You are on page 1of 16



Part I!

Compiled by Tim Rohr, July 8, 2015!

Sometime in 2011. Archbishop Apuron is directed by Giuseppe Gennarini* and Father Pius
Sammut to convey title to the Yona Property (The Property) 1 occupied by the Redemptoris
Mater Seminary (RMS) to RMS. !


*Giuseppe Gennarini is the Neocatechumenal Responsible for the United States.!

Because of the value of The Property (over 1 million dollars), Canon Law 2 required the
consent of the archdiocesan finance council (as well as the college of consultors and the Holy
See). Archbishop Apuron submits his request to convey title to The Property to the AFC. !

September 7, 2011. The AFC places the matter on its agenda for September 7, 2011.


According to the agenda, Archbishop Apuron is fully aware that he does not have the same
"ultimate powers" over RMS as he does over the archdiocese and that a transfer or conveyance
of title would mean that he "relinquishes ultimate control of the asset."!

He is also aware that his Legal Counsel, Atty. Ed Terlaje, has advised that should there be a
transfer of title, RMS Articles and By-laws would need to be amended in order to keep The
Property an archdiocesan asset.!

According to the agenda, Archbishop Apuron, ignoring the advice of his Counsel, refused to
amend the RMS Articles and By-laws, and required that "the assets be deeded to RMS without

Four of the five members of the AFC vote not to convey title to The Property to RMS.!

September 8, 2011. Richard Untalan, then-president of the AFC, writes the rector of RMS the
following day, advising him of the AFC's decision NOT to convey the title to the property to RMS.
It is important to note that it was the AFC which notified the RMS rector of the denial of their
request and not the archbishop. If the AFC's role was merely consultative - as the Vicar General
later alleged - then it would have been the archbishop's responsibility to inform the rector.
However, because the AFC's role in this particular matter - as per Can. 1292 - is determinative,
then it was appropriate for the AFC president to inform the rector.!

November 16, 2011. Archbishop Apuron writes Richard Untalan informing him that the matter...! not clearly "alienation" but an assigning of title of a property that is transferred and renamed
from one public juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another public juridic person subject to
the same Ordinary. 5!

Page 1 of 7

In short, Archbishop Apuron attempts to make the case that both the archdiocese ("one public
juridic person") and RMS ("another public juridic person") are both equally subject to him.
Apuron attempts to make this distinction because as long as the matter can be considered
"alienation", he cannot move forward without the consent of the AFC.!

Archbishop Apuron also knows that what he states is not true. As per the Sept 7 agenda
Apuron's Legal Counsel made it perfectly clear to him that as regards his control of RMS he was
only "one of six votes," which is why his Counsel advised that the Articles and By-laws be
amended if he wished to retain control of The Property.!

Apparently Archbishop Apuron knew his attempt to play fast and loose with legal language
would be challenged so he decided not to send the letter to Mr. Untalan until after he had
already transferred title to The Property.!

November 21, 2011. Archbishop Apuron signs the deed conveying title to The Property to
RMS. The deed is recorded at the Government of Guam Department of Land Management the
next day. 6!

November 25, 2011. Archbishop Apuron has his letter delivered to Richard Untalan and does
not tell Untalan that he has already recorded the deed.!

Richard Untalan assumes that Archbishop Apuron wants the AFC to revisit the issue so he calls
a meeting for December 6, 2011.!

December 6, 2011. For placing the matter on the agenda, Untalan is accused by the Vicar
General of a "vulnus" towards the archbishop, of disrespecting his person, and harming "the
dignity of the Ordinary." Apuron himself accuses Untalan of creating nonsense. 7!

It was obvious why the Vicar General and Archbishop Apuron went ballistic on Untalan. They
had already recorded the deed and they both knew they had done wrong. We know that
because if they hadn't done wrong they would have happily informed the AFC and the rest of
the diocese of what they had done. But they did not.!

