Saturday, July 29, 2017

More Deception From The Jungle

According to Tim Rohr, he cited the following as his evidence of the 5 year statutes of limitation on the deed restriction (the red is mine): 


7 GCA CIVIL PROCEDURE
CH. 11 STATUTES OF LIMITATION
CHAPTER 11
TIME FOR COMMENCING ACTIONS
§ 11207. Entry on Real Estate.
 No entry upon real estate is deemed sufficient or valid as a claim, unless an action be commenced thereupon within one year after making such entry, and within five years from the time when the right to make it descended or accrued. 

You can find the full document here.  The document that Tim Rohr pointed to is actually in regards to a person trying to recover property from the government. The Yona property is not considered government property nor is the Yona property being seized by the government.  Tim Rohr cites section 11207, which is what I placed in red.  Below is the Article number and section numbers in order:

                                                                    ARTICLE 2
                          COMMENCING ACTIONS FOR RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY

§ 11201. When Government of Guam Will Not Sue. 
§ 11202. Action Not to Be Brought by Grantee from Government.
§ 11203. Actions Within Five Years.
§ 11204. Limitation of Actions Relating to Registered Land.
§ 11205. When Seizin Necessary Within 5 years.
§ 11206. When Such Seizin Necessary.   
§ 11207. Entry on Real Estate.
§ 11208. Possession, When Presumed. Occupation, When Deemed Legal. 

This is not a statutes of limitations on the Deed Restriction.  It is a statutes of limitations on real property seized by the government of Guam.  So Junglefolks, please go back and tell Tim Rohr to next time give a weblink to the full document so they can read it themselves. 

When property is given to a non-government entity, the procedure is different. For example, if property was given to me, it becomes MY property.....period. If the original owner decided 8 years later that he would like to have the property back, he would have to ask me if he can buy the property back from me.  That is plain simple common sense.  You cannot just take property you gave away without asking the new owner.  To get the property back, the new owner must relinquish the property to the original owner through a Deed.  This, of course, requires a signature from the new owner giving up or selling the property back to the original owner.  

In the case with the Yona property, there were no signatures from RMS relinquishing the property to the Archdiocese.  Tim Rohr and CCOG believed that Archbishop Apuron gave away the Yona property to RMS; yet, there were no signatures from RMS relinquishing the property back to the Archdiocese.  Why? Because the property was ALREADY in the possession of the Archdiocese.  

In the Grant Deed, the only signature was Archbishop Byrnes (with Archbishop Hon concurring).  There are no signatures from the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.  Why?  Because the Archbishop of Agana or his successor is the corporate sole of RMS.  Only the Archbishop of Agana or his successor have full control, authority, and ownership of RMS.  No other signatures were needed.  In fact, this grant deed was simply a show from CCOG.

As a matter of fact, this grant deed was used by Tim Rohr to show proof that Archbishop Apuron gave away the Yona property.  See the weblink here.  But none of the junglefolks asked Rohr HOW did it show that when the only signatures you see are Archbishop Byrnes (aside from Archbishop Hon).  Where are the signatures of RMS showing that the property was relinquished by them? 
                                                         

56 comments:

  1. Tim is losing his credibility. The junglefolks need to read and think for themselves cuz Tim only shows what he wants them to see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good question. JW always say that the seminary was given away to RMS. Klitzkie also said that land management made a mistake on the title document. Klitzkie said it should read RMS as the owner rather than the Archdiocese of Agana.

    So, if RMS was the new owner, where are their signatures giving up the property to the Archdiocese in the Grant Deed? Why didn't Klitzkie come out now and say the Grant Deed is wrong because the signatures of the Board of Directors and Board of Guarabtors are missing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could help if you make distinction between "de jure" and "de facto". According to Wikipedia:

      "In law and government, de jure (/deɪ ˈdʒʊrɪ/; Latin: de iure, "in law") describes practices that are legally recognized by official laws. In contrast, de facto ("in fact" or "in practice") describes situations that are generally known to exist in reality, even if not legally authorized.

