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."
This still doesn't make any sense. First of all, Jackie Terlaje says that the Archbishop placed a restriction on "itself" that presumably means he (the Archbishop) is unable to unilaterally sell, or dispose of, or reassign the property, as he was able before.
ReplyDeleteDiana herself states that "the restriction was placed on himself so that not even he (the Archbishop) can sell the property." And neither can his successor according to Diana.
But then Jackie Terlaje says that "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."
Which presumably means that the Archbishop or his successor can simply issue another decree and its back where it was before.
So why do it in the first place? What is the advantage or reason to place such a restriction if it doesn't prevent the Archbishop or his successor from doing something else with the property?
I am genuinely confused. Please explain this simply.
Dear Anonymous at 3:08 pm,
DeleteThat is correct. As it stands today, the Deed Restriction is effective, and it remains effective so long as the owner does not make any other declaration repealing the Deed Restriction. If another Archbishop were to take over, the Deed Restriction also restricts him just as the U.S. Legal website says. Jackie is correct. The only way to remove the Deed Restriction is to make another declaration. After all, even the laws in the U. S. Constitution can be changed. After passing the Prohibition Act, the only way Congress removed it was by passing another law to repeal it.
The point is Tim lied. We never said that the archbishop gave away the property.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 4:33 pm,
DeleteWhat I find ironic in all this is the gullibility of former lawyer and senator Bob Klitzkie. He knew that the Bronze lawyer said one thing and Jackie Terlaje said the opposite. In his former line of work, he knew that only one person could be right. Yet, he did not use his skills as a lawyer to dig deeper for the truth. He simply swallowed everything the jungle fed him. Talk about being brainwashed. He should have remained objective and dug deeper into his investigation.
Dear Diana at 4.10. Please, you haven't answered my confusion. If the Archbishop can simply and unilaterally "make another declaration" that undoes the first, how can anyone sensibly suggest that he has "restricted himself" in any way? Surely filing an extra document can't be considered "restriction"?
DeleteAnd, if that is all the restriction means, why go to the bother of it? What does it actually accomplish?
Dear Tim Rohr,
DeleteThe purpose of the Deed Restriction is to restrict the use of the property to only one thing. The property is tobe used for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary......and only for that purpose. He did it to protect the donor's wishes, who wanted his money to be used for a seminary. And so, the Deed Restriction is there to protect the property to be used as the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary. He is the Archbishop, and he has that right to do so. He was not violating any law in having a deed restriction. And in the event that the Archbishop retires, we will ask Pope Francis to give us an Archbishop to carry on Apuron's legacy for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. End of story.
Easter Greetings!
ReplyDeleteI apologize for not having been around for some time but I was off-island preparing for our WYD pilgrimage to Poland. In spite of this I would like to relay some important information.
As you know, Father Luis has been under attack over at that other blog and this is only because they are very desperate and have become reckless in their efforts to destroy the local church. Although their attempts will go down in history, it should be everyones hope that it stays only in those historical files, never to be opened again.
I would like to share that one of their last attempts to destroy was thrown out the window again. In an attempt to tarnish the reputation of Father Luis one of their cohort members was able to get a correspondence with Bishop of Qatar, Bishop Camillo Ballin. It was unsuccessful because in it Bishop Ballin only reminded the poor guy that Father Luis does not pose any threat to his youth because there is no history of Him being a sexual predator. In Bishop Ballins response he also shares yet reminds the poor guy of the GPD report that we already know of.
You see this will never make the headlines of those blogs because it discredits them yet again.
It is very sad what these people are doing and I can only HOPE that Father Luis is not discouraged by the attacks brought on by these sick people.
I also would want to point out that it has always been their scheme to apply a sexual context to every situation. This only means that they are deprived, purely perverted or they have a closeted sexual identification.
As I have said in the past, Mr. Ror sent a FOIA letter to GPD and in it he found nothing and yet he continues to imply that Father Luis was caught in a sexual act with the girl.
They were always wrong since the beginning. They also said that the girl and her family are under the control of Father Pius hence them not pursuing any legal action. This wasnt true again. In looking into this further I was able to find out that the girl nor anyone in her immediate family members were members of any NCW community. The other thing I found ironic, was that because of the media coverage and attacks from that blog, this girl and her family should be traumatized by the whole situation and would stay clear of anything having to do with it. Well, as we all remember, the sandwich shop in agat was said to be one of their stops before the beach, low and behold, the young woman soon after becomes an employee of the restaurant. Very ironic dont you think.
They should be reminded that in their attempts to crucify Father Luis they are forgetting about the girl and her family. Selfish I'd say.
Pas!
-Jokers Wild
Dear Joker's Wild,
DeleteThe accusation of Father Luis being a sexual predator was started by Deacon Steve Martinez. According to news report:
"In an interview with KUAM, Deacon Martinez says he was obligated to file the report based on the Archdiocese's Policy on Sexual Misconduct. The report alleges Fr. Luis illegally transported the 17-year-old girl from her school without her parent's permission. He went on to state that Fr. Luis had the minor hide as they drove away from the school."He then drove minor child to Subway and then to a remote beach in Agat and had sexual contact with her, and that the GPD had arrested Fr. Luis," Deacon Martinez wrote in the report."
