 |
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.
I have already proven that a seminary can be a corporation sole with a Board of Directors. St. John Seminary is a corporation sole with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the corporate sole. See the weblink below:
https://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/10/st-john-seminary-in-california.html?m=1
There is the evidence. A seminary can be a corporation sole. RMS is also a corporation sole. So, you see...Rohr was wrong when he told you that ONLY an Archdiocese is a corporation sole.