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." 

SERIOUS, TERLAJE. STICK TO DIVORCES

Dear Attorney Jackie Terlaje,

Over the last two years I have received several comments saying what an incompetent lawyer you are. But since I didn't have any evidence I chose not to post those comments. However, since today you apparently provide the evidence yourself, I guess I'll be letting those comments through. LOL.

THE BRONZE SHOE - AN OPINION OF COUNSEL

After we posted about Archbishop Apuron's direct attempt to get "the donor's representative" to outright lie for him (see The Ultimate Treachery), some commenters began to refer to "the next shoe to drop."

They were right to identify the blatant and sad attempt by a successor to the apostles to get someone to lie for him as "the first shoe."

Up to that point, and regarding the alienation of The Property, we could only infer that an atrocity had been committed.

With the exposition of Apuron's attempt to get "the donor's representative" to lie for him, and the representative's stern refusal to do so, we had, in writing, absolute evidence of Apuron's attempt to cover for his conspiracy to defraud the Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana.

THE BRONZE SHOE - LEGAL RECOURSE

We are not going to shoot all our bullets at one time. We are going to wait for the other side to say stupid stuff and then we're going to knock the legs out from under them one at a time. As expected, THE DIANA provides...and so shall we:

DianaJuly 6, 2015 at 10:44 PM

Dear Superales,

The RM seminary belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. Jacques Bronze is a real estate attorney who does not specialize in religious institutions and corporation sole. The law firm of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP in Denver, Colorado, whom the Archbishop hired, is a law firm that specialized in establishing corporations sole in many Catholic dioceses in the U.S. and in civil-religious issues related to corporation soles. Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP also specializes in religious institutions.

According to Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP:

"The authority of the Archbishop over the entity, particularly with respect to the administration of real property, is a fundamental aspect of the canon law relationship between the Archbishop and Redemptoris Mater. The method used by the Archbishop under civil law of conveying beneficial use of the Property to Redemptoris Mater while retaining legal title to the Property within the Archdiocese of Agana is consistent with canon law prescribed structures; is consistent with civil law methods widely used by numerous Catholic dioceses in the United States both historically and currently; and is a necessary civil law structure to reflect and enforce the Archbishop's powers of jurisdiction over Redemptoris Mater under the Code of Canon Law."

As you can see, Superales, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP took into account the CANON LAW of the Catholic Church......something which your "Bronze Shoe" did not because she does not specialize in religious institutions nor in corporation soles.

LOL. 

First let's start with "she". Jacques is a man's name. And Attorney Bronze is male. 

Second, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP is not licensed to do business in Guam and any attempt by the firm to represent itself as adjudicating a Guam legal matter is an ethics violation which could be pursued by the Guam bar. The only reason it has not been pursued is because Apuron has withdrawn the opinion from public view so that no one can determine whether or not his law firm committed said ethics violation. (Smart, Apuron, smart!)

Third, Canon law requires church authorities to observe "the general and particular provisions" of civil law in the matter of "contracts and their disposition":

Can. 1290 The general and particular provisions which the civil law in a territory has established for contracts and their disposition are to be observed with the same effects in canon law insofar as the matters are subject to the power of governance of the Church unless the provisions are contrary to divine law or canon law provides otherwise, and without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1547.

Fourth, as Attorney Bronze makes clear, the matter at hand involves the transaction of real property and is subject to civil law 1) because the Archdiocese of Agana chose to incorporate itself under Guam law, and 2) because the Archbishop of Agana chose to transfer the property via civil means (a recorded deed). Doing so subjects the transaction to the civil scrutiny of Guam law. And thus Attorney Bronze finds:

• Who owns the seminary real property and matters relating to corporate governance of a Guam established not-for-profit corporation is quite simply not a theological or doctrinal matter requiring the disregard of state civil law and application of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e., the Canon Law and nor would the application of civil law result in the violation of the First Amendment.

