Monday, December 7, 2015

Meaningless Arguments

An anonymous commenter wrote the following in my last entry post: 

Diana, where does the Denver law firm practice it's law? You can't take another jurisdiction's law and apply it to Guam. It's common sense. ANY attorney also knows that laws are different in each jurisdiction.

On August 1st, I published an entry post on radicalism.  There were 12 rules on radicalism that I listed in my post.  The second rule fits the anonymous comment above (the bold is mine): 
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.) 
Notice that the commenter never addressed the "real" issues.  The real issue is that the law firm of Lew Roca Rothgerber LLP had concluded in their report that "the corporate governance structure of Redemptoris Mater showed...that the Archbishop of Agana retains substantial authority over Redemptoris Mater, as the Archbisop is the sole member of the entity under civil incorporation laws, presides over the governing boards, 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." In addition, the law firm in Denver took into consideration Guam's civil laws as well as the canon law of the Church when they concluded their report. This is the "real" issue, which the commenter avoided.

The same thing was true with the St. John's Seminary in California.  Under this blog, I pointed out that the St. John's Seminary in California is a corporation sole with a board of directors.  It is also under the Archdiocese of Los Angeles with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the corporate sole.  This is the same situation as the RM seminary on Guam.  Tim Rohr's excuse is that the St. John's Seminary is not a corporation.  This is incorrect.  I also pointed out under this blog that St. John's seminary is a corporation.  After that, one does not hear anything from the jungle about St. John's seminary being filed as a corporation.  The issue was avoided. It is the same with the comment above. 

It was much easier to label the RM seminary as not being part of the Catholic Church on Guam than to deal with the "real" issues.  For example, they have no response as to why the official name of the seminary has "Archdiocese of Agana" attached to it in its Articles of Incorporation.  Radicals avoid responding to the "real" issues and only make meaningless and irrelevant arguments that are not even worth getting into.  

Now, that the Certificate of Titles were provided, they are making up another story about the Archdiocese "leasing" the property to RMS.  If Teri's story is true, then please provide the lease contract.   


  1. "It was much easier to label the RM seminary as not being part of the Catholic Church on Guam than to deal with the "real" issues. For example, they have no response as to why the official name of the seminary has "Archdiocese of Agana" attached to it in its Articles of Incorporation."

    Yes, there is a response to that. The words "Archdiocese of Agana" are attached to make it look like the seminary has something to do with the Archdiocese of Agana. It is only the feeble minded that can't see beyond that ploy.

    The rest of us know it is a separate corporate entity, with its own board of directors and a members-for-life board of guarantors.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:23 pm,

      And where is your documentary evidence showing that it was a ploy? Or is this simply another story you are inventing?

  2. Actually the real issue was the hidden clause of the DEED RESTRICTIONS which the Denver law firm failed to acknowledge. But you Diana, can bring up all your interpretations of the law and yet NONE apply to Guam's jurisdiction. That's why every attorney and law firms have to have licenses to practice in each jurisdiction they plan to practice in. I'm sure Jackie would know that she can't practice in Denver as an attorney making her interpretation of their law useless. Just ask her why there is a licensing board for each jurisdiction.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 2:52 am,

      The Declaration of Deed Restriction was not hidden from the Denver Law firm. The problem here is that what you call "deed restriction" is actually four words, not two. It is a Declaration of Deed Restriction, and it is not a Deed. It is a Declaration. Take a closer look at it.

      Under "type of instrument", there are 26 items to choose from. The word "Deed" was one of those items. It was never check marked by the recorder at the Dept. of Rev. and Tax. The word "Declaration" was check marked instead.