Friday, April 1, 2016

ELIZABETH BARRETT-ANDERSON SETS NEW PRECEDENT FOR DLM TO SKIRT THE LAW


AnonymousApril 1, 2016 at 7:03 AM
Judicial economy is nothing new...it's the whole foundation for plea agreements and civil settlements. But in this case, the law is prescriptive and even if a settlement could be reached after documents were filed, it would at least be under the purview of a judge who would presumably ensure the settlement was fair and just.

If Tim is right that local law regards a corporation sole as a trustee, then there is some question as to whether a petition filed in court would have given greater consideration to the question of whether the trustee was acting in the best interest of his beneficiaries. Instead, this backroom deal provided no venue for the beneficiaries to contest the trustees actions. One would presume this is precisely the kind of scenario the law was designed to protect against. Too bad.

So based on the press release, it doesn't' t really take any real effort for DLM to skirt the law. This sets a precedent now for them to run amok making title corrections without proper oversight. Banks and others who rely on title certificates to conduct business beware.

14 comments:

  1. Liz Barrett Anderson's decision to approve the actions of Mike Borja in the case of the Yona property certificates of title requires from her a point by point rebuttal of Mr. Klitzkie's concerns, especially since Mr. Klitzkie cites paragraphs of the Guam Code Annotated as his basis, not to be dismissed for reasons of "judicial economy". In this case, the saying "penny wise but pound foolish" seems appropriately applicable, Ms. Attorney General.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Attorney General needs to look into TIM ROHR what's in his closet???? gift shop and little boys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. We always know when Rude-ee is home alone. At least while he's here he's away from the porn.

      Delete
    2. Rude-ee doesn't need porn - he just goes down the street to that lady's house and stays there up until the late hours of the night.

      Delete
  3. I'm sadden by our AG. I thought she would stand up for Justice instead she goes with the flow. She has lost my trust and vote:(

    ReplyDelete
  4. F. Leon GuerreroApril 2, 2016 at 7:59 AM

    Although like Tim, I, too predicted that the Attorney General would not take this righteous cause on, I was hoping against hope that she might find on the right side of the law. To say that I am disappointed in the justification of her findings is putting it mildly. I am quite disgusted with how easily she used "judicial economy" to save herself and her office. How convenient this legal term is, no Miss AG? Like many others, I admired your eloquent speaking abilities, your sound educational background, your good Catholic upbringing, and your history of fair-minded judicial findings. I will give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that someone or something sinister must have swayed you to turn your back on the law and your duties to protect the people of Guam from corrupt Big Brother Government and greedy Big Business Corporations. What happened to you? After your actions (more like reactions), I am even more convinced that the planned legislative hearing won't have to take place now! You have given Senator Ada a "pass" to save face like you because he can conveniently say that the Attorney General of Guam has already ruled in favor of the DLM and there is no longer any need to resolve this specific issue at hand. (Actually, Senator, you should still have the oversight hearing to shine a light into their processes of dealing with land titles in general). Note to Tim: It's time to show your hand, sir. I know you've been holding on to a trump card, waiting patiently for the right time and for them to show theirs. Well, I would say they have, wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Janet B - MangilaoApril 2, 2016 at 11:09 AM

    Judicial economy?

    I have a better idea for true judicial economy. Eliminate the AG's dept, the courts, and the prisons. That judicial economy would save millions each month.

    But then we would have anarchy in our society. And since our local Church had been in a state of anarchy for several years we can seen how anarchy has ruined that institution!

    On second thought, forget about economies. Better solution is to replace the heads (both in the AGs office and on the hill).

    ReplyDelete
  6. AG Barrett Anderson cannot simply apply "judicial economy" without involvement of the actual Judical system. AG your face saving "ends justifies the means" conflicts with your sworn duty to faithfully uphold the laws and directly conflicts with the authority of the Legislative branch to create laws.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least now, the true Catholics on this island, will know how to vote, next time the AG is up for re-election.
    We surely outnumber the 600 or so neos on this island.
    Just need to inform your friends and family, about her lack of will to enforce the laws on the books.
    Poor excuse for being the top law enforcement person on this island.
    Really shameful....
    Nothing worse for an AG than being soft on crime. Real crime, that robs people of millions of dollars, not cracking down on a few poor wretches that get drunk on the weekend.
    Watch out Mrs Barrett Anderson, the wrath of the people is growing...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Liz, you always HAD my support. No more. Just as I used to campaign in your behalf within my circle of influence, I will now campaign AGAINST YOU. You have sorely disappointed us. And when we meet, face to face, I will tell you
    exactly how I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Madame AG, uphold the law as you are expected by the electorate. You are supposed to hold accountable even the Governor to keep government honest. You are like Presbyter David VG, who as the official canon lawyer of Agana was supposed to hold even the Archbishop accountable for his actions but hid behind NCW along with the Archbishop and the Chancellor to effectively render their offices subject to the whims and caprices of Pius and his ilk of liars. Two devil's advocates from both Government and the Church, both reneging on their duties to uphold the rule of law set forth to regulate the life of people and property entrusted to them. Shameless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On that note of having an Honest Government. What do you think the Governor should do about giving the taxpayers money to his staff that received retro payments? The AG gave an opinion that the governor was wrong in giving money to his staff and now his staff must pay back the amount given to them the first time. But the governor after being advised from the AG, he then gave another increase into his staffs pay check. For us or businesses, that is against the law and someone goes to jail. But for the governor, its Politics. But it is our fault for voting the governor to his position. Many people wanted their tax refunds but then again, it is the courts that ordered people should be paid on a timely matter. I guess many hate the tactics of Sen. San Nicolas but I believe that he is for the people of guam and not against. He is holding the approval of some directors because their was no money in the tax refund account. But like I said, there are many people who believe otherwise.

      Delete
    2. The AG is NOT a judge (though she apparently thinks she still is). Thus she can only give counsel, NOT issue binding opinions. She has since recused herself from the matter.

      San Nicolas is a nice guy but he's a johnny-come lately. One of the first actions of the governor upon taking office was to get years of tax refunds paid. Let's not forget that the back up on the refunds started during the administration of San Nicolas' own party.

      I oppose the governor's pay raises and more so, oppose how it was done. Now, we have thousands of dollars and hours being wasted on this contest.

      Now that I've addressed this, I don't want any more stumping for candidates on this blog. Those comments will be deleted.

      Delete
    3. Tim – I don’t know if your comment above would apply to this present one as well (and gets deleted), but….. I have to agree with you on your decision to not publish such comments on JW. While everyone has that 2nd Amendment right to say their piece, this is your blog anyway – you can always invoke NIMBY. To every extent possible, let’s try to keep politics (political support for or against a person) out of this issue – its convoluted enough as it is. God knows we have larger issues at stake! Less ad hominem’s and more ad rem’s. – jrsa (4/416)

      Delete

Recommendations by JungleWatch