Thursday, January 26, 2017

PNC: BYRNES TAKES RMS TO COURT

Posted by Tim

Archbishop Byrnes takes RMS to court over Yona property
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/local/12436


NOTE: This case was filed on November 18, 2016 and we reported on it then. It appears that it is just now making its way to court. It puts Byrnes in an awkward position. He took action on this prior to his arrival on Guam and at the behest of Archbishop Hon who had finally (after months of effort) been presented with the irrefutable facts. 

However, after Byrnes arrival, as we now know and as reported in the Jan-Feb issue of The Guamanian (magazine), Byrnes apparently now wants to save the seminary. Of course the property and the seminary are two different entities. The seminary exists by decree independent of its legal articles of incorporation. But the suit, as filed, lays out the treachery and subterfuge that is at the root of the problem with the Neocatechumenal Way in general and RMS specifically. 

How anything with such a foundation can produce "good fruit" as Byrnes reportedly now sees it, is evidence that someone is putting words into Byrnes mouth. We shall see what sort of action he now takes. Is he back yet?

RELATED
PDN: Archbishop files lawsuit over seminary land

21 comments:

  1. How is it even possible that by January 25th no word has been heard about when Archbishop Byrnes will be back? Seems like it would be pretty big news, and why the silence on when to expect him? Soooo tired of the subterfuge...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary Lou Garcia-PeredaJanuary 26, 2017 at 9:17 AM

      I'm not sure which of the evening news casts was on — and I wasn't in front of the TV — but I heard a report that Byrnes had returned on Monday, 23 January. Unlike his first arrival, he did not hold a press conference that day. It's anticipated that one will be held sometime in the future.

      Delete
    2. Why is Byrnes hiding? He must have sneaked back to Guam om a red-eye.

      Delete
    3. He did not sneak back. He took the regular flight Detroit to Narita, lay over for more than 5hours and flight to Guam. He came through like every body and was not escorted the old fashion way.

      Delete
    4. My point was that on Guam, Byrnes' return should be pretty big news, relatively speaking. I would have expected to see local paper headlines surfacing here on JW documenting his arrival, just because it's a point of interest for many. The strange overall silence of Guam's media with few exceptions draws attention and makes one question why. Byrnes is NOT like everybody else even if he may wish to operate that way. A bishop's return under these circumstances and after a prolonged absence is newsworthy so it just looks like sneaking around for him to be literally flying under the radar. What is he trying to hide?

      Delete
    5. He made sure that only a few key people knew when he was coming because he did want to be greeted by the annoying NCW drumming racket at the airport.

      Delete
  2. lets hope and pray that he is on retreat seeking light from the Holy Spirit. The devil can appear as an angel of light

    ReplyDelete
  3. Agreed. It's obvious that Byrnes doesn't want to be on Guam. He was scheduled to be there in mid-January. However, he hates the isolated place, doesn't like the fractious people and he can't handle the huge archdiocesan mess. Good chance he's trying to be moved elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AB Byrns is back on island already, this situation with the RMS and Byrnes course of action is the acid test to determine if he is taking orders from Filoni. The RMS has been found to be deficient in it formation program by a committee formed by Rome (Hon). How in heaven's name is a bishop suggesting to continue operation of a seminary that is deficient? Tricky Dick mentioned that the RMS will no longer require funding from the Archdiocese.
    If Byrns insist on keeping the deficient bogus seminary in operation, producing prebysters for whom? If not for Guam, How can we have a seminary on island forming presbyters tax exempt, for other countries utilizing Archdiocese of Agana assets? Lets get this crap all figured out, Do we support and fund a fake seminary, or do we sue them and close down this fake institution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course he's taking orders from Filoni. That's why it took him so long to arrive.

      Delete
  5. Like Hon, Byrnes wore out the welcome mat we placed at his feet real fast, what with his comments in The Guamanian magazine. Will he, like Hon, take six months to realize his presently trusted advisors and the person he reports to (Filoni) are steering him
    in the wrong direction?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This lawsuit just means that despite Arch. Hon admonitions and Arch. Byrnes moves to secure the Yoña property in November, the legal council for the Archdiocese, in this case Ignacio Aguigui, most likely advised this course of action to make sure all the Ts were crossed, and all the Is were doted.
    So, it seems that Arch. Byrnes is not taking anything for granted and is not taking the Genarrini and consort to their word. In this case at least he is taking the correct actions.
    Let's keep on watching and be cautious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 27, 2017 at 3:56 AM

      I understand that and I agree with that move. As explained by the PDN, the reason for the hang-up from last Wednesday's hearing is that service of the complaint upon the defendants was not effected. Why? The entity on whom to effect service on behalf of the defendants is Abp Byrnes. Some three days prior to filing the quiet title complaint, he abolished the former officers and board members and made himself the sole officer and board member. Technically, he is the entity on whom the complaint should be served. Apuron, Eusabio, Arguello, Gennarini, etc. don't have to be served. The are not named in the quiet title complaint, nor do they currently comprise the RMS governing or board advisory body.

