Monday, March 21, 2016

PAY ATTENTION ROME. THIS ARCHBISHOP IS TURNING GUAM'S CATHOLIC CHURCH INTO A LAUGHINGSTOCK...

...And that's the least of your worries. Guam Superior Court is your next one!


Read the story online here:
http://www.guampdn.com/story/news/2016/03/20/no-court-approval-land-management-record-correction/81952766/

16 comments:

  1. The heat gets hotter as this "brokered" backroom deal brings more attention to the seriousness of this matter. Once there is an error in the Certificate of Title, regardless how the error was made, the ONLY remedy prescribed by law is to bring it to the Superior Court for correction. This way it can be learned in a court of law what really happened. Michael Borja and all the parties involved in this fiasco MUST appear in court and tell the truth, this way there will be no more spinning of the truth. The AG is bound by law to bring this matter to court. Just make sure Adrian's relative, presiding judge Al Lamorena, at the Superior Court recused himself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Back "in the day" if you had an uncle / relative working in a government office you could get a driver's license, business license etc "fixed". Today's PDN shows that we have not progressed much. When DLM can "fix" a title without the due process shows that the pare system is alive and well. The picture of the teens who are shown laughing is so apropos because that headline is a joke! Come on PDN do your job, do some investigative reporting! Stop putting things out that are inaccurate. Check it out before you print! Maybe we should start subscribing to the Post, since they seem to do a more thorough job.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. . . . this whole process has been fixed from the start.

      Delete
  3. Not surprising. The NCW had embedded themselves into the DLM many years ago. For them to bend over backwards like this or to turn a blind eye is only standard operating procedure. They have plenty of practice with furious activity when the NCW comes to them with property that has been grabbed via the 2nd scrutiny. Gotta transfer it over quickly before the original owner wakes up from the trance and realizes salvation cannot be bought or gifted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. whoa. i've been away from junglewatch and the social networks, and most news outlets, since ash wednesday. then i noticed a headline and--wow--a lot has happened since i last looked at these pages. i'll step back into my digital lenten desert after i make this comment. i'll catch up more fully after Easter.

    with me playing armchair quarterback attorney here, i think former senator klitzkie has the stronger argument versus land management's position.

    land management's position, citing section 29160, is that cancelling the titles containing errors and unilaterally issuing a corrected title is enough to resolve the issue.

    mr klitzkie, on the other hand, cites section 29195, claiming that that section requires a court action to correct a title.

    for reference, here's the text of section 29195 that i grabbed from http://www.guamcourts.org/compileroflaws/GCA/title21.html:

    "A registered owner or other person in interest or the registrar, may at any time apply by petition to the court ... upon the ground that ... any certificate or memorial has been made, entered, endorsed, issued or cancelled by mistake ... for an order summoning all persons registered as interested in the lands to which such certificate or memorial relates, to appear at an appointed time and place and produce their duplicate certificates and show cause why such omission or mistake or change or alteration should not be corrected or made."

    i don't see the word "require" in section 29195. i only see "may at any time apply by petition to the court." however, i think the crucial part are the words toward the end, where it says "show cause why such omission or mistake or change or alteration should not be corrected or made." so, the way i'm reading this, the purpose of a court petition when it comes to a correction is to protect the interest of parties that may be affected by the correction. this is why i think bob klitzkie has the stronger argument.

    but here's where i start asking why. why wouldn't the archbishop, jackie terlaje, et al, want the court petition to happen? why not just ask the court to approve the correction, as what michael borja had initially wanted to do, per the attorney general's advice--especially since the outcome would be the same? my speculation:

    1) because it would make the conveyance of the yona property to the neocats official, and thereby finally cause rome to act against apuron; and

    2) because it would require the real owners of the yona property--the gennarinis--to appear or at least submit a statement before the court.

    the last thing i'll say is that i also notice section 29134, which, if i'm reading it correctly, says that anyone can bring the registrar (director of land management) to court for acting or failing to act required by him. is that what i'll be seeing in the coming weeks?


    may all of you have a blessed Holy Week.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The word "require" was used by Mr. Borja himself in telling Klitzkie in his 1/20/16 letter what the AG had told him:

      ""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."

      Delete
    2. yes. and mr borja's change of response is why i'm speculating that the neocats don't want this to go to court. imagine, the neocats themselves having the court declare the validity of apuron's yona property giveaway without the ccog taking them there! i wonder if there was an "oh crap" moment somewhere in "somebody law offices." :)

      Delete
    3. You are exactly right. That's why Jackie Terlaje got involved. They don't want a judge looking at that document. So sad that Mike went along with it.

      Delete
    4. You are exactly right. That's why Jackie Terlaje got involved. They don't want a judge looking at that document. So sad that Mike went along with it.

      Delete
  5. Just saw Mr. Borja's interview on KUAM. Sounded reasonable. If Jungle Watch has a problem with how situation was handled then complain to the AG or file a lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Anon, Zoltan sounded reasonable at first as well.
      It is not Jungle watch that has a problem, it is its readers, as well as the taxpayers of this island, which Mr Borja is obviously taking for a bunch of dunces.
      As for a lawsuit or a complaint to the AG, watch what you are wishing, your wish might be granted way sooner that you expect.

      Delete
    2. Anon 6:42, thanks for the advice. "File a lawsuit". What a brilliant idea! Never thought of it, but now that you mentioned it I think we will. Wow, to think that the Neos never come up with good ideas. Coming soon to a courtroom near you, "Lawsuit", starring Mr. Borja, Mr. Santos, Ms. Finney. Anon 6:42 could you give us more ideas on who else we can sue?

      Delete
  6. Mr. Klitzkie says that the court should have been involved in making the corrections. Mr. Mike Borja says it's not necessary. So, who's right?
    How do we find out?

    From the Attorney General, whose advice to take it to court was ignored by her own assistant and is now "unavailable for comment"? Why "unavailable"? Does she have something to hide, too? Are we going to put her in the same group as brother tony apumoron, david the vicar general (problem), adrian no balls, Jackie the well-trained ..., Pius the Putrid, et al? Oh, I almost forgot the latest addition to this motley crew:
    Kristan Finney!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to be clear, Mr. Klitzkie is NOT saying that the court should have been involved. Guam law and the Attorney General says that the court must be involved. Mr. Klitzkie is just repeating what both have already said.

      Delete
  7. It is good that the media has been publicizing the issuance of the bogus certificates of title regarding the Yona property housing the RMS seminary. Would that they would also reveal the details of the "Decree" and the "Deed Restriction" registered with Dept of Land Management in November, 2011.

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch