NO ANSWERS FROM KRISTAN

Now that the title issue is on the front page again, this would be a good time to review the questions I had back in March for Kristan Finney, the Assistant Attorney General who "worked something out" with Jackie the Trained Lawyer, which kept Apuron's secret, a secret a little longer. A secret that is now burning a hole in Hon's brain. 

QUESTIONS FOR KRISTAN
http://www.junglewatch.info/2016/03/questions-for-kristan.html

And to catch up on the whole saga, see the Tab above CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FIASCO

WE ARE GOING TO FIND IT!

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 junglewatch.info@gmail.com

THREE TRAINED LAWYERS AND STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT

I received several notices the last couple days that The Diana is playing lawyer again, interpreting corporation documents in a desperate attempt to (still) convince us that RMS is a corporation sole and under Apuron's control. 

LOL. So much effort when all The Diana has to do is go down to Rev & Tax and get the document that says Redemptoris Mater Seminary, A Corporation Sole. Oh, that's right. There isn't one. The Diana doesn't get the difference between a Corporation Sole and a corporation with a sole incorporator. (Maybe it's the same thing in Malaysia! LOL.)

But never mind that. The Diana is not contesting that title to the property has been assigned to RMS, only that RMS is controlled by Apuron. 

Fine.

This makes our point. Regardless of who controls RMS, the fact is title to the property has been assigned to RMS but the back room deal worked out by Jackie the Trained Lawyer and Kristan Finney, the Assistant Attorney General (while Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, the Attorney General "concurred"), does not show RMS as the title holder. 

Wow! Three trained lawyers can't get it right. I guess we should cut Diana the google-lawyer some slack. LOL. Courage.

THE CONTINUING SAD DEMISE OF ONCE RESPECTED PEOPLE

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."  

See full document here

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."

LOL. THIS IS GETTING FUNNER AND FUNNER

The Diana says "Bob Klitzkie loses."

1. 
   
   AnonymousApril 4, 2016 at 3:44 AM

   The KAKA filled Dungbat continues to proclaim victory....
   
   DianaApril 3, 2016 at 9:58 PM
   Dear Anonymous at 7:27 pm,
   
   All you have is an interpretation of the Bronze lawyer. That is what you will have on the day of the information hearing. The Archbishop, on the other hand, will have the following information:
   
   1. The report and encumbrance report from the Pacific American Title stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
   2. The report from the Denver law firm which specializes in religious institutions and corporation soles stating that the Archbishop owns RMS even with the Declaration of Deed Restriction in place.
   3. The report of the Pontifical Council stating that there was no alienation of the property even if the Archbishop transferred the title of the property to the RMS Corporation because the Archbishop owns RMS.
   4. The corrected Certificate of Titles certifying the Archbishop as the legal owner of RMS.
   5. The Articles of Incorporation of RMS showing that the Archbishop is the sole member and only incorporator of RMS.
   6. The Bylaws of RMS which stated that the Archbishop is the corporation sole of RMS and have the authority to appoint and dismiss the members in the Board of Directors and Board of Guarantors.
   7. The Declaration of Deed Restriction which has been filed by the Department of Tax and Revenue as a "Declaration" rather than as a "Deed."
   
   As for Bob Klitzke, what will he bring to the Information Hearing? He will only have the opinion of a real estate lawyer who has absolutely no experience of religious institutions or corporation soles.
   
   This is an information hearing. The person who will have the most information is certainly NOT Bob Kliztke. He can argue all he wants that the Certificate of Title should have RMS as the legal owner, but he will be asked the question, "WHO" in RMS is the legal owner. We already know he is not going to say the Archbishop. His only choices are "Gennarini" or "I don't know." Either way he answers, he loses.

Dear Diana. Despite your obvious lack of education, please try to improve yourself. Here, let me help you:

PANTS ON FIRE

If I may have KUAM's leave, I would like to copy in full Ken Quintanilla's excellent news report before sharing my comments.

