Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Deceit In The Jungle

It appears that someone copied and pasted my comment in the jungle.  My comment was slightly different because I made a few minor changes.  At any rate, my comment can be found here. 

Tim Rohr's goal is to deceive you.  He got a real estate and commercial litigation lawyer on Guam, but this lawyer does not specialize in religious institutions nor in corporation soles.  Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, on the other hand, specialize in religious institutions and corporation soles.  Religious institutions are not business or government agencies nor are they treated as one.  Tim Rohr stated that "Canon law requires church authorities to observe "the general and particular provisions" of civil law in the matter of "contracts and their disposition".  It is actually much more than that.  The following quote was taken from the Vatican website (the bold and underline is mine):   

Canons 1254-1310 in canon law regulate the purchase, ownership, administration, and sale of temporal goods. The definition of “temporal goods” is all property both movable and immovable that is owned by juridic persons in the Church. Much like the civil law allows groups to form civil corporations, canon law allows groups to become public juridic persons. A public juridic person is similar to a canonical corporation. Dioceses are independent juridic persons, as are parishes, missions, Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals, etc.

The Ordinariate will have parishes that will be independently incorporated in civil law. Though some dioceses in the United States are set up as civil “corporations sole”, this civil legal construct is not appropriate for the Ordinariate, nor does it accurately reflect the Church’s understanding that each individual parish is its own separate public juridic person. However, the Ordinariate will require that each public juridic person’s civil articles of incorporation reflect the canonical reality that parishes are required to administer their property (temporal goods) as governed by the requirements of canon law.

If a group is a formally established juridic person, then it is bound to follow the canonical norms concerning the purchase, administration, or sale of its property. The applicable canon states:

c. 1257§1 All temporal goods which belong to the Universal Church, the Apostolic See, or other public juridic persons in the Church are ecclesiastical goods and are governed by the following canons and their own statutes. 

http://ordinariate.net/parish-property-ownership

To reiterate, Jacques Bronze does not specialize in religious institution nor in corporation soles.  Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, on the other hand, specialized in establishing corporations sole in many Catholic diocese in the United States and in civil-religious issues related to corporation soles.  And their conclusions are: 

  1.  Regarding the relationship between the Archbishop and the Board of Guarantors: "The corporate governance structure of Redemptoris Mater shows...that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over Redemptoris Mater, as the Archbishop is the sole member of the entity under civil incorporation laws, presides over the governing boads, has the power to appoint the governing boards, the power to amend the civil governing documents and is the Ordinary under canon law with specific authority over the entity as prescribed in the Canonical Statutes and under canon law."
  2.  Regarding the relationship between the Archbishop and the Board of Guarantors: "The corporate governance structure of Redemptoris Mater shows...that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over Redemptoris Mater, as the Archbishop is the sole member of the entity under civil incorporation laws, presides over the governing boads, has the power to appoint the governing boards, the power to amend the civil governing documents and is the Ordinary under canon law with specific authority over the entity as prescribed in the Canonical Statutes and under canon law." 
  3. Conclusion:  "For those lawyers who regularly practice this specialized area of religious Institutions law, including the intersection of canon and secular law, the conclusion reached here that the Archbishop is in control of the property would not be at all controversial."
Furthermore, Tim Rohr stated:  "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 Denver law firm concluded:  "For those lawyers who regularly practice this specialized area of religious Institutions law, including the intersection of canon and secular law, the conclusion reached here that the Archbishop is in control of the property would not be at all controversial."  Attorney Bronze is certainly NOT one of those lawyers who regularly practice a specialized area of religious institution law, including the intersection of canon and secular law.  So who should you believe.......a law firm who specialized in that field or an attorney who does not have any experience or specialty in that field? 


89 comments:

  1. I would believe the law firm who is ALLOWED to practice on Guam. Bronze is allowed to practice here, the Denver law firm is NOT.

    If however, the Denver law firm does indeed have the authorization to practice on Guam (have passed the Guam bar) then I'd definitely believe the Denver law firm. I'm sure you, Diana, can prove the Denver's legal ability to practice law on Guam. Why don't you show us their certificate that gives them permission to do so along with the permission by the pope for you neos to do your stuff. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:03 am,

      I believe that Tim is the one who is supposed to show proof since he was the one who made the first accusation that they do not have authority to practice on Guam. If Tim Rohr plans to hire Attorney Bronze to represent him in his lawsuit, the Archbishop actually has a group of attorneys practicing on Guam to represent him.. One of his attorneys knows canon law and corporations sole or specializes in that field. :-)

      I find it odd that you would choose the Denver law firm ONLY because of authorization of practice. I would think that expertise in a particular field of the law would weigh more. Hiring a lawyer would be like finding the right doctor. If you are charged with a crime, one would get a lawyer specializing in criminal justice rather than one specializing in real estate. :-) Oh dear.....how hatred blinds the judgment of a person.

