Friday, December 18, 2015

Responding to Another Commenter

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

"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.         

25 comments:

  1. You really are ignorant Diana. Your quote from the Archbishops letter says exactly what you think it doesn't. It actually makes clear the Archbishop's intention to transfer the title to the RMS. The Archbishop is claiming that the transfer of title from the Archdiocese to the RMS is not really an alientation, but rather an assignment, because (he claims that) the RMS and the Archdiocese are both "juridic persons subject to the same Ordinary".

    So when the former finance council thought that he intended to give away the property to the RMS, they were right! He was, as he is clearly saying.

    When objections were made to this idea, the Archbishop secretly, and without seeking the approval of the finance council (or even advising them) went ahead with the Deed Restriction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:57 pm,

      See FACT #3 and FACT #6 in my updated entry post.

      Delete
  2. If your are right, as soon as we get a new bishop, he can remove RMS and have another entity use the facility or the new bishop can sell the property...right? It would up to the new Archbishop of Agana...no one else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 3:15 pm,

      Actually, he would have to follow canon law. If he is going to sell the property, he would need the approval of the finance council and the Vatican. I do not think the Pope would approve of selling the RM seminary. Pope Crancis was very pleased to hear that Guam has two seminaries to accommodate seminarians from Guam and the Pacific region.

      Delete
    2. Well, the property could be sold and a new, more modest and reasonable property be obtained to house the seminary. That way, nothing is lost

      Delete
  3. Anon. 3:15 your comment only goes to show how right the archbishop was in letting the former finance council go. They had no interest in serving the good of the church, only themselves. Sell the property and pay off the debts of the Archdiocese so Mon. James can be free to spend more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Are you saying Monsignor James is a corrupt thief?
      That is deformation of character.
      You could be sued 6.18pm.

      Delete
    2. Anon. 6:27, I didn't say he was a corrupted thief. He's corrupted with the love of money.

      Delete
    3. What do you mean 6.31am " corrupt with the Love of Money.?"
      It is Archbishop who loves money not Monsignor James.
      It was Archbishop living high life staying in five star hotels.
      It was Archbishop leaving $100 tips in hotels.
      It was Archbishop drinking fine wines in bars.
      Yes Archbishop loves money money money for he live in rich man's world.
      We are poor. Archbishop live a rich life.

      Delete
  4. Diana, Tim is now saying that you are calling the archbishop a liar. From JW blog:

    The erudite google-legal scholar, The Diana, tells us in a comment a few days ago:
    It is not necessary to be a legal scholar to know that the same authority who issued an administrative decree, can immediately issue the day after another administrative decree saying exactly the contrary.
    So I'd like to welcome The Diana to the ranks of those who call Archbishop Apuron a LIAR. Apuron has been telling everyone that he can do nothing to lift the Decree of Removal for either Fr. Paul or Msgr. James. In fact, he has been blaming both Fr. Paul and Msgr. James for his inability to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 10:25 pm,

      First of all, that comment was NOT made by me. It was made by Jackie Terlaje. I only copied and pasted what she stated in her press release. Obviously, Tim made an error as to who made the statement. However, in the jungle, anyone who makes a mistake is labeled a "liar." Of course, this label does not apply to Tim Rohr when he makes the mistake.

      Finally, the Archbishop NEVER said that he is unable to lift the Decree of Removal and blamed Father Paul and Monsignor James for it. He said that the matter was taken to Rome, and he will wait for Rome's decision and abide by whatever decision they make. This was the route that the Archbishop chose to follow to settle the disputes between him and the two priests.

      Delete

  5. Diana, the Archbishop is duty bound to follow the ruling that will be given by the Holy See for Fr. Paul and Msgr James. We all abide by the decesion of the Holy See.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:23 am,

      Exactly! The Archbishop NEVER said that there was nothing he could do about the Decree of Removal nor did he blame Father Paul and Monsignor James for it. He said that the matter was taken to Rome, and he is waiting for Rome's decision. Whatever decision Rome makes, he will abide by it. Tim Rohr is simply trying to deceive people by putting words in the Archbishop's mouth......words the Archbishop never said.

      Delete
  6. What's the connection between Monsignor James and Tim Rohr.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. No connection between Msgr.James and Tim Rohr.
      Tim Rohr may just have seen James in passing in the coffee shop near Catnedral.

      Delete
    2. AT 9:56 PM no connection ? Then why did Tim get a little Rattled.UMMM

      Delete

  7. Tim Rohr did not get rattled . What are you talking about? All nonsense.
    I know Msgr and Tim Rohr .
    However, there is no connection between Msgr and me or Tim Rohr and me. Our only common ground is our faith in Christ and His Church. We are loyal Catholics.

    ReplyDelete

  8. 11.58pm. So who is me?
    May I ask exactly what is the role of " me" with Monsignor / Tim Rohr ?
    Sounds like a club membership .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Me = The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 6:09 am,

      So, you are saying that there is no connection between Monsignor James and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. And you also are saying that there is no connection between Tim Rohr and the One, Holy, Cathic, and Apostolic Chirch.

      Delete

    2. Tim Rohr Jumglewatch is One Holy Catholic Apostolic church.
      Tim Rohr is the voice of the church in an archdiocese with no leadership.
      Our island looks to Tim Rohr Junglewatch as a voice of truth .

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 9:09 am,

      Christ is the truth, not Tim Rohr.

      Delete
  10. Just answering anon@7;55pm when he concluded "sounds like a club membership. And yes we all belong to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church....its a club were we have always been welcomed to...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 7:49 am,

      And it is a Church that we are all CONNECTED to. The Body of Christ is not separated from our Lord Jesus Christ. We are all CONNECTED to Christ and His Church.

      Delete