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.

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

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.

ADRIAN COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET

Archdiocese seeks to dispel "lies"

Posted: Apr 12, 2016 1:20 PMUpdated: Apr 12, 2016 3:32 PM

By Ken Quintanilla

http://www.kuam.com/story/31697625/2016/04/11/archdiocese-seeks-to-dispel-lies

Fr. Edivaldo da Silva and Father Adrian Cristobal spoke before island Rotarians this afternoon about the history of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona.  The property has been at the center of controversy for several months as many have questioned whether the property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana.   Former Sen. Bob Klitzkie discovered an error on the certificate title for the seminary property.

The Department of Land Management worked with the Archdiocese to correct the error.  Sen. Klitzkie however believes the matter should have been resolved through the judicial process rather than administratively.   Attorney Jackie Terlaje also appeared before Rotarians saying they want to dispel the lies. She says they can reassure the public the seminary property is owned by the Archdiocese, and they have the legal documents proving it. 

*****

Once, again, if the Archdiocese has documents that would put all this to rest, then the Archbishop and those who have conspired with him (JACKIE) to withhold those documents are not only morally culpable for the mortal sin of scandal, but by their actions  - withholding proof when they had it in hand - they are seriously guilty of allowing the division in this Archdiocese to foment to a degree that has caused much harm to souls. 

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.

BETTER HOPE HE RETIRES FIRST

Dear Diana,

Did you really say this?

"If CCOG's attorney actually believes that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana, he can take the Archbishop to court.  I am sure the Archbishop has his lawyers and documents ready to show that the RMS property does belong to the Archdiocese of Agana.  CCOG's attorney, on the other hand, is going to have to show his documents (whatever that is).  We have not seen any documents showing that the RMS property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana. "

If so, then you really are as stupid as they say. No wonder you use a pseudonym. At least you are smart enough to do that. Here, let me help you out, you ditz.

• Attorneys do not take people to court, their clients do. 
• The CCOG has never alleged that the property does not "belong" to the Archdiocese of Agana, only that the Archbishop has deeded complete control of the property to RMS, removing it as an asset of the Archdiocese of Agana, severely harming its patrimony and thereby violating church law (not civil law, you idiot). 
• LOL. The Archbishop's "lawyers". Obviously he doesn't have anybody smart enough to defend him otherwise he wouldn't have had to go to Denver and to a firm that is not licensed to practice law on Guam. To practice law in Guam an attorney or firm must be a member of the Guam Bar (the Denver firm is not) or be admitted by the court pro hac vice (and the Denver firm was not). 

Oh, and I understand that you are also countering my op-ed today by touting the Denver firm (not licensed to practice law on Guam) as one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. LOL. They didn't even make the Vault 100 which lists the most prestigious law firms in the United States. In fact if you search for Lewis and Roca LLP the only ranking you get is "coming soon". LOL. (The name Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP - the firm Apuron used - doesn't even come up.)

But actually there is something Apuron can and will be sued for. You just better hope he retires first.

DAVID THE VG: NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T - PART 1

On Sunday, November 29, 2015, the First Sunday of Advent, Msgr. David C. Quitugua published a false public document in the archdiocesan newspaper, the U Matuna.

The publication of the false document is only the latest chapter in a years-long effort to hide a mega-million dollar swindle from the Catholic faithful of the Archdiocese of Agana, the general public, and even the Vatican.

NOTE TO FILONI: DO YOU SEE THE EVIL YOU ARE PROPPING UP?

AnonymousJune 2, 2015 at 11:12 AM

This was posted on Diana's blog by CNMI lawyer: Do you think the Denver Law firm would risk disciplinary sanctions?

CNMI LawyerJune 2, 2015 at 9:39 AM

I am admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit, but that does not authorize me to appear before each of the federal district courts thereunder, including the District Court of Guam, without a separate permanent or pro hac vice (temporary) admission to that district court.

Likewise, giving legal advice about Guam law to clients based on Guam requires admission by the Guam Supreme Court to the Guam Bar Association.

Failure to comply raises the very real possibility of disciplinary sanctions for unauthorized practice of law, with significant malpractice insurance liability exposure on behalf of third parties foreseeably harmed by erroneous advice and opinions.

MY RESPONSE:

The fact of the matter is, a large firm such as Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP certainly knows better than to "practice" law in a jurisdiction where it has no authorization to do so. And an examination of the opinion - if the public were allowed to actually see it - probably includes a disclaimer stating that the opinion in no way attempts to interpret Guam law. Any lawyer or legal firm would be absolutely stupid not to do include such a disclaimer, let alone a firm the size of LRR LPP. 

