The title of the instrument was part of the camouflage...except for one thing, it still contains the word DEED. In fact (LOL) the title "declares" that it IS a DEED albeit with a restriction.
Had Apuron et al only wished to limit use of the property to the seminary then all that was necessary was the normal filing of covenants and restrictions common to any property wherein use is limited - such as by a condo homeowners association or a developer of a subdivision.Junglewatch
But Apuron declares this document to be a DEED wherein the property is "held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed"...to RMS with the only restriction being that it be "for the use of RMS for PERPETUAL USE" (and NOT even as a seminary!!!).
This is incorrect. The Declaration does not declare it to be a "Deed" in which the Archbishop transferred the property to someone else. According to the Declaration of Deed Restriction (the red bold is mine):
NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Owner hereby covenants and declares that the property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold, and conveyed subject to the covenants and restrictions set forth herein:
- Declaration. The Property shall be dedicated to and for the use of the REDEMPTORIS MATER ARCHDIOCESAN MISSIONARYSEMINARY, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION WITH IDENTIFICATION NUMBER #66-0626532, IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE OF THE REDEMPTORIS MATER ARCHDIOCESAN MISSIONARY SEMINARY OF GUAM, AND BY THE BLESSED DIEGO LUIS DE SAN VITORES CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR OCEANIA.
As anyone can see, the word "sold" is in the Declaration of Deed Restriction. Tim Rohr and the jungle folks ALWAYS made the claim that the Archbishop GAVE AWAY the RMS property. NEVER did they say that he sold it despite the fact that the word "sold" was on the Declaration of Deed Restriction. In addition, there is no record of any Deed of Sale from the Archbishop to RMS or to anyone representing RMS.
The phrase "set forth herein" was placed in red bold. To "set forth herein" means "as stated in greater detail in this document" (See Attorney Answers). There is a colon after the statement. The grammar book rules stated, "A colon means 'that is to say' or 'here is what I mean.'"
Number 1 defined it to be a "Declaration". And it declared that it IS a "restriction." The property was dedicated to and for the USE of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. It is not declaring that it is a deed as Tim Rohr claims. It is declaring a restriction. As a matter of fact, there is such a term as "Deed Restriction." According to the U.S. Legal website below:
According to the weblink above, THAT is the legal definition of "deed restriction." In other words, there is a difference between a "deed" and a "deed restriction." The two terms are not the same. Tim Rohr was only looking at ONE word: "Deed". Apparently, he was unaware that there is a legal term as "Deed Restriction", which is not the same as "deed." One wonders why he only sees the word "Deed" and nothing else.
The Declaration of Deed Restriction was filed as a "Declaration" at the Department of Tax and Revenue; therefore, Archbishop remains the legal owner of RMS. All he did was placed a "deed restriction" on himself.
Number 1 defined it to be a "Declaration". And it declared that it IS a "restriction." The property was dedicated to and for the USE of the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. It is not declaring that it is a deed as Tim Rohr claims. It is declaring a restriction. As a matter of fact, there is such a term as "Deed Restriction." According to the U.S. Legal website below:
Deed restrictions are private agreements that restrict the use of the real estate in some way, and are listed in the deed......U.S. Legal Website
According to the weblink above, THAT is the legal definition of "deed restriction." In other words, there is a difference between a "deed" and a "deed restriction." The two terms are not the same. Tim Rohr was only looking at ONE word: "Deed". Apparently, he was unaware that there is a legal term as "Deed Restriction", which is not the same as "deed." One wonders why he only sees the word "Deed" and nothing else.
The Declaration of Deed Restriction was filed as a "Declaration" at the Department of Tax and Revenue; therefore, Archbishop remains the legal owner of RMS. All he did was placed a "deed restriction" on himself.
"All he did was placed a "deed restriction" on himself."
ReplyDeleteOk, but why? Why would he need to simply "restrict himself"? It makes no sense. No-one can sell the property, or decide its use, other than the Archbishop, provided it remains with the Archdiocese.
So why was it necessary for - or in what way did things change when the Archbishop declared this Deed Restriction?
You have never satisfactorily answered this question. If the next Archbishop decides to to do something different, you say he is free to do so. So why go through this process?
Dear Anonymous at 7:39 pm,
DeleteHe did it to protect the property. In fact, the restriction was placed on himself so that not even he (the Archbishop) can sell the property. Also, I may be wrong about the next Archbishop deciding to do something different. If the deed restriction restricts the current Archbishop from doing something with the property, then I assume that would also be true with the next Archbishop. According to that U.S. legal website that I provided in the OP, it stated:
"Deed restrictions placed within a deed control the use of the property. The restrictions travel with the deed, and cannot generally be removed by new owners."
With that said, at least there is a bright side. The RMS property still belongs to the Archbishop.
Looks like former lawyer and former senator Bob Klitzke also didn't know what a deed restriction is. Maybe if he had put into practice his lawyer skills instead of following everything Rohr says, he would've realized that a deed and deed restriction are two different things.
DeleteFormer senator Bob "Bogus" Klitzkie's flip-flopping on key issues showed him unworthy of running for any future office.
DeleteTim working really hard for that casino a lot of wasted writing
ReplyDeleteA fool's voice is known by a multitude of words.
Delete(Eccl. 5:7)
A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride,
but the lips of the wise protect them.
(Proverbs 14:3)
"The empty vessel makes the greatest sound."
(Shakespeare)
How can there be a Deed of restriction if there is no Deed?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 4:38 pm,
DeleteWhat makes you think that is no deed? The deed existed when the Japanese owner sold the property to Archishop Apuron after paying the 1 million dollars
Timmy is twisting things around again. I know Diana never said that the property was given to RMS. JW has always been saying that.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 12:15 pm,
DeleteThat is correct. The RMS property has always been under the Archbishop. The jungle was the only one saying that the property was given to RMS, and they always cited the Declaration of Deed Restriction as their evidence. Notice that Tim Rohr had nothing to say about my OP.
Yep. Tim is lying. From JW:
Delete"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."
Since when did we ever say the archbishop gave the property away to RMS to protect it from the finance council. We've always said that the property is still owned by archbishop, but he put a deed restriction on the property to protect it. JW, LFM, and CCOG were the ones saying the archbishop gave away the property and they keep using the Deed Restriction as their evidence. That's why Bob "bogus" Klitztke says the CTs are still wrong. When Diana said the restriction was on himself, that's not a contradiction. The restriction was on himself 'cuz the archbishop still owns the property, which Diana has always been saying.
"The restriction was on himself 'cuz the archbishop still owns the property, which Diana has always been saying. "
DeleteIf the restriction is "on himself", meaning that he can no longer sell it or do anything other than have the RMS occupy and operate it, what difference does it make whether the Archbishop "still owns the property"? Effectively he doesn't, because he can't make any decisions about it. The decisions about the property can now only be made by the NCW, which means the NCW effectively own the property.
Dear Anonymous at 1:07 pm,
DeleteNo matter how you twist it around, the Archbishop LEGALLY owns the property, and he makes decisions on everything regarding the property because he is the ONLY member in RMS, the chairperson in the Board of Directors and heads the Board of Guarantors of RMS.
You can take it to court and twist your story around anyway you like it......but LEGALLY and according to civil and canon law, the property belongs to the Archbishop.