KEEP MARCHING

Apuron is STILL Archbishop of Agana. He has NOT been removed. And the fact that he has NOT been removed, even after a personal appeal by Hon to the pope himself to remove him, is a statement as to just how powerful the Kiko's are in Rome. 

Apuron is maintaining his innocence. And should he be exonerated by a Kiko-infiltrated Vatican tribunal, he will return and UNDO everything that has been done, and then punish all of his opponents severely. Do NOT grow weary in well doing (Gal 6:9). 

Keep marching. Our continued and growing presence on the street Sunday after Sunday is the ONLY thing keeping the Vatican from sending Apuron back here. (In fact, early morning intel says he already is. More on that later.)

RESPONSE TO THE DECREE AGAINST THE CCOG

Timothy J. Rohr

P.O. Box 9001

Agat, GU 96928

timrohr.guam@gmail.com

June 14, 2016

His Holiness, Pope Francis 

Apostolic Palace 

00120 Vatican City

av@pccs.va

RE: REJECTION OF DECREE NAMING CONCERNED CATHOLICS OF GUAM A PROHIBITED SOCIETY

Your Holiness:

In behalf of the organization known as the CONCERNED CATHOLICS OF GUAM, hereafter referred to as “CCOG,” I, Timothy J. Rohr, a “concerned Catholic” living on the Pacific island of Guam, and a member of the Catholic Faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana, am submitting the following letter REJECTING the DECREE issued by the Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam on June 5, 2016. 

MY COMMENT LEFT ON THE PDN STORY: CHURCH REFERS CIVIL LAWSUIT PLANS TO ATTORNEYS

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/05/16/church-refers-civil-lawsuit-plans-attorneys/84432464/

PDN: "Citing the deed of the property, which the church released to the public late last year, the archdiocese notes that the deed lists the church as the sole owner of the property. "

So here's the main problem. The idiots who released the statement to the press referred to the "title deed." There is a certificate of title and a deed. But there is no such thing as a "title deed." 

What the archdiocese "released" was a copy of the certificate of title. Actually they "released" two different versions of the certificate of title, though they had three.

1. On Nov 29, 2015, they released a version that did not show the latest recorded instrument - which was a deed. HERE
2. On December 15 they received altered versions of the certificates which showed the deed but showed the wrong beneficiary of the deed. HERE
3. On March 15, thanks to the skirting of the law by the Director of DLM with the assistance of the AG, both certificates were cancelled and a new title issued showing the seminary as the beneficiary of the deed but still showed the Archbishop as the title holder. HERE

All the certificates are wrong because the Deed states: 

“NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the covenants and restrictions set forth herein:..”

The only “restriction” is that the property remain in “perpetual use” by a Guam corporation called Redemptoris Mater Seminary but no restriction that it remain a seminary. To read the deed go here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/251710144/RMS-Declaration-of-Deed-Restriction

THEY WERE TRYING TO SNEAK IN

So, I was right. The Gennarini's and Poshetti, the triumvirate which makes up the Neocatechumenal Responsible Team for the United States was trying to sneak into Guam. Diana says so:

As I said in LOL! BINGO! these three people are only surpassed by Kiko himself in importance to the Neocatechumenal Way in Guam, yet there was no greeting at the airport, no notification to the communities, no announcement in the Umatuna - which never tires of pelting us with neo announcement after neo announcement. For what purpose were they trying to sneak in here? What is their agenda? 

Well we know what it is. Apuron's end is near and they are scrambling to salvage their SCAM. More to come on that. 

By the way, why are the Archbishop's travel plans a secret? Is he not OUR Archbishop? Is he not the "Father" of us all? Does he not have a duty to his "sons and daughters," like any good father (there's the problem) to advise us of his whereabouts and his travels? 

Though he's kind of a Kiko, Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston doesn't hide what he's doing or where he's going. In fact, he keeps a personal blog dedicated to informing his flock as to what he's doing and when, complete with pictures and descriptions. When's the last time you ever saw anything from Apuron in public print that wasn't copied from 365 Days with the Lord? 

The Holy Father's schedule is available for all to see. We can know where he is and where he is going at any moment. His entire schedule is mapped out and made available online. But Apuron? Not only is his schedule not known, even many of his priests don't know if he's on island or off-island. Don't know where he's gone or what he's doing or when he's coming back. 

