Wednesday, November 18, 2015



Anyone can write a letter to the editor or even a personal letter to the media. But Jackie Terlaje in her "release" to the media yesterday did neither. She pretends to represent the archdiocese or the archbishop in her capacity as an attorney. She does this by doing two things:

  1. She sends her letter on office stationery.
  2. She pretends that her letter is a press release. 

The whole thing is deceptive from top to bottom. 

First she uses a strange stationery. She does not identify herself as an attorney in the letterhead. She only uses her personal name without any reference to her office. So at first glance it looks like a personal letter. But in the footer of each page we read: "Law Office of Jaqueline Taitano Terlaje P.C." 

She then writes FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE at the top right and begins her letter: Hagåtña, Guam (November 17, 2015), attempting to give the impression to the media that her letter is an official organizational statement.

Regular citizens speaking in a personal capacity do not do press releases. They do letters to the editor and submit opinion editorials - which is essentially what Terlaje's letter is. But she attempts to leverage her being an attorney to get immediate attention from the press instead of submitting a letter to the editor and waiting in line like the rest of us. It would be the same as a senator issuing a press release on his office letterhead to complain about a personal problem with a neighbor. He would be laughed to scorn and we should do the same to Terlaje.

Back to the stationery, even if this is her normal office stationery - which is strange to begin with - in using it she presents herself as representing a client. So who is the client? She pretends to be representing the archdiocese. But there's a problem. SHE ISN'T. She is only speaking for herself (as Patti Arroyo later confirmed and announced on the radio). Yet Terlaje wants the press to think - by using her office stationery and a press release format - that she is acting in her capacity as an attorney and representing a client. 

I'm not sure how the Guam Bar would look at this, but as one involved in a profession governed by its own version of a "bar," this appears to be a serious unethical use of office. Of course we shouldn't be surprised since the person she is trying to defend has given us nothing but monstrous example after monstrous example of an "unethical use of office!"

Terlaje then attempts to impugn the bona fide 21-page Legal Opinion of Attorney Jaques G. Bronze and render her own, using as a basis, nothing more than the title of the deed:
One need only look to the first line of the document, “Declaration of Deed Restriction”; the declaration itself does not profess to be a grant deed, quitclaim deed, warranty deed or other similar deed document, which conveys in whole the property to a grantee.

This is a huge LOL for the average reader, but evidence of serious incompetence for someone who begins her letter professing to be a "trained lawyer." 

Any person with a half a brain knows that what is effected by a legal document is in the content of the document, NOT what it is titled. In fact, the title itself was a head fake - a head fake to do exactly what Terlaje is trying to fake us out on now: that it was only a restriction placed on the use of the property to be used as a seminary. 

This is a HUGE LIE. And here's why.

While the title of the deed appears to imply only a restriction on use, the actual language of the deed - the content - acts as an absolute conveyance. Bronze writes:
(Quoting a precedent): As so used ‘deed’ is synonymous with ‘conveyance’ but narrower in meaning than “transfer” or “grant.” A Deed has been described as an executed conveyance. It is not merely evidence of a grant of the property designated therein, but is the grant itself. 
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…” 
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  (Apuron) intended to transfer a present interest in the subject property. 

We have seen this before from these thieves. For years we were led to believe that RMS was a diocesan seminary for Guam. We were led to believe this because it was called an Archdiocesan Seminary. In reality, the word "Archdiocesan" only meant that it was located in this archdiocese but was in fact training "priests" for service exclusively in the Neocatechumenal Way. Archbishop Apuron so much has admitted this by starting a second seminary (after this scheme was found out) that is supposed to really be a diocesan seminary for Guam.

We also know that Apuron's intention from the beginning was to CONVEY TITLE free and clear, completely to RMS. We know this because the agenda from the finance council meeting of September 7, 2011, clearly says so:
“…in the current Articles and By-laws of the RMS, the Archbishop is a member of the Board, but does not have the same ultimate powers (as Archbishop of Agana). He is just one of six votes. This situation, should the Archdiocese transfer the property and building and facilities in Yona to RMS, could appear to make the transfer an alienation of property because the Archbishop relinquishes ultimate control of the asset. In order to keep it an Archdiocesan asset, Ed (Terlaje, Legal Counsel) has recommended that the RMS Articles and By-laws would need to be amended to allow the Archbishop ultimate control of RMS and its assets. However, after several meetings, the RMS incorporators are hesitant to do so, but have asked that the assets be deeded to RMS without modification.
So let's review this step by step:

The Archbishop's own Legal Counsel warned Apuron that the transfer of "the property and building and RMS...could...make the transfer an alienation because the Archbishop relinquishes ultimate control of the asset." 