• The Archdiocese through its “Civil Law Report” which no church member can get a copy of, but can only stand and read a 19-page document, attempts to weave an argument that in light of the fact that the seminary real property was Church property and the fact that not-for-profit established by the Archbishop has a religious purpose, thus a dual status, and in light of this intersection between secular and Canon Law, Canon Law should determine or control the determination of the aforementioned two issues; i.e., the conveyance to RMHF and the corporate governance issues surround the RMHF. The Civil Law Report then goes on to state that to the extent there is a gap under Guam law, then Watson v. Jones would address any legal infirmities under Guam Law.

Note: The Denver opinion stakes its claim on the possibility that there is a gap in Guam Law. However, there is no gap in Guam law relative to this case. Attorney Bronze continues:

• The First Amendment does not remove from the purview of civil courts all controversies involving religious institutions. When a church dispute turns on a question devoid of doctrinal implications, civil courts may employ neutral principles of law to adjudicate the controversy.

• The secular law provides this church in Guam with the ability to use neutral civil law to create and protect property interests consistent with the tenets of the church. The Archbishop of Agana, a corporation sole, allows the corporation sole to be operated according to canon law. They do not however, provide that canon law governs property ownership in the secular world.

• …corporation sole statutes do not require application of canon law in determining interests in church property under state law.

• …there is no constitutional requirement in this case that internal church law be considered in determining a purely secular dispute. Holding and binding a church organization to the consequences of its choices it has made about how it organized its affairs with relation to its real properties and its relation with the secular world, does not substantially burden the exercise of religious freedom. Hence, in the instant case, the Archdiocese of Agana chose Guam law to incorporate itself as a corporation sole and it drafted a deed which was recorded at the Department of Land management Government of Guam, conveying certain Guam property interests.

• …based on Guam statutes governing interpretation of deed and contracts, the property interest conveyed is an absolute conveyance of the entire fee simple title of the subject properties to RMHF, subject to the restraint in use.

This means that the Deed recorded at Land Management on November 21, 2011 was "an absolute conveyance" of title to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation (or RMS) and that the property is forever owned by the RMS.

We now wait for the next piece of inane stupidity from THE DIANA to expose more of the Bronze opinion. Meanwhile, let's talk a bit about legal recourse.

Since the Archdiocese of Agana freely chose to incorporate itself under the laws of Guam and because it freely chose to do a real property transaction via civil provisions, Canon Law requires the Archdiocese of Agana to observe civil law in this particular matter. In fact, it is civil law that is working in Apuron's favor. 

While he argues that he did not give away The Property, it is civil law that says that he did. And as we have already seen from previous posts, particularly the one about the September 7, 2011 agenda of the AFC, it WAS Apuron's intent to wholly convey the title to The Property from the beginning. 

He only backed away from this position after the secretly recorded deed was discovered and our subsequently making it known on this blog that Apuron had violated the right of the Holy See to approve the transaction. 

So civilly, it would be hard to bring a case against Apuron because what he did was entirely legal from a civil standpoint. As the Archbishop of Agana and a corporation sole, he has the legal authority to do whatever he wants with archdiocesan property. It is only Canon law which binds him in this regard.

Because Guam law treats a corporate sole as a trust and its head as a trustee, it is possible to sue Apuron for violating the terms of a trust. However, there is not much precedent in this regard and there is always the danger of a judge throwing the case out on the grounds that it should be considered an internal church matter.

So what can we do?

This is where the recently discovered meeting agenda comes in. It is clear from the agenda, by the use of the plural "incorporators", that this was more than Apuron's idea. There were other operators, clandestine operators, who were quite likely "conspiring" to get title to the property in order to use it as a bargaining chip with the next bishop. In short, there could be grounds to investigate a conspiracy to extort.

Gennarini was smart to let his local fools do his dirty work for him. Doing so makes it difficult to go after him personally. However, it would not be difficult to go after his "local fools", meaning the RMS board of directors - which includes Apuron, as possibly party to a conspiracy.

The CCOG is looking into all of this. One thing is for certain. In order for the CCOG to pursue any kind of legal recourse they are going to need a purse. Its officers and current members have already fronted the money for the Bronze opinion. They are going to need more to continue. CCOG does not yet have a way to contribute online. So meanwhile, if you wish to back the CCOG in this effort, please send your checks to: 

Concerned Catholics of Guam

P.O. Box 8647

Tamuning, Guam 96913

Note: The CCOG has not made known its course of action. All of the above is my personal speculation about possible legal recourse. 

I will be releasing portions of the actual opinion as we address it. The above quotations are from Part III of the opinion. Part III can be accessed here.

One last note. I have received several comments that certain members of the NCW have been meeting with a "Filipino businessman" to discuss the leasing of a large piece of property. The NCW itself is not a corporate entity and cannot lease property. However, RMS is, and we all know which "large piece of property" RMS now owns.

If the rumors about this discussion are true, we might be able to deduce three  things: 1) Gennarini knows the gig is up and Apuron will be soon gone; 2) Gennarini is already expecting Apuron's replacement to not be as mindless as Apuron; and 3) the future of the seminary is at risk and he is moving to turn the property into an income producer for the NCW via the corporate structure of RMS.

Given what Gennarini has already masterminded through his puppet bishop, we wouldn't be surprised that the rumors are true.

THE BRONZE SHOE - CHECKMATE

Sometime in  2011. Archbishop Apuron is directed by Giuseppe Gennarini and Pius to convey title to The Property to RMS. (1)

Because of the value of The Property, Canon Law requires the consent of the archdiocesan finance council (as well as the college of consultors and the Holy See), Apuron submits his request to convey title to The Property to the AFC. (2)

September 7, 2011. The AFC places the matter on its agenda for September 7, 2011. (3)

According to the meeting agenda, Apuron is fully aware that he does not have the same "ultimate powers" over RMS as he does over the archdiocese and that a transfer or conveyance of title would mean that he "relinquishes ultimate control of the asset."

He is also aware that his legal counsel, Atty. Ed Terlaje, has advised that should there be a transfer of title, RMS Articles and By-laws would need to be amended in order to keep The Property an archdiocesan asset.

According to the agenda, Apuron, ignoring the advice of his counsel, refused to amend the RMS Articles and By-laws, and required that "the assets be deeded to RMS without modification."

Four of the five members of the AFC vote not to convey title to The Property to RMS.

September 8, 2011. Richard Untalan, then-president of the AFC, writes the rector of RMS the following day, advising him of the AFC's decision. (4)

It is important to note that it was the AFC which notified the RMS rector of the denial of their request and not the archbishop. If the AFC's role was merely consultative - as the Vicar General later alleged - then it would have been the archbishop's responsibility to inform the rector. However, because the AFC's role in this particular matter - as per Can. 1292 - is determinative, then it was appropriate for the AFC president to inform the rector.

November 16, 2011. Archbishop Apuron writes Richard Untalan informing him that the matter...

...is not clearly "alienation" but an assigning of title of a property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary. (5)

In short, Apuron attempts to make the case that both the archdiocese ("one public juridic person") and RMS ("another public juridic person") are both equally subject to him. Apuron attempts to make this distinction because as long as the matter can be considered "alienation", he cannot move forward without the consent of the AFC.

Apuron also knows that what he states is not true. As per the Sept 7 agenda Apuron's legal counsel made it perfectly clear to him that as regards his control of RMS he was only "one of six votes," which is why his Counsel advised that the Articles and By-laws be amended if he wished to retain control of The Property.

Apparently Apuron knew his attempt to play fast and loose with legal language would be challenged so he decided not to send the letter until after he had already transferred title to the property.

November 21, 2011. A day that will live in Infamy. Archbishop Apuron signs the deed conveying title to The Property to RMS. The deed is recorded at Land Management the next day. (6)

November 25, 2011. Apuron has his letter delivered to Richard Untalan and does not tell Untalan that he has already recorded the deed.

Richard Untalan assumes that Apuron wants the AFC to revisit the issue so he calls a meeting for December 6, 2011.

December 6, 2011. For placing the matter on the agenda, Untalan is accused by the Vicar General of a "vulnus" towards the archbishop, of disrespecting his person, and harming "the dignity of the Ordinary." Apuron himself accuses Untalan of creating "nonsense." (7)

It was obvious why the Vicar General and Apuron went ballistic. They had already recorded the deed and they both knew they had done wrong. We know that because if they hadn't done wrong they would have happily informed the AFC and the rest of the diocese of what they had done. But they did not.