Secret. Secret. Secret. Everything about Apuron is as secret as the Deed Restriction he secretly recorded in 2011 then fired the Finance Council to cover it up. 

Apuron is not a private person. He is a public person with authority over many people's lives. He has a duty to those lives and to those souls. He doesn't get to galavant about the world unbeknownst to the people and souls he was supposedly consecrated to protect and to lead. We have a right to know where he is and what he is doing. And if he doesn't want us to know, fine. Then get the hell out and give us a real Shepherd, one that doesn't party with the wolves. 

LET'S MAKE THIS POINT VERY CLEAR

If Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron has in his possession, documented proof* that could have quelled the division fomented by his unwillingness to be forthcoming with said "proof," then Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, if he did this purposely and consciously, is singularly responsible for the propagation of scandal and division in his own diocese, and potentially guilty of grave sin, and very possibly, guilty of an ecclesiastical crime. 

*All the "proofs" that The Diana says he has.

WHAT A SHAME! MINE! MINE! MINE!

What a shame that we had to wake up on Good Friday and read Archbishop Apuron's once again desperate attempt to say THIIS IS MINE, MINE, MINE!

Archdiocese: Archbishop still in control of property

http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/03/24/archdiocese-archbishop-still-control-property/82106600/

Of course this is a response the PDN editorial yesterday which simply called out both the Archbishop and the Director of Land Management to follow the law. 

But following the law on this matter is something the Archbishop CANNOT do as it would reveal all the lies and bring the Neo-kingdom tumbling down. So forgetting the day Christ suffered and died, the Archbishop used the day to persecute his own flock by once again lying to us with "THIS IS MINE, MINE, MINE!"

More than likely though, the information given to the PDN was the work of the same person who "worked something out" behind the scenes with Kristan Finney, the Assistant AG, instead of following the the AG's counsel to petition the Superior Court to correct a certificate of title. 

It's quite obvious that "that person" who "worked something out" with Kristan Finney is the same "trained lawyer" who has been popping up everywhere in this story. And it is very likely that said "trained lawyer" is scared s___less now that a real lawyer, Mr. Klitzkie, is on to the scheme. 

So we look forward to more drama. Meanwhile, though, here's a copy of the comments from the online PDN article. Oh, and try to have a Holy Triduum and a Blessed Easter. 

Tim Rohr ·

Dear Archbishop Apuron,

This should be easy. To put an end to the controversy simply request that the certificate of title correction go through the Superior Court as Guam Law requires and as the Attorney General has already advised.

The correction as it now stands is a result of your neocatechumenal "responsible" for your community, Jacqueline T. Terlaje, (a trained lawyer - her words) working "something out" (Kristan Finney's words - the Asst. AG) in a "backroom deal."

This has gone on long enough, don't you think? Follow the law, archbishop, and all will be well. That goes for Michael Borja, the Director of DLM, too.

In the spirit of Easter and Christ is Risen, let's do this.

P.S. Did you give a second thought to releasing your defense to the PDN for publication on Good Friday. Could you not have waited a couple days. That DOES say a lot, archbishop.

See you in court. If we don't, then we'll know you are hiding.

Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

Name withheld

Klitzkie and the Arch Bishop need to go down on the mat because seems to me both are stubborn as mules.

I suppose Klitzkie already wrote to Rome to complain and if he didn't then perhaps he should because if Apuron is that bad, wouldn't Rome take action to somehow correct this matter?

Like · Reply · 1 · 5 hrs

Tim Rohr ·

Bishop Amat Memorial High School

No. Rome would not take action unless there is an ecclesiastical crime and even then probably not. A Catholic bishop does not have a boss or anyone to hold him accountable. He is at the top of the power chain in the Catholic Church. Even the pope is only a bishop.

The pope is not a bishop's employer. He cannot "fire" him. A pope can ask a bishop to resign if there is enough evidence to prove that his continued remaining in office will bring great damage to the faith.

However, in cases where the pope has acted in such a fashion, such as the recent Bishop of Bling episode in Germany and a Florida bishop removed by Benedict 16, the evidence was compiled and the case was presented by the laity over a period of years.

While there is a tremendous amount of evidence against Apuron on many fronts, most people on Guam do not want to make waves. Apuron knows this which is why he continues to brag "no one can get me."