      Diana argues that the RMS is DE JURE not owned by NCW. It is true. The legal documents do not show a transfer of ownership. However, RMS is DE FACTO owned by the NCW as it has the exclusive right to use it for its own purpose. When all benefits go to one party excluding all others, then that party de facto owns the property.

      Delete
    2. "The legal documents do not show a transfer of ownership."

      Great. You recognize that Apuron never transferred the property. So when is JW going to retract their statements in the news and apologize to Apuron for falsely accusing him of giving away the property?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 4:26 pm, 

      Can you provide a document showing that RMS is de facto owned by the NCW? 

      In fact and in practice, the majority of the seminarians in RMS walk in the NCW, but the NCW do not own the seminarians. It is against the law to own people. 

      In fact and in practice, after being ordained the RMS priests work in the parishes of the Archdiocese kbaptizing, having funerals, weddings, and doing regular Mass for the parishioners who are NOT walking in the Way. They pay attention to ALL parishioners regardless of whether they are walking in the Way or not. Some of these priests also serve the universal Church doing missionary work. 

      It is actually the local priests who only perform services for the parishioners who are NOT walking in the Way. But it is in fact and in practice that the RMS priests perform services to ALL. They conduct serbices for those who are in the NCW and those who are not in the NCW.

      RMS has always been owned by the Archdiocese. How else can you explain that there are no signatures from the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors on the Grant Deed?

      Delete
    4. Diana! Thank you SO MUCH for pointing out that our local priests ONLY serve non-NCW parishioners! We should definitely bring this up with the bishop. It is wrong for our local priests to not serve the NCW as well. We are all one family. It is not right to discriminate between NCW catholics and "other" catholics!!

      Delete
    5. Diana, I tell you an example how to distinguish de jure and de facto truth. A king was fooled by visiting tailors to believe that he wears an extremely lightweight royal dress and robe, while in fact he was naked. When people started to laugh at him, he made a law saying that the king has the most beautiful dress and robe of all. Whoever ridiculed him afterwards was cruelly jailed. Now, you tell me if the king was dressed or naked. He was dressed de jure, according to his own law. But he was naked de facto, according to what the people saw.

      Delete
    6. Dear Diana, you demand legal documents following your legalistic approach. This is the same approach the jungle employs on everything. Legalism means you believe that official documents override anything else. David Lujan could talk about it how to use legalism profitably.

      Both you and Rohr tries to convince the public that the RMS controversy is about ownership. But neither of you is right. Archbishop Hon made it clear that that ownership has never been an issue. Hon emphasized that the issue was the about the exclusive right to use the property, that is, the benefit of function. No wonder both you and Rohr are turning against Archbishop Hon, because by spelling out the truth he disproved both of you.

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 2:49 pm,

      You are welcome. I hope now it is understood that the RMS priests are not only diocesan priests but also missionary priests.

      Delete
    8. Dear Anonymous at 3:44 pm,

      You are incorrect. It has always been about ownership. Do you not remember? Bob Klitzkie claimed that the title document was wrong because it should name RMS as the owner, not the Archdiocese of Agana. Rohr has also claimed that Archbishop Apuron gave away the seminary to RMS. The protesters carried signs saying "RETURN" the seminary to the Archdiocese. Do you not remember their signs: Return, Restore, and Resign?????

      Archbishop Apuron, Archbishop Hon, Monsignor David, Father Pius, and Father Jeff San Nicolas all said that RMS belonged to the Archdiocese. They were all called "liars" by the jungle.

      Delete
    9. 3:44pm:

      "Hon emphasized that the issue was the about the exclusive right to use the property, that is, the benefit of function."

      Why is it that a large property would be restricted entirely for the use as a seminary? I believe it is because Archbishop Apuron expected there to be a growth of vocations to the priesthood in the future. Where would that population have gone in order to accommodate that growth if the property/building had been subdivided?

      Delete
  3. Diana,

    Almost every other post on jungleblog are in response to your content. I thought Ror judged you as a dingbat? I thought all your content was joke? So then why is he wasting his time entertaining it?
    I think his plot is slowly being revealed, thanks to you and your research.

    Anyways, his blog may be getting views after views but that doesnt mean they share the same views.

    Fight the good fight, stay the course, Courage!

    Pas!
    -Jokers Wild

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great observation, Jokers Wild.
      BUT you should know while that Rohr (and others) may have "judged" Diana as a "dingbat," others have applied the term "dungbat" to her.
      Anyway, Rohr is not "entertaining" the contents of this blog. He is "setting the record straight" from his POV, the same way that Diana is "setting the record straight" from her POV.
      BOTH Administrators (Rohr and Diana) are leaving it up to their readers to decide for themselves which one is more credible.
      That is all (for now) BUT I'm sure there will be more.

      Delete
    2. And BOTH kick out all opinions that contradict theirs!

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:21 am,

      That is not quite true. I have published opinions that I do not agree with because I prefer a discussion on the OP. However, I do not publish one-liner insults, attacks on other posters, and some comments I feel that would divert away from the OP.

      Delete
    4. It depends whether the comment is in conflict with the pre-conception.

      Delete
  4. Diana I believe Tim admitted his guilt because he and who really put the trouble because he said it was them who did this and byrnes is just letting them get away with it with the money issue when they held the money back we were fine and byrnes is just blaming archbishop Anthony for all of this

    ReplyDelete
  5. Diana I think you should read pope Francis new release evangelico gaudio it's a beautiful one and it's like what's happening here on guam

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can Tim Rohr be sued for willful disinformation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 4:54 am,

      No. But he can be sued for defamation. It is Archbishop Apuron who can sue him because it was his name and reputation whom Rohr defamed.

      Delete
  7. In 2013, Dorothy Rabinowitz, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer on The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, published “The Trials of Father MacRae,” her third major installment in a series of articles recounting the perversion of justice by which Father MacRae was tried and convicted.

    This is the kind of investigative reporting that is needed to thoroughly scrutinize the controversy surrounding the RM Seminary. The truth needs to be told to dispel all the misinformation Rohr has concocted in order to get people to oppose the Archbishop. Any takers from KUAM and other news media?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diana, Dorothy Rabinowitz is an editor writer for the liberal Wall Street Journal. She personally attacked Rudy Giuliani, the Republican mayor of New York City. Her writings are preoccupied and biased. She is a typical left-wing New York liberal.

      Delete
    2. Dear Anonymous at 3:15 pm,

      I am mainly a conservative, but I do not hate liberals. I simply do not agree with much of their platform. However, her writings regarding the trials of Father MacRae was spot on. Then there are some conservatives that I disagree with. Although I voted for Trump, I do not favor his uncivil attitude.

      Delete
    3. You voted for Trump? Are you a resident of New Jersey?

      Delete
    4. Dear Anonymous at 19:35 am,

      No. I am a resident of Guam. But Guam's ballot also ask to vote for the presidential election despite the fact that it is not counted. A majority of Guam residents voted for Hilary.

      Delete
  8. "is the corporate sole of RMS"

    This makes no sense. The RMS does not "have" a corporate sole. And it is not a corporate sole. The office of Archbishop is a corporate sole, and the Archbishop may be the sole member of the RMS, but they are completely different concepts.

    Please try harder

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:28 pm,

      I have already proven that a seminary can be a corporation sole with a Board of Directors. St. John Seminary is a corporation sole with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the corporate sole. See the weblink below:

      https://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2015/10/st-john-seminary-in-california.html?m=1

      There is the evidence. A seminary can be a corporation sole. RMS is also a corporation sole. So, you see...Rohr was wrong when he told you that ONLY an Archdiocese is a corporation sole.

      Delete
    2. St John's Seminary is not separately incorporated like the RMS is, and therefore remains a function of its Archdiocese under the office of the Archbishop, whose office is a corporate sole. The RMS, being separately incorporated, is by virtue of this, not a corporate sole.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:54 am,

      On the contrary. RMS is similar to St. John's Seminary. The seminary is a corporation sole with the Archbishop of Los Angeles as the corporate sole. RMS is the same way.

      As we have been saying, RMS is owned by the Archdiocese, and that is the reason there are no signatures of the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors. Do you have a better explanation as to why there are no signatures from RMS on the Grant Deed relinquishing the ownership back to the Archdiocese? Please do tell.

