Thursday, September 1, 2016


Posted by Tim

On August 22, I submitted the following "letter to the editor" to the PDN.
In his August 19 statement, Archbishop Hon accused Archbishop Apuron of defying a papal order to return the mega-million dollar “seminary property” to the Archdiocese of Agana.

While Apuron is probably guilty of committing an ecclesial crime by alienating the property without the requisite approval of the Holy See, the truth is he did not return the property because he could not.

On November 22, 2011, Apuron recorded a document at the Department of Land Management called “Declaration of Deed Restriction.” Despite its innocuous name, the document conveyed title to the mega-million dollar Yona property to the Neocatechumenal Way-controlled Redemptoris Mater Seminary.

This was confirmed by the Concerned Catholics of Guam in the Legal Opinion by Guam real estate attorney Jaques Bronze who wrote: “The Declaration…operates to transfer a present interest and is an absolute conveyance in fee simple of the subject real property…”

Hon was given this exact information during his January 2015 visit, both by the CCOG and by former archdiocesan finance council president, Richard Untalan, who was fired by Apuron for his opposition to the conveyance.

On August 11, 2016, it was explained to him again by the same Richard Untalan, joined by Attorney Robert Klitzkie, at a joint meeting with Hon and the presbyteral council.

At the meeting Untalan and Klitzkie spelled out how the title had been conveyed by Apuron to RMS in 2011, and how it could only be returned through a similar instrument of conveyance.

RMS is a Guam corporation, incorporated separately from the Archdiocese of Agana, and other than one vote on the Board of Directors, its decisions are not subject to the Archbishop of Agana.

In order for the Declaration to be “rescinded and annulled,” as the pope is said to have required, the board must first pass a resolution to convey title back to the archdiocese, and then compose, authorize, and record the conveyance.

But beyond the misfeasance of church officials, lies an even graver concern about the potential malfeasance of some Government of Guam officials.

To assist Apuron in his mega-million dollar cover up, Msgr. David C. Quitugua published a copy of a bogus certificate of title last November 29 in the archdiocesan newspaper.

The bogus certificate was acquired by the executive vice president of a local title company who is a member of the Neocatechumenal Way. The certificate was personally paid for by the same executive and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje who is not only a member of the “Way,” but heads up Apuron’s neocatechumenal community.

The bogus certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Titles, who, even after doing an abstract of title which included the Declaration only days before, released the certificate minus the Declaration, which as already noted, conveyed title to RMS.

After Attorney Robert Klitzkie brought this to the attention of the Director of Land Management, Klitzkie was advised that per the Attorney General’s counsel, the law required the Director to petition the court to correct the title.

The end was in sight. The property had been transferred to RMS in 2011 to protect it from a threat precipitated by Vice-Speaker Cruz’ 2011 attempt to lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes against minors. And as we now know, Apuron had good reason to be worried.

Subjecting the title issue to the court would expose the truth about Apuron’s big give-away and ultimately his secret reasons for doing so. We only needed the government to do its job. But then all went dark.

Two months later, we learned that the Attorney General reneged on her previous counsel and permitted a deal to be “worked out” with Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. The issue never went to court and the truth remained safely hidden.

But then came May 17, and the first of Apuron’s ghosts from the 1970’s appeared in the flesh to call him to account.

Within a few minutes of submitting the letter I received a call from the PDN expressing concern over the claims I made regarding the AG's reneging on her original counsel to the Director of Land Management, Michael Borja.

I replied that not only could I provide documentation supporting my claim but that the AG herself had been very public on K57 about what was effectively the reversal or at least nullifying of her previous counsel. I sent the PDN the following documents.

  1. 1/20/16 - Borja to Klitzkie re AG’s counsel to petition the court. (here)
  2. 2/17/16 - Klitzkie to Borja re AG saying she has to see what can be “worked out.” (here)
  3. 3/15/16 - Finney to Borja on issuing new certificate NOT per the AG’s original counsel (here)
  4. 3/28/16 - Borja to AG re Klitzkie’s inquiry into what was “worked out” (here)
  5. 3/30/16 - DLM news release stating the action taken was different form the AG’s “initial advice.” (here)
  6. 3/31/16 - Ag to DLM stating why she reversed her initial advice. (here)
  7. I also sent the link to the AG's on air discussion with Patti Arroyo (here)

Today, September 1,  I received this message from the PDN (I'll withhold the person's name and position):
Thanks again for giving PDN the opportunity to review your op-ed submission for publication. I reviewed the materials you sent, and I discussed the op-ed and supporting documents with PDN’s executive editor. We will not be able to run the op-ed because we can’t independently verify some facts.
I wrote back:
Wow. I guess your policy has changed. I've made much more radical claims in the past. I suspect this has to do with the fact that I am taking on the AG. I am terribly concerned that a private person cannot call out government officials in your paper in a simple letter to the editor. That's frightening. 
I then immediately received a call from the PDN telling me that their rejection was not the result of what I said about government officials but what I said about "private individuals." I asked the PDN "which private individuals?" It took a couple of tries but eventually the PDN said "Untalan and Terlaje," meaning Richard Untalan and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. 

I asked "what documentation do you need?" The PDN caller then mentioned proof that Jackie Terlaje paid for the bogus certificate of title. I immediately replied "I have the receipt." The conversation then switched to the PDN's liability if they ran statements that could not be proved. I interrupted the caller with "You called Jackie Terlaje, didn't you." I received a non-answer and the conversation quickly ended. 

I understand that the caller was just doing his/her job, and simply passing on the decision of the executive editor, and I also understand the reluctance of the PDN to engage in anything for which might be libelous. However, given where this story is now going after the revelation by Richard Untalan yesterday, what I really did was a lot of the PDN's work for them should they ever want to get around to doing a truly investigative story. 

So, here, let me help them out. 

First, any reference to Richard Untalan can be easily verified directly with Richard Untalan, and as of yesterday, Mr. Untalan went public with all of it. That leaves only my references to Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. Here's the first one:

"The certificate was personally paid for by the same executive and Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje." 

Here is the receipt from the Department of Land Management showing that the bogus certificate of title was paid for by "the same executive and Jacqueline T. Terlaje":

As you can see the two check numbers match those shown in the computer generated record showing the names of the two persons who wrote the checks, one of which is Jacqueline Terlaje. 

The receipt shows payment dated 11/19/15. The bogus certificate showed up in the Umatuna on 11/29/15:

A close up of the bogus certificate published in the Umatuna shows

The detailed receipt shows this number on the second description line:

My next reference to Jacqueline Terlaje is here:

Two months later, we learned that the Attorney General reneged on her previous counsel and permitted a deal to be “worked out” with Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. The issue never went to court and the truth remained safely hidden.

This reference is based on this statement taken from a 2/17/16 letter written by Attorney Robert Klitzkie to Director of Land Management, Michael Borja:

The full letter can be read here and all of the documents relative to the certificate of title scam can be accessed here.

Dear PDN, you're welcome.

Recommendations by JungleWatch