KIKO AND CARMEN - THE REAL STORY

By Tim Rohr

For some reason, per our stats for the last 7 days, this 2015 post has many times more views than its nearest counterparts.

The post is based on information provided by the still mysterious "Frenchie." :)

 

JACKIE! NO SURPRISE - PART 4

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 3

I mentioned in Part 3 that even though Bob Klitzkie did not have legal standing to pursue the CT "nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance," as Klitzkie would characterize it, in court, he still had one tool he could use, a tool available to all of us: The Sunshine Law, aka Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA").  

In February 2016, after DLM Director Michael Borja went silent and Klitzkie learned that Jackie Terlaje, Esq., was suddenly involved as "counsel for the title holder," Bob, knowing his only legal recourse was a FOIA, Bob FOIA'd Borja on February 17, 2016, and set a date to inspect the following documents on February 22. 

• The name, worksite, mailing address, and dates of service of all Deputy Registrars of Titles who served during 2015 and to date.
• The name, worksite, and mailing address of all Deputy Registrars of Titles who were relieved of duty from October 30 to date.
• Directives describing and governing the performance of the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Registrar of Titles during the period beginning January 1, 2015, to present.
• All correspondence, including email, between the Deputy Registrar of Titles and Msgr. David C. Quitugua or his agent.
• All correspondence directed to the Deputy Registrar of Titles, to include email, from any attorney regarding the certificates described herein.
• All sign-in logs show the signature of Msgr. David C. Quitugua or his agent.
• All sign-in logs showing the signature of anyone visiting the Deputy Registrar of Titles regarding the reference certificates of title.
• All requests for certificates of title related to the reference d certificates of title.
• All receipts evidencing payment for the originals or copies of the referenced certificates of title.
• All documents referred to, referenced, or relied upon by the Deputy Registrar of Titles in the preparation of the referenced certificates.

It was clear what Bob was looking for. 

Regarding the first three documents, he was looking to see if Borja had taken disciplinary action against Andrew Santos, the Deputy Registrar of Titles, who had manufactured the false titles for Jackie, and then remanufactured even "falser" titles for Jackie after the first false titles were exposed. 

Whether Santos did this through "nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance" as Bob characterized it in his letter to Borja of March 1, 2016, was never proven, nor did Bob try to prove it. What was proven was Jackie's role in procuring both sets of titles and then presenting herself as "counsel for the title holder" to keep the matter out of court (as demonstrated in the previous parts of this story). 

Then, once Bob mentions "Msgr. David C. Quitugua or his agent, "Bob is looking for Jackie. 

Bob knew that even if he found evidence of Jackie's fingerprints all over this title scam, there was little he could do about it, given that he was not a party to the matter and really little more than a concerned citizen. Still, because the preservation and protection of land titles and transfers is the people's business, which is why, in his March 1, 2016, letter to Borja, Bob characterized DLM's errors as "a wound inflicted on the public,"  Bob had the moral and legal authority to demand information from DLM's Director. 

Bob inspected the FOIA'd documents on February 23, 2016. However, pursuant to Bob's email to Borja dated the next day, Bob was not permitted to inspect the first three documents on the list, documents related to the status of the Deputy Registrar. Bob was told he could not have access to that information because the requested documents were a "personnel matter."

Bob might have let it go. However, after Borja and Barrett-Anderson got on the same page with Jackie, and pursuant to Borja's March 31, 2016, press release, which issued corrected CTs behind closed doors and bypassed the courts, Bob decided to sue the only person he had standing to sue: Borja.

Borja had denied Klitzkie access to public records related to Andrew Santos, the Deputy Registrar, on the grounds that said records were a "personnel matter." Borja, an otherwise good guy, and who was of great help to our side at the beginning of this drama, would be very sorry that he ever let "counsel for the title holder" into his office.

One year later, on February 27, 2017, in DECISION AND ORDER…Superior Court judge, the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon, would opine:

(Notes: Petitioner: Klitzkie. Respondent: Borja. Act: Freedom of Information Act.)

The court rejects the assertion that Petitioner’s requested information takes his Petition outside the Act. The Deputy Registrar is a public employee, and the Act speaks for itself when stating “all information regarding salary, and the name and worksite mailing address of each employee and public official shall be public record.” The duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Registrar or any other employee of the Department of Land Management are properly considered a public record of “information relating to the conduct of the public’s business....” 

Further, the court memorialized Borja’s treatment of Klitzkie:

…the court finds it self-evident that Petitioner’s receipt of the requested information three (3) months after filing his Petition and after over five (5) months of near-total silence from Respondent (Borja) and the Department of Land Management a sufficient concession to the merit of Petitioner’s claims. The plain language of the Act leaves the court no discretion but to award Petitioner requested court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and the court will issue Judgment for Petitioner in an amount supported by a submitted Bill of Costs following the issuance and entry on the docket of this Decision and Order.

And then, Judge Cenzon took a shot at the AG (Respondent’s counsel):

Finally, the characterization by Respondent’s counsel to the statutory penalty of $1,000 - imposed with particularity under the law upon the person who committed the violation, as opposed to the responding agency - as a “minor wound just to make this experience painful enough to teach Respondent a lesson” is astounding.

Judge Cenzon spends about another page lecturing and chastising the AG, which, I think, was not actually addressed to the Deputy AG representing Borja, but the AG herself, Barrett-Anderson, for her demonstrable equivocation in the whole matter as set out several times in this account. But that's just my thought about it.

Cenzon concludes:

…the court finds that Respondent Director Borja’s failure to respond to the Petitioner’s request for information was unjustified and imposes the statutorily mandated fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), payable by him, personally. 

The fine, per the Sunshine Law, was payable to the Guam Ethics Commission, not to Bob. The court also ordered the Department of Land Management to pay Bob's attorney's fees, $10,000. 

Bob got nothing. I don't think Borja left public life. And Jackie? Well, she's still around. Isn't that right Archbishop Jimenez?,

THE END (for now)

PS. Rest in Peace, Bob. I'll take it from here.

JACKIE! NO SURPRISE - PART 3

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 2

Whether the Director of Land Management, the Attorney General, and the "counsel for the title holder" complied with the law or circumvented it, we'll probably never know. Not being a party to the issue, Bob lacked standing to pursue the matter legally. However, Bob wasn't done.

In his March 30, 2016, letter to DLM Director Borja, Klitzkie recalls a KUAM News report in which Borja identifies the two parties of interest as DLM and the Archbishop of Agana, and states that it is a "civil issue." In other words, the implication was that it was none of Bob's business. 

“...in response, Borja tells KUAM News, that this is a civil issue between the two parties of interest, which are DLM and the Archbishop of Agana."

Bob then sets the record straight. (Note: some explanatory and extra notation is added parenthetically. Additionally, I have hyperlinked certain referenced documents.)