And this is precisely why Apuron will not permit it to be seen. In short, Apuron used a ton of money to hire a firm to render an opinion that - because the firm cannot render an authoritative legal opinion on a Guam real estate transaction - is absolutely useless. 

It's more of Apuron's smoke and mirrors. He believes that the Catholics of this diocese are stupid. He believes this first because of his own arrogance and second because this is how the kiko-colonizers that he runs with view us. Thus he thinks he can buffalo us with bull crap by hiring some sort of high-priced "great white" law firm to cow the natives and make you all shut up. 

In fact we can be certain of this because if the Denver firm's opinion DID what Apuron says it does, he would make sure we all had a copy. 

Instead he has made sure that no one has a copy. 

Note to Cardinal Filoni, Prefect for the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples: Do you see the extent of the evil you are propping up? 

We do. 

WHAT THE U MATUNA DID NOT TELL US

In the U Matuna for Sunday, April 19, 2015 we are told that if we want to see the Civil Law Report by the Denver law firm of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP regarding "the truth about the property of Redemptoris Mater Seminary" that "The whole document can be consulted at the Chancery." 

What the U Matuna did not tell us is that it can only be consulted until tomorrow, April 24. 

The document is 20 pages long and cannot be duplicated, copied, videographed, photographed, etc., and can only be reviewed in the presence of the Chancery staff.

How's that for "dispelling groundless rumors" as the archbishop claims we are spreading.

P.S. Archbishop. It is illegal for a law firm not licensed to practice law in the Territory of Guam to advise a corporate sole incorporated in the Territory of Guam regarding the conveyance of Guam real property. It is also an ethics violation. 

But then, we're quite used to those by now. 

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

DAVID THE VG: NOW YOU SEE IT NOW YOU DON'T - PART 2

Continued from Part 1

Now, we are not going to make a criminal charge on this blog against David the VG, we will let others take care of that. 

But let's have some fun. Let's say you are David's defense attorney. (Good luck!) And your defense is that the false certificate slipped into the U Matuna without your client's knowledge. 

Well given the many reports of David's neo-stunted judgment and long documentable history of not knowing the first thing about what he's doing as a Vicar General, you might be able to credibly argue ignorance. But it would not stand for long.

First there is the matter that the certificate of title was issued on October 30, 2015 and subsequently published in the U Matuna on November 29, 2015. That's a whole month!

If by the extremely rare chance the Registrar of Titles really did make a mistake and overlooked the deed, David the VG and his little neo-attorney friend, not to mention the supposedly other (hopefully) still sentient people at the chancery and the staff of the U Matuna, had to have seen that the memorial of the deed, the much contested deed, the very center of the year long controversy, and the very center piece of the accompanying news story, was MISSING!

DAVID THE VG: NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T - PART 3

Continued from Part 2

Before we move on to the more egregious and despicable elements of this story (tampering with a public record is illegal), let us examine even more evidence that the issuance of the certificate of title without the memorial showing the Declaration of Deed Restriction and its subsequent publication in the U Matuna could NOT possibly have been an oversight. 

RIDICULOUS RIC AND THE MISSING $43,200!

Posted by Tim

source

Ridiculous Ric (Eusebio) has had a lot to say the last few days and has made many claims:

• "...the ad hoc committee had a lack of knowledge about the seminary and revealed its "propagandistic aim and ideological nature" because the report was delivered to the media before seminary officials."
• "...the majority of RMS funds already comes from private donations, and the net subsidy from the Archdiocese for 2016 was only $26,100."
• "...the real amount of archdiocesan support to the seminary for the 2016 financial year was only five percent of the total budget."
• "...over the last five years, the archdiocese has contributed to priests’ formation in the seminary with an annual average of five to eight percent of the budget."
• "...during the 2016 financial year the priests related to the seminary donated $46,150 out of their salary, which the archdiocese counted instead as part of their contribution to the seminary."
• "...RMS can grant formation and lodging to our (seminarians) for $10,000 per year.”
• “the majority of the priests formed in the RMS...are serving in the parishes...where no other priest wants to go.”
• "...the seminarians at their institution are granted degrees that are internationally recognized by the Lateran University of Rome, by the Congregation for Catholic Education in the Vatican, and many civil universities in the world, including in the United States."

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.