      Below is my comment from yesterday:

      In today's PDN (1/26/2017 - Thursday) a hearing on the complaint for quiet title filed by Abp. Byrnes on 11/18/2016 was scheduled for 1/25/2017, Wednesday. The hearing was postponed to May 3rd because [in a poorly worded reasoning by the PDN reporter Stole] "... none of the defendants have received the lawsuit." This means the complaint has not yet been properly served on the Defendants. Why not? Was this inadvertent? The Defendants are (1) RMS/RMHF – a non-profit corporation incorporated in and doing business on Guam; (2) Blessed San Vitores Institute – ecclesiastically established by the Archbishop of Agana on Guam and doing business on Guam; (3) Does 1 – 50. The entity to serve for Defendants 1 and 2 is the Archbishop of Agana (now co-adjutor Abp. Byrnes after he abolished the RMS Board of Guarantors and designated himself as the sole officer of the RMS on Nov. 15, three days before filing the quiet title complaint). Basically, Abp Byrnes can serve himself. But that’s too simple. Out of formality, the archdiocese should hire or designate another lawyer other than Mr. Aguigui to accept service for this quiet title complaint. Effecting service of the complaint would be done with!

      But here is my comment from yesterday.

      Delete
    2. It appears that the attorney did not serve the defendants on purpose for the purpose of first finding out which judges were going to recuse themselves, since this appears to be what is happening in the local court.

      Delete
    3. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 27, 2017 at 6:06 AM

      I don't understand. The parties in the complaint are named and they are a set fixture of the complaint. The judge assigned to the case does not affect the parties of the lawsuit, meaning, the judge doesn't alter the named defendants. If the a judge recuses himself/herself and passes the case on to another judge, the judicial musical chairs doesn't affect or has no bearing at all the parties named in the complaint. If I'm suing you, regardless of which judge my lawsuit ends up with, I'm still suing you. Therefore, I'm not going to delay the serving of my complaint upon you.

      Delete
    4. The attorney has 120 days to serve the defendants. It's been just over 60. Apparently he has his reasons.

      Delete
    5. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 27, 2017 at 8:58 AM

      Yes, he has --- and it's privilege. I'm glad it's 120 days. Where I am its 90 days.

      Delete
    6. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 28, 2017 at 4:59 AM

      Tim, on my commute to work I was thinking about our exchange in this thread because the information doesn’t make sense. I happily point out at the onset that you and I don’t have ALL the information and as we discuss this, so that’s the first explanation for why our back-and-forth doesn’t make sense to me. Indeed, Mr. Aguigui has his reasons and they are privilege to him and his client, the archbishop. Under the present climate of low level of mistrust of the Faithful for the archdiocesan leadership and the resulting tendency of JungleWatchers’ to question everything, I question the slow pace of this action to obtain a court order granting this quiet title. As I mentioned yesterday, if it’s a matter of effecting service of the complaint on the first two named defendants, plaintiff and those two named defendants are one-in-the same by virtue of Abp. Byrnes’ amendment of the RMS articles of incorporation and bylaws three days prior to the filing of this complaint (paragraph 24 of the complaint). If Mr. Aguigui is concerned about serving the other defendants collectively named in the complaint as “All other persons unknown …” which we at JungleWatch presume they are Apuron, Gennarinis, and Pochetti (the old RMS Board of Guarantors) and/or LaBranche, Pius, Leon Guerrero, Untalan and Eusabio (the old RMB Board of Directors/officers), Danny Quichocho (RMS Treasurer as of 1/29/2015) then he needs to amend the complaint and name them. Then serve a copy of the amended complaint to ONE of the officers on behalf of the OLD RMS administration/leadership. The easy one to serve is Danny Quichocho since he was/is the named treasurer in the 1/29/2015 Amended Articles of Incorporation Rule 4(h)(1). Or, just leave the complaint the way it is and serve the archbishop then get going on the proceedings. If in the future, the “All other persons unknown …” raise their ugly heads to undo the court order for this quiet title, let them! But for now, get going with the court proceedings to get the order that grants the quiet title. The case stays active 180 days upon filing of the complaint to give time to serve the complaint. 180 days is expires around 3/29, except there is a May 3rd hearing according to the PDN. Perhaps the court granted an extension. I question now whether Abp. Brynes is having second thoughts about obtaining this court order. If, yes, what’s the reason?

      Delete
    7. We do well to remain suspicious of everything. However, in this case, I have it from my highest and best source that Attorney Aguigui is on the up and up. There is also the question of the press not quite getting things right. The "hearing" was actually only a status call. But, yes, let's keep the light on this until it's safely in the bank. :)

      Delete
    8. Rose de los Reyes (Seattle, WA)January 28, 2017 at 6:55 AM

      Thank you. That is good news!

      Delete
  7. As people correctly said earlier, Guam cannot afford its own seminary and it doesn't need one. There are much better diocesan seminaries in the US, three on the west coast alone: Mt. Angel, St. Patrick's and St. John's. None of them are contaminated by Neocats.

    Byrnes should just sell RMS for the fortune the Neocats' resort hotel would bring, compensate abuse victims with the proceeds and concentrate on reviving the dying Archdiocese.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch