Monday, April 4, 2016


On December 29, 2015, Director of Land Management, Michael Borja, wrote Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, asking her to file a petition in the Superior Court of Guam to correct four certificates of title issued in error. 

He noted “..the process to correct these certificates of title requires a judicial proceeding which is why we seek your service."

Read that again: “..the process to correct these certificates of title requires a judicial proceeding which is why we seek your service."  

The next day, Borja wrote Sandra Miller, Governor Calvo's legal counsel, advising her of the errors and reaffirming that the "Errors can only be corrected by a judicial petition."

Now, take a look again at what Borja says right above the five points:

“I have reviewed the matter with my deputy registrar of titles and my legal counsel and arrived at the following:"

Who is Borja's legal counsel? Answer: Asst. AG, Kristan Finney.

So we see here, that on 12/30/15, 1) the problem was already known, 2) the fix was already known, and 3) Borja was so confident in the counsel he received from Finney, he sent a memo to the governor's legal counsel advising on how he will proceed. 

Finney herself memorializes her counsel to Borja one week later in this memo:

NOTE! Other than a name change, Finney states: "The only other way the law provides to correct a "by petition to the court." 

Then on January 20, 2016, Borja CONFIRMS all of the above in a letter to Bob Klitzkie:

As you can see, Borja states he has consulted with DLM's legal counsel (Kristan Finney) AND the AG, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, and BOTH are in agreement that:

 the only way permitted by law to correct an errant certificate of title is to "petition the court." 

According to BOTH the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General:


No mention is made of "unless there is this" or "unless there is that."  The law is clear and as per the above letters, emails, and memos, it has been affirmed and reaffirmed and re-re affirmed!

The only thing left to do is to "petition the court" and correct the certificate. 

But then SILENCE

After several attempts to get updated as per Mr. Borja's Jan. 20 promise and to no avail, Mr. Klitzkie arranges a personal meeting with Borja and his legal counsel, Finney, for Monday, February 15. Two days later Klitzkie sends Borja a letter memorializing the meeting of February 15.

The full letter can be found here

So between January 20 and February 15, we went from the Director of Land Management, the Legal Counsel to the Director of Land Management, and the Attorney General, all concurring that the only possible way to correct an error on a certificate of title was to petition the court, to...."sitting down with her (the legal counsel for the archdiocese) to see what could be worked out!"

I'm sorry, where was "working something out" ever a possibility? 

All three, the Director, the Assistant AG, and the AG, had all clearly agreed and opined that the ONLY remedy to correct an incorrect certificate of title was through the Superior Court. And suddenly all communication goes dark and we find out a month later that Finney is waiting to "work something out" with "her"! HUH???? WT_?

Now, notice too, that this Feb 15 meeting took place almost a month after Borja last advised Klitzkie that the petition was moving forward (Jan 20), and STILL!! Finney "had not had a chance to sit down with her to see what could be worked out." 

With still no action coming from Finney or Borja, Klitzkie launched a series of letters, demands for documents, and media appearances. 

(The demand for documents turned up some interesting things: 1) the originally erroneous certificate of title had been ordered by Bertha Evangelista of Title Guaranty on 10/27/15 and was picked up by an employee of Title Guaranty on 11/19/15.  2) the erroneous certificates were paid for by both Bertha Evangelista and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje on 11/19/15.  3) an amended version of the certificates with an even bigger error was sent to Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje from Andrew Santos, the Deputy Registrar, on 12/15/15 and remained hidden. Bertha Evangelista would later say that she only ordered it as per Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje's request. We will revisit all this soon, but as you can see, Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje has had her mitts in this since the beginning and of course is the "her" that Finney had to "work something out" with AFTER Finney, Borja, and Barrett-Anderson had all opined that the ONLY avenue for correction was through the Superior Court.)

Apparently, by mid March, Finney realized that Klitzkie was not going to go away, so finally, on March 15, four and half months after the first erroneous certificate of title was issued, and three months after Klitzkie brought the error to Borja's attention, Finney gets around to "working something out with her."

If nothing else, this is an example of an extremely inept Assistant Attorney General. 

So you mean, Ms. Finney, that you DID NOT HAVE THE FACTS when you originally counseled the Director to petition the court? 

So you mean, Ms. Finney, that there was an alternate route to correct the certificates all along and that YOU DID NOT KNOW THIS?

So you mean, Ms. Finney, that Jackie the trained lawyer knows more about Guam law than you do? 