January 12, 2012. Apuron subsequently terminates the membership of the four members of the AFC who voted against the transfer. (8)

The matter remains a secret until...

January 5, 2015. The deed conveying title to The Property is discovered at Land Management, cleverly disguised only as a deed restricting the use of the property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

However, in the language of the deed, operative words such as transfer, convey, and deed, are used. These are words used to transfer title to real property.

Because the consent of the Holy See was required to transfer title (alienate) property of that value, Apuron knows he is in trouble now with Rome.

January 29, 2015. To cover himself he sends a letter to the representative of the donor who, in 2003, gave the archdiocese two million dollars to pay off the note on the property. Apuron includes a self-addressed letter stating that the donation was for the specific purpose of purchasing the property for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the Blessed Diego institute. 

February 2, 2015. The donor wrote Apuron back stating that she had never heard of either institution and refused to sign stating that what Apuron wanted her to sign was "not true." (9)

April 2015. Desperate, Apuron is set up (probably by Gennarini) with a Denver law firm, which we are told opines in Apuron's favor. However, if this were true, Apuron would have published the report in the U Matuna or at least posted it to his website. He did neither. In fact, Attorney Bronze, who is the only person we know who was able to view the report, writes:

The Archdiocese through its “Civil Law Report” which no church member can get a copy of, but can only stand and read a 19-page document... (10)

And, after Bronze viewed the Report, Apuron had it withdrawn completely from public view.

Why, if the report exonerates him, did he do this? 

It's rather simple:

1. Knowing that it was not licensed to practice law in Guam, the firm most likely wrote the opinion on the condition that Apuron would not publish it or present it as an authentic legal opinion. And, given what we know of the report, it appears it was written only to convince Roman authorities that Apuron had not violated Canon Law.
2. However, Apuron, anxious to redeem himself at home, opted to publish a portion of the report in the U Matuna, and then to give it credence, pretended to make the full report available at the chancery, not thinking anyone would dare come and look. 
3. However, the CCOG had Attorney Bronze take a look. Upon his first visit he was told to come back. Apparently they weren't ready for him. Upon his second visit he was made to stand at a counter and read the entire 19 page document in the presence of a chancery watchdog, and was not allowed to make copies, take pictures, or even write notes.
4. The report was then withdrawn from public view 1) because making the report public probably violated the original terms of the Denver law firm - creating a huge potential liability for them; and 2) because the report did not exonerate Apuron as he has intimated.

May-June 2015. The Denver opinion was Apuron's last available move, which explains why "the Dianas" are clinging to it. The Bronze opinion is simply "checkmate". It

1. demonstrates the deed to be an "absolute conveyance" of title
2. demonstrates that Apuron does not control RMS (which we will see soon)
3. demonstrates that the transaction is not just a church matter and is not exempt from civil law 

However, even though it is checkmate, the game isn't over until the checkmated king is taken off the board. How that happens will be Apuron's choice. He can leave now under his own free will, or he will be made to leave - if not by Church authority, then by what will happen after a civil suit.

Footnotes

(1) "The Property" is the former Accion Hotel property currently occupied by the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

(2) Canon 1292

(3) Archdiocesan Finance Council. Archdiocese of Agana. Agenda for meeting September 7, 2011.

(4) Letter from Mr. Richard Untalan, president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council of the Archdiocese of Agana, to Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector, Redemptoris Mater House of Formation.

(5) Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Richard Untalan. November 16, 2011

(6) Deed Restriction. 2011.11.22

(7) RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Quitugua to Untalan-Vulnus and RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Apuron to Untalan

(8) Untalan fired

(9) The Ultimate Treachery

(10) The Bronze opinion will be published in full soon.

GROUP MAY SUE CHURCH OVER TITLE TRANSFER

For those who may have missed it. Here is the article in the PDN and the press release about CCOG's intent to see to the return of the Yona property.