      Delete
    2. Hey Diana,

      I do not hate anyone. That's a very strong word. I will admit that I dislike a few decisions being made, but who am I to judge. That's God's job.

      However, I must respectfully say that you are comparing "apples or oranges". Yes, the Denver law firm indeed specializes in Non profit matters and church related stuff as you mentioned, however, Guam laws are different from Colorado's laws. As you know, in order to practice law in any given place, one must pass the bar of that jurisdiction. If Denver indeed had authority to practice and to issue a legal opinion on Guam matters, then I'm sure it will be revealed. But as of now, many of us were not given proof of that. - just saying.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 2:44 pm,

      I think the reason why no further documents are no longer provided is because all the jungle does is twist the documents around to fit their interpretation. I'm also certain that even a prominent law firm such as Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP is fully aware that they can be penalized for practicing law where they are not supposed to practiced. The Archbishop has a group of attorneys working for him.

      Delete
    4. Diana at 10:00 AM, I think you're a little bit mixed up. You wrote "If Tim Rohr plans to hire Attorney Bronze to represent him in his lawsuit …" but according to what I read in JW that attorney was representing CCOG not Tim Rohr. Tim Rohr is reporting the findings of the attorney but the attorney doesn't work for Tim Rohr. From what is on the JW blog it was CCOG who paid for the services of Attorney Jacques G. Bronze not TIm Rohr.

      You wrote that the archbishop "actually has a group of attorneys practicing on Guam to represent him.. One of his attorneys knows canon law and corporations sole or specializes in that field. :-)."

      If you're right about the archbishop's group of attorneys, why did he need to go off-island to get a legal opinion? Why didn't the archbishop use his attorneys who are already familiar with the case? Doesn't the archbishop trust his attorneys?

      BTW: Tim Rohr thinks that if the Denver law firm's legal opinion does show that the archbishop

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 7:57 pm,

      Ask yourself why CCOG did not hire an attorney who specialized in religious institutions and corporations sole? The Archbishop has a team of attorneys specializing in different fields. If there is no attorney on Guam who specialize in religious institutions and corporations soles, his team of attorneys know how to advise the archbishop of obtaining one legally.

      Delete
    6. Diana, I am so confused. Why did become this Yona seminary so important right now? It has been there for years already without protest. Why do people protest now? I am confused of this seminary that it belongs to the diocese or not. Where else could it belong? If it is a special seminary it still belongs to the diocese, not? So what is really the problem here? Could you explain, please?

      I am reading RMS and Blessed Diego institute are both in the Yona seminary. Why is this wrong? I don't see the difference. St John-Paul seminary should be also there, it is a big building I saw it. It has sufficient room. So why is St John-Paul seminary separate? The Yona seminary being large enough who pays the utility bills? If it belongs to the diocese then the diocese is responsible to paying the bills, isn't it? I am confused why that building is so big? How many rooms are used there for education purpose? What about the rest of the building, is it laying waste? Why? Why don't utilize more for church services?

      I saw in Yona the big swimming pool and the exercise track. Why would seminary students need swimming pool and exercise track? Is this part of education? Diana, I am confused about almost everything with this seminary. Could you clarify what is going on for the plain folks who do not know the intricate details and conflicts about Yona but would like to have a good understanding of the most important thing? Think of a summary of Everything You Wanted to Know about the Yona Seminary. Thanks.

      Joane Santos

      Delete
    7. Dear Joane Santos,

      Having a seminary is actually a benefit for the Church. Since we had the seminary, we do not need to ask for priests from the Philippines as we did in the past. The RM seminary used to be a hotel, which is why there is a swimming pool there. The RM seminary trains the seminarians for worldwide missionary work while the St. John Paul II seminary trains them for local missions.

      The people who are protesting are protesting only about the RM seminary because it is worth more money to them.

      Delete
    8. How is it worth more money for them? I don't get it, I'm sorry. The seminary belongs to the diocese. It's complete worth is there for us Catholics. Not any bit of it belongs to anyone else, right? So how is it worth money for anyone at all?

      In my mind the RMS seminary, the Blessed Diego seminary and the St John-Paul seminary are the same institute of study for those contemplating vocation to priest. It is confusing that it is three and not one. Okay it was a hotel but it is not anymore! So why to keep the pool? Who is diving there every morning? Seminary professors and students? It is too big of a building to maintain for a few rooms of it that are used for seminary. How many seminarian? There is a huge kitchen section, as well. Who are cooking and eating there? Or the welcome counter for a hotel is the first thing you see there. Is this necessary for the seminary?