So you mean, Ms. Finney, that 21 GCA §29160 allows for the cancellation of previously issued certificates of title?

Would you mind, Ms. Finney, showing us where it SAYS THAT? (It doesn't.)

Would you mind, Ms. Finney, actually acting like you are an attorney representing the people of Guam and actually write a REAL opinion demonstrating the facts and circumstances which caused you to dump the counsel you, Barrett-Anderson, and Borja ALL agreed on?

Jackie wiped the floor with you, Ms. Finney, didn't she. Perhaps you did not expect us to find the documents showing your previous counsel. Well we did. And all that is left us to comprehend is either you are a terribly inept attorney and have NO business in the office of the attorney general, or you got....well let's say you drank the KAKA. 

Oh, and don't you know, you left poor Mr. Borja in the lurch. He had to write your boss to find out what the hell you were doing after Klitzkie "spanked" him with a "disdainful letter!" LOL. 

And now the AG provides the real kicker!

Let's look at where Barrett-Anderson writes: "Shortly thereafter, our Office was contacted by Counsel for the title holder..." Huh?? Barrett-Anderson and Finney need to get their stories straight, lest we think they are lies. Finney told Klitzkie on February 15 (see Feb 17 letter above) that "she (Finney) HAD CONTACTED and was working with Counsel for the archdiocese..." Finney "had contacted" NOT "was contacted. 

Yet, Barrett-Anderson tells us that it was her "Office" which "was contacted by Counsel for the title holder." 

And how about Barrett-Anderson's "Shortly thereafter?" We see from Borja's 12/29/15 letter above that Barrett-Anderson had been advised of the problem at least as of 12/29/15, and the first time we learn of the involvement of the "Counsel for the archdiocese" is nearly two months later as per Klitzkie's 2/17/16 letter to Borja? This is "shortly thereafter?"

Sounds to me like Barrett-Anderson is winging this. But then comes the really inane part:
Counsel for the title holder informed "us" (who is us?) there was no objection to your Department making the necessary corrections and administratively inscribing the proper memorialization to each of the CT’s. This process is permitted under 21 GCA § 29160.
Whoah! So if I want the certificate of title to my property to say something different than what it says, you mean, Ms. Barrett-Anderson, that as long as I have no objection, any change can be made? WT_? LOL. Did YOU even consult the party to whom the memorial was "in favor of?" 

And we are talking about a MEGA-MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY here!

This is really amazing Ms. Barrett-Anderson. You've been a senator, an attorney general, a judge, and again an attorney general, and YOU DON'T KNOW THAT 21 GCA § 29160 DOES NOT PERMIT THE CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION of certificates of title?

Here, let me copy the whole section for the intelligent people among us:

§ 29160. Instruments Intended to Create Charges Upon Land: New

On the filing in the registrar's office of an instrument intended to create
a charge on registered land and upon the production of the duplicate
certificate of title, whenever it appears from the original certificate of title
that the person intending to create the charge has the title and right to create
such charge and the person in whose favor the same is sought to be created 
is entitled by the terms of this law to have the same registered, the registrar
shall enter upon the original and duplicate certificates a memorial of the
purport thereof, and the date of filing the instrument, with a reference
thereto by its file number, which memorial shall be signed by the registrar.
The registrar shall also note upon the instrument on file the number of the
certificate of title where the memorial is entered. No new certificate of title
shall be entered and no memorandum shall be made upon any certificate of
title by the registrar in pursuance of any deed or other voluntary instrument,
unless the owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented with such
instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this Law, or upon the
order of the court, for cause shown, and whenever such order is made, a
memorial thereof shall be entered upon the new certificate of title and on
the owner's duplicate. The production of the owner's duplicate certificate,
whenever a voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall
constitute authority from the registered owner to the registrar to issue a new
certificate or to make a memorial in accordance with such instrument and
the new certificate or the memorial shall be binding upon the registered
owner and upon all persons claiming under him in favor of every purchaser
for value in good faith.

Ms. Barrett-Anderson, please show us, the people of Guam, the people you were elected to represent WHERE in this section of the law, the cancellation and/or correction of an erroneous certificate of title is permitted. Show us where, Ms. Barrett-Anderson, the law you are sworn to uphold gives the Director of Land Management the authority to do this:

I was going to end with a typical quip, but the above is so disgusting I simply cannot add to it. Somebody said you are planning to run for governor?

Recommendations by JungleWatch