There are indeed two parties involved, “the Archbishop of Agana…and The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam (RMS), as recognized in your letter to Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Esq. of December 29 (2015). So while Kristan Finney, Esq. (the Deputy AG) was anxious to “sit down with Jackie,” there apparently was no willingness to sit down with the other party (RMS), which you recognized as a separated entity. Who is counsel for RMS, and why was he or she not included?

Bob is correct. The missing document from the certificate of title ("CT") was the Declaration of Deed of Restriction ("Deed"), which, even if it didn't convey title to the property in full (which it did), at minimum, it restricted use of the property for the purposes of a Neocat seminary, i.e., Redemptoris Mater Seminary. 

Because the erroneous CT of 10/30/15 did not show the Deed, it was as if no such restriction existed, which, in the real world, was a harm to RMS. I say "real world" because in the "real world," if you sell or give away a property, the buyer or receiver wants the transaction on the record, the title. 

But this wasn't the real world. It was (and still is) a Neocat world, where Apuron and the Neocats were playing a shell game with the title because Apuron had recorded the Deed not only without the canonically required approvals, but also while lying to his finance council and to Catholics in the Archdiocese of Agana generally. 

The matter was NOT between DLM and the church (Archbishop of Agana), and Borja's framing it that way increased Bob's suspicions that something else was going on. He was right, as he almost always was.

Not only did you nor Ms. Finney not include RMS in the “sit down with Jackie,” had I not attended the performances, even I wouldn’t have known who represented the Archbishop of Agana…as counsel’s name doesn’t appear in any of your or Ms. Finney’s papers or your news releases. (Note: "performances" is Bob being sarcastic about his meetings with Borja and Finney, where Bob believed he was being misled by both.)

This is ironic because Jackie Terlaje, Esq. identified only orally by Ms. Finney, was involved in the certificate of title fiasco from the beginning. Ms. Terlaje, with the assistance of Bertha Evangelista, ordered the October 30 (2015) certificates of title, which your deputy registrar issued without the necessary memorial of the Declaration of Deed Restriction, which Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General, published on the front page of the Umatuna…on November 29 (2015). That was the start of the fiasco. Your deputy registrar then handwrote in the necessary memorials on December 9. As was brought to your attention (in Bob's letter to Borja) of December 23, the memorials were not in favor of the correct party. I have attached a transmittal memo showing that the erroneous certificates were sent to Jackie Terlaje, Esq. on December 15. So Ms. Terlaje had the erroneous certificates from December 15 on. More than three months later, after going through the “sit down with Jackie” charade a couple of times, I learned from your News Release of March 17 that Kristan and Jackie had apparently finally sat down!

The two documents, mentioned by Bob, which show that "Jackie Terlaje, Esq...was involved in the certificate of title fiasco from the beginning, were 1) the receipt for payment for the CT's by Terlaje (and Evangelista) with a personal check; and 2) the "transmittal memo showing that the erroneous certificates were sent to Jackie Terlaje, Esq. on December 15. 

However, what Bob doesn't clarify above is that these are two sets of CT's, both of which are in error. 

The first set, which is what Jackie paid for on 11/19/15, left out the memorial of the Deed altogether (this is the one that was published in the Umatuna). The second set, sent via email to Jackie on 12/15/15, had the missing memorial handwritten in by Andrew Santos. Both were erroneous, the first for leaving out the memorial altogether, and the second because not only did Santos not have the authority to correct the CT on his own (as we demonstrated in Part 2), but in the "In Favor of" section, he had written in "Archbishop of Agana," when in fact it was supposed to say RMS. So now there was a double error. 

Imagine buying a property, then requesting a copy of the title for your new purchase, only to find that the title states the transaction was "In Favor of" the previous owner, leaving you out of the deal altogether. 

That's what happened. But because Apuron and the Neocats were playing this shell game with the title, it's hard to blame the registrar for getting this all mixed up. However, the fact that he did get it so mixed up was all the more evidence, for Bob, that the poor registrar was being ordered about like a trained monkey, and because the whole circus was about falsifying a land title for the purposes of serving the lies of Apuron and the Neocats, the registrar was probably nervous as hell, and his mistakes, especially the second one where he put the wrong party in the "In Favor of" column shows it.

Before moving on with this story, it is important to remind the reader that this is not a rehash of some old stuff from a decade ago. In fact, upon my reanalysis of the facts, I uncovered a critical piece that had not been identified, where, in Part 2, I demonstrated that the only way a correct CT could be issued without going through the courts was for the title holder to present a duplicate. 

Assuming the title holder (Apuron) presented a duplicate as required by law, this was the smoking gun. Apuron had the CT showing the missing Deed all along, but through Jackie, had ordered a CT without the Deed, which is exactly what Jackie paid for on 11/19/2015, and then, as the evidence suggests, transmitted the false CT to Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General, who had it published on the front page of the Umatuna on 11/29/15.

Beyond that though, the real reason for exposing this fraud, or at least providing a fresh retelling, is to keep in front of the whole world (which reads this blog), the nefarious intrigue of the Neocats, something which continues unabated in this archdiocese (and almost everywhere else where the Neocats have set up shop), and because it continues unabated, we must assume that our now not-so-new archbishop is either one of them or, which is more likely, controlled by them. He has yet to prove otherwise. 

Part 4

JACKIE! NO SURPRISE - PART 2

By Tim Rohr

Continued from Part 1 

After Bob Klitzkie notified Michael Borja, the then-Director of the Department of Land Management ("DLM") of what Bob called "a source of great mischief" regarding the clearly doctored certificates of title (CTs) for The Yona Property (RMS) in his letter of December 23, 2015, Borja, on January 20, 2016, replied to Klitzkie:

In a follow-up to your referenced letter, I have consulted with the Department of Land Management’s legal counsel and with the Attorney General of Guam regarding a remedy to correct a certificate of title in which a memorial had been entered in error. Based on their advice and in accordance with Title 29, Guam Code Annotated §29195, a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title. 

Accordingly, the department, specifically the Ex Officio Registrar of Titles, has prepared and forwarded a petition and other associated documents to the Office of the Attorney General of Guam with the instructions for the petition to be filed in the Superior Court of Guam in an effort to correct the certificates of title mentioned in your letter.

So, Bob thought all was well. 1) The Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson (at the time), had advised Borja on the correct judicial proceeding required to correct a CT pursuant to Guam law. 2) Borja, the Director of DLM, had confirmed to Klitzkie that he had already sent the required documents to the Attorney General to initiate the judicial proceeding. 

I remember Bob being very satisfied and confident that the matter would be properly addressed and with the utmost expediency. Before going further, it may help to know why Bob was pursuing this.

After more than a year of dealing with Apuron and the Neocats playing a devious shell game with "who owns The Yona Property?," the publication of a false CT on the front page of the church newspaper, a CT only recently drafted and authorized by the highest authority in the Government of Guam, whose duty it was to protect and preserve land titles, wasn't just another suspicious move by the Neocats, it was a threat to anyone and everyone who trusted DLM to protect their interest in their own properties. In other words, if someone in DLM could be made to falsify a land title to the benefit of a particular party, then this could happen to anyone. It was very serious business, and Bob was going to get to the bottom of it, because at the "bottom of it," as Bob knew, was "the source of great mischief," i.e. Corruption - with a capital C.

However, after Borja promised to pursue the lawful course for correction in his January 20, 2016, letter to Klitzkie. Borja went silent. A month went by. Bob decided to meet Borja and find out what was going on. Bob met with Borja and DLM's legal counsel, Kristan Finney, a Deputy Attorney General, on Monday, February 16. At the meeting, Bob learned that no action had been taken to advance the judicial proceeding, including the failure to send the "required documents" to the Attorney General, as Borja's January 20 letter had stated.

The next day, Bob memorialized the meeting in a long letter to Borja, which, at the outset, includes a reference to the sudden appearance of a new actor in this title drama, "counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana."

This letter will serve to memorialize Monday’s conference concerning the captioned matter attended by yourself, your counsel, Kristan K. Finney, Esq., and the undersigned. Learned counsel informed that she had contacted and had been working with counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana…for about two weeks, but had not had a chance to “sit down with her to see what could be worked out.”…Your counsel opined that she needed to “sit down with” counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana…to “see what she had.” Your counsel opined that if “something can be worked out, the matter would go much smoother,” but that she had to “work with” counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana…before a petition could be filed.

Per what was already revealed in Part 1, Bob learned that the new actor, the "counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana," was Attorney Jackie Terlaje, whose fingerprints had been all over the title issue since at least November 19, 2015, when Bob, through FOIA'd documents, found a DLM document showing that Jackie (along with Bertha Evangelista of Title Guaranty) had paid for the erroeneous CTs with a personal check. 

(Just a reminder. The CTs were erroneous because they did not include the Declaration of Deed of Restriction that Apuron had filed in 2011, a document that was at the root of the controversy.)

Bob was rightly perplexed. Borja's letter of January 20 had assured him that, per the Attorney General, the only way to correct the CTs was through a judicial proceeding, i.e., the matter had to go to court. But now, after a month of silence, Bob is told that the AG (Finney was a Deputy AG) was "working something out" with Jackie Terlaje, an arch-Neocat, and per Bob's FOIA'd documents, the one person's name attached to "the source of great mischief" more than anyone else's. 

In addition to finding the record of payment showing Terlaje's payment for the original 4 erroneous CTs, the ones which left out the controversial Deed Restriction, Bob also found an email from DLM addressed to Terlaje, with a copy of 4 CTs which had been illicitly "corrected:" Andrew Santos, the then Deputy Registar of Titles, and the DLM official who had originated the first set of erroneous titles, had hand written in the Deed Restriction and sent them to Jackie. 

So, after Bob thinks he has gotten things on the right track, Jackie shows up again and is "working something out" with Finney, the Deputy AG. What possibly could be "worked out," when, per the AG, the law clearly required a judicial proceeding? We would find out after another month of waiting.

On March 31, 2016, the then-Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, wrote to DLM Director, Michael Borja:

As described in your December 29, 2015, request to our Office to initiate a petition for correction of the CTs, the original issuance of the documents was defective because the Department did not correctly memorialize a recorded instrument affecting the property within the CTs. The Department had attempted to correct the CTs administratively but failed to notate the recorded instrument accurately. 

Upon review, it was determined that, in the absence of agreement by the title holder and under the facts known at that time, proceeding to court for judicial correction pursuant to 21 GCA § 29195 was the proper course of action. Assistant Attorney General Kristan Finney was instructed to prepare draft pleadings for review. 

Okay. All is well and good so far. But then Barrett-Anderson says this (emphasis added):

Shortly thereafter, our Office was contacted by Counsel for the title holder informing us that there was no objection to your Department making the necessary corrections and administratively inscribing the property memorialization to each of the CTs. This process is permitted under 21 GCA § 29160.

There being no further purpose for initiating judicial proceedings for correction of the CTs, in the interest of judicial economy and based on agreement of the title holder, I concurred in the administrative resolution, which was effectuated on March 15, 2016.

She did it! Jackie did it. She got the AG to skip the judicial proceeding (which would have outed them all in the process) and got the CTs corrected "administratively," i.e., "in-house." There would be no court proceeding, no stories in the media, no outing of what Apuron and the Neocats tried to do. But how did she do this? 

Barrett-Anderson did not elaborate on just what sort of "process was permitted under 21 GCA § 29160," the very section of the law Barrett-Anderson had referred to earlier when she advised Borja that the only way to correct the erroneous CTs was via a judicial proceeding, only that an administrative correction was "permitted." So, what was permitted?

Here is the pertinent part of 21 GCA § 29160 (emphasis added):

No new certificate of title shall be entered and no memorandum shall be made upon any certificate of title by the registrar in pursuance of any deed or other voluntary instrument, unless the owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented with such instrument…

In other words, if the owner has a CT with the correct information, upon presentation to the registrar, a new certificate duplicating the original presented by the owner can be issued. 

We will never know whether the owner (Apuron) presented CTs with the correct information, since all of this was conducted "administratively" behind closed doors. However, if we can take Barrett-Anderson at her word, and that the correction was permitted by law if the title holder presented a "duplicate certificate," then the only thing left to believe is that Apuron had the CTs with the Deed Restriction set forth in the memorial section, because that is what finally emerged as the corrected CT.

So, if Apuron already had the correct CTs, why did he order new CTs in October 2015? 

There is only one answer: 

BECAUSE HE NEEDED CTs THAT DID NOT SHOW THE DEED RESTRICTION. 

And that is what Jackie paid for on 11/19/15.

One more thing

Now, there's one more thing. Could it all have been an error, and nobody noticed it until it was printed in the Umatuna on November 29, 2015?

I'll leave that up to you to decide. But what we do know, and have a record of, is that the original erroneous CTs, the ones produced and authorized by Andrew Santos, the Deputy Registrar of Titles, on October 30, 2015, were, according to the DLM CT Sign-out Logbook, retrieved from DLM and paid for on 11/19/15. 

As already mentioned, Jackie was one of the payers. One would think that someone who shared in a $768 payment would at least want to know they got what they paid for. Also, as "counsel for the title holder," as she was referred to by the AG, it would have been her duty to inspect the titles, especially since one of the titles was going to be published on the front page of the Umatuna for the purposes of PROVING that Apuron had not deeded the property to the Neocats (RMS).

In any event, Jackie at least had access to the CTs and the ability to inspect them between 11/19/15, when they were retrieved from DLM, and 11/29/15, when one of the CTs was published in the Umatuna. Unless Jackie is a really poor attorney (and she's not), we have to assume that Jackie knew the CTs were missing the memorial showing the Deed Restriction. 

But let's just say (for fun) that she, being such a busy attorney, didn't know, and only became aware of the missing memorial after one of the CTs was published in the Umatuna on 11/29/15. Then, if that were true, this should have warranted an immediate call to Andrew Santos, the Deputy Registrar, who signed the CTs sans the memorial. However, according to Andrew Santos, he did not receive a call from Jackie until December 14, 2015. 

I am copying here a portion of the chapter in my book, which tells this part of the story:

On Deccember 14, 2015, Bob Klitzkie and I, unannounced, dropped by the office of a certain Mr. Andrew D. Santos. Santos was the Deputy Registrar of Titles at the Government of Guam Department of Land Management. Bob and I dropped in on Mr. Santos because it was Andrew Santos’ signature on the erroneous CT that Apuron and the Neocats had published in the Umatuna on November 29, 2015.

Probably because Bob Klitizkie was with me, Mr. Santos appeared to be immediately nervous. As previously noted, Bob was an attorney, a pro-tem judge, and a former senator. He was also, at 6’4”, physically imposing. More than all of the above, though, Bob was well known in Guam for being “no-nonsense,” and he didn’t spend any time on niceties with Mr. Santos. 

Bob asked Santos if he had seen the CT printed in the Umatuna. Santos said that he had, and that he had noticed “something was wrong” (his words). Santos then pointed to copies of the four titles (four lots comprise the Yona Property) on his desk and said he was in the process of correcting them. 

I asked Santos who asked him to correct the titles. At this point, because Santos had just told Bob that he had noticed “something was wrong” when he saw the Umatuna at Mass two weeks earlier, Santos could have answered: “Nobody. I saw the error, and I’m correcting it.” But instead, when I asked who asked him to correct the titles, Santos answered, “Law offices.” Naturally, I replied, “Law offices who?” Santos answered that he couldn’t recall which Law office, just that it was “Law offices.” I then asked, “Law office of Jackie Terlaje?” Santos replied, “I think so.”

Actually, Santos "knew so." After Bob FOIA'd docs from DLM, Bob found an email from an employee in the Land Records Division of DLM addressed to Jackie Terlaje. The email stated: 

"Hafa Adai, Attorney Terlaje, per Andrew Santos, DLM, please see attached titles." 

The email was dated Dec. 15, 2015, one day after Bob and I dropped in on Santos. 

The question still remains, though, what prompted Jackie to contact Andrew Santos and ask that the titles be "corrected?" Bob and I didn't drop in on Santos until December 14, 2015, which was on or about the same day that Santos said he was contacted by "Law offices." This was more than two weeks after the brazen publication of the false CT in the Umatuna. So it wasn't our investigation that prompted Jackie's sudden rush to fix the CTs. 

One possibility is the publication of a letter to the editor by Teri Untalan in the Pacific Daily News on December 6, 2015, one week after the Umatuna fraud. Teri, a real estate professional who knew a thing or two about land titles, began her letter:

"...the erstwhile church leaders...continue their charade that the multimillion-dollar property in Yona still belongs to the archdiocese. A copy of a certificate of title was posted to support this claim."

Up until this letter, no one had said anything about the CT published in the Umatuna. The average Catholic still could not believe that their own bishop would lie to them.

In fact, a lot of Catholics were lying to them, and still are.

Part 3

 

JACKIE! NO SURPRISE - PART 1

By Tim Rohr

In writing my book "Orchestrated" (a working title) - a record of the unbelievable drama that unfolded in this archdiocese a decade ago, I found myself stuck on what for now is the tenth chapter. It keeps getting longer and longer. In fact, it is already almost as long as the rest of the book put together. I'll fix it, probably by breaking it up into smaller chapters, but there is a reason it is so long. 

More than anything else that happened in those years - and as we all remember, some pretty horrific stuff happened - the tenth chapter, the Neocat conspiracy to steal "The Yona Property," the four lots which made up what came to be the Redemptoris Mater Seminary, once the theft was outed, exposed the worst of the worst of the Neocat leadership and just how deep they had sunk their tentacles into various seats of power, from the local church, to the Vatican, and even into the Government of Guam.

In an April 4, 2016, post titled THE CONTINUING SAD DEMISE OF ONCE RESPECTED PEOPLE, I laid out a most perplexing drama. It's probably the least known drama in this whole sad story about what I call "The Fall of the House of Apuron," and it is "least known" because this part of the story had only one protagonist, and the drama was fought mostly on paper, and eventually court filings, and not on the streets of Hagatna with crowds and big signs, as most of this fight was fought.

The lone protagonist was Robert "Bob" Klitzkie (may he rest in peace). And truly, it was a battle only Bob was equipped to fight, because it really needed not just a lawyer of Bob's caliber, but one committed to truth, not just expediency. 

And that was Bob. Moreover, Bob wasn't just going up against Apuron and the Neocats - the usual suspects- his fight on this matter took him into the ring with the then-Director of the Department of Land Management, the then-Attorney General, a mysterious "Counsel for the title holder," and ultimately before the bench in the Superior Court of Guam.

Bob's fight began on November 29, 2015, when he saw a doctored certificate of title for The Yona Property printed on the front page of the Umatuna, and it ended on February 27, 2017, when the Superior Court of Guam ruled in his favor. 

The fight involved thousands of words and hundreds of hours. I know, because I was by his side the whole time, not just as a supporter, but as someone - at the time - deeply caught up in the ugly lies relative to this stupid drama.

Apuron and the Neocats had publicly accused me of conspiring with a Chinese gambling interest to wrestle The Yona Property away from the church and turn the place into a casino. Really. That's what Apuron, at least through his proxies (since by then he was already in hiding), had said.

The aforesaid post of April 4, 2016, will provide a summary of most of the details regarding this terrible part of the story, and, of course, the book will expound on this matter in depth (even if it's boring). But for now, I just want to zero in on a piece of this drama that no one, not even Bob Klitzkie, has yet brought to light. 

To set the stage, here is a short summary of events:

Nov. 22, 2011.    Apuron quietly records a document with the Guam Department of Land Management titled "Declaration of Deed Restriction." He "quietly" records it because he does not have the required approval of the archdiocese finance council, and, due to the value of the property ($75 million), the approval of the Vatican. Apuron is also acting against his legal counsel, the late Edward Terlaje, who warned against filing the document. 

Jan. 11, 2012.    Apuron fires "en masse" four of the five members of the archdiocesan finance council for wanting to discuss the proposed transfer of The Yona Property to RMS, even though the four members have no idea that Apuron had already filed the papers two months earlier, on Nov. 22, 2011. The fifth member of the finance council, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, a Neocat, was part of the conspiracy to alienate the property to the Neocats (RMS). 

Jan. 06, 2015.    After many of Guam's Catholics become increasingly vocal about Neocat abuse and questions arise about The Yona Property, someone (I don't know who) anonymously sends me a copy of the secretly recorded Declaration of Deed of Restriction. I immediately publish it on JungleWatch.

This sets into motion a tumult of activity. The CCOG, recently formed, retains a Guam real estate attorney to analyze the language of the Deed and give an opinion. Apuron and the Neocats go crazy and run everywhere including to the Vatican and a Denver law firm (a weird story in itself) to try to refute the CCOG's claims, (and eventually the legal opinion) that the secretly recorded deed alienated, conveyed, transferred, deeded the property away from the Archdiocese of Agana and into the hands of the Neocat corporation, otherwise known as RMS, that Apuron had formed several years earlier.

Oct. 27, 2015.     After Apuron and the Neocats attempt to invoke the authority of the Vatican and a Denver law firm fails to shut down growing Catholic outrage over Apuron's secret property transfer, Apuron and the Neocats head to the Guam Department of Land Management and get the Deputy Registrar of Titles to produce a false certificate of title showing that Apuron is the owner of The Yona Property and that there is no other document affecting his interest in the title. 

Oct. 30, 2015.     The Deputy Registrar of Titles produces and signs the false certificates of title for the four lots which comprise The Yona Property. They are "false" because all four omit the critical "Declaration of Deed of Restriction" as recorded by Apuron on November 22, 2011. 

Whether the Deputy Registrar created the false certificates purposely for the benefit of Apuron and the Neocats, we don't know. We may never know. But whatever the reason, Apuron and the Neocats would live to regret ever thinking up this scheme, because THIS is what woke up Mr. Klitzkie. 

Klitzkie is on the move

Up to this point, Bob had been watching the pathetic drama (the Gofigan thing, the Benavente thing, the John Toves thing, etc.) in the Archdiocese of Agana unfold. He was concerned and often advised me on how to handle things, but he didn't see a way or a reason for him, a recent convert, to get involved. 

But being a lawyer, a pro-tem judge, and a former lawmaker, and an all-around truth-teller, the erroneous certificate of title, printed on the front page of the Umatuna on November 29, 2015, along with a strong statement (a lie) from the then-Vicar General, David C. Quitugua, that "this" proves the ownership of the "seminary property," was the spark that lit the fuse in Mr. Bob Klitzkie. 

The certificate of title, as printed on the front page of the Umatuna on November 29, 2015, was clearly "erroneous," as Klitzkie termed it in his Dec. 23, 2015, letter to Guam Department of Land Management Director Michael Borja, a letter in which Klitzkie also called the doctored title "the source of great mischief." 

In other words, Klitzkie believed that, especially in the midst of the then-stressful controversy over the secretly recorded Deed, the erroneous certificate printed in the Umatuna WAS NOT A MISTAKE, but was, in fact, "the source of great mischief." The certificate published in the Umatuna failed to display the recordation of the Declaration of Deed of Restriction, which was at the center of the entire controversy.

Bob was right. But he was up against a formidable foe: another lawyer, and a ruthless one...and a Neocat. We'll get to that.

You'll have to wait for the book for the whole da*n drama, but moving forward to the main point. 

Bob and Borja, the Director of Land Management, were on the same page...at first. Both the deed published in the Umatuna and its later handwritten correction were unacceptable, and, per Guam law, a correction or modification of a real property title required a judicial proceeding. In fact, the requirement for a judicial proceeding was the written opinion of the then-Attorney General herself, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson. 

Then, suddenly, everything changed. Borja went mum for several weeks, and after Bob tried to find out what was going on, he was informed that no judicial proceeding was necessary because the AG had "worked something out" with "Counsel for the title holder."

Bob smelled a rat. 

First, who was the "Counsel for the title holder?" The title holder was presumably Apuron, but who was his "Counsel?" 

The legal counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana was officially Attorney Edward Terlaje. But (Edward) Terlaje, pursuant to several written communications, was adamantly opposed to the transfer of The Yona Property to the Neocats (RMS). "Counsel for the title holder" could not be Ed Terlaje, so....WHO was it?

Bob Klitzkie gives us the answer. In his letter to Borja (Director of DLM) dated March 30, 2016, Klitzkie writes:

The way that the two of you sat, with straight faces, through several choruses of ‘I’ve got to sit down with Jackie, ‘ when responding to my question about filing, knowing that there was nothing to file, was the kind of performance not seen outside the confines of Hollywood!

Jackie! No surprise.

This post is already too long. So I'll get back to you with the next part asap.

Part 2

LET'S SEE IF APURON AND THE NEOCATS TRY IT AGAIN

By Tim Rohr

The Guam Daily Post reported today that Apuron's personal attorney, Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, has filed a motion to dismiss the remaining civil suit against Apuron.

Per the Post: "The case, first filed in the federal court in 2019, alleged Apuron sexually assaulted a student when he was a minor in the 1990s." And also: "The stipulation indicates plaintiffs’s attorney Charles McDonald had agreed for the case to be dismissed with prejudice."

There were a total of 10 cases filed against Apuron, personally, each alleging sexual assault. Last May, upon both parties' agreement, nine of them were dismissed with prejudice, meaning the decision to dismiss would be final, and the same claim(s) can not be made again. 

As readers may remember, the dismissals in May provided an occasion for Apuron to put on a little song-and-dance via video, claiming the dismissals proved his innocence. The Post article recalls Apuon's "song and dance" as follows:

“Over the past decade, I have been unjustly condemned by the media and in the public opinion because of certain false accusations made against me. In silence, I have accepted this injustice out of love for Jesus Christ, praying for those who were doing evil against me,” said Apuron who further called the dismissals “evidence” of his innocence.

Fortunately, in this article, the Post also recalls the backlash from the new archbishop, which, my sources tell me, involved Vatican input:

In response to those initial dismissals and Apuron’s message, Archbishop Ryan Jimenez, following consultation with the diocese’s legal counsel, stated the dismissals did not “operate as an adjudication about the merits of a particular case, but is a mechanism that allows parties to a particular civil case to mutually agree to end that legal matter."

Jimenez additionally highlighted Apuron was found guilty of committing abuse against minors.

"That determination was made following a canonical investigation and penal trial conducted by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith in Rome. The determination led to the former bishop losing his rank and duties as the leader of the Catholic Church on Guam, as well as perpetual prohibition preventing him from returning to Guam or presenting himself with the insignia attached to the rank of bishop," Jimenez wrote.

"Nothing about that determination has changed," Jimenez added.

Apuron's song-and-dance last May was obviously choreographed by his handlers, the usual suspects. While Archbishop Jimenez handled it well, especially by first seeking counsel from the right authorities, if nothing else, the brazenness of Apuron's performance should be an absolute warning to Jimenez of just how committed Apuron's Neocat handlers are to thwarting every authority, including his.

Let's see if Apuron and the Neocats try it again.

