THE RETURN OF FR. RIZZO

By Tim Rohr

In 2010, I was still on fairly good terms with the neocat-power people, including a certain Fr. Giovanni Rizzo, who was then Vice-Rector of the former Redemptoris Mater Seminary. 

In fact, since about 2009, Fr. Rizzo and I were members of an exclusive chancery think-tank which frequently met in the wake of then-Senator B.J. Cruz' introduction of civil union legislation. 

At that time, only about six states had adopted (same-sex) civil union legislation and the prospect of such legislation gaining traction here in "Catholic" Guam was a threat then-Archbishop Apuron wanted to quash.

Even then, and before I moved to being on bad terms with Apuron and the neocats after the Fr. Paul thing in July 2013, I could easily see that Apuron's objection to Cruz' legislation had nothing to do with Catholic moral teaching. 

No, Apuron's objection, and the resultant attack on Cruz' legislation (during which I was pushed to the front by the "think-tank" people) was motivated by Apuron's fear of how Rome would view Apuron's chances for a red hat (elevation to cardinal) after Guam, perhaps the most Catholic place in the world per capita, became one of the few places in the United States to embrace same-sex unions.

The neocats, including Rizzo, who was also a canon lawyer, were anxious to preserve Apuron's reputation to the Vatican since he (Apuron) was functionally their "sugar daddy" for just about everything they needed a bishop to do - including ordain guys no one else would ordain. (Another story)

The think-tank's opposition to Cruz' legislation was a disaster, primarily because another neocat priest (not Rizzo) decided to wax eloquent and said stuff that didn't need to be said. 

The trouble was, he, the priest, didn't say it. He either had Apuron say what he wrote from the pulpit or he put his faux philosophical tomes on archdiocesan letterhead. The media (and Cruz) were just waiting for the "church" to do exactly what Apuron's puppeteers and ghost writers had him do, and Apuron's mess made easy headlines for more than a year.

See: APURON'S REAL GHOST WRITER AND THE NEW JERSEY MACHINE

Anyway, that's how I came to know Fr. Rizzo. The think-tank thing. So I was on familiar terms with him when I confronted him in 2010 about his rewriting of a paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support the neo practice of placing the altar (they call it a table) in the center of the church instead of at the head. 

I actually confronted Apuron first and you can read my email to Apuron and Rizzo's rewriting of the Catechism at this post from 2015: THE "MILIEU FOR A NEW AESTHETIC"

The short of it is this. Rizzo, the vice-rector of the seminary and a canon lawyer, changed Par. 1182 of the Catechism to say "the altar is IN the center of the church" from "the altar IS the center of the church." (Emphases added). 

Given the title of Rizzo's article "...a new aesthetic," it was clear Rizzo was laying a foundation for what the neocats intended to do to all the churches in Guam, and of course, the rest of the Catholic world if they could. 

(Of course, some liberal pastors had already begun to do this - "the church in the round" - many years prior to the arrival of the neo's. Dededo comes to mind. And even Barrigada. But also Sinajana after a major remodeling and where the altar was pushed almost to the physical center of the church. So we can't just blame the neocats. We were already on our way there.)

When I confronted Rizzo personally, he just laughed and brushed it off, saying he did not change the wording of the paragraph because he had not used quotation marks. I laughed back and pinned him on the fact that his article had referenced the paragraph by number, making the unwary reader think he or she was actually reading a quote from the Catechism. 

This was all before the Guam Gotterdamerung that eventually brought down Apuron, RMS, and the whole Archdiocese of Agana (about 6 years later). 

I don't remember what happened to Rizzo. In fact, I completely forgot about him until his name showed up the other day. 

As many know, the old War in the Pacific Museum in Asan ("the building") has been used since about 2017 by the neocats, apparently for all the things Archbishop Byrnes would no longer let them do in churches. 

After Byrnes took over, I pretty much stopped caring about what the neo's did, though I knew for sure that they were up to something. I just didn't care. And I'm not sure I care now, other than to say hello to my old friend Fr. Rizzo. 

You see, the building is owned by the Rainan I Langet Foundation, Inc., ("the Foundation") which, at least up until January 2023, was a Guam corporation. I say "at least up until January 2023," because the Foundation, which was incorporated in Guam in December 2017, appears to have been re-incorporated (not sure that's the right word) in Hawaii this past January. 

It's easy to tell by the names of the contact persons, and even more so by the principal and mailing address (go find it), who is really running this outfit, but anyway, that's not the story. 

At least not yet. 

The only "story" that piques my interest at this point is Fr. Giovanni Rizzo's name showing up as a member of the  "Board of Guarantors" as set forth in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation (which I have). 

If the words "Board of Guarantors" sound familiar that's because Attorney Jacques Bronze thoroughly impugned the old RMS Board of Guarantors as a shadow board in what JW termed THE BRONZE OPINION (it starts about pg. 15),  and...it appears that Rizzo's board functions in exactly the same way. (More about that another time.) 

Another note of interest is that Rizzo, on his LinkedIn profile makes no mention of his being vice-rector of a seminary in Guam. That's sort of big stuff - being a vice-rector of a seminary. So why doesn't it show up? 

No surprise though. Just more of the double life we have become used to when it comes to the neocats - especially its clergy.

More to come. If I feel like it. Meanwhile, hello Fr. Rizzo. Still rewriting the Catechism?

Here's a little history courtesy of the PDN's archives. 

THE PRINCES OF THE CHURCH...AND WHY THE NEXT BISHOP OF GUAM MATTERS

By Tim Rohr

Given that the neocats, specifically Atienza et. al, have finally succeeded in getting rid of Archbishop Byrnes, we can expect a huge fight over the bishop's chair of little ol' Guam.

Why such a huge fight over a diocese that hardly holds the population of small Los Angeles suburb?

And why has the fight already gone all the way to Rome and will go to Rome once again?

Here's my answer.

It's not that Guam means anything to anyone in Rome or even the neocat hierarchy. The story that Guam was going to be the neocat launchpad into China was all a fiction and if the neocats want into China, they have much better places to launch from. 

No. The real reason why Guam is so important to the neocats, and specifically who the next bishop will be, is because of what happened to Guam's neocat Redemptoris Mater Seminary ("RMS").

The neocats have a bunch of RMS's around the world, and these priest-factories are their key to the highest halls of power throughout the Catholic World. 

The reason is this. 

Bishops who produce the most new priests are fast tracked to the cardinaliate. And it's the cardinals who call the shots at the top of the church, including who will be the next pope. That's why they're called "the princes of the church." And most of these dudes live in a palatial splendor that would embarrass real princes. 