This report started by the Deacon has many holes in it. The jungle does not care about who gets hurt in their attack against Father Luis. Their attempt is to stop the NCW in any possible way, but they have failed in all their attempts. As I said, three years and no accomplishment. They can brag about their page views all they want. The page views has not removed the Archbishop of Guam, reinstate Father Paul and Monsignor James, nor destroy the NCW on Guam.
Yep. Now, they're resorting to twisting Diana's comments. Rohr lied when he accused Diana of saying that archbishop Apuron gave away the property to RMS.
DeleteIf it were pastoral, and non-sexual conduct, Fr Luis would not have been arrested, surely?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 5:19 pm,
DeleteHe was arrested for custodial interference. The allegation of sexual molestation never came from the police. It came from Deacon Steve Martinez. I wonder if the Deacon ever asked the caller how he came to follow Father Luis and the girl, and how did he manage to SEE the alleged sexual activity. Did he walk up to the car and saw them? Perhaps, he was hiding in the back seat or the trunk of the car?
What about clergy Archbishop Apuron destroyed joker wild.
DeleteIf it was only custodial interference, why was Fr. Luis so quick to resign and then be whisked off-island immediately?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:13 pm,
DeleteBecause it caused a scandal for him. He put himself in a compromising position, and he felt the best thing was to resign from the parish. He did the right thing since the girl is from his parish. By resigning from his parish, he loses all contact with the girl and probably saved her from further scandal.
He loses all contact with the girl, resigned to save her from further scandal and then he's whisked away? You think this will stop him from scandalizing another girl?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:06 am,
DeleteIt has already been a year since Father Luis has been living in the Middle East, and there has been no report of sexual crime where he is concern. That alone says something about him.
Losing all contact with the girl was the best thing! Are you implying that it is a bad thing???? Are you implying that he should still be in contact with her???? To lose contact with her is the only way for her to forget him and move on with her life. It appears that Father Luis has moved on with his life. Hopefully, the girl has done the same.
If there was nothing going on between the two of them, why would they have to separate them, lose contact and forget about each other? I don't get it Diana.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:12 am,
DeleteIt is unhealthy for a teenage girl to live in a fantasy world. It is normal for teenagers ( especially girls) to have crushes on adults. Teenage girls usually put up posters of their favorite idols (such as Brad Pitt) in their bedrooms. But eventually, they grow out of that fantasy world. When I was in high school, I also had a crush on a teacher. But I never pursued any relationship with the teacher. I remember sitting in the front row so I could listen to the sound of his voice, but I never sought to be close to him nor pursued any relationship. Although I had a crush on the teacher, there was nothing going on between us. Eventually, I grew out of that infactuation.
Apparently, the girl had a crush on Father Luis otherwise she would not have gotten into the car with him. Just because you like someone of the opposite sex does not mean that you are having sex with him. Liking someone is not a sin. Even liking a priest is not a sin. But when a person (the girl, the priest, or both) "attempts" to pursue an impossible worldly relationship, they are living in a fantasy world, which is not healthy. The Church deems it wise to separate the two if one or both have an infactuation.
Not a scandal for him but a scandal for the RMS and NCW. He has tarnished the Archdiocese, NCW and RMS and so he has to resign and be whisked off the island.
ReplyDeleteHe knew what he was doing. You are not supposed to be with a girl period. what was he doing alone with a girl, custodial interference is just a nice way of eliminating scandal but the truth is something happened.
Dear Anonymous at 12:23 am,
DeleteOn the contrary. People are more intelligent. It only takes common sense to know that when a person makes a mistake, the fault belongs to the person rather than to his family, relatives, neighbors, or even the school and colleges he attended. That is only common sense.
Diana, you forgot the 6th day Catechesis. When you sin, you harm also the community. It is common sense that Fr. Luis sinned, let him face the consequence to the community at large and not hid him so far away with a filipino bishop whom I know back in the Philippines.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:48 am,
DeleteAnd who are you to tell anyone that they have sinned and should face the consequences???? Let he who is without sin be the one to cast the first stone.
Trolls are screaming: sin, sin, sin! What they scream about is their own sin inside their mind! Trolls are who they are, trolls: poor excuses for a human being. Lol!
DeleteI guess the 6th day Catechesis as 9:48 AM states should sum up the NCW's teaching. Is the catechetical book wrong now for you to contradict it. Maybe you should go attend the 6th day and refresh your memory.
DeleteTim Rohr a little sore because he can get his Casino bringing up father Luis up again that Tim Rohr nothing but bad news. trying to destroy this island
ReplyDeleteTrolls are always sore and in pain. The pain is coming from their own wretched souls sold to the devil. Whatever devil tells them they happily do, that is why they are the trolls of doom, decay and misery. They are living in cage that they foolishly locked on themselves.
DeleteNo amount of Casino or monetary gain could save them from their well deserved fate. Lol!
Are you saying Anonymous 2:47 that Jesus was also a little because he challenged the religious authorities and called them out as bad news, trying to destroy Judaism.
ReplyDeleteHow long have you been on the Way?