But seriously, you fools, first you say he gave it to RMS to "protect" it from the finance council who wanted to sell it, then you say he didn't give it to RMS at all but only placed a "restriction on himself." LOL.Junglewatch
Nowhere in my blog did I or anyone in the NCW ever said that the Archbishop gave away the property to RMS to protect it from the finance council who wanted to sell it. In my blog, I have always claimed that the property still belongs to the Archbishop and the Archbishop put a Declaration of Deed Restriction to protect the property from the finance council who wanted to sell it.
The jungle, on the other hand, have always claimed that the Archbishop GAVE AWAY the property to RMS and they used the Declaration of Deed Restriction as their evidence. As a matter of fact, that is the very reason why Bob Klitzke continued to complain that the Certificate of Titles were STILL incorrect. He pointed to the Declaration of Deed Restriction and claimed that the property was given to RMS. He claimed that the ownership in the Certificate of Titles should be RMS rather than the name of the Archbishop. He and Tim Rohr both claimed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is a "DEED", which transferred the property to RMS.
Furthermore, I also quoted Jackie's press release on November 17, 2015 in my blog. According to Jackie Terlaje (the red bold is mine):
One need only look to the first line of the document, “Declaration of Deed Restriction”; the declaration itself does not profess to be a grant deed, quitclaim deed, warranty deed or other similar deed document, which conveys in whole the property to a grantee. The declaration professes to be a document of a limited purpose to grant a right of perpetual use. In fact, the declaration declares that the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole, is the “Owner” of the property, imposing on itself a restriction. By imposing on itself a restriction, the Archbishop, in the same way, can impose further conditions on himself as the Owner of both the Seminary Property, and the seminary itself. 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. Thus, the continued attempts to fire rumors of a controversy over the title of the Seminary Property simply have no merit.As anyone can clearly see in my blog, that I never changed my story. I have always claimed that the RMS property belonged to the Archbishop. I have always claimed that the Declaration of Deed Restriction only restricted the USE of the property. I have quoted Jackie's press release where she explained in detail what the "Declaration of Deed Restriction" meant. She also explained that the Deed Restriction itself specifically identified the Archbishop as the legal owner. Since November, 2015, it was published on this blog that the Deed Restriction placed a restriction on the Archbishop in Jackie's press release. Yet, Tim Rohr acts as though he is hearing this for the first time. Tim Rohr's response to Jackie's press release is found here.
The jungle, Laity Forward Movement, and Concerned Catholics of Guam were the only ones declaring that the Archbishop GAVE AWAY the property to RMS simply because they believed it was a deed. They did not know that there is a difference between a "deed" and a "deed restriction."