The founders of the NCW can be credited with being masterminds for figuring out that the quickest and surest way to control the Church, would be to control the Cardinals, and the way to control the Cardinals would be put the Cardinals in their debt by helping them go from purple hats (bishops) to red hats (Cardinals) by manufacturing priests in their dioceses in greater and greater numbers.

As many of us heard first hand from several of the neocat seminarians and priests here in Guam, the neocat recruits usually were products of messed up lives, and many were off the streets of third-world countries or at least third-world circumstances.

This is why we see so many of these "recruits" coming from underprivileged countries and NOT going back after ordination, but living a much more comfortable first-world life in the United States and Europe. It's not uncommon for the priesthood to be used this way. In the U.S. it's called an R-1 visa.

Okay. So back to Guam.

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary system, as just shared, is the main artery of the NCW power structure. And the RMS in Guam is the only RMS in the whole world to have been shut down - and by a bishop. 

And not just shut down, but fully and dramatically exposed as a thorough and complete SHAM that not only did not provide a true priestly formation, but bilked the good people of Guam for millions and millions of dollars in the belief that RMS was "A Miracle for Guam" as the neocat shisters proposed their seminary to be:

Moreover, RMS - as The Bronze Opinion would demonstrate - was a functional "land grab" of what was the archdiocese's most valuable asset - at the time, estimated to be - by Apuron's own legal counsel - worth 75 Million Dollars. The whole mess was thoroughly outed in THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FIASCO and THE ULTIMATE TREACHERY. 

Archbishop Byrnes had no intention of closing RMS at first. (Perhaps he had his arm severely twisted on his way to Guam). However, the exposition of facts, thanks to tens of thousands of dollars spent by the Concerned Catholics of Guam to legally expose the title mess, mounting evidence that RMS was a sham seminary, and compounded by the daily drumbeat of ever more clergy sex abuse allegations, left Byrnes no option. So he closed it.

And since then, the neocats had been out for his head. 

Byrnes' shut down of the Guam RMS was the first tear in the RMS artery and the neocats knew that it could lead to severe bleeding of evermore RMS's around the world by bishops who have similar misgivings about what is really going on there, functionally crippling the neocats priest-production system and undermining their cardinal-making power.

So to fix the problem, Byrnes had to be 1) run out of town; 2) replaced with a neocat bishop - or a boot licker - who would then decry Byrnes' "mistake," and 3) resurrect RMS. 

They have accomplished step 1. We await to see if they will do the next two. 

As a P.S. Readers may recall that there was a "mystery" group which was first given the go ahead to purchase the former RMS property after the archdiocese declared bankruptcy. They even put down a large deposit. But when it came time to coming up with the balance, they disappeared. The property was eventually purchased by a developer and turned into apartments. Meanwhile, there are now many other church properties on the chopping block. We should keep an eye on who is buying them. 

And a P.P.S. There are some who wonder why I personally care so much about this and why I invest so much time and care in keeping this ugly thing in the public's face. Answer: Byrnes wasn't the only guy they wanted to run out of town. 

ROCA A ROCKA AND APURON ET AL

Ex-Client Sues Am Law 200 Firm Over Its Catholic Church Representation, Alleging Conflict

A New Mexico woman is suing Phoenix-based Lewis Roca, alleging the firm steered her away from suing a Catholic school she attended.

By Justin Henry | December 10, 2020 at 07:05 PM

JW Note: As JW readers may remember, the legal firm headed by the name "Lewis Roca," was quite prominent a few years ago in the battle of "the Faithful vs Apuron." 

You can read all the Roca-related stories here. 

Apuron (circa 2015-16) had retained the Roca firm to to "prove" that he (Apuron) had not legally alienated the "Yona property" (aka "Redemptoris Mater Seminary" - then valued near $70M) and signed said property over to the Gennarini-controlled Neocat operation in the United States and the Pacific. 

Of particular note is Apuron's published challenge inviting anyone who wanted to, to personally review the Roca decision. But such persons could only review the decision between the dates of Apr. 19 and Apr. 24 (2015) and, while the document was 20 pages long, said document could not be duplicated, copied, videographed, photographed, etc., and could only be reviewed in the presence of the Chancery staff WHILE STANDING at the chancery desk. 

CCOG-retained attorney, Jaques Bronze, did in fact attempt to "review" the Roca decision. Mr. Bronze was forced by the Apuron operatives to stand while reading the 20-page document and prohibited from making copies or taking notes. You can read the entire "Bronze file" here. 

In short, the whole Roca matter was another Apuron farce, and it all came tumbling down in the end - as most people in the Archdiocese of Agana - if not the whole world - now now...since Apuron has been - by the pope himself - absolutely exiled form the Archdiocese of Agana. 

It is also of note that while Roca was based in Denver - an NCW stronghold in 2015 during the Apuron fiasco, in the current story, Roca is now a Phoenix-based firm and has other partners. Hmmm. 

Our advice to Roca is to stop taking money from the Neocat operatives and survive while you can.

Cannot say more now. Copied below is the article as published at Law.Com. (Highlights by JW)

*****

    A New Mexico woman is suing her former lawyers at Phoenix-based law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie for malpractice related to its representation of her in bringing allegations that she was sexually abused by a Catholic school teacher.

    Attorneys for the former client, referred to as “Jane Doe” in the suit to protect her identity, said Lewis Roca attorneys steered her away from filing a civil lawsuit against Rhode Island Catholic institution Portsmouth Abbey School for failing to protect her from a predatory teacher when she was a student from 2012 to 2014. It wasn’t until the middle of 2020 when “Doe” learned that she could have brought a civil case against the school had she done so before turning 21, according to the suit.

    The complaint also argues that Lewis Roca failed to disclose to “Doe” potential conflicts of interest in representing her due to the school’s payment of her case’s lawyer’s fees and the firm’s history of    defending the Catholic Church against claims brought by survivors of clerical abuse.

    “If you have such a clear conflict where you routinely represent the church in cases brought by victims of sexual abuse, you have an obligation to tell that to a prospective or new client who has a potential case against the church, because there’s an obvious conflict there,” Neil Gehlawat, an attorney with Los Angeles firm Taylor & Ring who is representing the unnamed plaintiff, said in an interview.

    The suit, filed Dec. 1 in the Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Second Judicial District Court, seeks compensatory and consequential damages, reasonable costs of the suit and “such further relief as the court may deem just proper and appropriate.”

    Reached for comment Wednesday, a spokesperson for Lewis Roca said in an emailed statement that the claims in Doe’s suit are without merit.

    “The firm intends to respond to the complaint by showing that the written scope of the firm’s engagement was narrow and did not include the subjects alleged in the complaint, and that the firm did not have a conflict of interest. We know the true facts will come out, and the firm looks forward to its day in court,” the firm statement said.