January 12, 2012. Archbishop Apuron subsequently terminates the membership of the four
members of the AFC who voted against the transfer. 8 !

The recordation of the deed remains a secret until...!

January 5, 2015. The deed conveying title to The Property is discovered at Land Management,
cleverly disguised only as a deed restricting the use of the property to the Redemptoris Mater

However, in the language of the deed, operative words such as transfer, convey, and deed, are
used. These are words used to transfer title to real property.!

Because the consent of the Holy See was required to transfer title (alienate) property of that
value (over 1 million dollars), Archbishop Apuron knows he is in trouble now with Rome.!

Page 2 of 7

January 29, 2015. To cover himself he sends a letter to the representative of the donor who, in
2003, gave the archdiocese two million dollars to pay off the note on the property. Apuron
includes a self-addressed-ready-to-sign letter stating that the donation was for the specific
purpose of purchasing the property for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary and the Blessed Diego
institute. !

February 2, 2015. The donor wrote Apuron back stating that she had never heard of either
institution and refused to sign stating that what Apuron wanted her to sign was "not true." 9!

April 2015. Not able to get the donor to lie for him, Archbishop Apuron seeks the assistance of a
Denver, Colorado law firm, which - we are told - opines in Apuron's favor. However, if this were
true, Archbishop Apuron would have published the report in the U Matuna or at least posted it to
his website. He did neither. In fact, Attorney Jacque Bronze, who was retained by the
Concerned Catholics of Guam to investigate the report, writes:!


The Archdiocese through its Civil Law Report which no church member can get
a copy of, but can only stand and read a 19-page document" 10!

And, after Atty. Bronze viewed the Report, Archbishop Apuron had it withdrawn completely from
public view.!

Why, if the report exonerates him, did he do this? !

1. Knowing that it was not licensed to practice law in Guam, the firm most likely wrote the
opinion on the condition that Apuron would not publish it or present it as an authoritative
legal opinion. And, given what we know of the report, it appears it was written only to
convince Roman Curia authorities that Apuron had not violated Canon Law.!
2. However, Apuron, anxious to redeem himself at home, opted to publish a portion of the
report in the U Matuna, and then to give it credence, pretended to make the full report
available at the chancery, not thinking anyone would dare come and look. !
3. However, the CCOG had Attorney Bronze take a look. Upon his first visit he was told to
come back. Apparently they weren't ready for him. Upon his second visit he was made to
stand at a counter and read the entire 19 page document in the presence of a chancery
watchdog, and was not allowed to make copies, take pictures, or even write notes.!
4. The report was then withdrawn from public view 1) because making the report public
probably violated the original terms of the Denver law firm - creating a huge potential liability
for them; and 2) because the report did not exonerate Apuron as he has intimated.!

May-June 2015. The Denver opinion was Archbishop Apuron's last available move, which
explains why his supporters are clinging to it. The Bronze opinion is simply "checkmate". It!
demonstrates the deed to be an "absolute conveyance" of title!
demonstrates that Apuron does not control RMS!
demonstrates that the transaction is not just a church matter and is not exempt from civil law !

However, even though it is checkmate, the game isn't over until the checkmated king is taken off
the board. How that happens will be Archbishop Apuron's choice. He can leave now under his

Page 3 of 7

own free will, or he will be made to leave - if not by Church authority, then by what will happen
after civil action is taken.!


1. The Property" is the former Accion Hotel property currently occupied by the Redemptoris
Mater Seminary.!
2. Canon 1292!
3. Archdiocesan Finance Council. Archdiocese of Agana. Agenda for meeting September 7,
2011. !
4. Letter from Mr. Richard Untalan, president of the Archdiocesan Finance Council of the
Archdiocese of Agana, to Fr. Pablo Ponce Rodriguez, Rector, Redemptoris Mater House of
Formation. !
5. Letter from Archbishop Apuron to Richard Untalan. November 16, 2011. https:// !
6. Deed Restriction. 2011.11.22. !
7. RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Quitugua to Untalan-Vulnus and RMS Scam. 2011.12.06 Apuron to
Untalan. and !
8. Untalan fired. !
9. The Ultimate Treachery. !
10. The Bronze Opinion!