      But the most confusing is the ownership of the seminary. I read about the law companies who fight each other for opinion. How are they involved? Did they purchase of sell the property? What is this all fighting about? I still don't understand much of this hoopla. Why is the island divided over such a great thing as a seminary for Catholic priests?

      Joane Santos

      Delete
    9. Dear Joane Santos,
      It is worth money to them because it will pay off the debts incurred by Monsignor James at the Cathedral and Catholic Cemeteries. After clearing off that debt, Monsignor James can continue to make more new debts since he apparently has a problem with money. It would also give Tim Rohr (a real estate agent) a very nice commission.

      The people of Guam did not purchase that seminary at all. They got it for free. All this fighting is occurring because of greed....money. Even in marriages, couples fight over money. How much more outside of marriage especially when things were given for free.

      Delete
    10. Wow Diana, that's a low blow to accuse Msgr James of having a problem with money.

      Delete
    11. Diana - Although the hotel was given for free, it still needs a hefty amount of money for the upkeep and maintenance. This is where the people of Guam were duped into giving their generous donations. Now that they're aware of what the real story is, I'm sure their donations will be going elsewhere. So stop already with all your statements about it being free and not costing the people of Guam a dime. BTW, you still didn't answer all of Joane's questions

      Delete
    12. Dear Anonymous at 11:21 am,

      The seminarians, the mission family, and the NCW all helped in maintaining the seminary for free. However, the seminarians do need to eat. Getting the food is not free. Cooking the food is free. Getting the cleaning supplies is not free. The cleaning, however, is free. The Mission families and the NCW do not charge the people of Guam for their labor.

      Delete
    13. Diana @ 3:56pm: what about power? water? pool maintenance (chemicals, etc). Maintaining a huge complex takes a lot of money.

      Delete
    14. The RM seminary is allowed to fundraiser. They provide a large majority of their funds. According to Father Adrian, 20% of the Archdiocesan Appeals also goes to helping the seminary.

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 11:15 am,

      Most of us have problems with money, but in some of us the problem is worse.

      Delete
    16. Yes, but for you to call out Msgr James like that? And then for you to say that Tim Rohr will get a very nice commission from the sale? You say this like you know it's a sure thing Diana. Not very wise.

      Delete
    17. Dear Anonymous at 1:34 am,

      Although I do not mean to judge, but I am putting two and two together. Tim Rohr fights so hard for a seminary that he did not contribute to building, he finds no problem in selling the seminary, and he is a real estate agent who used to work so closely with Monsignor James, who at the time was in the former finance council. From the internal report that we saw, it is clear that Monsignor James has a serious love for money. What he did constitutes as a white collar crime. If he had done what he did in the Government of Guam (ie, using a government credit card to fund your family party), he would have been in jail.

      Delete
    18. Please stop berating Monsignor James like that....because if he does go down, then I know for a FACT the Archbishop will go down with him. Is that what you all want? Someone mentioned "Pandora's Box" ...well, all you people better be ready for it!
      But, then again, maybe that is exactly what needs to happen before the 'truth' (for which everybody keeps asking) comes out. The "darkest before dawn" period will be upon us soon and many, many people--on both sides-- will be hurt. God help us all!

      Delete
    19. Dear Anonymous at 9:43 am,

      The jungle can say all kinds of horrible things about the Archbishop, and you do not have a problem with that. They call the Archbishop evil and compare him to Adolph Hitler but they show no evidence of mass graves. I say that Monsignor James have a serious love for money, and I cite the Internal Review as evidence.

      The jungle has been very inconsistent. First, they say that the Archbishop gave away the seminary. After the report was printed in the Umatuna, they changed their song and dance by saying he gave up CONTROL of the seminary. Now, it back to giving away the seminary. The Archbishop and the NCW, on the other hand, never changed their story. They have stated that the title and control of the seminary is under the Achdiocese of Agana.

      Delete
    20. Diana,
      How do you know that I "don't have a problem with that"? The fact of the matter is, I have a problem with what is said on BOTH sides. Nobody on either side is infallible, and ugly truths will be exposed by the time all this ends. Sadly, the ones who will hurt the most will be those that follow blindly and believe their side to be without guilt.

      Delete
    21. When you try and put two and two together, that's called speculating, Diana....this is what you've always accused the Jungle of doing and yet you do it too.

      Delete
    22. By the way, that internal review report you keep citing is a farce. It wasn't even signed. Yet you keep using it to say Monsgr James has a problem with the love of money.