Posted: Mar 21, 2016 3:17 PMUpdated: Mar 21, 2016 5:03 PM

By Ken Quintanilla

While thousands of the island's faithful observe Holy Week, controversy has risen over efforts to address a certificate of title for the multimillion dollar property in Yona under the Archbishop of Agana.

"I want to see the right thing done," stated Bob Klitzkie. But apparently that's not the case as the former senator continues to raise concern over issues with the Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Yona. Klitzkie claims there's a "bogus" certificate of title that needs to be addressed for the multimillion dollar property. Klitzkie has sent several letters and even issued a Freedom of Information Act request related to the matter, saying, "After the inspection that had been scheduled for Thursday (March 17) didn't happen because I was stiffed. I got a letter the next day from the director of Land Management telling me the documents he had said he had done in his letter of January 20 did not exist," he added.

According to a January 20 letter from DLM director Michael Borja, in consultation with their legal counsel and the Attorney General of Guam, a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct the certificate of title and in this case the memorial which had been entered in error. He says in that same letter that the petition had been prepared and forwarded to the AG with instructions for the petition. Klitzkie requested for the petition however the DLM director responded to the FOIA, saying that there was none.

"Given the director's lack of candor throughout this whole matter after January 20 strains my credulity, I'll say this: the certificate of title finally has the memorial on it that should have been on it on the 30th of October when it was released by Michael Borja's deputy, but the certificate of title was not promulgated in accordance in direction with the attorney general of Guam Elizabeth Barrett Anderson who said you correct errors by petitioning the superior court. She didn't say you correct errors by sitting down with Attorney Jackie Terlaje and figure out some other way to come up with something that has the right stuff in the paper but the paper itself is not properly promulgated," he explained.

In response, Borja tells KUAM News that this is a civil issue between the two parties of interest, which are DLM and the Archbishop of Agana corporation sole. With the petition, he says one was prepared in draft but it was never submitted, executed or filed in the court because the two parties were able to meet and correct the error together. Borja says this is actually based on guidance from counsel and advice from the AG's Office as well.

Klitzkie in the meantime says while the DLM director has been playing "hide the ball" in terms of transparency, he wants to see an end to this situation.

KUAM News sent an email to the Attorney General's Office on the matter but we have yet to get a response.

*****

Now, let's compare what Michael Borja, Director of Land Management, told KUAM on March 21 vs. what he told Bob Klitzkie on January 20:

MARCH 21 TO KUAM

In response, Borja tells KUAM News that this is a civil issue between the two parties of interest, which are DLM and the Archbishop of Agana corporation sole. With the petition, he says one was prepared in draft but it was never submitted, executed or filed in the court because the two parties were able to meet and correct the error together. Borja says this is actually based on guidance from counsel and advice from the AG's Office as well.

JANUARY 20 TO BOB KLITZKIE (copy of letter here)

In a follow-up to your referenced letter, I have consulted with the Department of Land Management’s legal counsel and with the Attorney General of Guam regarding a remedy to correct a certificate of title which a memorial had been entered in error. Based on their advice and in accordance with Title 29, Guam Code Annotated, §29195, a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title. 

Accordingly, the department, specifically the Ex Officio Registrar of Titles, has prepared and forwarded a petition, and other associated documents, to the Office of the Attorney General of Guam with instructions for the petition to be filed in the Superior Court of Guam in an effort to correct the certificates of title mentioned in your letter.

Let's summarize it:

• On March 21 Michael Borja told KUAM that he prepared a petition "in draft" but never submitted it.

• Two months earlier, on January 20, he put in writing to Bob Klitzkie that he, Michael Borja, the Ex Officio Registrar of Titles, "has prepared and forwarded a petition and other associated documents, to the Office of the Attorney General of Guam with instructions for the petition to be filed in the Superior Court of Guam..."

Now, let's look at some other things Michael Borja said:

"In response, Borja tells KUAM News that this is a civil issue between the two parties of interest, which are DLM and the Archbishop of Agana corporation sole."