The essential findings of the Bronze Opinion (The full Opinion is posted at!

Jacques G. Bronze. Legal Opinion regarding Real Property Conveyance and

Corporate Governance relating to The Redemptoris Mater House of Formation. a
Guam Non-Profit Corporation. May 13 2015.!

The Declaration of Deed Restriction executed on November 21, 2011, by the Grantor, for
that certain land located at 130 Seminariu Drive, Yona, Guam, recorded at the
Department of Land Management as Instrument No. 829322, in favor of RMHF operates
to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple, of the subject
real property to RMHF, divesting all right, title and interest of the subject property from
the Grantor, except for the subject restraint in use. (Pg 2)!

In the instant case, the Deed executed by Grantor, provides in its granting clause that
Owner hereby covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used,
transferred, sold and conveyed, subject to the covenant and restrictions set forth
herein... (Pg 5)!

By examining the four corners of the subject Deed and applying the aforementioned
rules of interpretation the only conclusion that can be interpreted is that the Grantor
intended to transfer a present interest in the subject property. (Pg 5)!

Page 4 of 7

In light of the case authorities from California interpreting the words transfer and
convey, the Deed executed by the Grantor herein evidences a clear intent to transfer a
present interest in subject property to RMHF. (Pg 6)!

In the instant case, the named grantor and grantee are identified and a description of the
real property located in Yona, Guam is provided in the deed. Moreover, as discussed
above, the deed contains operative words of an intent by the grantor to transfer a
present interest in the subject real property. (Pg 7)!

The Grantors conveyance of the subject property to and for the use, of the
Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam,in perpetual use as a
see of the Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam, operates
as a complete divestment of the Grantors right title and interest in the subject property,
but subject to a restraint in use. (Pg 8)!

The Deed executed by the Grantor, must be examined in its entirety. The case law
provided above clearly provides that such an instrument can be considered a complete
conveyance if it can be determined from the language that there is an intent to convey
an interest in the real property. The instrument appears to fit squarely within the
definition of a conveyance, as provided by 21 G.C.A. 40302, despite the property
being encumbered by a restriction However the restriction noted in the deed, may be
invalid under Guam law, which this opinion letter does not address at this time. (Pg 9)!

In this case, the granting clause of the deed conveyed the fee forever, in a strong,
unequivocal language as could be used to convey a present interest in real property,
subject to a reasonable restraint in use. The Ownership and the Encumbrance Report
issued by Pacific American Title and relied on by the Archbishop that the subject
property remains in the corporation sole, is legally unsound as there is no basis in law to
supper the title companys legal conclusion. (Pg 12)!

Part II!

For over a year we have been drawing attention to the mysterious presence of a parallel board
in the Articles of Incorporation for the Redemptoris Mater Seminary. !

Normally a corporation only has one board, a Board of Directors. RMS has two boards: a Board
of Directors and a Board of Guarantors.!

And Article IX quietly gives this Board of Guarantors complete veto and approval power over
the most important affairs of the corporation. This power makes the Board of Directors
irrelevant. !

We also learned that at the time the RMS corporation was being formed in 2002, the legal
counsel to the archdiocese had objected to the inclusion of this parallel board, foreseeing
serious problems. But his warnings went unheeded by the archbishop.!

The Board of Guarantors is made up of four members: Archbishop Apuron personally (not as
Archbishop of Agana), Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini, and Fr. Angelo Poschetti - the three
who compose the neocatechumenal responsible team for the United States.!

Page 5 of 7

In short, RMS is 75% controlled by the Gennarinis and Poschetti, with Archbishop only having
25% control. !