      Delete
    23. Dear Anonymous at 1:14 pm,

      I have always said the blogs are not based on truth. They are based on a person's opinions and speculations. In fact, I told an anonymous commenter in another thread that blogs are not legitimate sources of research.

      Delete
    24. Dear Anonymous at 1:17 pm,

      If that was a farce, then why weren't there any protests at the doorsteps of the cathedral as before? The only complaint I heard was that,the Archbishop was supposed to go to Monsignor James and talk about rather than make it public.

      Delete
    25. grow up in faithJuly 13, 2015 at 2:22 PM

      "The Mission families and the NCW do not charge the people of Guam for their labor. "

      Diana, how is it so? Are you serious? Why should the people of Guam be charged for the labor cost spent on the seminary? How could the mission families or the NCW charge anyone for labor? I mean based on what? The seminary is supposed to be a nonprofit organization. Production and selling seem to be for profit, at least under the prevailing circumstances. Please, explain, if you would.

      Delete
    26. Dear grow up in faith,

      No, we do not charge the church. This is what you call "a labor in love." Our services to the church is free, and it is all voluntary. The people of Guam is not being charged for our labor. The money coming from the Archdiocese is for food, supplies, and utilities. Cooking the food is free because the seminarians can cook their food, but the food itself is not free and needs to purchased from the stores. The maintenance of the seminary can be met because the seminarians, the mission families, and the NCW freely volunteers their service, which is obviously something you cannot do. Since you are incapable of doing voluntary work, do you think you could at least purchase the food???

      Delete
    27. grow up in faithJuly 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM

      Diana, the problem lies in the possibility of selling indulgences for material benefit. This is like a spiritual good desired by the faithful who sell their work force for free. They assume their voluntary work will be rewarded in the otherworld. It is a problem, because of suspicion of spiritual coercion. When indulgences were sold for money, the church made itself a for profit organization. It happened in the middle ages, before protestantism grew out of the related controversies. The modern Catholic Church now, learning from the past, bans selling indulgences for material benefit.

      Delete
    28. Dear grow up in faith,

      Who said anything about indulgences?

      Delete
    29. grow up in faithJuly 14, 2015 at 1:33 PM

      Diana, it is a parallel situation when spiritual goods were sold for money in the Middle Ages. When someone sells his labor for free under duress in hope of obtaining spiritual goods, then we are back in the Middle Ages. Think about the situation of a teacher who wants his house to be painted. He tells his students in the school that they can volunteer for the painting in exchange of better grades. This is morally wrong. I hope you see it.

      My question is: how are people who offer their work hours free for the seminary compensated? Is there any promise, duress or coercion of spiritual benefits? You said that the people of Guam should be charged for the labor cost. But you also said the purchase and ownership of the seminary has nothing to do with the people of Guam. Don't you feel there is a contradiction here? When you look for common ground and peaceful coexistence, you have to try to bridge over differences and not covering them up. I certainly hope you are willing to see my point.

      Delete
    30. Dear grow up in faith,

      Do you know what the word "volunteer" means?

      What you describe is not volunteer work because the student is getting something in return, which in this case is grades. If the teacher did not offer the better grades (which I think is a bribe in my opinion), the student would not even bother to paint.

      Delete
    31. grow up in faithJuly 14, 2015 at 3:02 PM

      How is this different from the "volunteer" work for the seminary? In case there is promise, duress or coercion of spiritual benefits, it is not truly volunteer job anymore. So yes, you should pay for the work hours you take from people by the funds NCW raised from independent sources. It is NOT the Guam people who should pay for it! You cannot say on the one hand that the seminary's purchase and ownership has noting to do with the island Catholics, but then on the other hand say that they should pay for the incurring costs and expenses.

      Don't you see the contradiction here, dear Diana? I tell you the public relation battle is a tricky endeavor and its outcome is not announced in the courts of law, but in the hearts of people. You cannot make Guam Catholics support you when you are not forthcoming, you make charges and accusations against them to cover up inadequacies of the NCW management. What we need is peaceful coexistence validated by good faith initiatives and trust building measures. You should see this because you are a Guam Catholic yourself, aren't you?

      Delete
    32. Dear grow up in faith,

      The NCW members volunteer to work without any pay or compensation. Their only reason for their voluntary service is love.

      Delete
  2. It's about the money. Timmy has an agenda. His agenda is to remove the archbishop, have Rome place Mon. James as the next archbishop so they can sell the seminary with Timmy getting commission from the sale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. just out of curiosity, where is everyone getting the idea of msgr. James selling the seminary? That sounds a bit absurd to me. However, if he did indeed offer to sell it, I'm sure someone would provide proof...right?

      There are a bunch of speculations going on between both blogs. I just wished that this blog would provide more concrete evidence of the accusations being said. Doing so, opposed to just speculating, will bring more credibility to this blog.

      I'm not against this blog at all, nor am I against the jungle, however, the jungles seems to be dishing out real evidence such as the legal report of this bronze guy, in addition to several other files sent to him. Maybe the folks on this side can start passing "Diana" some concrete evidence to enhance the credibility here. That's just my suggestion.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 10:22 AM, you must have been listening to the Neo propaganda that "Timmy has an agenda to remove the archbishop, have Rome place Mon. James as the next archbishop so they can sell the seminary with Timmy getting commission from the sale." LOL!

      Thanks to the activities of the archbishop Guam will not be seeing a local priest as the next archbishop. Tim Rohr's evidence shows how much damage has been done to the church on Guam so that we will be just like Saipan (without a bishop since Camacho retired).

      If Rome decides to ignore the latest evidence from the real estate lawyer, then they will probably let the archbishop get to retirement age and then appoint someone from outside to oversee the affairs of the church. Any hopes that Adrian or David (both neos) would replace the archbishop is up in smoke. As good as Msgr James and Fr Paul are neither of them will be appointed bishop. And for sure, none of the RMS guys will be made bishop either. We will get someone from the outside to help the church get back on track.

      As far as Tim getting any commission from the sale of the seminary: if he does, good for him; if he doesn't, good for him, too. But I really don't think getting a commission is his goal. That's another one of the neo myths.

      Getting the truth out is all I've heard him talk about at the CCOG meetings. He gives us the documents to prove what he says. As soon as the archbishop gives Tom Tanaka the proof that he promised at the Yona visit, I might start to believe the archbishop again.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 2:49 pm,

      The idea that the former finance council wanted to sell the seminary came from Richard Untalan. Monsignor James was part of the former finance council. What Tim Rohr does not have is a 2012 letter written by Richard Untalan that was given to the Archbishop. It was in that letter that Richard Untalan wrote about selling the seminary in order to eliminate the Archdiocese debt. According to news report from the Mariana's variety:

      "A letter signed by former archdiocese finance council members Richard Untalan, Monsignor James Benavente, Joseph Rivera and Sister Mary Stephen Torres show the seminary has been an issue in the church for years. In a 2012 letter sent to Apuron when the four council members were removed by the archbishop, Untalan wrote, “It can be deduced from your letter that I am being terminated because of a decision that I, along with three other members ... have made that displeased you.”

      The finance council denied the request to assign the title of the seminary real property to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. Untalan said the assignment of the title would be “imprudent, unwise and totally against the best interest of the Archdiocese.” The former finance council members had been sitting as council members for a combined 50-plus years, Untalan wrote.

      Selling the property, then valued at $75 million, could eliminate the archdiocesan debt, Untalan wrote.

      Cristobal said that the finance council at the time wanted to sell the property to cover the debt incurred by the Cathedral and the Catholic Cemeteries and said “to think to sell the property to cover a deficit is unthinkable and would be irresponsible for the archbishop to even harbor that idea.”

      http://www.mvguam.com/local/news/38679-seminary-property-deal-scrutinized-archdiocese-issues-response.html#.VZt4mk3ALIU



      Delete

    4. Makes sense to sell the seminary hotel pay off debts and invest balance for diocesan priests pension plan. We don't need this seminary property.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 2:21 am,

      According to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church:

      Can. 234 . Minor seminaries and other similar institutions are to be preserved, where they exist, and fostered; for the sake of fostering vocations, these institutions provide special religious formation together with instruction in the humanities and science. Where the diocesan bishop judges it expedient, he is to erect a minor seminary or similar institution.

      As you can see, Anonymous, the seminaries are to be persevered. This is in accordance to Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which you appear to go against. The Archbishop did not go against Canon Law because he refused to sell the seminary. Bishops are charged with erecting a seminary.

      Delete
    6. Dear Diana @2:21am-
      You can still have the Seminary at another location, can't you? Does it have to be at that property?

      Delete
    7. Dear July 9 3:38 pm

      It is true that the location can be changed as soon that someone finds another location for:
      1) rooms for approx. 40 people;
      2) place for classrooms capable of holding at least 25 students in each classroom
      3) library capable of holding 20.000 books;
      4) rooms for any other use (faculty, computer rooms, etc.)

      As you can see the institute and the seminary must have some requirements that here in Guam is not easy to find, and I am speculating without taking in consideration that the donor of the building said that the purpose was for the formation of priests. So, if you manage to find another location let the chancery and archbishop know and let's see what will happen.