TIME TO FUND CCOG AND TAKE THIS TO COURT

I

Anyone can write a letter to the editor or even a personal letter to the media. But Jackie Terlaje in her "release" to the media yesterday did neither. She pretends to represent the archdiocese or the archbishop in her capacity as an attorney. She does this by doing two things:

SHAMEFUL! ....AND THE BRONZE SHOE

 What can we say about Apuron's "A personal letter to the people of God in the Archdiocese of Agana" (published in today's U Matuna) other than SHAMEFUL!

He positions the "attack on me personally" in the context of ISIS massacres and the Supreme Court attack on Christian marriage. 

WOW!

And he calls on us to return to "decency and respect" and to "seek reconciliation among our brothers and sisters"!!!!!!

YOU FIRST, ARCHBISHOP.

THE BRONZE SHOE - RMS: A SCAM FROM THE BEGINNING

Joke's on you Guam. We screwed you. - Lv Giuseppe & Kiko

I have taken very little personal credit for all the atrocities we have exposed on this blog, mostly because the data and documents were provided by others and all I had to do was post and comment on them. However, just for fun, I would like to take credit for blowing the whistle many months ago on the clandestine presence of the Board of Guarantors in the RMS Articles of Incorporation.

While Fr. Adrian and others continued to protest that RMS was fully under the control of the Archbishop and the Board of Directors, I continued to cry foul, demonstrating over and over again that Apuron was NOT in control of RMS, that the Board of Directors were mere puppets, and that Giuseppe Gennarini had reserved all power to the Kiko's.

When it was discovered this past January that Apuron had in fact deeded The Property to RMS four years earlier, it became even more clear why Gennarini and his neocatechumenal bullies had masterminded the corporate structure as they did: The Property is now fully in the control of, not RMS, but Giuseppe Gennarini himself.

Attorney Bronze spells this out in Section II of his opinion which you can read in full here. Below is the relevant section which I separated into paragraphs for easier reading and added emphases:

The establishment of the Board of Guarantors by this non-for-profit corporation calls into question as to how the Board of Guarantors are to be elected or removed from such position once he/she becomes a member of said board, as the bylaws do not address the election or removal procedures of such Board of Guarantors and neither does Guam law. 

Since Guam law does not recognize a Board of Guarantors* and in the absence of any provisions for the removal or election of such board in the articles or by-laws of RMHF, the Archbishop, despite being the sole member of the not-for-profit, cannot remove the members of the Board of Guarantors unless the Archbishop files for an application for the dissolution of RMHF.

Even the filing of such petition for dissolution has its own legal complications as 18 GCA § 5105 requires a majority of the board of directors or “other officers having management of the affairs of the corporations” to execute the application for dissolution.

In such a case, if the Board of Guarantors objects to the action of the board of directors or officers in relation to such possible dissolution application requested by the Archbishop, it could veto their action per Article X of the Amended Articles of Incorporation.

It is the opinion of the undersigned that the drafter of these organizational documents purposely and deliberately designed the structure of the organization so that the Board of Guarantors shall have veto power over all decisions including the decisions of the archbishop and his successors.

Thus, we are faced with the unusual practice of a separate, unelected, and un-removable board having veto power over a board of directors, the officers, and the sole member, the Archbishop of Agana and his successors.

*Attorney Bronze earlier demonstrated in Part II that Guam law does NOT recognize a Board of Guarantors in a corporate structure, ONLY the Board of Directors. However, the presence of a the Board of Guarantors is valid until a court invalidates Article X of the RMS Articles of Incorporation.

So there you have it. Just as we thought from the beginning. Apuron completely gave this deca-million dollar property to the Neocatechumenal Way since the RMS by-laws mandate that the Neocatechumenal responsible team for the United States always be a part of the board and can never be removed.

That Neocatechumenal responsible team is Giuseppe Gennarini, his wife, the Kiko-presbyter Angelo Poschetti, and guess who? Anthony Apuron personally! and NOT the Archbishop of Agana, Incumbent.