He's right, so long as the people of Guam think that it is up to Rome to do something and not them.

As for Klitzkie, it is not his opinion that the issue should go to Superior Court, it is Guam law and the AG's own stated opinion as per M. Borja's letter to Klitzkie of 20 Jan 16.

Klitzkie is not asking Apuron to follow the law, he is asking that the Director of Land Managment follow the law and the AG's direct instruction.

How many other back room deals have gone on like this with certificates of title? The only reason why we know about this one is because Apuron's people were stupid enough to publsh them in their newspaper. Why did they do this? Because they believe the people of Guam were stupid enough to believe them.

They almost got away with it. And they will get away with it if the AG let's this one slide. If she does, then people should be thinking about the upcoming election.

Here is the language from the Declaration of Deed Restriction which gives away the Property to RMS::

NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the covenants and restrictions set forth herein:

1. Declaration. The Property shall be dedicated, to and for the use, of the REDEMPTORIS MATER ARCHDIOCESAN MISSIONARY SEMINARY OF GUAM, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION WITH IDENTIFICATION NUMBER #66-0626532, IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE OF THE REDEMPTORIS MATER ARCHDIOCESAN MISSIONARY SEMINARY OF GUAM, AND BY THE BLESSED DIEGO LUIS DE SAN VITORES CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR OCEANIA.

As can be clearly seen, RMS is recognized both as a corporation separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and its own ecclesial jurisdiction (See).

In fact, Apuron is not contending that he did not convey title to the property to RMS, which this document clearly shows that he did, only that he is still in control of it since he is the sole incorporator of RMS and its chairman of the board.

By law, the board of directors, not the incorporator(s) is authorized to "direct" the affairs of a corporation. The incorporator can only appoint or replace members of the board, and per the RMS by-laws, this process requires noticing and a minimum number of days, days during which the board can do whatever it wants with the property. And as chairman of the board, he is only one of 5 votes.

In short, the property per the declaration no longer belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana - so the title is wrong - and neither is it in the control of the Archbishop.

This is exactly what a court proceeding would find and exactly why Apuron's neo-pal Atty Jackie Terlaje (a trained lawyer - her words) worked the back room deal with Kristan Finney, ignoring the stated counsel from the Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson.

Let's hope the AG does her job and upholds Guam law.

Like · Reply · 9 mins

Name withheld

The corruption that infects our government appears to be alive and well in Guam's catholic community. Have we no shame anymore on Guam?

Like · Reply · 2 · 4 hrs

Hmmm, Archbishop. Wonder if the road named after you going up in flames today had anything to do with the abuse of Good Friday??? Maybe it would be smart to start paying attention. 

WHY WE MUST DISOBEY THE ARCHBISHOP

Apparently at least one congregation was given a lecture today by its pastor about obeying the bishop. The exact words, as reported to me, were:

BIRTHDAY PRESENT FROM FLY ON THE WALL

Fly on the Wall has left a new comment on your post "OOOH. LITTLE ADRIANA IS MAD.": 

This is a special birthday presentation to the Archbishop from Fly on the Wall at the Chancery.

A close friend of the Archbishop wishes to present him with a special birthday surprise. You could call it a walk down memory lane. It goes back to a bio written about the Archbishop in 2003, and it shows some telling points of view on how he views his relationship with his fellow Capuchins, and how we see that even in 2003 he was blind to his own faults. The biography is very long, and contains many quotes directly from Apuron, but I’ll start with just a short section on his “Relationship with Clergy”

THERE'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING QUITE SAD ABOUT THIS

Unable to inspire any authentic vocations or even to continue the inspiration established by his predecessor, Apuron purchases a vocations franchise in order to fast track his red hat and surround himself with the adulation he so ravenously thinks he deserves. Cost: 40 Million Dollars and the trashing of countless good people. 

Now read The Adrian's self-promoting "Essay" on page 3 and compare what a bishop is supposed to be with this Kiko-savant. Disrespectful you say? I say NOT. Apuron abdicated the bishop's seat and any claim to the Vicar of Christ for this diocese when he chose to be "Brother Tony" and take orders from the KAKA-brains who smelled out Tony for what he is: an opportunity.

There was just one liability.