This is absolutely OPPOSITE to what Michael Borja told Bob Klitzkie on January 20. In his letter to Bob Klitzike, Michael Borja informed Mr. Klitzkie that the Attorney General herself, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, NOT the "Office" of the Attorney General, had instructed him to "petition the court to correct (the) certificate of title" as per Title 21*, Guam Code Annotated §29195.

*Borja wrote "Title 29" in his letter to Klitzkie, but there is no Title 29. The section referred to is actually found in Title 21.

Obviously the Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson did NOT permit for the matter to be resolved privately "between the two parties of interest" but that the matter be resolved as per Guam Law before the Superior Court. 

Then there is this:

"Borja says this is actually based on guidance from counsel and advice from the AG's Office as well."

The "AG's Office" is NOT the AG. The AG is Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson. The "AG's Office could be the receptionist for that matter. So why does Michael Borja now refer to the fictive entity "the AG's Office" and not the actual "Attorney General" as he told Mr. Klitzkie in his January 20 letter?

The short answer is that instead of taking the guidance given him by the actual AG, he took the guidance of one Kristan Finney, who is NOT the AG, but an Assistant AG, and of course is in "the AG's Office." But of course Mr. Borja does not want to say that he acted "based on guidance from the Assistant AG" when he already put in writing that he had acted on the guidance given him by the actual AG.

The real question though is WHOSE guidance did Kristan Finney act on? Obviously it was not the AG herself. We already know the answer, don't we. As memorialized in a letter from Mr. Klitzkie to Mr. Borja, Attorney Finney herself told Mr. Klitzkie that she had to "sit down with her and see what could be worked out." 

We know now that the "her" is Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje. And Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje had a VERY GOOD REASON for NOT wanting a judge to lay eyes on the contested document: the Declaration of Deed Restriction, recorded by Archbishop Apuron at Land Management on November 22, 2011, and very quietly so. In fact, so quiet, no one knew about it until it was uncovered THREE YEARS later.

Apparently Archbishop Apuron did not want anyone to lay eyes on it either. 

Why?

Well, in case you've been wondering like "what's the big deal," well you shall soon have the answer to your question. You shall soon know why Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, who just so happens to be, along with her husband, a "co-responsible" for the Neocatechumenal community in which Archbishop Apuron is "one of the brothers," had to find a way to keep that document out of court.

Obviously, Ms. Finney and Atty. Jacqueline T. Terlaje "worked something out." 

ARCHDIOCESE FINALLY ADMITS THAT THE DECLARATION OF DEED RESTRICTION WAS "IN FAVOR OF" RMS!

I wonder how Mr. Michael Borja is feeling today? I wonder if he knows that he is the latest casualty in the ongoing circus to cover Brother Tony's ass.

Harsh words you say? Good. I mean them to be. 

Let's review.

Today's Umatuna says: 

"...the Director of Land Management and Registrar of Titles, Michael Borja, determined that the proper way to proceed with the memorialization was to cancel the former Certificates of Title…which did not include the Declaration of Deed Restriction, and issue new Certificates of Title."

So, Mr. Borja, apparently DETERMINED that "the proper way to proceed" was to ignore the legal direction given him by the Attorney General of Guam, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson? Here, let me quote Mr. Borja's own words in his January 20 letter to Bob Klitzkie:

"I have consulted with the Department of Land Management’s legal counsel and with the Attorney General of Guam regarding a remedy to correct a certificate of title which a memorial had been entered in error. Based on their advice and in accordance with Title 29, Guam Code Annotated, §29195, a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title."

Let's review that last part: "the registrar IS REQUIRED TO PETITION THE COURT." Instead Mr. Borja apparently ignored the direction of the Attorney General of Guam, damned the petition to the court, and hauled off and CANCELED the previous certificates, and then made new ones. 

The question is: DID MR. BORJA HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THOSE CERTIFICATES? In other words, did Mr. Borja act outside his authority? And if he did, then he has put his entire career and personal good name at risk. And more importantly, why did he ignore the advice of the Attorney General?

As already mentioned in QUESTIONS FOR KRISTAN, the subsection of the Guam Code used by Mr. Borja at the recommendation of the Assistant Attorney General, Kristan Finney, makes NO provision for the cancelation of certificates of title. 

This could be tragic for Mr. Borja. But it's nothing new. Mr. Borja will be just the latest piece of meat thrown into the people-grinder by the neo-machine that has trashed Fr. Paul's good name, Msgr. James' good name, Bertha Evangelista's good name, Aaron Quitugua's priestly future, and now possibly the good name and future of Mr. Borja. 

And those are just the names of the people we know. There are so many lives which have been trampled on in the name of the almighty Kiko Arguello, in the name of this money laundering, land grabbing, power usurping, grotesque syndicate masquerading as a religious movement. 

Oh, and then there's this:

"While dissenters and opposers of the Archbishop have claimed that the now cancelled certificates of title were 'bogus', the Department of Land Management diligently acted to address the concerns over the memorialization."

Hmmmm. "Diligently acted??? It's been FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS since the false certificate of title was issued by Deputy Registrar and THREE AND A HALF MONTHS since the false certificate was printed in the Umatuna. "Diligently acted"??? And then only action AFTER nearly three months of letters, phone calls, meetings, and document inspections by Bob Klitzkie, half of which were ignored. And then still, action only came after a couple weeks of a "shaming" by Klitzkie in the media.

I am really sorry to have to question Mr. Borja like this. I was told he was one of the good guys. In fact, while it may not seem like it, I still believe he is. You see, I know how evil the Neocatechumenal Way can be. I've seen how it has twisted and maimed poor Brother Tony and left him a laughing stock. I've seen how it has turned roman collars into dog collars attached to chains held and jerked by Pius the Putrid.

And speaking of Pius the Putrid, let us now turn our attention to the BIG LIE that is sadly named Umatuna.

Let's look again at this statement and pay attention to the highlighted words:

 "...the Director of Land Management and Registrar of Titles, Michael Borja, determined that the proper way to proceed with the memorialization was to cancel the former Certificates of Title…which did not include the Declaration of Deed Restriction, and issue new Certificates of Title."

And now let's look at the Certificate of Title which was CANCELED:

OOPS! Well, what do you know! There it is! The Declaration of Deed Restriction. What? Wait a minute. The fools on the hill just told us that Mr. Borja, CANCELED the "certificates of title...which did NOT include the Declaration of Deed Restriction."

But there it is! The Declaration of Deed Restriction with the big stamp "CANCELED" and Mr. Borja's signature underneath it.

Let's do this again, because these people on the hill do not even know how to LIE right, so here it is:

• They said that Mr. Borja canceled the certificates of title which did NOT include the Declaration of Deed Restriction. 

• But Mr. Borja canceled the certificates of title which DID include the Declaration of Deed Restriction. 

Now let me help everyone out here.

You see, the false certificate published in the Umatuna on 11/29/15 did NOT include the Declaration of Deed Restriction.

But the certificate stamped CANCELED did have it:

So where was this copy with Declaration memorialized on it?  Why lookee here. It was with Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje all along, ever since December 15, 2015 when it was sent to Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje by Teresita Toves, the assistant to Mr. Santos. See the evidence here.

So this means that Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, P.C., since she had the "corrected" version as of 12/15/15,  KNEW that the copy of the certificate published in the Umatuna was false and apparently DID NOTHING about it since we saw no updated version published in the Umatuna.

But NOW, here's the big one. Let's look at the canceled certificate:

Note that the Declaration is "in favor of": Archbishop of Agana, A Corp. Sole, Anthony S. Apuron, Ofm Cap D.D., Incumbent.

Do you remember that fake press release that Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, P.C. sent out last November 17? If not here it is. Go ahead and read it. 

