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. 

Recommendations by JungleWatch