      Delete
    4. "the Grant Deed relinquishing the ownership back to the Archdiocese"

      Your story is inconsistent. Here you agree that the ownership was changed and had to be "relinquished" back to the Archdiocese.

      Delete
    5. Dear Anonymous at 4:24 pm,

      You only quoted half of my sentence. This is what I stated:

      Do you have a better explanation as to why there are no signatures from RMS on the Grant Deed relinquishing the ownership back to the Archdiocese?

      Delete
    6. Quoting the full sentence doesn't change anything. You still admit here that the Grant Deed caused the ownership to go "back to the Archdiocese"

      Delete
    7. Dear Anonymous at 10:47 am,

      Quoting the full sentence makes a lot difference. The subject of the full sentence is the signatures, not the Grant Deed.

      Delete
    8. Dear anon at 10:47am,

      Do you believe the RMS is owned by the NCW and not the archdiocese even after the deed restriction has been lifted?

      Delete
    9. No, why would you ask such a silly thing. I merely pointed out that Diana's continued assertion that the property remained in the unfettered control of the Archbishop/Archdiocese following the Deed Restriction. As her own comment implies, everybody knows what the Deed Restriction was intended to do, and everyone knows it had to be "undone". If it was nothing, there would have been nothing to be undone, no?

      Delete
    10. Dear Anonymous at 5:54 pm,

      Not everyone. The Jungle claimed that it was the Deed Restriction that transferred the ownership of the property from the Archdiocese to RMS because they only see the word "deed". We had always claimed that RMS had always been owned by the Archdiocese.

      Delete
    11. "I merely pointed out that Diana's continued assertion that the property remained in the unfettered control of the Archbishop/Archdiocese following the Deed Restriction."

      Do you believe differently? If there are no signatures from the RMS relinquishing ownership of the property and all it took was the "Archbishop of Agana" to remove the deed restriction, what can you conclude of who was the owner of that property in both circumstances if the property still functions/operates as the RMS under the Archbishop of Agana corporate sole?

      Delete
    12. The question isn't ownership but the need for a deed restriction in the first place.

      Delete
    13. Dear Anonymous at 8:39 pm,

      That question has been answered so many times.

      Delete
    14. From whom did the RMS need protection from if it was always under the protection/ownership of the archbishop/archdiocese since he ultimately could decide what and what not to do with it? Why place a restriction on its use if the Archbishop had "control" of it?

      Delete
    15. Dear Anonymous at 6:56 am,

      To keep it from being sold by people who are interested in selling it.

      Delete
    16. But only the Archbishop could sell it. Before the Deed restriction, only the Archbishop could decide what to do with it, and according to Diana, after the Deed Restriction, only the Archbishop could decide what to do with it.

      Obviously this explanation is silly. The only reason a Deed restriction is applied is to limit the ability of the Archbishop to decide what to do with it.

      The RMS could have objected to the lifting of the Deed Restriction and may have been able to prove ownership had they done so, on the basis of the wording of the document. The fact that they didn't was an indication that they knew they had been caught, and without Apuron it would have been bad PR

      Delete
    17. Dear Anonymous at 10:51 am,

      It was the Archbishop who removed the Deed Restriction;therefore, it stands to reason that the Archbishop had the authority before, during, and after the Deed Restriction.

      The fact is RMS never owned the property. If you believe that RMS owned the property, then explain why the signatures of the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors are not on the Grant Deed.

      Delete
    18. "Obviously this explanation is silly. The only reason a Deed restriction is applied is to limit the ability of the Archbishop to decide what to do with it."

      I respectfully disagree.

      This is just speculation, but the fact that only the archbishop could remove the deed restriction hints towards the archbishop preparing for his retirement or any potential circumstance that could leave the property in jeopardy in his absence. Since no successor or coadjudator bishop had been established and the archbishop knew that there were several people more than willing to sell the property, he had to establish an added layer of protection to RMS so that only the next bishop could decide what to do with it. That is how much Archbishop Apuron loved the RMS and wanted to make sure that after his absence, only the next archbishop could decide its fate.

