Friday, November 4, 2016

BISHOP JUAN IGNACIO ARRIETA OCHO DE CHINCHETRU: CORRUPT OR DOESN'T KNOW CRAP - PART 1


This is Bishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru. He is the Secretary for the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts. And he is either a corrupted kiko or he doesn't know crap.

In the April 19, 2015 UMATUNA, Apuron proffered the opinion of this man as evidence that the Yona property had not been alienated from the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana. Apuron never published Arrieta's opinion, and now I know why, and I intend to show you why as well, piece by painful piece.


The really sad thing is that this opinion was put out by a Pontifical Council, and as you will see, it is so full of holes and errors that we have no choice but to be embarrassed by the ineptitude of today's Vatican. Bishop Arrieta, do you realize how many souls have been lost here in Guam because you helped Apuron perpetuate his lies and in so doing, cover the real reason the property was alienated: to hide his hideous past?

Let's start with this:




1. The Accion Hotel was NOT under construction when it was purchased by the Archdiocese in 2002. The Accion Hotel was completed and open for business in 1998. In fact, I had a janitorial supply company at the time and I visited the hotel several times as a prospective vendor. 

2. Arrieta refers to the Archdiocese of Agana as the "Diocese of Guam." HUH? Not only are we an Archdiocese, we are not even an Archdiocese "of Guam." The correct name is Archdiocese of Agana, Guam. This is really pathetic, coming from a Pontifical Council! Additionally, he capitalizes Diocese twice and uses the lower case the third time. Just plain careless. 

3. "an agreement that it would be actually destined to the Seminary." HUH? "destined to the Seminary." And besides the discombobulated sentence, how does he know the property was "destined (to be used) as a Seminary"? Where is the source document from the donor? He doesn't have it. And wait till you see where he is getting his information!

4. "'Corporation Sole' with the Archbishop as the only member." Ummm, no Bishop Arrieta, a Corporation Sole has NO members. That's why it's a Corporation Sole. The bishop himself is the corporation:
§ 10102. Religious Corporations. Corporation sole.For the administration of the temporalities of any religious denomination, society, or church, and the management of the estates and properties thereof, it shall be lawful for the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder of any such religious denomination, society, or church to become a corporation sole unless inconsistent with the rules, regulations, or discipline of his religious denomination, society, or church or forbidden by competent authority thereof.
http://www.guamcourts.org/compileroflaws/GCA/18gca/18gc010.PDF
We'll be back with more fun soon. Geez. SMH.

Continued on Part 2

Recommendations by JungleWatch