1977

THANK YOU, MARI FLOR, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY

My reply to Apuron deserves praise for seminaries by Mari Flor Herrero in today's PDN:

Hello Mari Flor. Thank you for this. Since you know the archbishop so well do you mind asking him why he ignored the Feb. 12, 2013 letter from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to amend his sex abuse policy? 

Yes, apparently, Rome reviewed our archdiocesan sex abuse policy and noticed some grave omissions, such as protection for those who might dare to come forward - especially protection from the archbishop. 

GOOD MORNING, DIANA...DAY 7

Good Morning, Diana!! Up and at 'em. Today is another day. Your groupies await your direction. And Rev & Tax awaits your visit. Still no time? Oh, well (yawn, stretch), you'll get to it sooner or later. 

PROPAGANDA SI APURON

The following (with a few of my own edits) was shared with me by someone who is expressing the sentiments of many: the U Matuna has become nothing more than a desperate weekly flunky rag to prop up Apuron. 

THE LOSERS ON THE HILL

During the time I managed the Cathedral Gift Shop I would often frequent the Blessed Sacrament Chapel in the morning. 

THE AGAT BOY(S)

John Toves called Patti Arroyo this morning, repeated his allegations against Apuron, and invited Apuron to sue him. 

AAA: THE NCW OR GET OUT! - LORD, JESUS HELP US!

Kiko's vision

Hafa Adai my name is Lourdes Frances Camacho Suarez. I am a blessed, fully married practicing Catholic, originally from Asan, currently residing in Yona, and a parishioner of San Juan Bautista Catholic Church in Ordot.

I have posted a few times on this blog and have used my aka Lou C. Suarez. I write this to share my up close and personal experiences with the NCW and why it’s important to not remain anonymous. 

We are all born with a yearning to be closer to Christ and in my search to fill that (many years ago) I had gone to two separate (new communities) "invitations to joy" and almost immediately had felt on both occasions that something was not as it should be. (This is something they will tell you when you accept one of those invitations, that "maybe this is not for you" or "the Holy Spirit will touch you if this is meant for you".) 

SO GET THIS

If you want to see the report by the Denver law firm on the so-called "truth" about the RMS property:

1. You have to stand at the counter and read it, no sitting allowed (it's 20 pages long).
2. You cannot take notes.
3. You cannot take pictures.
4. You cannot have a copy made.

Oh, and by the way, yesterday was the last day you could see it.

So if Archbishop Apuron is so anxious to prove that he did nothing criminal - legally or canonically - in deeding control of the property to RMS, why hide it like this and make it difficult for anyone to review especially after spending what is probably a huge amount of money on the opinion?

Well, we know why, don't we.

Dear Cardinal Filoni:

This archbishop continues to lie to us, lie to us, lie to us. And since he won't let us see the report, maybe he'll let you. Ask for it. No, demand it. You will see that it was NOT a legal opinion - a real one - at all.

And we shall shortly prove it.

MEANWHILE, PIZZA AND TRAVEL FOR THE RMS BOYS

Yesterday, St. Thomas Aquinas Highs School parents and students began receiving word from the school's principal that the school will close at the end of next month. 

The reported reason is not enough enrollment and revenue.

Understand that every dollar we give to Apuron's "children" over at RMS is a dollar we don't have to give to our own parishes, schools, and the future of our own children.

THIS IS WHAT HEALING LOOKS LIKE

In today's Pacific Daily News (page 17) and Marianas Variety (page 3). Hard copies sent to Archbishop Krebs, Cardinal Filoni, and Pope Francis.

HOW SAD

Dear Archbishop Apuron,

In your answers to the Associated Press, you were quoted as referring to homosexual acts as "intrinsically a moral evil."

Archbishop, this is why I have persistently implored you to do NOTHING more than to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does NOT label homosexual acts as intrinsically EVIL. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." (CCC 2357)

How sad that as an archbishop you do not know this. 

Sincerely,

JungleWatch

P.S. You and I and the real author know that you didn't write a word of this...which is evidence of the much greater problem. 

DO YOU WANT TO TELL PEOPLE THE REST OF THE STORY...OR WILL YOU?

In today's U Matuna, the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, there is a front page article entitled "The truth about the property of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary."

The article attempts to persuade us that the property remains fully in Archbishop Apuron's control and that he did nothing wrong when he restricted the use of the property. It attempts to do this by presenting excerpts from the following:

1. The Ownership Report
2. The Legal Opinion
3. The opinion of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Text

Let's take each one.

