Sunday, October 18, 2015

Articles Of Incorporation Of RMS

Due to the fact that I was on a four day Beginning of the Year Convivience, I was unable to get on the Internet; therefore, I was behind in publishing comments.  I apologize to those whose comments I had just published.  At any rate, one commenter asked who owns the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona.  According to the Anonymous commenter: 

Who is the official owner of the Hotel property?

As I pointed out earlier in my last entry post, there is a reason why dictionaries exist.  It is so that everyone is on the same page and follow the same standard rather than the whims of one man's definition and rule of law.  It is hypocritical for the jungle to offer a challenge and yet not even cite the public law stating that an agency, business, organization, corporation, etc. has to label itself as "corporate sole", "corporate aggregate" etc.  When applying for a business license on Guam, the only Firm classification listed on the form are "partnership", "corporation", and "limited liability company" (See the information here.)  Corporation sole is not even on the list. 

In order for RMS to become a corporation sole, the Archbishop must file an "Articles of Incorporation". And that has already been done and accomplished.  According to the weblink below (bold is mine): 

From and after the filing with the Director of Revenue & Taxation of the said articles of incorporation, verified by affidavit or affirmation as aforesaid and accompanied by the copy of the commission, certificate of election, of letters of appointment of the bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, duly certified as prescribed in § 10104, such bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder, as the case may be, shall become a corporation sole, and all temporalities, estates and properties of the religious denomination, society, or church theretofore administered or managed by him as such bishop, chief priest, or presiding elder shall be held in trust by him as a corporation sole for the use, purpose, behoof, and sole benefit of his religious denomination, society, or church, including hospitals, schools, colleges, orphan asylums, parsonages, and cemeteries thereof. For the filing of such articles of incor- poration the Director of Revenue & Taxation shall collect Twelve Dollars and Fifty cents ($12.50).

To simplify the above for you, it is saying that from and after filing the Articles of Incorporation, the Bishop shall become a corporation sole, and all estates and properties administered or managed by him shall be held in trust by him as a corporation sole. 

Now, to repeat....... the definition of corporation sole is defined as (the bold is mine):   
The corporation sole, or corporate sole, is legally defined:
Corporations sole are those which by law consist of but one member at any one time, as a bishop in England... It is said in England to include the Crown, all bishops, rectors, vicars and the like.2                 
A corporation sole is one consisting of one person only, and his successors in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the sovereign in England is a sole corporation, so is a bishop, so are some deans distinct from their several chapters, and so is every parson and vicar.3   
In short, a corporation sole are those (church, archdiocese, non-profit corporation, etc.) consisting of ONLY ONE PERSON or ONE MEMBER.  THAT is the legal let us all be in the same page and hopefully everyone is clear on that.  Article 5 of the Articles of Incorporation of the RMS on Guam clearly stated that there is only ONE MEMBER of the RM Seminary.  According to Article 5: 

                                            ARTICLE V
                                          NO MEMBERS

The sole member shall be the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Agana, (the "Member'). 

One can find the Articles of Incorporation in the jungle, that was published by Tm Rohr in his blog:

Interestingly enough, the Articles of Incorporation of the RMS on Guam is very similar to the Articles of Incorporation of the RMS in Miami, Florida, which is found in the following weblink:

What does this mean?  Apparently, it seems that all the Redemptoris Mater Seminaries worldwide (including the one in Rome and here in Guam) has the same bylaws with minor modification.  Therefore, the bylaws of the RM Seminary on Guam is not unique at all.  It also has the same bylaws and governance as other RM seminaries around the world. 

Furthermore, I have already shown that the RM Seminary is not the only seminary with this kind of structure as a corporate sole.  St. John's Seminary, which has no association to the Neocatechumenal Way, also operates in the same way.  The fact that the RM Seminary on Guam fits the definition of a corporation sole in that it only has one member (a corporate sole) is legally sufficient.  The fact that its official name also list the Archdiocese of Agana also shows that it is the property of the Archdiocese of Agana.    

The Ownership report that was put out by the Archdiocese of Agana on April, 2015 is also consistent with the bylaws found in the Articles of Incorporation.  The ownership report is found in the following weblink: 


  1. One of the junglefolks should tell Rohr that Diana already provided the proof so he can stop the clock ticking.

    1. Anon. 10:40 pm, Tim is a radical. Radicals can't see logic and reason. Didn't u see that he never once explained what he meant when he stated that a corporation sole doesn't have a board of directors. When Diana published the info on St. John's Seminary, he lost it. Let's hope that Freg Greg Perez and the rest of CCOG is not blinded by hate and can see logic and reason.

    2. Dear Anonymous at 5:57 am,

      CCOG is also a radical.

  2. Great job!!! You got the public law on your side. :).

    1. Diana has both the law and the document on her side. The document was the Articles of Incorporation all along. Together with the law, they make a strong case against CCOG and JW.

  3. Hey Tim, let's see you refute the dictionary.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:21 am,

      Tim did not even refute my entry post on St. John's Seminary. All he did was contradict it. He would also contradict the dictionary. :-)

    2. Yep. He even contradicted himself. LOL

    3. These bastards at JW are truly sick to the guts. Now, they are making fun of Pope Francis because he is on the same picture with our Archbishop. Tim Rohr is threatening the Pope with scandal and association with scandal. This hatred, mocking and insipid blackmailing attempt toward the Pontiff is just plane disgusting. He tells the Pope:

      "You may want to give him [to Apuron] a buzz... you probably won't want your face next to his."