      I will keep both seminary and institute there since it is already adjusted for them. (chapels, classrooms, etc.) imagine the expenses of taking another building, adjust it to a seminary/institute purpose and eventually buy new furniture.
      PS Why the Archdiocese needs to buy another building etc. when they already have it?
      I am not in the NCW nor my friends or relatives BUT I see that what Rhor, Benavente, Fr. Paul and the CCOG are trying to do is insane. Pray for vocations and Thank God that he gave this beautiful island 2 seminaries and 1 institute that God willing will be an aggregation and then will be open also to others rather than seminarians only.

      Delete
    8. To start with, there's the former St. Thomas Aquinas.....smaller facility, less costly for maintenance/upkeep.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 6:30 pm,

      At that time, St. Thomas Aquinas was operating as a school.

      Delete
    10. Diana at 7.44 AM,
      The suggestion was in response to Anonymous at 4:13's comment about changing the location of the seminary given the 4 requirements he/she listed.

      Delete
    11. Dear Anonymous at 9:14 am

      The response was unrealistic.

      Delete
    12. Unrealistic you say? How so? I have visited a few seminaries that provided much less than that bldg offers. It has rooms that can be used as sleeping qtrs or classrooms, computer room. A library. A kitchen. Bathrooms.

      Delete
    13. Dear Anonymous at 11:09 am,

      It is unrealistic because at the time it was being used and operated as a school. Where did you plan to put all the students and staff? At that time, the hotel was available. If you were going to sell the hotel in 2000, what other place do you suggest that was avaulable. St. Thomas Aquinas at that time was not available.

      Delete
    14. Diana,
      This thread evolved to discussing moving the seminary, starting with your July 9 @ 8:29 AM which prompted a question from Anon @ 3:38. Then Anon July 9 @3:38 took up the discussion of moving the seminary and offered stipulations for move to be possible. Following that was the suggestion of STA.
      Of course, at the inception of the seminary STA was not viable because it was being used as a school at the time. But now?
      (Whew!)

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 4:25 pm,

      Now that the school has been closed, you can sell the school and use the money to pay off the debts incurred by Monsignor James.

      Delete
  3. Ha ha, just a little young lady huh, Diana? Who has been walking a few years? The blog is entirely your own, wth no help from the authorities? What a joke - you've just demonstrated what this blog is really about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if she isn't alone on this blog, so what? What's the big deal?

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 5:03 pm,

      I am alone on this blog. :-) Every entry post and comments on this blog was authorize by me because I am the only one access to this blog.

      Delete
    3. There is absolutely no doubt that, as a card carrying member of the NCW, you would not be permitted to post what you do without the express permission of your catechists and leaders. That is why no one believes that you are "alone" in this endeavor. Also, you frequently state opionion and information that would only be available to someone close to these same people.

      Delete
  4. Wow Diana, for just a woman walking in the way, you sure have a lot of knowledge on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:10 pm, and 12:22 pm,

      Yes, it is just me who owns this blog. Only I have authorization to this blog. It has nothing to do with knowledge, but plain simple common sense. If I was in trouble with the law and accused of a crime, plain simple common sense tells me that I should get an attorney who specializes in criminal law, not a real estate lawyer. The same analogy applies to Tim Rohr's bronze shoe.

      Delete
    2. Gosh Anonymous at 12:22 PM, maybe Diana has people who give her information like they do to Tim Rohr. There's nothing wrong with that is there?

      But Diana at 4:29 PM, I can understand why some will question the extent of your knowledge. You seem to have access to a huge library to be able to quote Canon Law and the GIRM and the Statutes and ell kinds of references to JW posts so quickly (especially since you say you have no time to read that other blog). It's really hard to believe that you're doing it all by yourself. It seems like you have a team helping you do your research. But if you're doing this all on your own then more power to you.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:11 pm,

      Thank you, but I will give the credit to my husband who has been very supportive by my side. One reason why the jungle has a difficult time learning my identity is because I operate this blog myself. If I were to work with a team of people, they would know my identity. And as you know, this is a very small island. :-)

      Delete
  5. What I would like to know is why there was a perceived need to transfer the title of the Yona property to the NCW, which was attempted but didn't occur, or then to place a Deed of Restriction on the property, which did actually happen? I can;t recall there ever being a reason provided by the Archbishop or on this site?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:23 pm,

      There never was any attempt to transfer the title. The title remained under the Archdiocese of Agana. I believe that the former finance council got confused and thought the words "alienation" and "assignment" were the same in legal terms. I also think the former finance counsel was more focus on trying to convince the Archbishop to sell the seminary. The perpetual deed restriction keeps anyone from selling the seminary.