Here's how Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, P.C. describes the Declaration:

 "...the declaration declares that the Archbishop of Agana, A Corporate Sole, is the “Owner” of the property, imposing on itself a restriction."

Ah, you see, how nice. The Archbishop was only imposing a restriction on himself. 

Really? 

If the Archbishop was only imposing a restriction on himself (or itself since the Archbishop of Agana is an office), then there is NO NEED to record a document at Land Management, is there? He only needed to do a decree. 

But in fact, just as Apuron, David, Adrian, and Pius the Putrid have been lying to us, it appears Jacque Terlaje was doing the same, because now the truth comes out in the March 15 certificate:

Ah, you see. The Declaration is NOT "in favor of" the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporate Sole, Anthony S. Apuron etc. etc. etc. Incumbent. The Declaration -as we have been saying all along - is 

IN FAVOR OF RMS!

And now to the conclusion. 

The certificate of March 15, 2016, shows that the Declaration of Deed Restriction is "in favor of" RMS. What does this mean? 

First, it means that RMS is recognized as a legal entity apart from the Archbishop of Agana, a Corporate Sole - which is why The Diana could never produce the documents showing that RMS was a Corporate Sole as she claimed. There is only one Corporate Sole and that is the Archbishop of Agana. RMS, as the new certificate demonstrates, is a legal entity separate from the Archbishop of Agana. 

Second, the "in favor of" means just that. The Declaration acts "in favor of" RMS. But what is the "favor"? The favor is in the language of the Declaration:

As you can see, the Owner "covenants and declares that the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed.." Folks, you can't get much clearer than that. The title of the document is deceptive, pretending only to be a "restriction" and only a "declaration." But when you use the words "sold and conveyed," ummmmm, well, folks, this property is GONE. 

For those who want a detailed explanation of this, see the Legal Opinion by Attorney Jacques Bronze.

We'll get to the part about "subject to the covenants and restrictions" in a minute. Let's now look at the language following the word "Declaration." 

As you can see, RMS is identified as a Non-Profit Corporation (not a Corporate Sole) distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana and distinct from the Archbishop of Agana because the Declaration refers to RMS as its own "SEE" which is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. So the property is forever ("perpetual use) given to a "SEE" separate from the Archdiocese of Agana.

Now to the "subject to the covenants and restrictions." 

As you can see the only "restriction" is that it remain in use by a corporation currently named Redemptoris Mater Seminary. It does not specify that it must be used as a seminary, only that it be used by RMS, Inc. 

And guess what? There is already talk about moving the seminarians out of there and turning it back into a hotel since Guam has a shortage of hotel rooms and RMS is broke anyway. 

And guess what else? 

All the revenues generated by Hotel RMS will go to the Neocatechumenal Way via the corporate person of RMS, Inc, a corporation completely controlled by Giuseppe and Claudia Gennarini, Angelo Poschetti, and one Anthony S. Apuron, himself, personally, bishop or no bishop. 

Hmmm. "Hotel RMS." Like the Neocatechumenal Way, "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!"

QUESTIONS FOR KRISTAN

Dear Assistant Attorney General, Kristan Finney:

We see here that you "conferred with the counsel for the property owner to gain an understanding of all of the facts and circumstances regarding this matter." Wonderful. Did you just take Jacqueline T. Terlaje's word for it or did you do any investigation yourself?

Did you actually read the subject document: the Declaration of Deed Restriction?

If you did, did you not look past its deceptive title and read the words: "the Property is and shall be held, used, transferred, sold and conveyed.."???

Do you not know that those words, especially "transferred, sold and conveyed" mean that the Archbishop of Agana is no longer the title holder?

Did you read the words: "...IN PERPETUAL USE AS A SEE OF THE REDEMPTORIS MATER ARCHDIOCESAN MISSIONARY SEMINARY"???

Do you know what a SEE is? In case you do not, a SEE is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If the property was to remain in the hands of the Archbishop of Agana it would have said "AS A SEE OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF AGANA." But it doesn't. 

Did you not know that the Redemptoris Mater Seminary is legally distinct from the Archdiocese of Agana? Did you bother to read its Articles of Incorporation or its By Laws? 

Did you not read in the Declaration the words "...IN PERPETUAL USE"???? Do you not know that those words mean FOREVER?

Did you not put 2 and 2 together and see that the Declaration of Deed Restriction acts as an instrument to "transfer, sell, and convey" the property to a jurisdiction (RMS, Inc.) which is separate from the Archdiocese of Agana?

Did you just take Jacqueline T. Terlaje's word for it or did you bother to even look at the Jaques Bronze Legal Opinion regarding the effect of this Declaration upon the subject property?

Did you not know that Mr. Klitzkie GAVE the Director of Land Management a copy of this Opinion? 

Did the Director of Land Management bother to furnish you the copy?

Did you not know that there is NO PROVISION for the cancellation of certificates of title in the section of the Code that you chose to use (§29160) instead of the one already agreed upon (§29195) by the Director of Land Management and your boss, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson (at least according to what the Director wrote Mr. Klitzkie on January 20)?

Did Jacqueline T. Terlaje talk you out of following the AG's advice in order to avoid going to court?

Why do you think Jacqueline T. Terlaje did not want this to go to court, Ms. Finney?

And who gave you the authority to cancel the previously issued certificates? It is certainly NOT in the subsection of the Code that you used.

Did you just make that up? Or did Jacqueline T. Terlaje talk you into that too?

By the way, did Jacqueline T. Terlaje identify herself to you as the legal counsel for the Archbishop? We'd like to know that Ms. Finney, because she has told the press something else. 

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje was recruited by the Archbishop to convince the clergy of the accusations against Msgr. James Benavente? 

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that after ousting Msgr. James as director of the Cemeteries, Jacqueline T. Terlaje and her husband inserted themselves into the Cemeteries' management?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje (according to Bertha Evangelista of Title Guaranty) "ordered" the first set of certificates, which were conveniently missing the subject memorial? Did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje (and Bertha Evangelista) personally paid for them?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that as of December 15, 2015, Jacqueline T. Terlaje had in her possession, the second version of the "amended" certificates of title which falsely named the Archbishop of Agana in the "in favor of" column in the memorials?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that there is no record of Jacqueline T. Terlaje ordering or paying for those amended certificates?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that all of these lies would remain lies had it not been for the perseverance of Mr. Bob Klitzkie - who not only does not like it much when his Church and his government lies to him but actually does something about it - and in effect did much of your job for you?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, did you know that Jacqueline T. Terlaje along with her husband, are the "Responsibles" for the neocatechumenal "community" in which sits "Brother Tony" aka Archbishop Anthony S. Apuron, Ofm. Cap. DD (as he always likes to remind the rest of us)?

And by the way, Ms. Finney, do you think you might have been used? That you are now just another name thrown on the trash heap of names used and abused by "Brother Tony" and people like Jacqueline T. Terlaje in order to cover for what is a multi-million dollar, multi-national money laundering, land grabbing, power usurping syndicate masquerading as a religious group?

Welcome to the club, Ms. Finney, welcome to the club.

THE "OFFICE" OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL VS "THEE" ATTORNEY GENERALor "CT'S GONE WILD!"

On January 20, 2016, Director of Land Management, Michael Borja, wrote Mr. Robert Klitzkie and advised him that he had met with THEE Attorney General of Guam "regarding a remedy to correct a certificate of title which a memorial had been entered in error."

Now before we go on, we must clarify which certificate we are addressing, because now there are THREE certificates for the same property.

Here is the first.

As you will recall, Msgr. David C. Quitugua, Vicar General (the diocesan equivalent of an attorney general), caused to be published in the Umatuna, along with his supporting statements, a picture of a certificate of title for one of the parcels which make up the "Seminary property." 

The certificate which was published was missing the entry of the controversial Declaration of Deed Restriction in the memorials section of the certificate. This certificate was issued by the Deputy Registrar of Titles, Andrew D. Santos, on October 30, 2015. It was retrieved from the Department of Land Management on November 19, 2015 by an employee of Title Guaranty, and was paid for personally by Bertha Evangelista, the Executive Vice President of Title Guaranty, and Attorney Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje.

PDF here

Here is the second.

On December 9, 2015, the same Deputy Registrar of Titles, Andrew D. Santos, amended the October 30 certificates to include the previously missing memorial:

PDF here

On December 14, 2015, I visited the office of Mr. Santos and inquired about the copy of the certificate published in the Umatuna. Mr. Santos advised that he had noted the missing memorial on the certificate when he went to Mass that weekend (11/29/15) and in fact had already made the correction. And, "further in fact," they (4 certificates for 4 parcels) were just now laying on his desk.

There is a legal process for correcting incorrect certificates of title so I asked who ordered the amended copies. Mr. Santos advised that it was "somebody law offices." I inquired "law offices who?" Mr. Santos did not have an answer so I suggested "Law Office of Jackie Terlaje?"

Mr. Santos did not answer.

I then asked who can order a copy of a certificate of title. Mr. Santos answered "anybody" (since it is a public record). So I asked "can I have a copy of those?" pointing to the amended copies on his desk. Mr. Santos grabbed the certificates and began walking out the door saying "I'll have to ask the person who ordered them." (I guess he suddenly remembered which law office had ordered them.)

I stopped Mr. Santos when I said "I thought you just said 'anybody' can get a copy and now you are telling me you have to get the permission of the person who ordered them???" Mr. Santos stopped and returned to his desk, and then advised "okay, you can pick up the copies tomorrow."

Mr. Klitzkie was with me at this meeting and can vouch for every word of the above. Additionally, I have memorialized this conversation in a sworn statement should it be needed in a future legal proceeding.

The next day, December 15, 2015, Mr. Klitzkie picked up the copies of the amended certificates. But Mr. Klitzkie was not the only person to get copies. On the same day, at 10:43AM, Mr. Santos' assistant, Teresita C. Toves, sent the four amended copies to one jacque.terlaje@terlajelaw.com, with the note: "Hafa Adai Attorney Terlaje, per Andrew Santos, DLM, please see attached titles." See a copy of the email and the attached certificates here.

Obviously the "somebody law offices" per Andrew Santos' answer to my inquiry was the Law Office of Jacqueline Taitano Terlaje, P.C., and it is terribly hard to believe that Mr. Santos had forgotten who ordered the amended certificates since they were emailed to her promptly the next day, and especially since Mr. Santos was apparently going to seek her permission to give me copies on the day I visited him and before I stopped him. 

But why would Mr. Santos NOT want to say Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje's name? There is nothing wrong with ordering copies of certificates of title. They are public documents. Hmmmm. Unless of course Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje did NOT order them and instead had only ORDERED Mr. Santos to "fix" them and send them to her.

Here's what I mean.

As we have seen in a previous post, there is a protocol for ordering certificates of title. A Certificate of Title Request Form must be filled out, filed, and the processing fee of $32.50 paid. As per the first version of these certificates, the Request Form was filled out and filed, but by whom, we don't know. Because though Bertha Evangelista's name and company (Title Guaranty) appears in the "Requested By" box, her signature does not. Nor is there a record of any payment of the processing fee. 

But at least the Form was filled out and filed for the copies issued on October 30, 2015. However, in the case of the amended certificates, apparently ordered by Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, there is NO record of the required Request Form. 

So obviously the only answer as to why Andrew Santos had the amended forms emailed to Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje on December 15, 2015 is that Mr. Santos was complying with a "personal" request from Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje (who, as we shall see, is the on again off again legal counsel for the Archbishop of Agana.)

The "personal" request apparently included: 1) skipping the required Request Form, 2) skipping payment of the processing fee, 3) skipping the $2 per memorial charge required by law, and 4) skipping the whole legal process for correcting an incorrect certificate of title. Wow. Apparently if you want to get things done in a hurry, the Law Office of Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje is your one stop shop!

