Monday, July 24, 2017

AND FR. PABLO WAS SEEN NO MORE

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "HEY DIANA! WHERE'S I Familian Mangatoliku Siha Pa...":Tricky Dick, aKa the KAKA filled NEO Cult Dungbat continues to use its blog to try and discredit Tim and the jungle by twisting the facts (see latest blog). Thanks to the wisdom of TIM and this blog, the title to the Yona Property was returned to the Archdiocese.

(From the Diana Blog follows:)

The evidence that Rohr used showing that Archbishop Apuron was attempting to convey the title to the property of RMS was a letter written and signed by Richard Untalan dated September 8, 2011. You can read the full letter here.

You would think that the most credible piece of evidence would be a letter written and signed by Father Pablo rather than Richard Untalan. What is baffling of all is that none of the junglefolks ever questioned why Rohr did not produced the letter from Father Pablo? Why the letter of Richard Untalan, who we all know is a member of the Junglewatch Nation and who wanted to sell the seminary? A letter from Father Pablo requesting that the title of the Yona property be conveyed to RMS would have been much more credible.

What Rohr did not tell his followers is that there NEVER was a letter from Father Pablo. The former Board of Directors of RMS have the letter of Richard Untalan, but there is NO letter from Father Pablo. Imagine the surprise from Father Pablo's face when he received Untalan's letter. He had no idea what he was talking about. So, to the Junglewatch Nation, you have already seen the letter written and signed by Richard Untalan. Now, ask Tim Rohr to produce the letter written and signed by Father Pablo.

Therefore, the truth is......the accusation that Archbishop Apuron wanted to convey the title of the Yona property to RMS was started by the jungle. It never came from the Archbishop, the NCW, or even RMS. One then has to wonder......what was the real intent of Untalan's letter? For one, we already know that his letter was used by Rohr to discredit the Archbishop.

This is not the first time Rohr has done this. I have shown you how Rohr accused the Archbishop of allowing a sex offender to work at the Dededo parish, and then use a document by the Guam Parole Board as his evidence. The document from the Guam Parole Board does not have the Archbishop's name and signature on it (See the story here).

Now you have seen how Rohr discredited Archbishop Apuron by using a letter by Richard Untalan claiming that Father Pablo requested the title to be conveyed to RMS. He never showed the letter of Father Pablo simply because there was none. Father Pablo never made such a request.
Diana at 9:47 PM


Let's have some fun with Tricky Little Dick, since he's the one who wrote this (then hid behind Diana's soiled skirt.)


First, here's the letter from Richard Untalan to Fr. Pablo dated September 8, 2011:



Notice that Mr. Untalan never says "your request," to Fr. Pablo, but only the "request before us." The reason is that Untalan is not responding to a request from Fr. Pablo, but to a request from Apuron and Gennarini, as demonstrated by the following excerpt from the agenda for the meeting one day previously:


The "several meetings" were between archdiocesan legal counsel (as the full text of the agenda will show) and (as you can see) "the RMS incorporators." And who are "the RMS incorporators?

According to the RMS incorporation docs, there is only one incorporator, Apuron. However, the use of the plural "incorporators" here is indicative that the meetings included more than Apuron. Who is or are the other person(s)? 

As the meetings were between the archdiocesan legal counsel and "the RMS incorporators," we can be sure that Gennarini was one of them, even though he was NOT an "incorporator" (though he was in fact the real incorporator, with Apuron as his puppet). 

We can be sure of this because first, Gennarini himself exposed his role as the real incorporator on Patti Arroyo's show in May of 2016, and second, because the legal counsel (Terlaje) had been doing battle from the beginning with Gennarini over the inclusion of the illegal Board of Guarantors and the language of the corporation docs which gave this board inordinate control over RMS. 

This is why, upon "the incorporators" request to transfer the property to RMS, Inc., the above agenda says: "Ed has recommended that the RMS Articles and By-law would need to be amended to allow the Archbishop ultimate control of RMS and its assets." However, Apuron and Gennarini refused and "asked that the assets be deeded to RMS without modification." 

Now, why would Apuron and Gennarini (Gennarini only, actually) insist, against the advice of the archdiocesan legal counsel, that the RMS articles and by-laws NOT "be amended to allow the Archbishop ultimate control of RMS and its assets." Well, because Gennarini's end game was to take full control himself, which he did on November 22, 2011 with the secret recording of the Deed Restriction. 

So why does Untalan address Fr. Pablo in his September 8 letter and not Apuron or Gennarini? Because 1) Gennarini and Apuron did not want their names involved, even though they were the instigators, and 2) Fr. Pablo, as then-president of the RMS Board of Directors, officially and legally, had to be the addressee:


However, Tricky Little Dick is right about one thing. Pablo never asked for nor wanted the property. And when he found out about Apuron and Gennarini's underhandedness after JungleWatch exposed it in January 2015 after unearthing the secretly recorded deed, Pablo personally objected to their evil plot. 

A few months later, Fr. Pablo was seen no more. 

(No page break on this one purposely.)

Recommendations by JungleWatch