Local Catholic Observer Tim Rohr believes that since its purchase, the Archdiocese has made some secret dealings that have officially turned over the property to a third party, namely a corporation made up of Italians. And he has the Deed Restriction to prove it.
Rohr even sought the opinion of experts such as realtors and attorneys, who he says read over the documents and agreed that control of the property no longer belongs to the Archdiocese.
The Deed Restriction reads, in part, “I decree to designate, assign, earmark, and otherwise set aside the property … to the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam, a non profit corporation … in perpetual use.”
Notice that the word "assign" is in the deed restriction. In one of my entry posts, I showed that the words "alienation" and "assignment" are not the same in legal terms. However, the jungle disagrees. According to Tim Rohr:
Note the statement: "As you well know, 'alienation' and 'assignment' are words of distinction without a difference", and "Any documents containing these words would place a huge cloud on title..."
It is very clear from Rohr's statement above that he believes the words "alienation" and "assignment" are not the same. He took Ed Terlaje's words without bothering to look up the legal terms himself. As I pointed out in one of my entry posts, "alienation" and "assignment" are not the same in legal terms. A legal dictionary is online, and this is what the legal dictionary says regarding these two words:
Alienation: the transfer of title to real property, voluntarily and completely. It does not apply to interests other than title, such as a mortgages.
Assignment: A transfer of rights in real property or Personal Property to another that gives the recipient—the transferee—the rights that the owner or holder of the property—the transferor—had prior to the transfer.
Above is "written" documented evidence showing that the two terms are not the same. Thus, it appears that Ed Terlaje's "legal opinion" was incorrect. Perhaps, the incorrect legal opinion was due to a lack of knowledge in canon law and in corporation soles. Tim relies on the "opinion" of counsel as his documentation. We already saw that the legal opinion of a lawyer regarding the words "alienation" and "assignment" to be incorrect." In fact, according to a business dictionary, an opinion of counsel is defined as follows (bold is mine):
"Formal, written report by an attorney (or a firm of attorneys) to a client on a specific case or legal problem. It outlines the (1) attorney's understanding and analysis of the facts basic to the case or problem, (2) implication of applicable laws, and (3) a suggested course of action. In some instances (such as in purchase of a property or a firm) where the report certifies the seller's title or legal status, the attorney may be liable for damages if it turns out to be incorrect. Also called legal opinion."
As anyone can see, there is a possibility that a legal opinion or "opinion of counsel" can be incorrect. Thus, the legal opinion of Attorney Bronze is what the jungle and CCOG is relying on. The Archbishop, on the other hand, has three documents as his evidence. One of those evidence is a CERTIFIED document dated January 28, 2015 and is actually posted in the jungle:
The deed restriction is also on that title document, where it should be. The fact that it is on the title document showed no encumbrance as to who the owner is. The Archbishop has a written certified document showing that the RM seminary is under the Archdiocese of Agana. The question is.......if CCOG or Tim Rohr believes that it is NOT under the Archdiocese of Agana, then do they have any written document showing the title to be UNDER another name? Or is it just the "opinion" of counsel that they rely on? It should also be noted that their legal counsel has no experience in religious institutions and corporation soles. He also does not specialize in that area.