      Delete
    2. It does not prevent anyone from selling the property. RMS today can sell it. READ the Deedof Restriction. RMS is a separate legal NGO....they even submitted their annual financial reports to Rev and Tax. The RMS board can vote to sell the property.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 8:58 pm,

      The former finance council wanted to sell the RM seminary, and look what happened. The Archbishop removed them. The Archbishop also has the authority to appoint and remove the board.

      Delete
    4. Dear Diana at 6.52pm. What do you mean "There never was any attempt to transfer the title."

      You do realize that the FInance Council wrote to the RMS rector saying:

      "The matter of the transfer of the title of the property on which the Seminary is located and situated has come before the Archdiocesan Finance Council, as it involves an alienation of the patrimony of the Acrhdiocese of Agana. The request before us is that the title of the property be conveyed and transferred to the Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana, a non-profit corporation."

      So, why was this request made? What was the perceived need that the title of the property needed to be transferred to the RMHF?

      You say "The perpetual deed restriction keeps anyone from selling the seminary."

      Could anyone sell the seminary without the permission of the Acrhbishop?

      At the same time you claim that the deed restriction does not impact on the Archbishop being in full control - meaning that he could, presumably, sell the property if he wished anyway.

      So what is the difference? Are you now claiming that the Archbishop is prevented from selling the property because of the Deed Restriction? If so, does that mean that it is true that the motive was to secure the site so that a future Archbishop could be prevented from altering the arrangements?

      Delete
    5. Oh dear Diana. Look who's twisting the story to their advantage. The former finance council wanted to sell the RMS? There's more proof by Tim Rohr to show otherwise my dear. The only thing you can come up with is "because Father Adrian said". You're too funny.

      Delete
    6. The Board of Guarantors are in control -Archbishop is only one vote- three other members are from New Jersey. They decide not the Archbishop. Read all of documents and try to understand before you provide a response.

      Delete
    7. You and Tim both argue your points well. And whichever side a person sits, they will feel justified.
      It just remains to be seen what the courts say about the issue if/when it goes to court. And from all accounts (on the other blog, at least) it appears to be headed that way. And once it goes to court we'll probably hear from Rome one way or the other. Maybe then we'll finally have some peace amongst ALL Catholics on the island!

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 6:18 am,

      It has been explained many times that the Archbishop has the authority to appoint and remove the board. The fact that he is the only one who has this authority shows that he has substantial authority over the board.

      Delete
    9. Dear Anonymous at 2:10 am,

      On the contrary, it is NOT because Father Adrian said so. It is because of a letter that Richard Untalan wrote to the Archbishop. Read my entry post again.

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous at 12:41 am,

      There never was a transfer of title because the title is still under the Archdiocese of Agana.

      Delete
    11. Diana at 9:25 AM, are you saying that the archbishop can change the members of the RMS Board of Guarantors? The only reason that sounds strange is because it looks as though he would not have that authority since Mr. & Mrs. Gennarini are on the same board. Isn't Mr. Gennnarini in charge of the NCW in the US and Guam? Wouldn't that place Mr. Gennarini above the archbishop? To say that the archbishop can change that board is like saying an employee can fire an employer. I happened to be surfing the Net looking for more info on RMS and found a document from Florida which listed the only members of the RMS Board of Guarantors as Mr. & Mrs. Gennarini and Fr. Pochetti. At least the archbishop was lucky to get on Guam's RMS Board of Guarantors because it looks like the local bishop isn't usually included.

      I think the only board that the archbishop has any authority over is the RMS Board of Directors. All of the people on that board could be considered "under" the archbishop not like the RMS Board of Guarantors.

      Delete
    12. Diana at 10:21 AM, even if the title is still under the Archdiocese of Agana as you say didn't the archbishop give the USE of the property to RMS "in perpetuity?"

      Someone on JW compared "in perpetuity" to "Joe Cruz" buying a car and then signing a document giving "Maria Cruz" full and exclusive use of the car for 500 years. Even though the title of ownership says that "Joe Cruz" owns the car, it doesn't matter because "Joe Cruz" would still need permission from "Maria Cruz" to drive the car. "Joe Cruz" will have no say as to who drives his brand new car. Only "Maria Cruz" can make that decision.

      In that scenario "Joe Cruz" gave control to "Maria Cruz" just like how the archbishop gave control of the Yona property to the RMS or maybe even the NCW. The title might still be under the Archdiocese of Agana but the archdiocese/archbishop has no control over how the property is used.