THE "THEY" ARE STILL HERE

By Tim Rohr

In a Pacific Daily News Article dated November 15, 2016, Apuron, via the words of Carmelite Mother Superior, Mother Dawn Marie, spilled the beans and confirmed something most of us knew: that Apuron wasn’t running the archdiocese, that “Pius and they” were pulling all the strings. 

The article was titled: “Nun: We did not want to lie for Apuron, Sammut over Yona seminary property.” The article was about a lie Mother Dawn Marie had caught Apuron in. And, instead of joining in on the lie with Apuron - as he expected her to do - Mother Dawn called a press conference and told the whole story. 

You can read the whole story here. I want to focus on these words:

“Why did you send that letter indicating that we had donated that property and allowing for the deed of restriction when you know it was not true? He reacted, he said, ‘I’m not the one who did it. Pius and they did it. They framed the letter,'” the Carmelite mother said.

• The "He" in "He reacted" is Apuron
• "Pius" is Fr. Pius Sammut (aka Pius the Putrid or The Stinking Monk)
• "They"... well that's the important part. Apuron and Pius are gone. The "They" are still here. 

Pay attention. "If you see something, say something." 

THIRTY FIVE MEEEELLIONS AND MEEEEELLIONS!!!

By Tim Rohr

In THE MANY NAMES OF RMS, Anonymous asked further questions about how much RMS actually cost to run. Coincidentally, I found the answer soon after Anonymous asked the question. 

The question was answered by the RMS Board of Directors on Oct. 11, 2016, in their response to the Visitation Report of RMS of Sep. 12, 2016:

"Subsidy from the Archdiocese to the RMS and the Theological Institute has been an average of only 5% of the total budget."

Given that the average subsidy from the Archdiocese was $105,543 per year and accounted for only 5% of the budget, the annual budget to run RMS was $2,110,086. RMS ran for 17 years. 

The cost: $35,871,472. 

THIRTY FIVE "meeeellions and meeeeellions." !!!

And how many priests did that give us?

CATECHISM BE DAMNED

By Tim Rohr

It's truly hard to keep up with - and make sense of - what continues to pour forth from the so-called "Archdiocese of Agana." I say "so-called" because most everything that is officially said on archdiocesan letterhead continues to be from no one in particular and, at most, is attributed to a Director of Communications, who, by virtue of his job, is simply posting whatever he is being told to post. So it appears we have NO ONE running this diocese. So very unprofessional. 

The most recent posting is this:

As you can see, this Aviso, like most others, is authored by no one, but is...

Sent by Tony C. Diaz, Archdiocese of Agana Director of Communications, (671) 562-0065,

tony.diaz@archagana.org

This is just bad form. WHO is writing these things? Archbishop Jimenez...is it you? Could you please say so? Thanks.

But on to some of the points in this missive.

The first point is as follows:

• First, the archbishop has appointed Ms. Connie Shinohara as Executive Secretary to the Archbishop. She will serve on a voluntary basis effective May 17, 2026.

Before proceeding, today, this exact date, came to mind (my mind). Ten years ago, to the day, May 17, 2016, the first formal "Apuron accuser" stepped out onto an Agana street and accused Archbishop Apuron of sexually molesting him when he was an altar boy in Agat in the 1970's. 

You know the rest of the story. Not a good date to bring up in the history of the Archdiocese of Agana, but then, what does Jimenez know (or care) about our history...since he, most probably, is just passing through, a stepping stone to the Vatican - at least that is what more and more people are beginning to suspect. 

In case Jimenez needs a history lesson, here is what happened on May 17, 2016: 

Former Agat resident says archbishop molested him 40 years ago

Upon seeing the announcement about the appointment of Ms. Shinohara, apparently an unpaid volunteer, no less (see the announcement), Anonymous weighed in:

Anonymous

May 7, 2026 at 4:27 PM

Tim I fear you are on the right path about Archbishop Jimenez. This new appointing of Connie Jo Shinohara is very telling. Did the church’s stance on games of chance change? I don’t think owning House of Liberty game rooms and being Executive Assistant to the Archbishop go hand in hand.

I want you to know my response. And I'll tell you why after I post it:

Tim

May 7, 2026  at 5:06 PM

LOL. I didn't know that. I have nothing against Mrs. Shinohara. In fact, I support gaming and gambling, albeit within the strictures of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Par. 2413. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that Jimenez doesn't have a clue.

I don't think anybody knows this, but I originally "cut my teeth" standing up to Apuron, not over his sex abuse of minors, not over his mistreatment of Fr. Paul and Msgr. James, not over his secret alienation of the Yona Property, but over his abuse of us normal Catholics in the pews back in the days when he was triumphantly trying to make a name for himself amongst the protestant clergy by being their hero in their anti-gambling crusade. 

It's too far back to remember all the details, but Apuron, maybe (in hindsight), to recruit allies wherever he could, given his fear of ever being exposed, as he would be on May 17, 2016, became his own White Knight in his crusade against a proposal to bring gaming back to Guam. 

Apuron's campaign was intense. It was also a lie. From the pulpit, he forced pastors to read his letters proclaiming that gambling was a mortal sin. 

The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church has never taught this. Here is, pursuant to my reference to the Catechism, what the Catholic Church magisterially teaches regarding "games of chance:"

2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

As anyone with a brain can see (you don't have to be Catholic), the Catholic Church, in the fullness of its wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, is ultimately pragmatic about "games of chance." But Apuron didn't care. The issue was making him a hero amongst the "born-agains." And since he was so openly despised by the majority of his own (for shamelessly raping their sons - as we would eventually learn), he used and abused his own by forcing his pastors, from the Sunday pulpits,  to make a new mortal sin out of gaming. 

I remember confronting one of these pastors with a copy of the Catechism opened to Paragraph 2413. He threw me out. No surprise. He was a Neocat. And Apuron, the Neocat rubber stamp, had to be protected at all costs. Catechism of the Catholic Church be damned. 

I'VE BEEN SHUT DOWN

By Tim Rohr

If you have been looking for me on Facebook or Instagram, my accounts have been shut down since the beginning of May. On May 4, I filed an appeal, but have heard nothing back despite several follow-ups. 

I can create a new account, but I want to wait a few more days. I've been on Facebook since 2009, have made over 40,000 posts, and have 1,600 friends. Additionally, I've created several groups and pages, which I manage. 

This sort of thing happens when someone files a complaint. It's happened before; however, my account was usually restored right away. Not this time. 

There are only two possibilities for the complaint: 1) My JungleWatch posts - specifically those about the NCW, which, as you can see from this blog, have been increasing in frequency and intensity as research for my book continues to unearth items I had forgotten about; and 2) my personal posts about parental alienation and parental estrangement. 

I can see why those posts would bother certain "readers." And I know people in both camps who want to silence me. 