To remedy this, the Legal Counsel "after several meetings" tried to convince Apuron to amend the RMS Articles and By-laws." But Apuron (the incorporator) refused to do so and insisted that "the assets be deeded to RMS WITHOUT MODIFICATION!"

As we know all too well now, after the finance council refused to okay Apuron's plan to give away the property, Apuron fired the finance council and gave it away anyway, titling the deed in such a way as to stay below the radar but using language that did exactly what he intended to do in the first place: GIVE AWAY THE PROPERTY TO THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY. He just didn't expect us to catch him. 

As bad as all this is, the really big lie is the notion that the property was "restricted" for perpetual use as a seminary. 


The deed restricts the use of the property not as a seminary but for "the use of" RMS, a "non-profit corporation." Nowhere does it say that the property has to remain in use AS A seminary!

RMS is a corporation. It can change its corporation documents to do whatever its directors decide it wants the corporation to do, including making it another Domus a la Kiko. 

As the sole incorporator, the only thing the bishop can do is replace the directors, but not before they can actually vote on and enact a corporate change - including SELLING THE PROPERTY. 

By getting the property back into the Corporation Sole that is the Archdiocese of Agana, the CCOG is protecting the property from being sold because the only person who could legally then authorize the sale would be the Archbishop of Agana, Incumbent. As it is now, the directors of RMS can legally sell the property and the bishop would not be able to stop them. 

Yet Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje and her group of jokers want us to believe that it is you and me who want to:
" in on the sale of the Seminary Property (for which a handsome commission would be garnished)."

What better evidence do we need than this SERIOUS ABUSE OF OUR INTELLIGENCE that we need to fund the CCOG and take this to COURT!

We'll see then how Ms. Terlaje's "opinion" holds up. 


  1. Poor Jackie. I knew her before this whole Jungle Watch exploded in their kiko faces/feces, destroying the secrecy to their many scams. Even before all this I wouldn't let her even prepare a simple draft rental agreement. That was way above her "professional training".

    And now she proves to the world of reasonable people her ineptitude in trying to opine on a real estate transaction specifically designed to fool the unwary.

    Poor, poor Jackie. Blinded by the kaka in her eyes and in her brain. The sad part is that her children will be slaves to the kaka diet as well. I really think CPS should do something about parents exposing their children to such danger.

    Poor, poor Jackie. She cannot go beyond reading merely the document title. If she did she would see as any reasonable person has seen that the property WAS deeded, conveyed, and transferred to RMS. Even your fellow dingbat Diana Susanna knows this. She acknowledges that the property was transferred but tries to convince the world that Tony has control of the RMS. Tim called her on that deception 35 days ago (look at the count up clock to the right) and she has no answer to be able to prove her lies and deception.

    Poor, poor Jackie. Dumber than even Diana. But hey, she's a trained lawyer. That's got to enrage the legal community of Guam!

    Maybe she got her degree at the same DeVry Inst that Adriana is studying canon law at.

  2. It is comforting to know that intelligent people are not neos. If a Neo says something or publishes something, all neos take it as truth. A thinking intelligent person cannot succumb to the manipulation of the Neocatechumenal
    Way. They prey on vulnerable people who are sincerely looking for spiritual renewal. Their defenses are down. To become a Neo means to abandon the ability to think for oneself, to follow the party line in lock step, to blindly obey as Archie has done. The Neo mentality takes precedence as Jackie's "press release" clearly illustrates.

  3. This unquestioning compliance and unthinking defense, exactly, are evidence that NCW is a cult. How else can one explain the brainwashing, alienation from family, deeding of family property to the organization, total abandonment of personal defenses and concept of personal space, etc. That this is allowed to happen in a Westernized territory of the United States in our modern day and age simply boggles the mind. I wish there is a federal watchdog that monitors these potential dangers to human society before they do harm to themselves and others. The NEO machinery is a potent training ground for inclicting violence in an unsuspecting population. We have already seen the financial ramifications, and they will stop at nothing to further their ends and to defend their status quo..

    1. No, there is no federal agency that monitors the NCW. And the Vatican acts slowly and deliberately, given its universal mission.

      The only people who can stand up to the grave liturgical, spiritual, and moral abuses perpetrated by the NCW on Guam are the people of Guam.

      Without your contribution to the CCOG lawsuit, it will not happen.

