If I may have KUAM's leave, I would like to copy in full Ken Quintanilla's excellent news report before sharing my comments.
Posted: Mar 21, 2016 3:17 PMUpdated: Mar 21, 2016 5:03 PM
Now, let's compare what Michael Borja, Director of Land Management, told KUAM on March 21 vs. what he told Bob Klitzkie on January 20:
MARCH 21 TO KUAMIn 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 corporation sole. With the petition, he says one was prepared in draft but it was never submitted, executed or filed in the court because the two parties were able to meet and correct the error together. Borja says this is actually based on guidance from counsel and advice from the AG's Office as well.
JANUARY 20 TO BOB KLITZKIE (copy of letter here)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 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 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.
Let's summarize it:
- On March 21 Michael Borja told KUAM that he prepared a petition "in draft" but never submitted it.
- Two months earlier, on January 20, he put in writing to Bob Klitzkie that he, Michael Borja, 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 instructions for the petition to be filed in the Superior Court of Guam..."
Now, let's look at some other things Michael Borja said:
"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 corporation sole."
This is absolutely OPPOSITE to what Michael Borja told Bob Klitzkie on January 20. In his letter to Bob Klitzike, Michael Borja informed Mr. Klitzkie that the Attorney General herself, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, NOT the "Office" of the Attorney General, had instructed him to "petition the court to correct (the) certificate of title" as per Title 21*, Guam Code Annotated §29195.
*Borja wrote "Title 29" in his letter to Klitzkie, but there is no Title 29. The section referred to is actually found in Title 21.
Obviously the Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson did NOT permit for the matter to be resolved privately "between the two parties of interest" but that the matter be resolved as per Guam Law before the Superior Court.
Then there is this:
"Borja says this is actually based on guidance from counsel and advice from the AG's Office as well."
The "AG's Office" is NOT the AG. The AG is Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson. The "AG's Office could be the receptionist for that matter. So why does Michael Borja now refer to the fictive entity "the AG's Office" and not the actual "Attorney General" as he told Mr. Klitzkie in his January 20 letter?
The short answer is that instead of taking the guidance given him by the actual AG, he took the guidance of one Kristan Finney, who is NOT the AG, but an Assistant AG, and of course is in "the AG's Office." But of course Mr. Borja does not want to say that he acted "based on guidance from the Assistant AG" when he already put in writing that he had acted on the guidance given him by the actual AG.
The real question though is WHOSE guidance did Kristan Finney act on? Obviously it was not the AG herself. We already know the answer, don't we. As memorialized in a letter from Mr. Klitzkie to Mr. Borja, Attorney Finney herself told Mr. Klitzkie that she had to "sit down with her and see what could be worked out."
We know now that the "her" is Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. And Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje had a VERY GOOD REASON for NOT wanting a judge to lay eyes on the contested document: the Declaration of Deed Restriction, recorded by Archbishop Apuron at Land Management on November 22, 2011, and very quietly so. In fact, so quiet, no one knew about it until it was uncovered THREE YEARS later.
Apparently Archbishop Apuron did not want anyone to lay eyes on it either.
Well, in case you've been wondering like "what's the big deal," well you shall soon have the answer to your question. You shall soon know why Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, who just so happens to be, along with her husband, a "co-responsible" for the Neocatechumenal community in which Archbishop Apuron is "one of the brothers," had to find a way to keep that document out of court.
Obviously, Ms. Finney and Atty. Jacqueline T. Terlaje "worked something out."