Saturday, March 19, 2016


Dear Assistant Attorney General, Kristan Finney:

We see here that you "conferred with the counsel for the property owner to gain an understanding of all of the facts and circumstances regarding this matter." Wonderful. Did you just take Jacqueline T. Terlaje's word for it or did you do any investigation yourself?

Did you actually read the subject document: the Declaration of Deed Restriction?

If you did, did you not look past its deceptive title and read the words: "the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed.."???

Do you not know that those words, especially "transferred, sold and conveyed" mean that the Archbishop of Agana is no longer the title holder?


Do you know what a SEE is? In case you do not, a SEE is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If the property was to remain in the hands of the Archbishop of Agana it would have said "AS A SEE OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF AGANA." But it doesn't. 

Did you not know that the Redemptoris Mater Seminary is legally distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana? Did you bother to read its Articles of Incorporation or its By Laws? 

Did you not read in the Declaration the words "...IN PERPETUAL USE"???? Do you not know that those words mean FOREVER?

Did you not put 2 and 2 together and see that the Declaration of Deed Restriction acts as an instrument to "transfer, sell, and convey" the property to a jurisdiction (RMS, Inc.) which is separate from the Archdiocese of Agana?

Did you just take Jacqueline T. Terlaje's word for it or did you bother to even look at the Jaques Bronze Legal Opinion regarding the effect of this Declaration upon the subject property?

Did you not know that Mr. Klitzkie GAVE the Director of Land Management a copy of this Opinion? 

Did the Director of Land Management bother to furnish you the copy?

Did you not know that there is NO PROVISION for the cancellation of certificates of title in the section of the Code that you chose to use (§29160) instead of the one already agreed upon (§29195) by the Director of Land Management and your boss, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson (at least according to what the Director wrote Mr. Klitzkie on January 20)?

Did Jacqueline T. Terlaje talk you out of following the AG's advice in order to avoid going to court?

Why do you think Jacqueline T. Terlaje did not want this to go to court, Ms. Finney?

And who gave you the authority to cancel the previously issued certificates? It is certainly NOT in the subsection of the Code that you used.

Did you just make that up? Or did Jacqueline T. Terlaje talk you into that too?

By the way, did Jacqueline T. Terlaje identify herself to you as the legal counsel for the Archbishop? We'd like to know that Ms. Finney, because she has told the press something else. 

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje was recruited by the Archbishop to convince the clergy of the accusations against Msgr. James Benavente? 

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that after ousting Msgr. James as director of the Cemeteries, Jacqueline T. Terlaje and her husband inserted themselves into the Cemeteries' management?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje (according to Bertha Evangelista of Title Guaranty) "ordered" the first set of certificates, which were conveniently missing the subject memorial? Did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje (and Bertha Evangelista) personally paid for them?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that as of December 15, 2015, Jacqueline T. Terlaje had in her possession, the second version of the "amended" certificates of title which falsely named the Archbishop of Agana in the "in favor of" column in the memorials?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that there is no record of Jacqueline T. Terlaje ordering or paying for those amended certificates?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that all of these lies would remain lies had it not been for the perseverance of Mr. Bob Klitzkie - who not only does not like it much when his Church and his government lies to him but actually does something about it - and in effect did much of your job for you?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje along with her husband, are the "Responsibles" for the neocatechumenal "community" in which sits "Brother Tony" aka Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, Ofm. Cap. DD (as he always likes to remind the rest of us)?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, do you think you might have been used? That you are now just another name thrown on the trash heap of names used and abused by "Brother Tony" and people like Jacqueline T. Terlaje in order to cover for what is a multi-million dollar, multi-national money laundering, land grabbing, power usurping syndicate masquerading as a religious group?

Welcome to the club, Ms. Finney, welcome to the club.


  1. Tim, what are the ramifications if this issue is brought to court and a judge finds:

    1. The Bronze opinion is not correct and the archdiocese still owns the property.


    2. The Bronze opinion is correct and the property is owned by the RMS Corporation.

    In either case the archbishop acted without approval of the archdiocesan legal counsel, finance council and the Vatican (required by Canon Law). Is there a remedy for this situation?

