Tuesday, November 17, 2015


Dear Attorney Jackie Terlaje,

Over the last two years I have received several comments saying what an incompetent lawyer you are. But since I didn't have any evidence I chose not to post those comments. However, since today you apparently provide the evidence yourself, I guess I'll be letting those comments through. LOL.

Now, let's have some fun, shall we?

You begin by telling us you are a "trained lawyer." LOL. Trained lawyers usually don't begin a legal opinion by saying they are "trained lawyers!" LOL.

Of course you do this because you are pretending to provide a legal opinion...but not really. A real legal opinion would be a real legal opinion, not a press release, which is all you offer here.

Now why are you, a "trained lawyer," NOT actually giving a Legal Opinion, but just a mishmash of slime and demonstrable stupidity? Ummmm, well maybe because even Apuron believes you are incompetent OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE RETAINED YOU to give an actual legal opinion....but he didn't, did he?

And speaking of beginning, how about beginning with full disclosure. How about beginning by telling us that you are a hard-core neocat and that you and your husband are "responsibles" in Apuron's own neocat community? But then you are an incompetent lawyer, so why should we even expect disclosure of any kind.

Here's one of your most ridiculous assertions:
While certain persons continue to insist that the Seminary Property does not belong to the Archdiocese of Agana (hereinafter “Archdiocese”), and have insisted that the Archbishop return the title to the Archdiocese, their speculations, theories, and self-induced hysteria, are simply incorrect. 

The "Certain persons" you are accusing of "self-induced hysteria" is the Law Offices of Jacques G. Bronze, a real lawyer who wrote a real TWENTY-ONE page REAL Legal Opinion demonstrating:

1) that Apuron's deed was "an absolute conveyance in fee simple of the subject real property;" and

2) that the property was NOT in Apuron's control, but  in the control of a corporation (RMS) that is NOT even in the control of its own Board of Directors, but in the control of a second (and illegal) board, the Board of Guarantors, which - as per the RMS bylaws - must ALWAYS include the "Neocatechumenal Way responsible team for the United States."

You then go on to publicly impugn Attorney Bronze by name by saying:
"...the Bronze opinion is simply wrong."
Ummm, Ms. Terlaje, did you even bother to personally and professionally consult with Attorney Bronze about his "wrong" opinion before publicly trashing him in the press? Of course not, Ms. Terlaje. Of course not, because you are an, unprofessional, kiko-fied, kaka-filled, apparently pretend attorney - a pretend attorney in this case because you are "pretending" to present a bona fide legal opinion in this excuse of a press release.

Wow. You must think the Press is REALLY STUPID! A letter to the editor masquerading as a press release because you put it on your office letterhead. LOL!

Here's one of your funniest statements - one that proves you don't know what the hell you are talking about:
Regarding the contrary legal opinion presented by attorney Jacques Bronze, Lewis Roca has declared that few legal offices are able to evaluate this specific area of law, “For those lawyers who regularly practice in this specialized area of religious institutions law, including the intersection of canon and secular law, the conclusion reached here that the Archbishop is in control of the Property would not be at all controversial.”
Again. L-O-FREAKING-L!!!

Pathetic, Ms. Terlaje!!! Pathetic. The legal status of a Guam real property transaction is NOT SUBJECT TO CANON LAW. Canon Law has NOTHING to say to civil law. Guam law stands on its own. It is not subject to whatever the hell the church says. In fact, the church actually says that relative to "contracts and especially alienation" the "particular provisions of civil law are to be observed:
Can. 1290 The general and particular provisions which the civil law in a territory has established for contracts and their disposition are to be observed with the same effects in canon law..."
Huh? To actually posit that Attorney Bronze doesn't know what he is doing in the matter of a Guam real property transaction because he doesn't know canon law? What a joke.

You quote this Roca group. LOL. You're as bad as Apuron.

First, why did Apuron hire a law firm not licensed to practice law on Guam to give an opinion on the legal status of a Guam real property transaction? Don't you know that's illegal? Oh, yah, that's right. You don't. You're an incompetent lawyer. What else can we deduce from this amazing display of well...kaka incompetency?

Second, if the Roca opinion says what you say it does, then why didn't you include it as an attachment to your press release? The CCOG included the Bronze opinion with theirs.

Why don't you publish this Roca opinion that you fools keep quoting? Why wouldn't Apuron let Attorney Bronze even take notes when he went to the chancery to read it? Why did he hide it from public view after Attorney Bronze went to see it? Where is this opinion, Ms. Terlaje?

And "legislative texts?" LOL. Same problem. No Vatican office can rule on the legal status of a Guam corporation or a Guam real property transaction. What a freaking joke.

And the title report? Ummm, an attorney should know that a title report is only an account of what is recorded at Land Management, and could be incomplete at that. It is not a Legal Opinion. You should know that titles to real property are called into question regularly.

Here let me help you with an example.

Last week I obtained a title report for a customer on a property that did not appear to have a legal access. The owner of an adjacent property claimed that the strip of land that had been used for years to access my customer's property belonged to him. His intention was to shut off use of the access and force my customer to sell him his property (at a much reduced rate of course.)

The neighbor had a title report showing that strip of land belonged to him and was not a legal access to my customer's property. However, I chose not to take the title report at face value. I decided to do my own research (something you obviously don't know how to do), and I found a 40 year old court judgment giving my customer access to his property over the contested strip of land. Voila! I took the evidence to the title company and they updated the title report. (Hey, maybe you should hire me to do your research. Never mind. You couldn't afford me. LOL)

Oh, and then it gets real fun, Ms. Terlaje. You show that you have drunk the KAKA big time with your conclusion:
...there is a desire to cash in on the sale of the Seminary Property (for which a handsome commission would be garnished).
Oh, that's good, Terlaje. That's real good. You obviously don't even know the legal powers of a corporation sole. If the property is given back to the Archdiocese of Agana, of which the incumbent bishop is the corporation sole - which is what the CCOG is trying to effect - only the bishop could ever authorize a sale. As it stands now, and because RMS is a Guam non-profit corporation, it's board of directors could authorize the sale BEFORE Apuron could ever do anything about it.

Don't you know that? Or are you completely ignorant about Guam corporate law too? Serious, Terlaje, stick to doing divorces.

Note: KAKA is Kiko Arguello Kool Aid.

Recommendations by JungleWatch