    The Jane Doe plaintiff retained Lewis Roca in early 2017, the complaint alleged, after years of harassment and sexual abuse by a former teacher at Portsmouth Abbey School, which started in 2012 when she was a 15-year-old sophomore. Following her departure to college in the fall of 2014, she was reportedly able to “gain clarity” on what Michael Bowen Smith had done to her, the complaint said.

    As a result, her parents reported the abuse to the school, who then allowed Smith to resign, the complaint said. The former teacher then began a “relentless pattern of harassment and cyber-stalking behavior” against his former student from 2015-2017, the suit alleges, including tracking her online and sending her “threatening and bizarre” emails.

    The school directed the former student to a consultant who referred her to Lewis Roca, the complaint said, which provided legal services for Doe from February to November of 2017.

    But the law firm failed to inform her about a potential civil case she could bring against the school, the complaint said. Instead, Lewis Roca attorneys told the client she should let them pursue a temporary restraining order against Smith alone, and that her case involved domestic violence.

    “The teacher, Smith, was in his mid to late 40s when he abused plaintiff, who was a teenager,” the lawsuit says. “Smith was her teacher. Plaintiff was at a boarding school, far from her parents’ home. After the abuse ended, the perpetrator continued to cyberstalk plaintiff. And yet, these lawyers deemed this to be a ‘domestic violence’ case, presumably meaning one between two adults who co-habited together or had a similar type of relationship.”

    The firm also failed to inform Doe that they routinely defended the Catholic Church in claims brought by abuse survivors, and had a potential conflict of interest when Portsmouth Abbey paid for plaintiff’s lawyers’ fees, the complaint alleged. 

    Lewis Roca’s religious institutions practice has represented the Catholic Church in numerous cases involving abuse claims for upwards of 20 years, according to the firm’s website.

    Attorneys at Lewis Roca dropped the case in November 2017, after the client turned 21, which meant the Rhode Island statute of limitations now barred her from bringing a civil case against the school, the complaint said.

    Gehlawalt said he and David Ring, who is representing Doe with him, are also bringing a federal lawsuit against the school for failing to protect her from sexual abuse by Smith, and against Smith himself. That case was filed Dec. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

    The Jane Doe plaintiff is also being represented by local counsel Martinez, Hart, Thompson & Sanchez of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

WITH A STROKE OF A PEN! NOT! THE REAL STORY OF HOW WE GOT THE PROPERTY BACK.

Having been caught with their collective pants down, the Kikos are scrambling to cover their now-grotesquely bared rear ends.

The Grant Deed filed with the Department of Land Management on November 14, 2016 conveying title to the Yona Property back to the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporation Sole (aka Archdiocese of Agana) makes it CLEAR that the 2011 Declaration of Deed Restriction did NOT just restrict the use of the property, but, as clearly documented by Guam Attorney, Jacques G. Bronze, was in fact an instrument of "absolute conveyance in fee simple."

Of course, the Kikos started to give up on the argument that the Yona Property belonged to the Archdiocese of Agana quite awhile ago and switched to arguing that the property was "still in the control of the Archbishop." Of course if that was true then a Grant Deed conveying the property "back" to the Archdiocese of Agana would not have been necessary. Obviously the Archdiocese' lawyers thought otherwise.

EVIL DOESN'T KNOW SHAME

Posted by Tim

Unfortunately, what should have been very clear and a slam dunk got horribly discombobulated, not just in Jeff's fumbling Q and A, but even in the prepared statement where it appears that there was an attempt to do this "peacefully." 

I can understand that, but given the enemy, we can give no quarter. If you don't believe me, just watch the Kiko's spring into action on their blog. Even if they lose the battle, they are determined to win the war. 

So let me explain what happened. 

BISHOP JUAN IGNACIO ARRIETA OCHO DE CHINCHETRU: CORRUPT OR DOESN'T KNOW CRAP - PART 2

Posted by Tim
Continued from Part 1

In his October 11 statement bashing the Seminary ad hoc committee report, Tricky Dick (Eusebio) referred to the Legal Opinion on the Yona Property by the Law Office of Jacques G. Bronze as "the opinion of an obscure law firm."

Of course the only thing obscure was Tricky Dick's brain. Attorney Bronze is a practicing Guam attorney, well-known for his expertise in real estate. Apparently Tricky Dick thought that an opinion from such an august sounding institution as the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts rendered the Bronze opinion "obscure."

However, I have never read a more obscure statement than that of Arrieta's.

Over the course of three pages, Arrieta employs such definitive expressions as: probably, it seems (4 times), seemed, does not seem, perhaps (3 times), it was reported, it is assumed, I do not feel, and I believe.

LOL. And we were told that this (since it was from the Vatican) was the LAST WORD on the ownership of the property? HUH?

Oh, and guess what Arrieta based his "opinion" on!

TRICKY DICK AND HIS IRRESPONSIBLE RESPONSE - PART 4 - AND WHY IS HON RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK?

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.

COUNTDOWNCountdown

To be continued

TRICKY DICK AND HIS IRRESPONSIBLE RESPONSE - PART 3

Posted by Tim
Continued from Part 2

Full document here

1. Tricky Dick says: "The Bronze Opinion, argues that the property has been alienated, and therefore, the seminary is no longer diocesan, is unfounded and ridiculous." 

THE RMS BOARD PRESS CONFERENCE, OR THE ELUCUBRATIONS OF "DR EUSEBIO".

(Posted by Frenchie)

It did not take long, after the return of the Stinking Monk to our shores, and the meeting of  convevience  of the local "leaders" of the NCW, or as I call it "the meeting of convenience", for the cadre of said NCW on the island to go on the offensive to salvage their loot.

THE SEMINARY PROPERTY SCAM CONTINUES (THANKS TO HON AND JEFF)

Posted by Tim

Bob Klitzkie has written two very important letters regarding the absurdity of Hon's appointment of Msgr. David C. Quitugua, rector of RMS. Quitugua was deeply involved in the giving away of the property in the first place and the ensuing cover up. I will comment further in an upcoming post. For now, I want to get these letters to you immediately.

Robert Klitzkie, Esq.

22 Baki Ct., Yigo, GU 96929

(671) 653-6607

klitzkie@hotmail.com

September 1, 2016

Re: Yoña real property deeded away by Apuron

Dear Archbishop Hon and members of the Presbyteral Counsel:

THAT'S BULLSHIT, RIC.

Posted by Tim

KUAM: Seminary board rejects conspiracy theory

http://www.kuam.com/story/32945146/2016/09/Thursday/seminary-board-rejects-conspiracy-theory

Ric Eusebio wants to give us his "side of the story." So let's do this.