      The purpose of the deed restriction was indeed meant to prevent the sale or misuse of the property in the event that no successor had been in place to lead the diocese.

      The question then is, why 2011? What could have prompted him at that specific time to create the deed restriction?

      Delete
    19. So, your claim is that Apuron applied the Deed Restriction so that, in the event that a successor was not yet appointed, no-one could change the fate of the RMS.

      But, if no successor is appointed, either Apuron would still hold the office of Bishop, or someone else would be assigned the suty as administrator. In both cases they would be acting as if they were the "Corporation Sole" and, under Diana's logic, would still be able to make decisions on the property and the seminary.

      I don't mean to offend but that is a very weak argument. The fact is that the property was transferred to the RMS de facto, and after a certain period, the RMS could quite reasonably argue ownership of the property and claim authority regarding its use.

      Delete
    20. Dear Anonymous at 7:55 pm,

      Actually, your argument is very weak. You claimed that the property was transferred to RMS. Yet, there is nothing in writing showing that the property was transferred to the Archdiocese. You and the news media now believe that the property has been handed over back to the Archdiocese; yet, yet, all you have is Archbishop Byrnes' signature. His signature alone is proof that we have been telling the truth all along. After all, our stories have always remained the same. It does not change.

      Delete
    21. "But, if no successor is appointed, either Apuron would still hold the office of Bishop, or someone else would be assigned the suty as administrator. In both cases they would be acting as if they were the "Corporation Sole" and, under Diana's logic, would still be able to make decisions on the property and the seminary."

      I understand your point. But, we already know the intention of Archbishop Apuron. He would have never sold the property and he did not want it to be used except as the RMS, hence the deed restriction. However, we have no idea what the intention of someone who would replace him would do with the property should Archbishop Apuron no longer be able to act as the Archbishop of Agana. At least with the deed restriction in place, that intention would be clearly made to his successor. What they decided to do with the property as a result of that would be left to them.

      Therefore, the need for a deed restriction was simply to reinforce his desire to keep the RMS functioning specifically as the RMS. What is wrong with that if his successor would ultimately end up with the choice to decide its fate?

      Delete
    22. Dear Anonymous at 10:59 pm,

      Archbishop Apuron was looking out for the needs of the people of Guam. The RMS function so that Guam would have its own priests and not need to look for priests from other countries as we had done in the past. It was also an opportunity for Guam to provide priests to other countries who are in dire need of priests just as we were when there was no seminary.

      Delete
    23. I agree, Diana.

      Delete
  9. Diana, you focus on winning the battles, while you are losing the war.

    You win the battles of blog fights because it is your battlefield! You are omnipotent at your own blog to do as you wish. But the real war fought for the heart and soul of the faithful is raging outside! You have no control over that fight. While you focus on your home made tiny battles, your chances to win the big fight is slipping out of your reach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:30 pm, 

      You say I win battles. I win battles with the truth. And it is the truth that will win the heart and souls of the faithful because Christ is the truth. 

      Now, please stick to the OP. In the OP, I said that in order for property to be returned to the original owner, the new owner must deed the property back. The reason that you do not see the signatures of the RMS Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors is because they were never the new owners. The owner had always been the Archdiose of Agana. So, do you agree or not? If you do not agree, then refute it.

      We all know how Bob Klitzkie argued that the title document was wrong because he believed that it was supposed to name RMS as the owner rather than the Archdiocese of Agana. So, explain to me why Mr. Klitzkie is not coming forth declaring that the Grant Deed is wrong because it does not contain the signatures of RMS relinquishing ownership?

      Delete
    2. Diana, your righteousness in the Son of God is the most powerful guarantee that you win the battles.

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 2:19 pm,

      I am not righteous. But we rely on God to win the battles for us.

      Delete
    4. At 9:30 PM Soul of the faithful???? the soul of the faithful has loss a lot of church property, because of their master Tim Rohr, who is a real estate Man $$$$ BY using you Faithful$!! and you're winning the War?? the only one winning the War is the real estate Man.


      Delete
    5. Not such effective real estate guy. Ask around! Time Rohr get another job.

      Delete