Wednesday, April 13, 2016

JACKIE, THERE ARE SO MANY LIES HERE

Are you sure you want to maintain these statements under penalty of perjury? Your opportunity is coming.




I only have time for one right now:



"Terlaje says there was a mistake on the 2015 title. There was no memorial, which is to restrict use of the property. She says the archbishop has corrected that."

Oh, Jackie, this is going to be fun. Here's the real facts:

  • YOU ordered the certificate of title with the missing memorial.
  • YOU paid for the certificate of title with the missing memorial.
  • YOU received the certificate of title with the missing memorial.
  • YOU knew the memorial was missing (or else you are a really bad attorney).
  • YOU gave the certificate with the missing memorial to the Vicar General. 
  • YOU saw that the certificate with the missing memorial, which you gave to the chancery, was published in the Umatuna.
  • YOU were sent the amended version of the certificates with the handwritten INCORRECT memorial by the Deputy Registrar of Titles.
  • YOU did nothing about the error until Bob Klitzie made the issue publicly known (I will detail later how we know this).
  • YOU "worked something out" with the Assistant AG, Kristan Finney, which circumvented the law for correcting certificates of title.
  • YOU, JACKIE, YOU, JACKIE, YOU, JACKIE, YOU.

Not only is the Archbishop NEVER mentioned, HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CORRECT THE CERTIFICATE!

The most that is ever mentioned about the "property owner" who you say is the archbishop, is what Kristan Finney wrote to Mike Borja, Director of DLM on March 15, 2016:
"I understand that the property owner is willing to present the owner’s duplicate certificates for each of the affected lots to the Department of Land Management for the issuance of a new Certificate of Title with the correct memorial."
Do you see that everyone? The property owner was "willing." That means he had to be asked. That means he did NOT initiate the correction. That means he did NOT "correct it." Bob Klitzkie initiated the correction when he started snooping around in your trash and you know it. And you also know that it is STILL NOT CORRECT or you are really one poor attorney. 

By the way, Finney really BLOWS it here. The back room deal that you and Finney "worked out" appeals to 21 GCA § 29160 which does NOT permit corrections, but only the issuance of NEW certificates of title. But Finney tells us that the deal you two worked out permitted "the issuance of a new Certificate of Title with the "CORRECT" memorial!"

LOL, Jackie. Ummm, that means - as we all know - that the memorial on the previous certificate was INCORRECT, which required you, as the AG originally opined, to submit the correction through the court as required by 21 GCA 29195.

You freaks can't even lie well. Much more to come, Jackie, much more to come.

8 comments:

  1. Satan is in her doing all the talking. Just add the horns and the long tongue sticking out on that picture.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jackie is one STUPID ATTORNEY......

    ReplyDelete
  3. So this is the infamous Jackie Taitano Terlaje. Been wondering who she was and what she looked like. Would love to know more- her familial background, her parish, her educational background, professional training, etc. Nothing critical, just wise to "know thy enemy". Anybody know any more about this woman?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey JACKIE, your an IDIOT FOR A LAWYER...

    ReplyDelete
  5. The trained attorney has a history of not getting the facts straight.
    http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/frances-admits-taking-items-kims-apartment/

    ReplyDelete
  6. And if she's not the legal counsel for those morons on the hill, why is she ASSuming the role? Jackie, you're about to be knocked off your high horse.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Corrected that. No memorial restricting the use of the property. And yet the last "correction" is showing the RMS from only 2 memorials, to 3 with the archbishop name showing and that last one showing the RMS. Was there another correction not showing the memorial so there was no more restriction to the use of the property. Wouldn't it have been better if you just showed your copy. Which is which?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jackie, get off your trained high horse and ride another ass who would believe your lies!!!

    ReplyDelete

Recommendations by JungleWatch