Eusebio tells us in his response to KUAM that he wants to "clarify some misconceptions or misunderstandings revealing the truth as I know it." Well, Ric, there's the problem. It's as YOU "know it." And who are you? An attorney? NOT. At least back up your "truth as you know it" with an actual document, you know, something other than your mouth. 

Eusebio says that RMS is an "Archdiocesan missionary seminary ordaining and educating diocesan priests." That's bullshit, Ric. Then why did Apuron start a second seminary? What's different about RMS? Oh, could it be that RMS only forms priests "following the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way?" (RMS Articles of Incorporation, Article 3)

And don't give us this crap that the only difference is that the Neo is "missionary." That's bullshit, Ric. Obviously "the life and itinerary of the Neocatechumenal Way" is DIFFERENT than the real diocesan priesthood or there would have been no need to establish a second seminary - which, by the way, only pretends to be a seminary. 

Eusebio says "They are missionary however and may be sent on missions at the discretion of the Archbishop." That's bullshit, Ric. A diocesan bishop has NO AUTHORITY to send his priests anywhere but to someplace within his own diocese. 

Eusebio says "The Archdiocese of Agana is a Corporation Sole, the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation is a Corporation sole." That's bullshit, Ric. First of all, it is NOT the Archdiocese which is a Corporation Sole, it is the office of the incumbent Archbishop. That's why the full legal name is: 

Second, RMS is NOT a Corporation Sole, it is a regular Guam non-profit corporation, which is why Article I of its Articles states:

RMS was NOT formed as a Corporation Sole otherwise it would say so in its name. And of course it cannot be formed as a corporation sole because under Guam law only a PERSON can become a corporation sole:

18 GCA§ 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.

An institution cannot become a corporation sole. Only a bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, that is, a person, can become a corporation sole. This is why the legal name of the corporation sole is NOT "Archdiocese of Agana" but "Archbishop of Agana." 

Had RMS not incorporated itself separately from the Archbishop of Agana it would be part of the Corporation Sole, "Archbishop of Agana." However, IT IS NOT. Eusebio simply parrots the bag of bullshit put forth by Gennarini and Pius to mask their deception. They say because RMS has only one member (incorporator) that RMS is a corporation sole. LOL. Stupid. Or at least they think we are.

Eusebio gives us the tired old "legal opinion..by the Lewis Roca Rothgerber law firm from Denver." Oh yawn. That's bullshit, Ric. Where is it, Ric? Why did Apuron hide it from public view after Attorney Jacques Bronze went to take a look at it? If it proved what you jokers say it proves you would have it published all over the Umatuna and every website you could get a hold of. Instead, no one knows where the hell it is. LOL. That's bullshit, Ric. 

Eusebio tells us that Hon "claims that the Holy See directed Archbishop Apuron to lift or rescind this deed but failed to clarify that the office making this "request" was his very own Congregation of Evangelization and he as the Apostolic delegate was the one making the request."

LOL, Ric. That's bullshit. First, Hon is NOT the "Apostolic delegate." Hon is the Apostolic Administrator. Archbishop Krebs is the Apostolic Delegate. But then you don't know the difference, do you? You certainly don't know the difference between the "Holy See" and the pope. You know why you don't know the difference? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. The Holy See IS the pope. No congregation can issue a single order without his knowledge and consent. The pope has better things to do that to sit around wiping Neo-asses, so that's why he has Congregations take care of crap like yours. 

But, poor Ric. Here, you really show your pathetic ignorance about this because in the very same paragraph, you demand that we accept the opinion of the Congregation of Legislative Texts. You go on to tell us that this Congregation is "the highest Vatican Body for the interpretation of legislative act (sic)." Hello, Ric? Hello! Anybody home? Well the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples of which Hon is the Secretary is the "highest Vatican Body" overseeing the affairs of the Archdiocese of Agana. Too funny, Ric. You trash the authority of one Congregation and you demand that we accept the authority of another simply because the second says what you want it to say. That's bullshit, Ric. 

Eusebio goes on to give us the blah, blah, blah about the accreditation by the Lateran and all that crap. LOL. Why don't you have the Lateran write a letter affirming the current accreditation. That would be easy wouldn't it. By the way, you should know. I have a copy of the conditional accreditation from 2012, emphasis on "conditional." Do you know why it was "conditional," Ric? Why don't you tell us. And while you're at it, why don't you go ahead and publish the names and GUAM addresses of that list of permanent professors. 

But here's the main deal, Ric. If the seminary is all you say it is and if the Yona property plays such an important role in the future of forming priests, then WHY THE HELL WAS IT ALL DONE IN SECRET? 

Why the hell did I have to discover (uncover) it THREE YEARS after the deal was done? Why the hell wasn't it announced with pride in the Umatuna? Why wasn't there some grand celebration? 

Given all you freaks say about the seminary, one would think that giving the property to RMS permanently would be something you would want to go public in a big way. But no. It was a secret, a secret, a secret. 

Therein, folks, lies the truth. The recording of the deed, notarized by a member of Eusebio's own Barrigada community, was a secret. We were not supposed to find out about it. 

That's bullshit, Ric. And so is your pathetic, lying-ass "Way."

Oh, by the way, Ric. Looks like you're calling Hon a liar.

KUAM: Hon confirms statements from former finance council members
http://www.kuam.com/story/32945283/2016/09/01/hon-confirms-statements-from-former-finance-council-members

DEAR PDN, YOU'RE WELCOME :)

Posted by Tim

On August 22, I submitted the following "letter to the editor" to the PDN.

In his August 19 statement, Archbishop Hon accused Archbishop Apuron of defying a papal order to return the mega-million dollar “seminary property” to the Archdiocese of Agana.

While Apuron is probably guilty of committing an ecclesial crime by alienating the property without the requisite approval of the Holy See, the truth is he did not return the property because he could not.

On November 22, 2011, Apuron recorded a document at the Department of Land Management called “Declaration of Deed Restriction.” Despite its innocuous name, the document conveyed title to the mega-million dollar Yona property to the Neocatechumenal Way-controlled Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

This was confirmed by the Concerned Catholics of Guam in the Legal Opinion by Guam real estate attorney Jaques Bronze who wrote: “The Declaration…operates to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple of the subject real property…”

Hon was given this exact information during his January 2015 visit, both by the CCOG and by former archdiocesan finance council president, Richard Untalan, who was fired by Apuron for his opposition to the conveyance.

On August 11, 2016, it was explained to him again by the same Richard Untalan, joined by Attorney Robert Klitzkie, at a joint meeting with Hon and the presbyteral council.