      Delete
    13. Wow Anonymous at 6:18 AM you bring up a good point. The archbishop can be outvoted by the 3 New Jersey members! That means that Diana at 9:25 AM is wrong when she said that the archbishop has the authority to appoint and remove the board. I don't think there's any way that the three from New Jersey will let the archbishop remove them.

      But then maybe Diana was talking about the Board of Directors and not the Board of Guarantors.

      Which board can the archbishop appoint and remove, Diana? Guarantors (where he's the only one from Guam)? Directors (where all members are from Guam)?

      Delete
    14. Dear Diana at 10:21 - there was clearly an attempt to transfer the title, and this failed only because of the Finance Council. So, once again, for what reason did the NCW wish to transfer the title?

      Delete
    15. Dear Diana at 9.35am

      Attorney Bronze, in his "opinion" states that:

      " 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."

      Delete
    16. Dear Anonymous at 2:01 pm,

      The Archbishop got rid of the former finance council. And even with them removed, the title was never transferred because the title is still under the Archdiocese of Agana. What the Archbishop wanted was certain rights to be transferred to the Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

      Delete
    17. Dear Anonymous at 2:02 pm,

      As I pointed out, Attorney Bronze does not specialize in religious institution nor in corporates soles.

      Delete
    18. Dear Anonymous at 1:15 pm,

      You asked which board the Archbishop can appoint and remove? It is both. That was what Father Pius said in his interview with PDN. See the weblink below:

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/08/thank-you-father-pius.html

      Delete
    19. Dear Anonymous at 1:07 pm,

      The problem with your analogy about the car is that Joe Cruz does not drive the car. In the case of the Archbishop, he sits in the Board of Directors and the Board of Guarantee,so it not like in the case with your car analogy. Because the Archbishop sits on both board, he has a say in what goes on and can lead the board where he wants it to go, considering that he holds the title and the authority to appoint and remove members from the board. In the case with Joe Cruz, he simply gave control of the car to Maria and did not make himself available to be in the car with Maria to tell her where to drive.

      Delete
    20. "As I pointed out, Attorney Bronze does not specialize in religious institution nor in corporates soles. "

      That is not an objection to what his opinion states. Is it incorrect? How?

      Delete
    21. The problem Diana, is that the Archbishop has only 1/4 of the vote..the others are foreigners.

      Delete
    22. Dear Anonymous at 5:45 pm,

      Last year in August when the PDN interviewed Father Pius, he said that the Archbishop has the authority to appoint and remove members from both the Board of Directors and the Board of Guarantors. I guess you forgot the interview. Bronze's opinion is incorrect because he does know how corporate soles operate in aligned with canon laws.

      Delete
    23. Archbishop has the authority to appoint and remove members, in theory, or due to his title, the real question is will future bishops have this authority

      Delete
    24. Dear Anonymous at 8:13 am,

      It is not a theory. The Archbishop and his successors can appoint and remove members in both boards.

      Delete
    25. Dear Anonymous at 8:07 pm,

      What has the nationality of a person have to do with being a member of a board?

      Delete
    26. Discussion are fine but it appears it is only centered on the Arch Bishop.

      What is missing and clearly should be more closely examined are the motives to rohr; finance counsel; ccog and people who generally created the confusion. Whose accusations have misled so many people; who continue to not accept fact and hold on to their goals of exploiting the assets of our Church for their own gains.

      yes...yes....we can perhaps only guess of what their true ambitions are but they are not being held accountable for their misleading statements....lies.

      Delete
    27. Diana...could you publish the names of the finance counsel prior to their departure. Like to explore their history a bit...

      thanks

      Delete
    28. Dear Anonymous at 5:38 pm,

      I am sorry, but you can do your own research without any help from me. The seminary is in Yona. You can start there. It is always best to do the research on your own using primary sources as best you can. I am not a primary source, and a blog is not a legitimate source for research.

      Delete
    29. Thanks Diana,

      I do have friends in the legal; private and government systems that can help me with public records.

      Delete

  6. Diana. I am very conscious of money and financial spending. If I had two dollars left one dollar I would buy a piece of bread and the last dollar I would buy a flower to see beauty. But I believe the NCW fail to understand the moral social and economic order of our day. The economic order should place the individual at the center of the monetary world where money revolves around the person, instead of the NCW economics where people revolve around money. I believe archbishop is failing the economic order by running in circles around the monetary world. This is leading to the moral and social disorder of archdiocese. The God in you is the giver of all. allow His generosity to be your wealth. I hope you understand what I say. Peace,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 4:49 pm,

      In the NCW, the focus and center is God, not money.

      Delete