We shall see what happens with Facebook. In the meantime, I would encourage you to check here on JungleWatch for updates, as well as my Substack.

Thank you for following. 17 Million page views and counting. 

THE RMS FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME

By Tim Rohr

In THE MANY NAMES OF RMS, I noted that one of the names was a fictitious business name: The Redemptoris Mater Archiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam. 

The fictitious business name, otherwise known as a "DBA" (Doing Business As), was filed with Rev and Tax on Feb. 25, 2004. 

The Visitation ad hoc Committee report of September 12, 2016, noted the following about the DBA (emphases added):

"Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.” There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana, and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary." 

Here is the document:

PDF

THE MANY NAMES OF RMS...AND WHY

By Tim Rohr

RMS, the former Neocat “seminary,” which was at the center of so much controversy in the days of the “Fall of Apuron,” had several names:

The Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater - Dec. 8, 1999. Decree, signed by Archbishop Apuron

The Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana (RMS) - Nov. 27, 2002, Articles of Incorporation filed with the Government of Guam

The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana (RMHF) - Nov. 27, 2002, Articles of Incorporation filed with the Government of Guam

The Redemptoris Mater Archiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam - Feb. 25, 2004. Certificate of fictitious business name (DBA) filed with the Guam Department of Revenue and Taxation

WHY?

Why the different names? In 2016, RMS "Inquisitors" attempted to answer that question. Here's what they said:

"Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.” There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana, and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary." 

- Visitation ad hoc Committee Report, September 12, 2016, Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater, Archdiocese of Agana, Guam, Pg. 7

However, I believe there is another reason for one of the names, and it's an indicator of what most of us knew all along. The name is "The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana" (RMHF). 

Notice that Apuron incorporated TWO corporations on the same day (November 27, 2002) for the same entity: 1) The Redemptoris Mater Seminary, Archdiocese of Agana (RMS); and 2) The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation, Archdiocese of Agana (RMHF). 

From the aforesaid Visitation ad hoc Committee Report, Pg. 4:

"On November 27, 2002, the Archdiocese of Agana filed two separate Articles of Incorporation with the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam..." 

Now, why would he do that? 

You can Google it for yourself. There is a difference between a Seminary and a House of Formation:

Apuron (his Neocat handlers, actually) knew that if he openly called it a seminary, one day Rome would want to know if, in fact, it really was. It wasn't. It was never a seminary. A seminary, like an accredited college, must conform to established standards. RMS was never even close. 

According to the aforesaid Visitation Report, there are "Four Pillars of the Program for Priestly Formation:" 1) Human Formation; 2) Spiritual Formation; 3) Intellectual Formation; and 4) Pastoral Formation.

Here is what the Visitation Committee concluded about each:

1. Human Formation - The seminary seems to rely on a seminarian’s “walk” in the Neocatechumenal Way to be sufficient to meet the human formation criteria found in the PPF. (In other words, there was no program for formation in the "seminary" itself.) 

2. Spiritual Formation - There is a lack of integration into and appreciation of the broader Catholic community’s spiritual practices, such as the celebration of the sacraments outside of the neocatechumel liturgies and equitable support for other ecclesial charisms. 

3. Intellectual Formation - (The committee sets out 9 points. The following is a condensation.) 

• The seminary is dependent on visiting professors for many of the courses. 
• A structure of prerequisite course requirements for the appropriate sequencing of courses is lacking. 
• The seminary does not have a standard language of instruction. Proficiency in reading, writing, or speaking English for college-level work is not required. Translators are used. Some students and even professors struggle with English as their second language, potentially affecting comprehension of subject matter. 
• The Blessed Diego Theological Institute does not offer a U.S.-accredited bachelor’s degree, nor can seminarians earn a master’s degree through the institute. 
• There is a lack of consideration given to the educational diversity of the students. That is to say, distinction needs to be made between a high school graduate-seminarian versus a seminarian holding a college degree. 
• A liberal arts program of studies is lacking.

4. Pastoral Formation - The pastoral approach is predominantly shaped by the Neocatechumenal Way. New Evangelization” is understood narrowly in terms of the practices of the Neocatechumenal Way.

In other words, none of the four standards for priestly formation were being met at RMS because, in fact, it was never a seminary, and, at most, it was hardly even a "house of formation." 

However, given that Rome's standards for a "house of formation" were a lot looser, Apuron decided to create two legal entities: one, so he could cover himself to Rome (RMHF) and the other (RMS) because it would be easier to bilk money from us locals because of the word "seminary," and especially, as the Committee report pointed out, if it was called "Archdiocesan Seminary," which was its fictitious business name. 

So, how much money did Apuron and the Neocats' fictitious seminary cost us? Well, ultimately it would cost us mega-millions after the Apuron and the Neocats drove us into bankruptcy, but per the Committee Report relative to money raised for the fictitious seminary:

The average for these six years is $105,504.33 per year. And given that the report says we have been subsidizing Apuron and the Neocats' fictitious seminary since 1999 (17 years by 2016), the total could be estimated at $1,793,573.67. Nice. Very nice. 

While we are having to do bake sales, car washes, and take out expensive loans (from Apuron's favorite bank) to repair our broken down churches and schools, Apuron and the Neocats waltzed away with a cool TWO MILLION off our backs, making us think that we had, as the Neocats loved to call it: "A Seminary for Guam!" 

Once again, I must remind the reader. This isn't past history. This isn't old news. The Neocats are still here. And they are richer, more powerful, and more in control than ever, thanks to their new archbishop. (Emphasis on "their.")

One more thing

There's one more thing...a very important thing. I will copy this section from the Committee Report in full (Pgs. 12-13, emphases added):

Evaluation of candidates for Ordination

As with the Norms for the Admission of Candidates, the PPF clearly articulates a set of rigorous standards meant to guide seminaries as they develop and implement the policies and practices relative to seminarian evaluation in the Norms for the Continuing Evaluation of Seminarians (See PPF 273-289). These norms emphasize the importance of the ongoing assessment of each seminarian and advise that there be a number of opportunities for them to demonstrate their readiness to progress to the next stage in their formation. The PPF requires that individuals who are involved in the evaluation of seminarians are provided with clear criteria and expectations that they must follow to maintain a high level of rigor and quality.

Based on RMHF/RMS’s written description of the process used to evaluate seminarians, there seems to be little or no correlation between the Norms for the Continuing Evaluation of Seminarians as outlined in the PPF and their evaluation practice. The process for evaluation described by the RMHF/RMS lacks clear benchmarks of achievement, timelines and criteria for acceptable performance.

Furthermore, those charged with the informal and formal evaluation of seminarians seem to lack a prescribed framework for evaluation to help guide each of their processes. This lack of any formal evaluation structure may lend itself to inconsistent and subjective evaluation decisions that lack substance or any foundation grounded in what it means to be a well-rounded seminarian or those demonstrable characteristics required to progress to the next stage of formation.