At the meeting Untalan and Klitzkie spelled out how the title had been conveyed by Apuron to RMS in 2011, and how it could only be returned through a similar instrument of conveyance.

RMS is a Guam corporation, incorporated separately from the Archdiocese of Agana, and other than one vote on the Board of Directors, its decisions are not subject to the Archbishop of Agana.

In order for the Declaration to be “rescinded and annulled,” as the pope is said to have required, the board must first pass a resolution to convey title back to the archdiocese, and then compose, authorize, and record the conveyance.

But beyond the misfeasance of church officials, lies an even graver concern about the potential malfeasance of some Government of Guam officials.

To assist Apuron in his mega-million dollar cover up, Msgr. David C. Quitugua published a copy of a bogus certificate of title last November 29 in the archdiocesan newspaper.

The bogus certificate was acquired by the executive vice president of a local title company who is a member of the Neocatechumenal Way. The certificate was personally paid for by the same executive and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje who is not only a member of the “Way,” but heads up Apuron’s neocatechumenal community.

The bogus certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Titles, who, even after doing an abstract of title which included the Declaration only days before, released the certificate minus the Declaration, which as already noted, conveyed title to RMS.

After Attorney Robert Klitzkie brought this to the attention of the Director of Land Management, Klitzkie was advised that per the Attorney General’s counsel, the law required the Director to petition the court to correct the title.

The end was in sight. The property had been transferred to RMS in 2011 to protect it from a threat precipitated by Vice-Speaker Cruz’ 2011 attempt to lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors. And as we now know, Apuron had good reason to be worried.

Subjecting the title issue to the court would expose the truth about Apuron’s big give-away and ultimately his secret reasons for doing so. We only needed the government to do its job. But then all went dark.

Two months later, we learned that the Attorney General reneged on her previous counsel and permitted a deal to be “worked out” with Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. The issue never went to court and the truth remained safely hidden.

But then came May 17, and the first of Apuron’s ghosts from the 1970’s appeared in the flesh to call him to account.

WHO IS ATTORNEY J. TERLAJE TRULY REPRESENTING? APURON OR THE NCW? (Part II)

Posted by Webster.

And so we continue with the wondering....

Another salient fact: THE BOGUS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

It was Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje who, behind closed doors, negotiated and had the Department of Land Management reissue several Certificate of Titles in an attempt to prove that the title of the seminary property is still under the Archdiocese, not the RMS Neo seminary corporation.

Through the tireless and courageous work of former Senator, Judge, and still Attorney, Robert Klitzke, he exposed that the Certificate of Title printed on the front page of the November 29 issue of the Umatuna, the local Catholic newspaper owned by the archdiocese, was bogus---a false Certificate of Title.

It was Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje who personally paid the fee for the issuance of the bogus Certificate of Title.

APURON IS JUST WAITING FOR US TO GET TIRED

Posted by Tim Rohr

When I saw the headline "Hon: Apuron defied pope" on the morning of August 19, I already knew what the Kiko's were going to do. And sure enough, they did it. 

I say "they" because the letter from Apuron released yesterday by his attorney, Jackie Terlaje, was not written by Apuron. It was written by "they." But let me get back to who "they" are another time. 

What I knew they were going to do is exactly what Apuron was made to say in his letter, a clear denial that he "defied" the pope:

"I wish to declare that this is absolutely false…I have always obeyed the Holy Father…”

Once again, if you understand the Neocommunist ethic of the "ends justifies the means," there is no contradiction here. They simply make words mean what they want them to mean. 

Here's what happened.

GO TO HELL, PIUS.

Posted by Tim Rohr

The following is in reference to the KUAM news story "Seminary's rector says Archdiocese of Agana is rightful owner."
http://www.kuam.com/story/32837056/2016/08/Thursday/seminarys-rector-says-archdiocese-of-agana-is-rightful-owner

After reading The Stinking Monk's answers to reporter Krystal Paco's (KUAM) questions, my first impulse was to do my usual "LOL" and have some fun mocking the lying, green-toothed Samnut. But it's time to get serious here. Pius is no ordinary liar. He is an evil, rancid, vile, pervert of a man - if he can even be thought of as a man.

But more importantly, he is a window into the rotten core of Neocat methodology, and as such, he is our best weapon to expose and explode this money laundering, power usurping, property grabbing international Marxist-Communist syndicate, masquerading as a benign itinerary of adult faith formation.

The Neocat modus operandi so parallels Marxist-Communism that it is tempting to just label the likes of Gennarini and Pius as such. However, it is much worse than that. Marxist-Communism held the Church and Christ himself in open contempt. The Neocommunists drape themselves in the garments of the Church and advance their agenda to "abolish the present state of things" (Marx), 'neath the mantle of the Gospel and the skirts of bishops.

AND HON SMILES

Posted by Tim Rohr

As you have seen from my activity in the news, Tim Rohr has not "gone away." And while I have turned over the administration of this blog to others and opened it up to some wonderful authors, I will still use it when necessary. And today it is necessary.

Archbishop Hon is apparently on a media blitz. Unfortunately, it appears we can trust him no more than Apuron and Adrian. 

http://www.kuam.com/story/32569743/2016/07/Friday/archbishop-hon-details-some-of-the-biggest-issues-he-faces

KUAM: "The archdiocese owns that property. No doubt of it. And then there's a certain ambiguity who has the right to use it. And on this matter, I'm going to have a review of it," Archbishop Hon stated.

Archbishop Hon KNOWS this is NOT true. In January of 2015, Richard Untalan and Joseph Rivera, who were both fired by Apuron from his finance council for opposing the transfer of the property, met personally with Hon and explained that the recently discovered Declaration of Deed Restriction, recorded at Land Management on November 22, 2011, conveyed title to the property to RMS, a corporation wholly separate from the Archdiocese of Agana and controlled ultimately by the Board of Guarantors which itself is 75% controlled by the two Gennarini's and Angelo Poschetti, the Neocatechumenal Responsible Team for the United States. 

In May of 2015, a copy of the Legal Opinion by real estate attorney Jacques Bronze, was forwarded to Hon's office. The Legal Opinion demonstrated in great detail that the document executed by Apuron and recorded at Land Management: “operates to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple, of the subject real property to RMHF, divesting all right, title and interest of the subject property from the Grantor, except for the subject restraint in use.”

Hon is publicly misleading Guam's Catholics and we must believe, given that Hon was advised as just stated, that he is doing this purposely. 

Sadly, all of this would have been legally cleared in court had the Attorney General NOT intervened in the legal process required by law by "working something out" with "the trained lawyer." 