The Ownership Report

The article states that the Ownership Report, as completed in 2014 by Pacific American Title, "confirms that the lots on which the seminary sits, identifies the owner as the Archbishop of Agana. Therefore, contrary to rumors, the title deed has always remained in the hands of the Archdiocese."

Two points:

One

Yes, the title deed remains in the hands of the Archdiocese, BUT only thanks to the people Archbishop Apuron fired from the previous Archdiocesan Finance Council: Richard Untalan, Joseph Rivera, Msgr. James Benavente, and Sr. Stephen Torres, RSM. Let us recall that in 2011 Archbishop Apuron had initially attempted to convey the title outright to RMS as evidenced by this letter written in September of 2011 advising the rector of RMS of the decision by the AFC to deny the conveyance of title to RMS.

Two

The issue is not who owns the property. We already knew that from doing our own title search which we posted here back on March 27. The issue is not who owns the property but WHO controls it. You can have title to a property, but if you assign control of that property to someone else it no longer has any value as an asset for the duration of the assignment. 

The Legal Opinion

The article includes portions of a legal opinion by a Denver law firm assuring us that Archbishop Apuron:

1. "retains substantial authority" over RMS
2.  in restricting use of the property to RMS was an action "consistent with canon law"

Four points:

One

So a Denver law firm is practicing law on Guam. That's illegal.

Two

Why didn't Apuron simply get the (probably free) opinion of his own legal counsel? The man who actually put both the deal together to acquire the property and the RMS corporation itself? Well, we know why. Because the legal counsel had already given his opinion and it wasn't the one Apuron wanted.

Three

Apuron only posts portions of the opinion. Really? Space and cost were no object when he was publishing, week after week, all the supposed crimes of Msgr. James. But here we are given the few tidbits that he wants us to read and then tells us if we want to see the rest we have to come to the chancery.

Four

The bottom line issue is whether or not a lending institution would consider the property, given the restriction, an asset of the Archdiocese of Agana. In arguing only for the view that the archbishop retains "substantial authority" over RMS, the report appears to admit that the property has no current value to the Archdiocese of Agana, and would only have value if the Archbishop assigns it back. In short, the patrimony of the Archdiocese of Agana is significantly harmed, which is is why then apostolic delegate, Archbishop Balvo, told Apuron in 2012 that in this matter he is not free to do as he pleases. 

The opinion of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Text

The article references a Canon Law Report which supposedly claims that the deed restriction did not alienate the property. 

Two points:

One

Hmmm. There is no footnote to this report (as there is for the law firm's opinion). Why not publish the "report"?

Two

The "report" references the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and we are told that it is the highest authority for interpreting the laws of the Church. Wonderful. But said Pontifical Council has ZERO authority for interpreting the laws of Guam, which actually govern the legal status of that property (and, by the way, neither does the Denver law firm that Apuron hired). So what a bunch of b.s. 

Some other thoughts:

One

If there was nothing wrong with what the Archbishop did, then why did he hide it? Attached to the Deed Restriction is a Decree of Designation. A Decree is a public announcement. Yet not only did Apuron NEVER announce the designation, he didn't even tell the members of his own finance council. In fact, he didn't tell anyone but his neo buddies. And what's more, after restricting the property he went on to chide, insult, berate, and ultimately fire the members of the finance council who opposed him. 

Two

The idea that Archbishop Apuron is in control of anything is a joke. Even if the legal opinion is right and the archbishop "retains substantial authority". It does not account for WHO "retains substantial authority" over him. And this is the root of the problem. Apuron will obey his neo masters. They will tell him NEVER to give back the property to the Archdiocese of Agana and he will obey. 

Three

By the way, Archbishop, is this why you have been "raising money"? How much of our money did you use on this very expensive law firm? Or was that Kimchee's (parents') money that you bilked her out of? What did you do, promise her more indulgences? She talks, you know, a lot! The other day she was bragging to a whole table at a hotel restaurant about how much money she gave you. She even said it was for "an American lawyer."

P.S. Tell Wadeson to say he's innocent, not just that the charges were "unfounded."

P.P.S. BTW, Archbishop, do you recognize these words:

"Therefore we cannot sign the letter you drafted because it is not true." 

I have the letter. Do you want me to tell people the rest of the story...or will you?