This means that even if Apuron should be run out of town, he, along with his Kiko-buddies, remain in control of RMS and will have authority over the next bishop in any matter relative to the running of RMS. That means, as I have said before, Apuron, as Archbishop of Agana, has deeded control of The Property TO HIMSELF personally and FOREVER!

And now, are you ready for this?

Gennarini cleverly structured the language of the Deed Restriction so that RMS does NOT have to operate as a seminary and can morph into any business he and Apuron want to run.

Check out the deed restriction again. Here it is:

Note that the Declaration does NOT say that RMS must operate as a seminary, ONLY that is for the USE of RMS and Blessed Diego Institute. RMS is a corporation. It can amend its articles to do anything its directors want it to do. In this deed Apuron did not guarantee that we would have this seminary forever. He only guaranteed that the property would belong to a particular corporation forever and to the Neocatechumenal responsible team that controls it, which includes HIM!

With this fact in mind we can now see that the rumor that RMS is talking to investors may be true. RMS is horribly in debt and hemorrhaging. There never was any long term way of keeping such a massive operation going on this tiny island. The directors are seeing the same writing on the wall that the former AFC is alleged to have seen: either sell the property or turn it into an income producing property and use the proceeds for the true betterment of the archdiocese.

Except now the property no longer belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. All the proceeds which could have once gone towards the betterment of the diocese of the people who supported it for many years will now go to the crooks who, with their Apuron puppet, set up this scam from the beginning. 

Quoting again from Bronze:

"...the drafter of these organizational documents purposely and deliberately designed the structure of the organization so that the Board of Guarantors shall have veto power over all decisions including the decisions of the archbishop and his successors.

*****

Dear Rome:

This has now gone beyond the atrocities of just these local crooks. The Neocatechumenal Way would have no authority in our Church if not for the sanction you gave it. You (specifically the relevant congregation and/or dicastery) have the duty of policing it and calling them in when they abuse the faithful as they have done in Guam through the groveling willingness of their puppet bishop. In matters like this where the competency of the local Ordinary is so obviously compromised, the good of the local Church falls to you. Or has Kiko bought you too?

I'll leave it at that...for now.

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!

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.

THE BRONZE SHOE - AND PIUS IS A LIAR

Pontius Pius

Now that we have an Opinion of Counsel regarding the TRUTH about RMS, let us revisit the lies told by Fr. Pius to the Pacific Daily News on August 2, 2014. (The full article is no longer freely available on the PDN but fortunately "The Diana" has copied the lies for us here.) I have indicated each point I wish to address with a number in parentheses.

PDN: Did the Neocatechumenal Way attempt to influence the transfer of title to the former Accion Hotel property in Yona from the Archdiocese of Guam to an entity whose officers are members of the Neocatechumenal Way? 

PIUS: Actually it is the other way around. The purchase of the Accion Hotel was proposed by the Neocatechumenal Way to the archbishop, (1) because in order to start the seminary and an institute, there was a need for rooms for 30 to 40 seminarians, 10 faculty professors, four classrooms, a library for 20,000 volumes, a chapel. The money for the purchase of the hotel was donated to the archdiocese by an off-island benefactor who offered it with the explicit intention of erecting the seminary and the theological institute. (2) The previous owner of the hotel sold it for just $1.9 million with the proviso that the building be used as an educational facility. Actually, the archdiocese did not put down a penny. 

Regarding the transfer of the title, the legal adviser of the archdiocese, five years ago, asked that the title be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Corp. to respect the intention of the donor and to safeguard the property. (3) This corporation is a 'corporation sole' where there is only one member, namely the archbishop, who has all power. (4) He is assisted by a board of directors who (oversees) the daily administration. The only member, namely the archbishop, chooses all directors. Then there is a board of guarantors that guarantees that the corporation follows the original purpose for which it was created. The Archbishop chooses, confirms, or dismisses freely these guarantors. (5)

THE MYSTERIOUS APPEARANCE OF "THE RIGHT DOCUMENT"

Last week on Patti Arroyo's show during which she hosted Giuseppe Gennarini, Patti took a call from Bob Klitzkie. Before Bob got more than a few words into his question, Gennarini pounced on him with "you don't have the right document, you don't have the right document, article 6, article 6..." 

