily give it back at all. Unless a quid pro quo is right now under discussion/negotiation.