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?