    1. A court proceeding would include more than just the Legal Opinion, it would include defendants, plaintiffs, witnesses, lawyers, testimonies, a jury, etc. There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the control of the property was given away by Apuron to RMS. In fact, Apuron even admits this in his November 16, 2011 letter to Richard Untalan in which he notes that the transfer of title would be from "one juridic person subject to the Ordinary to another juridic person subject to the same Ordinary."

      In plain language, Apuron is stating that the Archdiocese of Agana and RMS are two separate and distinct "juridic persons" (corporations) and that the transfer of title is not an alienation because both are supposedly still subject to the "same Ordinary", i.e. the Archbishop of Agana.

      However, the Articles and By Law of RMS make it very clear that the Archbishop of Agana in only one vote on the board of four or more directors, so it cannot be said that RMS is "subject to the same Ordinary" in the way property registered under the Archdiocese of Agana is. He was absolutely and clearly warned about this by his legal counsel, his real one, in 2011, yet he went ahead and did it anyway, and secretly, and then fired the finance council so they wouldn't find out, and it appears he has also replaced his legal counsel of three decades with his neocat responsible, Jacque Terlaje.

      Legally there is no remedy. According to civil law, Apuron had the authority to transfer the title to whoever he wanted. We may be able to make a case against Apuron via the Guam code and how it treats a corporate sole - which is similar to a Trust. To do this will take a lot of money which the CCOG is currently raising.

      The most the Vatican can do is discipline those involved, and since Apuron "doesn't care" (his words) anymore, he'll go off to a happy retirement in one of his many homes and travel with his boys, funded by all that trash bag money, 1/3 of which goes to the "bishop."

    2. But of course, there is a difference between "retirement" and one's eternal destiny. Hoping Apuron is thinking about that.

    3. Thanks for the clarification, Tim.

      Has there been any official statement from the RSM board of directors or the board of guarantors regarding this issue? I would imagine these entities are in agreement with the archbishop that the properties in question were not given away and that the archdiocese still owns them. Could they sign a document stating they have no ownership in the properties? They only have exclusive use of the properties until the end of time. For ever and ever. To infinity and beyond.

  2. The actions taken by the Office of the Attorney General only makes sense if Jackie Terlaje is really the legal counsel for the RMS, the real property owners. I believe the AG's office has just officially confirmed that for the people of Guam.

    1. You bring up the obvious point, and one I will expand upon soon. The title now shows that the instrument acted "in favor of" RMS and NOT Archbishop of Agana, which was on the title which was cancelled. In doing this, the AG has confirmed for us, probably unwittingly, exactly what we have claimed all along: 1) RMS is a legal entity SEPARATE from the Archdiocese of Agana, and 2) the Declaration recorded by Apuron gives full control of that property FOREVER to that separate legal entity.

      Apuron was warned by his REAL legal counsel, Ed Terlaje, in 2011, that to proceed with this so-called "assignment" meant that the Archbishop of Agana as an office, not just Apuron personally, would lose control of the property forever. This means that not even Apuron's successor will be able to reverse the effect of the Declaration as per its Articles and By Laws, the Archbishop of Agana has only ONE vote on a board of directors of 4 or more.

      And EVEN if he could convince the majority of the board of directors to give the property back, they would still be overruled by the clandestine Board of Guarantors, which, per the RMS By Laws, must always include the Responsibles Team for the Neocatechumenal Way for the United States, which is currently Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini and Angelo Poschetti.

  3. Follow the familial ties from Borja into the AG's office. Hint brother in law

  4. After the attempt to lie, deceive and contrive as well as destroying the reputation of many will the Archbishop finally come clean with the truth? I suspect that he will not be allowed by his prophet and pope Kiko.

  5. Shouldn't the media, most of which reported on the "ownership" of the Yona property late last year (from info provided by David the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Agana) be also reporting on the corrections? To quote the PDN
    (page 2 bottom left hand corner): "We care about accuracy..."

    1. The problem is that even after the "correction" the title is still incorrect because it does not take into account just how the Declaration acted "in favor of" RMS. It only records the instrument.

      So because the Asst. AG apparently went no further than to "work something out" with Jacque Terlaje, the title still shows the Archbishop as the owner when in fact the Declaration conveys title to the new owner RMS.

      This probably would come to the fore if RMS ever requested a certificate of title to the property, but they won't because it would expose Apuron and Jacque.