      Sweet Lord of heaven! Is he truly talking to our Pope, the successor of St. Peter that way? What a shameful behavior! Is this guy sane at all?! He should see emergency medical help right now.

    4. Dear Anonymous at 11:39 AM--
      I read your comment then went to see the comments for myself. I don't see it in the same vein as you---he does not make fun of the Pope at all! The fun is being made of their usual target: the Archbishop. You stretch the truth when you use words like blackmailing and threatening.

      Please don't make things up to stir flames--don't stoop to their level. Don't let the trash be thrown from our side.

    5. Anonymous October 19, 2015 at 1:08 PM, why is the JW post saying to Pope Francis that "you probably won't want your face next to his"? Why to tell the Pope to give Apuron a "buzz"? Why?

      The intention is so clear. The author explains it. There will be a concocted story to be published somewhere in a trash newspaper somewhere "about to appear in a none-too-flattering story". What does this mean to the Pope according to the JW post? What do you think, dear Anonymous?

      It means this, according to Tim Rohr: the Pope has to run away from this picture, he has to give a "buzz" to Apuron and distance himself from him, otherwise he, Pope Francis, will be associated with the surely erupting great "scandal". The author calls on the Pope to do this otherwise he will be associated with all bad things he Tim Rohr is unleashing on the world in the form of a next "scandal". This is the delusional mindset we see clearly outlined in the JW post.

      Dear anonymous, do you understand this dark logic Pope Francis should follow, according to this JW post? Don't you think Tim Rohr wishes to coerce the Pope to act as dictated, at least in Tim's own dirty mind? Don't you think something is awfully wrong here?

  4. Tim Rohr got what he wanted. Now, he should show respect, shut up and close that rathole JW hate blog once and for all. It has no use of misleading gullible people by the nose. Conceding and accepting defeat is a sure sign of a high quality person.

    Diana, please, do not allow this maniac to dictate what you write and publish on your blog.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:34 am,

      Tim does not dictate what I write. This entry post was actually a response to the Anonymous commenter who asked me a question. His/her comment was made while I was at the Beginning of the Year Convivience. I only published his/her comment yesterday after we got home from the retreat. It is funny how God works in mysterious ways. Although my response was to the anonymous commenter, it brought the light of truth to some who were in the jungle darkness.

  5. Dear Diana, why would you not post my previous comment? Have you been given more instructions at the convivence on how to run this blog?

    My original comment was in relation to the clause of the RMS articles that deals with dissolution. Therein we read that upon dissolution, any remaining property or assets are to be disbursed to organizations designated by the Board of Directors.

    My question is - if the RMS was truly a Corporation Sole, as you say it is, wouldn't the disbursement of the remaining property/assets be at the decision of the sole member, rather than by the board in which the Archbishop is only one of five votes? (to say nothing of the Board of Guarantors, which has veto power over this decision too)

    Are you truly afraid to answer this question? If so, what does that say about your claim to be honest?

    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:08 pm,

      Where does it say that? Article XIII says that any remaining assets or property would be distributed by the Archbishop. Nothing in Article XIII even mention the Board of directors or board of guarantees. It does not even mention the word "vote".

    2. Dear Anonymous at 12:08 pm,

      I did not read the entire Articles of Incorporation. You did not read up to Article XIII where it specifically stated that it is the Archbishop who will make that designation. You only read up to the "Powers of the corporation and it's restriction." The Archbishop is the chairman in the Board of the Directors. He is part of the board, but Article XIII ensures that the Archbishop is the one who has the ultimate decision and authority.

    3. Huh, so the Articles contradict each other, or at least compete?

      And what do you say in relation to the board of Guarantors having veto or approval power over the management of the corporation. Doesn't that then mean that the Archbishop is actually in the minority in respect to "ultimate decision and authority"?

      Finally, why is the Archbishop named personally as a guarantor, but elsewhere as his office (ie Archbishop of Agana). Doesn't that mean that even should a new Archbishop be appointed, Archbishop Apuron would retain the authority to veto or approve (along with the other Guarantors) any decision the new Archbishop might make?

    4. Dear Anonymous at 12:45 pm,

      The Articles do not contradict each other because as I said, the Archbishop is a member of the board of directors. Article XIII clearly says that it is the Archbishop who has the ultimate decision. The Archbishop is the one who appoints the board of directors and board of Guarantees and also has the power to remove those members. If he is not satisfied with them, he can remove them just like he did with the former finance council.

      You ask if Archbishop Apuron would still have veto or approve power when a new Archbishop is appointed. The answer is no. Go back and read again the definition of Corporation Sole in my entry post.

    5. Diana, Tim published the letter from the donor showing evidence that AAA stole the property and gave it to RMS. What do you have to say about that?

    6. Dear Anonymous at 9:31 am,

      I say that you did not properly read the letter. Tim wrote that the Archbishop stole the property. How did he steal it when the property is still under the Archdiocese of Agana. Did you not read the first paragraph of the letter???? It says (capitalization is mine):

      ".........was bought by the Archdiocese of Agana in which the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Seminary of Guam has, is and continues to be used as a seminary, BUT IN TITLE BELONGS TO THE ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA.'

      Do you see what I capitalized? So, when CCOG brings the Archbishop to court to get BACK the property, are they going to use that letter which says the property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana????