In our last post on this, we covered quite a bit of information and several documents. Each document lends itself to many questions. And since none of the people involved in this mess are willing to answer any of them, we'll ask and answer some of them ourselves.
First let us compare these two letters from Kristan Finney, Assistant Attorney General and the legal counsel to Michael Borja, Director of Land Management.
On January 6, 2016. Atty. Finney advises Borja that the "only other way" (besides a name change) "the law provides to correct a mistake" is to "apply by petition to the court."
Two month later on March 15, 2016, the same Attorney Finney advises Borja that the property owner only needs to "present the owner’s duplicate certificates for the issuance of a new certificate" with the correction.
No explanation is given why her previous counsel does not apply. There is no quote referenced from § 29160 justifiying the cancellation of the previously issued certificates. There is...well, NOTHING. It's simply a brand new opinion and does not even reference the first.
The turnabout is so unreal, so "un-legal-like," so beyond what we believe we can expect from the office of Guam's chief legal officer, that, given Finney et al's lack of information, we are forced to fill in the blank ourselves.
Over the last few years we have become quite used to "filling in the blank ourselves" because the same cloud of secrecy and absolute "180's" after revealing lie after lie after chancery lie is the same cloud of secrecy and "absolute 180's" we are now seeing in the Government of Guam, all the way up to the highest level of law enforcement. This is pretty damn scary.
While we are not accusing Finney or anyone else who is part of this latest fiasco and cover-up of the following, we have to suggest that these scenarios may apply since we already know people who have been compromised and forced - or felt themselves forced - into silence or complicity:
Annulments. Annulments are a big deal. Without one a married and divorced Catholic cannot marry another. To get one, the annulment process must pass through the local Tribunal. David the Villain provides over this Tribunal and Brother Tony himself, though he doesn't sit on the Tribunal, is officially the final judge. Obviously anyone hoping to get an annulment does not want to run afoul of David the Villain or Brother Tony. And due to Guam's close family connections, if one has a relative pending an annulment, the family may force someone into silence. I personally know of three situations where this fear has played a role in silencing individuals who otherwise might have influence.
Sacraments. Sadly, we also have to suspect whether or not the threat of withholding sacraments is also at play here. To be sure, the threat is probably never explicit. But given the general attitude of deference to the clergy on Guam, there is probably real fear that if one speaks out or does not do the will of the Kiko's, that access to the sacraments could be made more difficult. This is especially true in the case of baptisms where even non-Kiko priests have posed unnecessary road blocks to the baptism of newborns unless the parents do this or do that.
Catholic schools. We have stories where even access to a Catholic school is a factor. There is fear that if one speaks up it may be harder to get one's child into a Catholic school, or it could put a child's current enrollment at risk. There is also some evidence that tuition could be lessened or even done away with if one plays a critical role in supporting the Kiko's.
Funerals. We have already seen the difficulties the Kiko priests have imposed on funerals and burials. Some of this is due to their being members of a different religion, one which worships only on Saturday - thus the "no funerals on Saturday" rule or at least after a certain hour - since that is when their Holy Day begins. However, exceptions are made and Kikos and Kiko-friendly parishioners are accommodated where others are even forced to find another parish and a different priest to bury their dead.
Access. Then of course there is access, access to the Kiko's inner circle. Having the bishop in your pocket makes it easy for the Kikos to reward "helpers" (in government offices or otherwise) with access, access to parties, special events, or to specific "assistance" within the chancery itself.
Money. Under the guise of "community" there is a lot of money floating around to supposedly "assist the brothers." Once you take money - especially in a time of need - you owe something. And the Kikos know how to use this. It is their MO. Buying influence under the guise of "helping" is how they've got to the highest halls of power. How much more so are they adept at using money under the same guise to buy control of "helpful" people.
We don't know what caused Kristan Finney to do a 180 between January 6 and March 15. But we do know that she "had to work something out" with Jackie Terlaje. BTW, isn't it interesting that when referencing Jackie the Trained lawyer, both Finney and Barrett-Anderson never use her name. They only reference her as the "legal counsel" for the title holder.
There's a reason. And WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT.
NOTE: We are cataloging all the stories and experiences where any of the above may apply. If you or someone you know has experienced any of this, please send me a private email at firstname.lastname@example.org