A major consequence of an inadequate evaluation process calls into question the quality, accuracy and overall integrity of any evaluation decisions which subsequently may lead to the progression of candidates to ordination who are not ready and do not meet the standards and expectations articulated in the PPF, nor have the concurrence of the Faithful.

There you have it. For nearly 20 years, thanks to Apuron and the Neocats, we spent "meeeellions and meeeelions" (to quote a certain Neocat presbyter) to produce and ordain Neocat presbyters "who are not ready and do not meet the standards..." because they never cared about the standards. 

And they still don't.  

THE INQUISITION OF RMS

By Tim Rohr

Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai, the Vatican-appointed Apostolic Administrator who administered this archdiocese between the time Apuron ran away in May 2016 and the appointment of Bishop Michael Byrnes as coadjutor bishop in October 2016, made some big errors that cost him. But the one good thing he did while he was here was the ordering of an Inquisition on the Neocat's seminary, RMS. 

The church doesn't call it an Inquisition anymore. They call such investigations a "Visitation." Thus, we have:

Visitation ad hoc Committee Report

September 12, 2016

Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater

Archdiocese of Agana, Guam

The full report can be accessed here. Of particular interest is what the "Inquisitors" reported on pages 6 and 7:

For the past several years, the “diocesan” identity of the RMHF and the RMS has been seriously challenged. There are four basic concerns regarding this matter:

1. A legal opinion by Attorney Jacques G. Bronze (see Appendix V) was presented to the Archdiocese of Agana and holds that the land which is currently being used by the RMHF and RMS is not owned by the Archdiocese of Agana. The Bronze study concludes: 

It is my opinion that based on Guam statutes governing interpretation of deeds and contracts, the property interest conveyed is an absolute conveyance of the entire fee simple title of the subject properties to RMHF, subject to a restraint in use.

This uncertainty of title is due to the Declaration of Deed Restriction issued on November 22, 2011. (See Appendix M) without the review of the Archdiocesan Finance Council nor approval from the Holy See, which is required if, in fact, the alienation of Archdiocesan property resulted from the Deed Restriction.

The clandestine nature of how the Deed Restriction was filed has driven the belief among the faithful that the “absolute conveyance” of the property was intentional. Furthermore, it made clear that the “Archbishop of Agana, Corporation Sole” on the one hand, is a separate legal entity from the 501(c)3 nonprofit RMHF and RMS, on the other.

2. The statutes of the RMS are specifically designed to form presbyters for the “New Evangelization” as understood by the Neocatechumenal Way. As a result the seminarians’ formation does not prioritize the importance of parish ministry, parish management and the general familiarity of the seminarians with parish life.

While the RMHF and the RMS is strictly Neocatechumenal in its formation program, it was canonically erected as “The Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary Redemptoris Mater” and legally operates under the fictitious name (dba) “Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary”, names which emphasize its affiliation with the Archdiocese of Agana but this is not substantiated in its program. While this may be interpreted as a lack of transparency, at best, the seminary’s harshest critics call it dishonest.

Many of the faithful are speculating on why the RMHF and RMS felt a need to hide behind a fictitious name like “The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary.”

There is speculation that the reason is to justify receipt of subsidies from the Archdiocese of Agana and/or to fulfill the stipulation of the donor who desired to support an Archdiocesan seminary. 

 

NEOCAT HISTORY LESSONS CONTINUED

By Tim Rohr

Archbishop Jimenez, at least from his complete inaction on the Neocat problem, apparently believes in "can't we all just get along." So I'll be posting some history lessons for him so he knows what the Neocats have done and what they are still willing to do: lie, cheat, and steal. 

"…under Canon Law (canons 1290-1298) that in order for an archbishop to sell an archdiocesan property, he must first obtain the written consent of the Archdiocesan Finance Council, the College of Consulters, and the Vatican. Archbishop Apuron did not obtain our consent, let alone that of the College of Consulters and the Vatican, to transfer the Yona property to the RMS under a secretly recorded deed on November 22, 2011."

-FULL DOCUMENT from the former members of the Archdiocesan Finance Council who Apuron fired on Jan. 11, 2012.

BECAUSE JOHN'S CLAIMS WERE TRUE

By Tim Rohr

Readers of this blog will be seeing a lot of "old stuff," as I do the research for my upcoming book:

ORCHESTRATED

How a blog and the laity took down an archbishop and exposed the largest clergy sex abuse scandal, per capita, in the whole Catholic world. 

At least that's the working title for now.

A critical chapter in the book is devoted to John Toves, the first person to accuse Apuron of sexual abuse, not of himself, but of a relative, a close relative.

Why John chose to make his accusation in 2014 is a big part of the story, but you'll have to wait for the book to find out. Meanwhile, though, Toves never really had to prove his accusation. Apuron functionally admitted his guilt by doing the stupidest things in response. 

One of the "stupidest things" was hiring a law firm in California to threaten Toves:

The undersigned has been retained to represent the interests of Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam, particularly with respect to the defamatory conduct in which you have recently engaged. This letter serves as a demand to you to immediately cease and desist from making any further defamatory comments or publications against Archbishop Apuron's reputation and character. Your conduct has caused and continues to cause grave harm not only to Archbishop Apuron and the church in Guam but also to the universal Church. 

Your comments and published statements that Archbishop Apuron has engaged in unlawful conduct are patently false, and you have made these comments and published these statements with full knowledge of their falsity. Under California law, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another's character and reputation, and your defamatory conduct subjects you to significant liability. 

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of Archbishop Apuron. If you do not comply with this demand, Archbishop Apuron will have to pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages for harm to his reputation and character, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and an order that you pay court costs and attorney's fees. Your liability and exposure under such legal action will be considerable. 

Sincerely, 

Michelle R Neal 

LINK to the PDF

The letterhead for Michelle R Neal's law firm read: "Employment Law Council," and her law firm was located in Sacramento, California. 

We have to wonder if Michelle R. Neal isn't a Neocat. What other reason would Apuron have to retain her to go after John? According to Neal's online bio, she is, in fact, an attorney specializing in employment law in California. 

Michelle R Neal, Lawyer in SACRAMENTO, California | Justia Lawyer Directory

Michelle R Neal is a legal professional specializing in employment law. She has been associated with Employment Law Counsel from 2013 to 2022 and is currently employed by Employment Law Counsel, LLP. Her practice includes areas such as wage and hour issues, independent contractor status, federal and state family leave laws, sexual and other prohibited harassment, personnel policies, preventative employment practices, and wage audits and claims. 

Not only did Neal have no qualifications to threaten John regarding his claims about Apuron, but she also lacked jurisdiction in Guam. Apuron had his own attorney, the late Edward Terlaje. Why didn't Apuron use Terlaje to threaten John? I know why. Terlaje knew John's claims were true. 

By the way, John did not "cease and desist."