    2. Made my donation to CCOG. Donate whatever you can!
      Eileen Benavente-Blas

    3. Fr. Matthew Blockley.November 19, 2015 at 3:37 PM

      Well said CNMI lawyer. Tim Rohr has done everything he can for the good of our Church. He has used his gifts and talents skills to serve the community showing them the danger to the church and to the island culture from this cult. Now it is up to the people. They either want to live under a dictatorship or they choose freedom justice and democracy the very principles we all hold dear, and they support CCOG and return the property to the Archdiocese of Agana. To safe guard the future everyone of us, every catholic on Guam and the Mariana Islands should donate to CCOG. This is about guarding your island and culture from further take over.

  4. if this fight drags on until after a new (hopefully non-neocat-supporter) bishop has taken over, the ultimate test would be when that new bishop tries to kick out rms and repurpose the property for something else, or sell it. then when the neocats fight that move, asserting their ownership and/or perpetual use, the world will learn what liars they've been from the start.

    but hopefully it doesn't have to reach that point.

    how is rms funding itself right now? is the archdiocese (that is, the Catholics of guam) still paying rms's bills? or is money coming in from off-island? that's a lot of people to support and a big facility to keep the lights on.

    1. The birthday gala funds are ear-marked for RMS.
      The annual galas (annual financial shakedowns) fund RMS.
      Eileen Benavente-Blas

    AnonymousNovember 18, 2015 at 9:19 PM
    Everyone knows Jackie Terlaje is the smartest trained lawyer on Guam. Good thing she is on the side of the archbishop against people who want to defame him and his never-ending generosity to all Guam's people. She was brilliant to distribute this press release. Let the CCOG waste their money on a lawyer whose specialty is real estate law. We have Jackie Terlaje on our side. Biba Jackie and her wily ways as a trained lawyer!

    1. One has to laugh at Dianna / Susanna and her NCW Cult blog, for not recognizing that this comment and its follow-on exactly 12 hours later are obviously satirical.

    2. I had been sitting on that screencap for awhile now! I burst out laughing when I read it and couldn't believe "Diana" would post it. Then again, the bulb is dim in that one.

      A great example of the lack of comprehensive skills and the cognitive deficiency characteristic of these people.

  6. The lights on and elevators running.....RMS hotel

    1. But the elevator does not reach the top floor...

  7. Ha ha ha! 9:19 PM - what a nincompoop - hailing a divorce lawyer to deal with the Archdiocesan property stolen by NCW for their RMS excuse while deriding CCOG for hiring a real estate lawyer to tackle a property dispute. This must be a neokaka, no other explanation for the disconnect. One who makes a claim of being "trained" attempts to compensate for lack of knowledge by puffing themselves up with (questionable) credentials. 'Nuff said!

    1. Yes, normally we train dogs and monkeys and educate lawyers. But then...

  8. Re: eileenbb's comments (Nov. 19/12:12 p.m.) So, who funds the trips of apuron and his male escorts? We suckers who continue to donate to the collection box every Sunday, that's who!

    If you want to donate to help our Church, donate to the CCOG instead!

  9. I am convinced of the true intentions of CCOG due to the litany of dubious and devious NCW schemes on the island, among which are: seminary property board of directors all NCW and foreigners except for a token figurehead Apuron, the conditions wherein the said legal document was "displayed at limited time and under watch" at the chancery, the attempted line up of NCW appointments during the Apostolic Visitation, defensive posture of Apuron whenever asked about the property, firing of Archdiocesan Finance Council who simply wanted the topic placed on the agenda, and so many other glaring missteps on the part of the chancery.

    Please, please support CCOG! We need to know the truth! If this issue goes to court as it should, at least we have the peace of mind to know that said property has not been alienated and remains in the Agana inventory. If CCOG is proven wrong, it will desist from its quest, and Apuron is exonerated from this particular accusation. On the other hand, if the property has indeed been alienated, it has to be returned to its rightful owner. Yet as was mentioned, it should not have come to this if the Archbishop of Guam has been forthright in the first place. If he had wanted to give church property away gratis to this group, he could have come clean and even appealed to the people, etc. and see where that would have gone. For an archbishop to strong arm everyone to get what he wants is just not the right attitude and not in the right spirit as a leader.

    I suspect that there is something in it for himself, for him to behave in a manner so vile as to lie to the people he was sworn to protect and uphold as a spiritual father. This betrayal is like the worst possible scenario of a father who abandons his children to fend for themselves in a dark and dangerous forest. CCOG is the "deus ex machina" that provides safety and justice for the children. Please help bring this particular issue to a close by supporting CCOG. Please.