Responding to Another Commenter

An anonymous commenter made the following comment, which can be found here. 

AnonymousDecember 18, 2015 at 12:56 PM

"It was already known since 2011 what the Archbishop intended to do, but the former finance council misunderstood the Archbishop. In his letter to Richard Untalan, the Archbishop tried to explain that it does not involve alienation of property, but they had a difficult time understanding it just as they still do now. "

What? The original plan was to transfer ownership explicitly wasn't it? And when that idea was shown to be silly, and without support, the Deed Restriction was lodged - without any public statement and evidently without the knowledge of even the finance committee as the discussion was still going on!!

Thank God you're not a lawyer, and no-one needs to rely on your advice!

Before the Declaration of Deed Restriction was lodged, the Archbishop made it known to the former finance council that what he intends to do was NOT "alienation".  Below is what the Archbishop wrote to Richard Untalan on November 11, 2011, which can be found in Tim Rohr's jungleblog.  According to the Archbishop's letter to Richard Untalan (the bold is mine): 

The matter is clearly not "alienation" but simply an "assigning" of the title of the property that is transferred and renamed from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the same Ordinary. 

The title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the same Ordinary.......

The former finance council misunderstood the Archbishop because they thought that he intended to give away the RMS property.  The Archbishop acknowledged that the finance council did not understand him probably due to their lack of knowledge of canon law.  In his letter to Richard Untalan, the Archbishop stated that the title holder does not change at all because it goes from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to the SAME Ordinary. 

That public juridic person is the Archbishop.  The title simply goes from Archbishop Apuron to Archbishop Apuron (the same person).  This issue was brought forth to protect the seminary from being sold, considering that some people have expressed the desire to sell the property.  In addition, the Archbishop did not need the approval of the finance council to transfer property he already owned to himself.  As anyone can see from the Archbishop's 2011 letter to Richard Untalan, there was never any intention of giving the seminary away since the beginning.     

The structure of the RM seminary is almost similar to the St. John's seminary in California.  St. John's seminary is a corporation sole with a board of directors and with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles as the corporate sole and owner.  See the weblinks below for more explanation: 

http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/10/st-john-seminary-in-california.html

http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/10/not-this-again.html

UPDATE:

With that said, CCOG can go ahead and pursue their lawsuit in a civil court as they originally planned.  And when you lose (and you will lose) you need to also pay the Archbishop's lawyer. Remember the following facts before going to court:  

FACT 1:  The Declaration of Deed Restriction was recorded and filed as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed"at the Department of Tax and Revenue.  You can argue all you want that it is a deed; however, the fact that it was recorded and filed as a "declaration" on the written document itself has more weight than your opinion. 

FACT 2:  The Certificate of Titles is under the Archbishop's name, clearly stating that the RMS property is under the Archdiocese of Agana.  You can argue all you want that the property is under the NCW or RMS, but the fact that you have no written document (such as a certificate of title) showing the property under NCW or RMS weakens your case.  Again, all you have is your opinion.  

FACT 3:  The legal name of RMS as stated in Article I of the Articles of Incorporation is "Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA."  You can argue all you want that RMS is not part of the Catholic Church on Guam, but the fact remains that the name "Archdiocese of Agana" is clearly stated in the Articles of Incorporation.  It is up to you to prove that what is written in the Articles of Incorporation is really not referring to THE "Archdiocese of Agana" but to ANOTHER "Archdiocese of Agana".......whatever.

FACT 4:  Contrary to the accusations of the former finance counsel and the jungle, the November, 2011 letter of the Archbishop to Richard Untalan showed that the Archbishop never implied that he wanted to give away the RMS property.  In his letter, Archbishop Apuron clearly stated that the "title holder then doesn't change at all because it remains the same Ordinary."  This only strengthens the Archbishop's side. The misunderstanding of the former finance counsel and the legal counsel was blown out of proportions and further misconstrued in the jungle. 

FACT 5:  The Archbishop has three reports done by the Pacific American Title; a reputable law firm that specializes in religious institution, canon law, and corporation sole; and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.  

FACT 6:  An "ownership" and "encumbrance" report was concluded by the Pacific American Title declaring that the RMS property still belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana despite the Declaration of Deed Restriction.  So, you can argue that the deed restriction causes an encumbrance, the report done by the Pacific American Title will show that it does not.  What written report do you have other than a legal opinion showing that it causes an encumbrance? 

In concluding this entry post, decent comments are invited.  However, those who only have vile, meaningless things to say will not be published.  If you have nothing to say other than calling me vulgar names, then you have lost the debate.  I already had to delete all comments on this blog before writing this update.