After Msgr. David C. Quitugua, on November 29, 2015, published in the Umatuna a false copy of the certificate of title to the property previously obtained from Land Management by Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje (aka "the trained lawyer"), Attorney Robert Klitzkie directly engaged the Director of Land Management, Michael Borja about the false certificate.

Borja agreed that the certificate published by Msgr. David C. Quitugua in the Umatuna was in error and initially set out to take corrective action prescribed by law which would have required the issue to be brought before the Superior Court. However, Borja soon aborted that prescription and defaulted to something being "worked out" between Deputy Attorney General, Kristin Finney and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. 

This route not only kept the matter from going before the court where the truth would have been revealed about the title, but it was a shameful abuse of the law by those elected and appointed to uphold it. The whole ugly story can be found in this series of posts. 

Let's look at some of Hon's other "misleading" statements in this interview:

KUAM: Hon tells KUAM News he continues to reach out to the alleged victims. 

Hon has NOT called a single one of them. And if he really was sincere about this, he would have at least invited Roland Sondia to his July 27 press conference. Roland lives on Guam and works right across the street at the PDN. But Hon did not invite Roland nor did he "reach out" to any of them by phone, letter, email, whatever. Perhaps he thinks that because he appointed Fr. Pat Castro to be a liaison to the victims, whatever that means, that he has "reached out." If so, then that is very telling of what kind of "priest" Hon really is. 

KUAM: He also clarifies he wasn't aware he was in the presence of one of the alleged victims who was picketing outside the Hagatna Cathedral moments before Sunday morning mass. "Unfortunately at that time I did not notice the presence of Mr. Walter Denton, so I did not ignore him.

What is sad is that Denton had been all over the news media for several days before this happened. Walter should not have had to try to approach Hon on the steps of the Cathedral. He should have immediately received a call from Hon when he came forward about his being raped by Apuron several days earlier, in fact the day after Hon arrived on Guam. There was no such call, no attempt to "reach out" to Walter, leaving Walter no alternative but to try to "reach out" to Hon on the street. 

KUAM: According to the $2 million dollar libel and slander suit against the archdiocese and Apuron, plaintiffs allege such statements were prepared and released by Father Edvilado Olivieras. According to Hon, there's no proof Father Edivaldo was ever appointed the church's official spokesperson.

And how would we know there is "no proof"? Are we supposed to believe the man who just told us that the Yona property belongs to the archdiocese and that he has "reached out" to the victims? The statement, though, really shows Hon's incompetence. "Proof" that Edivaldo was appointed spokesman is NOT needed. The fact that Edivaldo declared that he WAS the spokesman, and the fact that Edivaldo ACTED in that capacity, doing so on the Archbishop's letterhead, is all the "proof" Attorney David Lujan needed to include Edivaldo in the amended complaint. And if Hon is not careful, he will soon find himself a defendant.

Now here is the real "whopper!" 

KUAM: Hon confirms he's met with representatives of the Concerned Catholics of Guam.

Hon did in fact "meet" with two representatives of the CCOG: Greg Perez and Robert Klitzkie. After keeping them waiting for twenty minutes past their appointment time, according to Klitzkie, Hon opened the meeting with "is there something you want to tell me?" Klitzkie read a list of concerns and per Klitzkie's report, Hon had nothing to say other than to quibble with Klitzkie's referring to Apuron's "victims" as "victims" (Hon doesn't like that word), and then to say good-bye. 

Perez and Klitzkie did not ask for the appointment. Hon did. And Perez and Klitzkie agreed to meet with Hon in good faith, believing he was interested in having a discussion. Instead, Hon was only interested in checking the CCOG off his list so he could later say - as he does in this interview - that he had "met with representatives of the Concerned Catholics of Guam." 

And here is another FALSE story:

Father Paul Gofigan and Monsignor James Benavente both restored

http://www.kuam.com/story/32547973/2016/07/27/father-paul-gofigan-and-monsignor-james-benavente-both-restored

To be clear: NEITHER PRIEST WAS RESTORED, because, as you will see, neither priest will be "restored" to the positions from which they were removed. In the case of Msgr. James, it is clear what is happening:

KUAM: Monsignor Benavente said, "What Archbishop Hon did was he retracted the statements that was made about me, the malicious statements maligning my name, and he's basically retracted that. And more importantly is that he's according me the opportunity to have due process, which was never given to me.

In short, Msgr. James was NOT cleared of Apuron's charges against him which led to his being removed as rector of the Cathedral, Director of Catholic Cemeteries, and Director of the Archdiocesan Development Group. All Hon did was retract the statements Apuron later released about him to the press. In fact, Hon apparently thinks Msgr. James is still guilty because by according him "due process," he essentially is saying "Okay, I'll give you an opportunity to stand trial." Msgr. James must now defend himself to Hon, but given Hon's already demonstrated penchant for ignoring facts...well, good luck to Msgr. James.

As for Fr. Paul, unfortunately he slapped the faces of those who have stood up for him these past three years by changing the meaning of the word "restore." For those who have been standing in the streets with signs reading RESTORE, "restore" meant to restore both priests to the positions from which they were wrongly removed. 

This is especially true with Fr. Paul, whose canonical rights were clearly violated by Apuron's appointment of Fr. Dan Bien as Parochial Administrator to Santa Barbara parish in July of 2013, automatically eliminating Fr. Paul from his position as pastor. Apuron's actions clearly violated canon law, as both Fr. Paul's canon lawyer later clearly outlined, and as Apuron himself de facto admitted by commencing the correct canonical process which led to the official Decree of Removal issued several months later, a decree, Hon says does not exist. 

At the press conference on July 27, Fr. Paul tells us that his version of "restore" only means to "restore" his name, which Fr. Paul believes Hon did by saying that Fr. Paul engaged in no "formal" act of disobedience." Fr. Paul is welcome to accept what ever olive branch (or fig leaf) Hon wants to give him, but this remains a slap in the face to those who have labored so long in his behalf. By not restoring Fr. Paul to his position as pastor of Santa Barbara, Hon leaves in place Apuron's Decree of Removal, which while canonically confected, remains based on the act of "formal disobedience" that Hon says Fr. Paul did not commit. 

Additionally, Hon's words are deceptive. His use of of the adjective "formal" is not by chance. In Catholic moral teaching there is both "formal" and "material" participation in an act. An example: The direct procurement or performance of an abortion is "formal participation in evil." Driving someone to the clinic to get an abortion is "material participation." Hon, while saying Gofigan is not guilty of "formal disobedience" is leaving in place the fact that he believes Gofigan is guilty of "material disobedience," which is why Gofigan will NOT be restored to his position as pastor of Santa Barbara. The material disobedience is Hon's view that Gofigan acted badly in publicly opposing Apuron over his mistreatment. So Hon has to punish Gofigan. 

This has nothing to do now with what Fr. Paul and Msgr. James themselves are satisfied with. This has to do with the truth. For us who have labored so long in their behalf, RESTORE meant more than just the restoration to their positions, it meant the complete rejection of all that Apuron both said and did by canceling not only Apuron's words, but also his acts. Hon has retracted Apuron's words, but has left his acts in place, which is why neither priest will be "restored."

Once again, this is not about what either priest will settle for or make them happy. This is about TRUTH. And once again, as with Apuron, Quitugua, Adrian, Pius, Edivaldo and the whole smelly lot, Hon is doing as they did...albeit, with a smile. 

HEY EDIVALDO. YOU READY?

The new Vicar General, Chancellor, Spokesman -
all rolled into one pathetic reject. (Pius is the archbishop)

Good, let's go. Your statement line by line.

EDIVALDO: Lately a campaign of public and vicious attacks against the Shepherd of the local Catholic Church has been organized. In order to protect the faith of the Catholic people of Guam and safeguard the truth, the following statement is being made for immediate media release to the faithful and for the good willed people of our island.

ME: Ah yes, the old "protect the faith" routine. Apuron used that on John Toves awhile back. He said he was going to sue him to "protect the Church." LOL. He didn't. Maybe you should have asked him WHY he didn't before you went running your mouth here again.

EDIVALDO: For the past three years the Catholic Church in Guam has been constantly targeted by a series of lies destined to undermine the authority of the Archbishop. In order to help the People understand the defamatory nature of these attacks, let us review the series of intentional and malicious lies that have been spread by the media:

ME: LOL. I see. So you, Edivaldo, are going to "help the People." Sorry, newcomer, but "the People" of Guam have been able to help themselves for centuries. They don't need you. They are quite smart enough to recognize the truth when they see it. And you don't have it, little boy. And by the way, you are not "the Catholic Church" and neither is Apuron for that matter. He publicly left the Catholic Church on January 9, 2006 when he elected to obey Kiko instead of Pope Benedict. In case you don't know, I have the recording (and the transcript). Oh, and gotta love that you blame "the media." They're gonna love that!

EDIVALDO: 1. They began with the lie that the archbishop had alienated the property of Yona where the Redemptoris Mater seminary and the Blessed Diego Luis San Vitores Theological Institute are located; this accusation proved completely false and ridiculous when the title deed of property was released, listing the Archdiocese of Agana as the sole owner of property.

ME: Oh, you are too much fun. A "title" and a "deed" are too different things. There is no such thing as a "title deed." But as long as we are on the subject, what "proved" to be "completely false and ridiculous" was the Certificate of Title you published in the Umatuna on November 29 which the Trained Lawyer procured for you. So which "title deed" (LOL) is the real one? The one published on November 29? The one the Trained Lawyer got from the Deputy Registrar on December 15? The one the Director of Land Management stamped "Canceled" on March 15? Or the one the AG got for you by bypassing Guam law? Oh, and just a small real estate lesson for you, Edi, a Certificate of Title doesn't mean crap in the real world of property transactions. What matters is the DEED. But then you wouldn't know the difference would you? 

EDIVALDO: 2. They proceeded then to claim that the archbishop had lost control of the corporation sole because in the Board of Guarantors he had only one vote against 4: also this proved completely false by the Articles of Incorporation where it is written that the Board of Guarantors is concerned only with guaranteeing the purpose of the corporation – which is that of forming priests (Articles of Incorporation, Art. XI) - while the “Archbishop of Agana of the Roman Catholic Church, he is charged with the administration of the temporalities and the management of the estates and properties” (Articles of Incorporation, Art. XII (iii)).

ME: Oh, more fun. So here, Edi, my little boy, you are calling Attorney Edward Terlaje, a LIAR. Serious, dude, you do NOT want to wake that sleeping giant from his slumber. He knows "#$%@" you can't even dream of. So dude, listen up. It wasn't "they" who claimed the archbishop "lost control of the corporation sole," (it's not a corporation sole - but we'll get to that.") It was Attorney Edward Terlaje who warned Apuron in September of 2011  that he would lose control unless he amended the RMS articles. Attorney Terlaje then advised the finance council of the same, since Apuron had asked them to approve his desire to transfer title to the property to RMS. Here, read it for yourself. 

ME: And then you reference Article XI of the "Articles of Incorporation." I'm glad you did that, Edi. How interesting that you guys scurried over to file a new articles of incorporation on Jan 29, 2015, only days after we discovered and published the long hidden Declaration of Deed Restriction on Jan 5, 2015. And how interesting that the Jan 29, 2015 version of the articles was NOT in the corporate file at Rev & Tax when Attorney Bronze began researching his Legal Opinion in April of 2015. Prior to Jan 2015, the most recent version of the Articles was from 2004. What would make you suddenly need to file new articles eleven years later? Hmmmm? 

ME: In the 2004 version, the duties of the Board of Guarantors is found in Article X. In the 2015 version it is found in Article XI. Let us look at both versions, compare them to what they actually say with what you said (that the BOG "is concerned only with guaranteeing the purpose of the corporation"), and see who is the LIAR here:

2004 RMS AOI

2015 RMS AOI 

Even your latest version does NOT say that the Board of Guarantors (BOG) is tasked "ONLY" to guarantee the purposes of the Corporation (By the way, it doesn't say Corporation Sole, does it?) As everyone can see, you are a filthy little liar. The BOG has absolute "veto or approval power over the management of the affairs of the Corporation" - just as in the 2004 version, but then you LIARS try to mask it by tagging on "on all matters related to the pursuit of the purposes of the Corporation." Wow. You really think the people of Guam are stupid. "All matters." Toilet paper purchases are "related to the pursuit of the purposes of the Corporation." That's a nice little loophole you guys put in there. It effectively gives the BOG absolute control over EVERY matter since the BOG can decide what "relates" to the purposes. Oh, and apparently you forgot to file new By Laws, because they still say:

RMS By-Laws, Article VII. 3.

LOL, Edi. So the BOG only "guarantees the purpose of the corporation" but they have to approve any decision involving an expense over $5000. Yah, right. LIAR. 

And then you added (in the 2015 version) "except for the Sole Member's rights." You capitalized "Sole" to make it look like this is a corporation sole, but you and Gennarini and the whole lot of you are not only liars, you insult us thinking we are too stupid to read the law for ourselves. A Sole member does not make a "Corporation Sole," you freak. And, as per Guam law, the "members rights," be they one or several, do not permit him (or them) to direct the affairs of the corporation. The member(s) "rights' are limited to the appointment of the Board of Directors and dissolving the corporation if he (they) so desire. How convenient that the "sole member" has no authority over the unelected, un-appointed, and unremovable Board of Guarantors.

One more thing, you reference Article XII. Let's go ahead and deal with that here since this was going to be Part III of my series THE MYSTERIOUS APPEARANCE OF THE "RIGHT DOCUMENT." (Here is Part 1, Part 2, and Part 2A)

Article XII in the 2015 version is the article which names the Incorporator. In the 2004 version, it is Article XI. Here it is:

In the 2015 version, you greatly expanded this to try to make RMS look like a corporation sole:

You state that the information in this article is for the purpose of complying with §10103. Really? does this mean you were NOT complying with §10103 for the 14 years RMS was incorporated since 2002? LOL. You scrambled to insert this section AFTER we discovered and published the Deed which transferred title to RMS. The language of conveyance in the Deed was unmistakeable so your only recourse was to try to make it look like Apuron was still in control by trying to make RMS look like a Corporation Sole. You did this by supplying the information required by 18 GCA §10103. However, §10103 does NOT apply to the formation of a non-profit corporation which is formed under §10101 which is what RMS is:

Damn! You guys are good LIARS!!!

EDIVALDO: 3. They proceeded then to assert that the corporation is not a corporation sole and therefore the archbishop would not be the sole member with total power to appoint or dismiss directors and guarantors: also this proved completely false as per Art. VI of the Articles of Incorporation: not only the archbishop is the sole member but he can dissolve the corporation and all the corporation’s assets shall be destined for whatever uses he may decide (Art.V (3)).

ME: Very tricky, Edi, but Guam people are smarter than what you give us credit for. So let's do this again. A non-profit corporation is formed under 18 GCA §10101 - which is as your Articles of Incorporation exactly state above. A Corporation Sole is formed under §10102 and the following sections of that chapter:

For the record, we never said that the sole member cannot dissolve the corporation or appoint or dismiss its directors. Guam law authorizes the member(s) to do exactly that. What we did say was that the Board of Guarantors is unremovable. And here's the sneaky secret. Guam law does not address the member(s)' rights over a Board of Guarantors because Guam law has NO provision for a Board of Guarantors. Guam law permits only ONE board to govern a corporation, a Board of Directors. Unfortunately, someone at Rev & Tax (perhaps your friend) permitted you to file the articles with the illegal board - which was deliberately inserted in 2002 to do exactly what it did in 2011: assume ownership and control of the 70 MILLION DOLLAR property in the name of RMS. 

And dissolve the corporation or appoint or dismiss the Directors? NOT! This would fall under the "management of the affairs of the corporation" and could definitely be classified as "pursuant to the corporation's purpose," and thus the BOG would have absolute veto and approval power over such decisions. Of course you really don't need that power since you have absolute power over Apuron anyway. 

EDIVALDO: 4. They moved then to even suggest that the Blessed Diego Luis San Vitores Theological institute for Oceania is not really affiliated with the Pontifical Lateran University - allegation proved completely absurd since all the documents of the Lateran University proving the affiliation are available.

ME: Ummmm, where? Your original affiliation expired in 2012. In 2013, the rector of the Lateran visited RMS to see if RMS qualified for a renewed affiliation. If the affiliation had been renewed, it would have been front page of the Umatuna. It wasn't. Such a fool, Edi. Such a fool. 

EDIVALDO: 5. All during this time they have unbelievably claimed that the Neocatechumenal Way is not Catholic but it is a sect – an allegation that cannot even be considered given the approval of Way given by five Popes and by the fact that there are Redemptoris Mater Seminaries in 105 dioceses of the world, among them one in Manila, one in Seoul, one in Taiwan, three in India, plus Rome, Boston and in about 25 other dioceses governed by cardinals.

ME: Oh there he goes with the numbers again. Edi, let me educate you. A papal pat on the head is not an APPROVAL, it is a pat on the head, and that is ALL you ever got from these "five popes," except for one, Pope Benedict, who in 2008 did NOT approve the NCW but approved a Statute, a Law, a Charter for you to FOLLOW. When you depart from that Charter - as you do with every "eucharist" you depart from the only thing that provides for the NCW's Catholic identity and permission to use the name. 

EDIVALDO: 6. Finally they have complained that the Archbishop is not available to people: everybody in good faith knows that the archbishop is celebrating almost every night confirmations in different parishes, visiting schools and celebrating on Saturdays or Sundays in different parishes. In every one of these visits he has always been completely available to people. The proper forum for the Archbishop to speak is from his cathedra in the cathedral, during his pastoral visits or through a pastoral letter.

ME: This is hilarious. Edi tells us that Tony is "completely available to people," then in the next breath he tells us that the "proper forum" is when he speaks in the cathedral, during his pastoral visits (which may happen once every 5 years) or "through a pastoral letter" (which he doesn't write - Fr. Walsh writes them.)You're a jackass, Edi. LOL. The people of Guam KNOW how this Archbishop is available. He's available to have you kiss his ring and kiss his ____. And then....BYE. 

The rest of Edi the Waldo's letter goes on to lash out about the ad etc. and then he comes to this:

EDIVALDO: After keeping silent for long time, since those who are orchestrating this campaign are inducing people into scandal, confusion and grave errors with the malicious intent to injure he (sic) Archbishop, the Church in Guam and many other people who have been insulted and harassed, the Archdiocese of Agana is in the process of taking canonical measures with the Sacra Rota – the competent canonical tribunal – and filing civil lawsuit against those perpetrating these malicious lies.

Oh, boy, Edi. I can't wait. Let's get one thing straight. First, the AD was my idea. I wrote it and I sought its publication. Second, the AD does not mention Apuron, but I did. I publicly said the AD was aimed at Apuron. Third, I am behind everything. I am the one har - ASS -ing, Brother Tony. I, Tim Rohr, have been front and center in this war against The Tony since July 2013 when he slandered, calumniated, and spread vicious lies about Fr. Paul (only his latest victim at the time.) 

So bring it on, jerk. Sue me. Let's do it. I have a document for absolutely EVERY allegation against The Tony. I'll gladly take the stand and show each one of them. And I'll more gladly watch The Tony take the stand. OMG! Can you imagine what would happen if The Tony ever got deposed before a court of law? You better check with The Tony, Edi, before you say any more about that. Trust me.

Oh and P.S., you'll never guess what fell into my hands. It will come in handy on my next trip to Rome...which could be soon. The "Sacra Rota" will be very interested. 

LOL. Waldo. Courage.

COUNT UP ON EDIVALDOCount Up