When it was discovered this past January that Archbishop Apuron had in fact deeded the Yona
property occupied by RMS (The Property) to RMS four years earlier, it became even more
clear why Gennarini had masterminded the corporate structure as they did: The Property is
now fully in the control of, not RMS, but Giuseppe & Claudia Gennarini.!

In his recent legal opinion regarding the status of the ownership of The Property, Attorney
Jaques Bronze spells this out in Section II of his opinion. Below is the relevant section
separated into paragraphs for easier reading and emphases are added:!

The establishment of the Board of Guarantors by this non-for-profit corporation calls into
question as to how the Board of Guarantors are to be elected or removed from such
position once he/she becomes a member of said board, as the bylaws do not address
the election or removal procedures of such Board of Guarantors and neither does Guam
law. !

Since Guam law does not recognize a Board of Guarantors* and in the absence of any
provisions for the removal or election of such board in the articles or by-laws of RMHF,
the Archbishop, despite being the sole member of the not-for-profit, cannot remove the
members of the Board of Guarantors unless the Archbishop files for an application for
the dissolution of RMHF.!

Even the filing of such petition for dissolution has its own legal complications as 18 GCA
5105 requires a majority of the board of directors or other officers having
management of the affairs of the corporations to execute the application for dissolution.!

In such a case, if the Board of Guarantors objects to the action of the board of directors
or officers in relation to such possible dissolution application requested by the
Archbishop, it could veto their action per Article X of the Amended Articles of

It is the opinion of the undersigned that the drafter of these organizational documents
purposely and deliberately designed the structure of the organization so that the Board
of Guarantors shall have veto power over all decisions including the decisions of the
archbishop and his successors.!


Thus, we are faced with the unusual practice of a separate, unelected, and unremovable board having veto power over a board of directors, the officers, and the sole
member, the Archbishop of Agana and his successors.!

So there you have it. Just as we thought from the beginning. Archbishop Apuron completely
gave this deca-million dollar property to the Neocatechumenal Way since the RMS by-laws
mandate that the Neocatechumenal responsible team for the United States always be a part of
the board and can never be removed.!

Page 6 of 7

And since Archbishop Apuron is named as a member of the Board of Guarantors without the
title Archbishop of Agana, Incumbent, this means that even if Archbishop Apuron should be
removed as Archbishop of Agana, he, along with the Gennarinis and Poschetti, remain in
control of RMS and will have authority over the next bishop in any matter relative to the running
of RMS. This means that Archbishop Apuron, as Archbishop of Agana, has deeded control of
The Property TO HIMSELF personally and FOREVER!!

But its worse than we thought!!

Gennarini cleverly structured the language of the Deed Restriction so that RMS does NOT have
to operate as a seminary and can morph into any business he and Apuron want to run.!

Here is the operative language of the Deed Restriction:!


Note that the Declaration does NOT say that RMS must operate as a seminary, ONLY that is
for the USE of RMS and Blessed Diego Institute. RMS is a corporation. It can amend its articles
to do anything its directors want it to do. In this deed Archbishop Apuron did not guarantee that
RMS would be a seminary forever. He only guaranteed that the property would belong to a
particular corporation forever and to the Neocatechumenal responsible team that controls it,
which includes HIM!!

With this fact in mind we can now see that the rumor that RMS is talking to investors may be
true. RMS is horribly in debt and hemorrhaging. There never was any long term way of keeping
such a massive operation going on this tiny island. The directors are seeing the same writing on
the wall that the former AFC is alleged to have seen: either sell the property or turn it into an
income producing property and use the proceeds for the true betterment of the archdiocese.!

Except now the property no longer belongs to the Archdiocese of Agana. All the proceeds which
could have once gone towards the betterment of the diocese of the people who supported it for
many years will now go to the crooks who, with their Apuron puppet, set up this scam from the
beginning. !

Quoting again from Bronze:!

"...the drafter of these organizational documents purposely and deliberately
designed the structure of the organization so that the Board of Guarantors shall
have veto power over all decisions including the decisions of the archbishop and
his successors.

Page 7 of 7