I was not surprised by Gennarini's aggressive attack and his unwillingness to let Bob even finish with one question. This is the MO of the kiko's: deny, deflect, shut down, shout down, etc. And Mr. Gennarini - at least per his history on Guam - is well known for his ugly tirades. (We shall have an affidavit saying so soon.)

While not surprised at Gennarini's outburst, I was somewhat surprised that he seemed so sure that Bob "did not have the right document" since Bob was referencing the Articles of Incorporation as amended in 2004 - the most recent version of the articles (or so we thought). 

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:

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

MIND BLOWING EVIL - THE RMS PROPERTY SCAM

In preparation for the "bronze shoe" which will drop in the next day or two, we now need to recall the evil events surrounding RMS.

First, some terms:

"The Property": The old Accion Hotel property, purchased by the Archdiocese of Agana in 2002 for approximately 2 million dollars.

RMS: Redemptoris Mater Seminary - a non profit, 501(c)3 corporation, incorporated in the U.S. Territory of Guam

"The Gennarini's": Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini are the "Neocatechumenal Responsibles" for the United States and the Pacific. 

AFC: the Archdiocesan Finance Council

Vicar General: Msgr. David C. Quitugua (Note: Msgr. David I. A. Quitugua is the pastor of Ordot church. He is NOT the Vicar General.)

LOL. THIS IS GETTING FUNNER AND FUNNER

The Diana says "Bob Klitzkie loses."

1. 
   
   AnonymousApril 4, 2016 at 3:44 AM

   The KAKA filled Dungbat continues to proclaim victory....
   
   DianaApril 3, 2016 at 9:58 PM
   Dear Anonymous at 7:27 pm,
   
   All you have is an interpretation of the Bronze lawyer. That is what you will have on the day of the information hearing. The Archbishop, on the other hand, will have the following information:
   
   1. The report and encumbrance report from the Pacific American Title stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
   2. The report from the Denver law firm which specializes in religious institutions and corporation soles stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
   3. The report of the Pontifical Council stating that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because the Archbishop owns RMS.
   4. The corrected Certificate of Titles certifying the Archbishop as the legal owner of RMS.
   5. The Articles of Incorporation of RMS showing that the Archbishop is the sole member and only incorporator of RMS.
   6. The Bylaws of RMS which stated that the Archbishop is the corporation sole of RMS and have the authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.
   7. The Declaration of Deed Restriction which has been filed by the Department of Tax and Revenue as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed."
   
   As for Bob Klitzke, what will he bring to the Information Hearing? He will only have the opinion of a real estate lawyer who has absolutely no experience of religious institutions or corporation soles.
   
   This is an information hearing. The person who will have the most information is certainly NOT Bob Kliztke. He can argue all he wants that the Certificate of Title should have RMS as the legal owner, but he will be asked the question, "WHO" in RMS is the legal owner. We already know he is not going to say the Archbishop. His only choices are "Gennarini" or "I don't know." Either way he answers, he loses.

Dear Diana. Despite your obvious lack of education, please try to improve yourself. Here, let me help you:

APURON AND HIS HANDLERS GIVE FAITHFUL CATHOLICS A BIG MIDDLE FINGER

Apologies, but this is EXACTLY what the front page of the U Matuna just did. 

If RMS was truly in the control of the Archbishop of Agana, there would be no need to keep using what is supposed to be a Catholic diocesan publication to try to convince (i.e. "bull___t") us over and over and over. 

GUAM POST TODAY: KLITZKIE UNRAVELING DAVID C QUITUGUA'S BIG LIE

Klitzkie: Church published ‘deceptive’ property document

Former Sen. Bob Klitzkie is calling on the Department of Land Management to look into what he suspects are deliberately doctored government documents that the Archdiocese of Agana printed in the Nov. 29, 2015 issue of the U’Matuna Si Yu’os.

http://www.postguam.com/news/local/klitzkie-church-published-deceptive-property-document/article_3723c950-e43d-11e5-ac3a-4b83aad78e2b.html

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.