      And yes, it would be nice if our local media did a little more investigative reporting. Perhaps you can send them a note encouraging them to do so.

  6. crime
    noun |\ˈkrīm\

    my chamorro-english shows; crime: isao, criminal: krimindt

    are the definitions the same as elsewhere or is it lost in translation...

    Simple Definition of crime

    1: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
    2: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general
    3: an act that is foolish or wrong

    Full Definition of crime

    1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
    2 : a grave offense especially against morality
    3 : criminal activity
    4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful

    What is a crime

    Crime is illegal activity that is prohibited by the law.
    A crime is often called an ‘offence’. Some people wear shirts that say ‘it’s only illegal if you get caught’.
    This is untrue.
    Any activity prohibited by statute or the common law is illegal whether you are caught or not.
    This is like saying ‘it’s only illegal to hurt children if you get caught’.
    Most people would agree that hurting children is illegal whether or not the people who commit such crimes are caught.

    The law, and the crimes it creates are most often a reflection of morality.
    Morality is made up of the principles we use to govern our relationships with one another.
    This is why actions such as stealing, assault, rape, and murder are crimes – each of these acts harms our ability to trust other people, and to feel safe in society.

    Harmful act or omission against the public which the State wishes to prevent and which, upon conviction, is punishable by fine, imprisonment, and/or death.
    No conduct constitutes a crime unless it is declared criminal in the laws of the country.
    Some crimes (such as theft or criminal damage) may also be civil wrongs (torts) for which the victim(s) may claim damages in compensation.

    as defined above, the ass ag, be, jt, mb committed a crime, and the criminal bro ton, for allowing the offences to be committed...

  7. Give it up already....LOL!

    1. If you're addressing the Kiko's, then we agree. If you're addressing us, then the answer is NO. We are having too much fun showing how creepily evil this movement is at its core.

  8. I'm addressing you fools.Is not fun when shit keeps hitting you in the face...LOL!

    1. LOL. I guess when you are on the side of evil all you can do throw shit. Corruption in the church and the government is nothing new. What is new is that there are now people willing to stand up to it. By the way, every time you log on to this blog, I WIN. Especially since you're afraid to say who you are. LOL. BYE.

    2. Anon 9:25 you are the numb nut who cannot even identify who's getting hit in the face by the shit you claim. Now that Finny has stepped into the cesspool you all thrive in, she seems to be having fun playing with you all. Give us a little more time and we will bring out who the shit sandwich loving Neos are who are involved here. Thanks again for the gift of your stupidity for without you and the idiots like you it would make our job so much harder. Please wipe your feet as you exit the Jungle, you may actually have some sense stuck to your toes as you leave!

    3. BTW anon 9:25, Happy belated Saint Patrick's Day. It's been a year. So where is Luis today?

    4. Anonymous at 9:25 AM - I totally agree with Joseph A. Santos! You really do not know the "when shit keeps hitting YOU IN THE FACE! Wake Up!

  9. Ms. Kristan's actions might be explainable if she is also a Neo. From the actions of other Neos (apuron, david the vg, bertha evangelista, et al) we see that their loyalty is first and foremost to Kiko and the interests of the NeoCathecumenal Way, all others (including their own jobs and responsibilities) be damned (along with truth, honesty and fairness).

    1. There is no explainable actions to this ficascio! These people made an oath to protect the People of Guam, not just the NEOs! Why Swear on the Bible if one is not willing to do right thing! So sad that these people elected to ingore the True Katolikus on Guam. It is Now All in the Open! Let The Chips Fall as They Should! I Hope You Are All Happy With the Situations You Have Put the Laity, CCOG, and the True Katolikus on Guam! The True Katolikus Will Survive!

    2. the behind the door deals were done on the premise that they would be fast tracked to heaven, its heaven or bust for these people...

      to them their action were guided by God, and only God can judge...

  10. If Ms. Kristan Finney is NOT a Neo. Then, she's either been duped by Jackie Terlaje or a stooge for Jackie Terlaje. Either way, Ms. Finney, how does it feel? And, what does your boss, the highly-respected Attorney General Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, feel about you casting the Office of the Attorney General in a bad light?

  11. any word on kikos audience w the pope?