Okay, now that you've got a grip on the first two SCAMS aka "certificates of title for the seminary property," let's move on to the latest version. I'll hold off on calling it a SCAM for now and let you decide.

Let's again review here what the Director of Land Management, Michael Borja, told Bob Klitzkie on January 20, 2016:

According to this letter, and according to Mr. Borja's account of his meeting with  "the Attorney General of Guam, " Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, the remedy for the "memorial entered in error" is found in Title 29, Guam Code Annotated, §29195. 

Before we can go on, we must stop here and note that there is no such thing as a Title 29 in the Guam Code. The Guam Code ends at Title 22. The section of the Code that Mr. Borja is actually referring to is Title 21, Chapter 29, §29195. 

I will link to it here in case you want to read the whole thing, however, the essential element is, as Mr. Borja states: "a person of interest or the registrar is required to petition the court to correct a certificate of title." 

Now let us go to Mr. Borja's press release of March 17, 2016. 

Notice first, that now instead of THEE Attorney General, whom Mr. Borja on January 20, 2016 said he had consulted with, it is now the "Office" of the Attorney General. This is important, so hang on to this. 

Notice second, that Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje is now the "legal counsel for the Archbishop of Agana," a position formerly (?) held by Attorney Ed Terlaje who had been the legal counsel for the Archdiocese for approximately three decades. Though the DLM's press release does not name Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje, the Assistant Attorney General and legal counsel to Mr. Borja, Kristan Finney, did name her in a meeting at which Bob Klitzkie was in attendance. 

Apparently, Attorney Jacqueline T. Terlaje's ascendancy to the position of legal counsel for the Archdiocese of Agana is a relatively new development since in response to an inquiry by the Guam Post on December 1, 2015, following her "press release" defending the Archbishop's ownership of the property, she identified herself to the Post as acting only as an individual. 

Now notice the word "cancellation," and read the following statement from Assistant Attorney General, Kristan Finney in the DLM press release:

There are two major things to note here. 

First, Finney's use of 21 GCA 29160 to fix the error is in conflict with her boss, THEE Attorney General, Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, who, as we have seen in Michael Borja's letter of 20 January 2016, advised that the problem be corrected via subsection 29195 which requires a court proceeding. 

Instead, Attorney Finney, junks her boss' stated advice and opts for subsection 29160 which is labeled: Instruments Intended to Create Charges Upon Land: New Certificates.

As you can see, this subsection deals with "New Certificates" and how "Instruments Intended to Create Charges" are recorded on them. 

Of course the Certificate that Atty. Finney and Atty. Jacqueline T. Terlaje have "worked out" is NOT a "New Certificate," as the "new certificate" was already created on October 30, 2015 and reincarnated with the errant memorial on December 9, 2015. 

So how do Attorneys Finney and Terlaje make this third incarnation NEW? Well, they CANCEL the old ones. Voila! The certificates of October 30 and December 9 suddenly CEASE to exist...

...and we have a BRAND NEW CERTIFICATE...

...and MOST IMPORTANTLY, they can skip the COURT PROCEEDING!

Well done Jacque and Kristan, well done!

Oh, wait a minute, well what do you know! Subsection 29160 makes NO PROVISION for the cancellation of existing certificates of title. 

Or does it?

Maybe there's a secret document permitting the Assistant Attorney General to do this, and, like Archbishop Apuron's quest to find the document permitting the Neo's illicit communion rite, she'll just have to "find it somewhere." 

Shall we add another count up?

Link to Bob Klitzkie talking about this on Travis Coffman's show on K57 yesterday.

or listen here:

ASST. AG: HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO "SIT DOWN WITH HER TO SEE WHAT CAN BEWORKED OUT"

In the March 9 KUAM News story entitled "Klitzkie working on 'bogus' certificate of title for Yona property," found here, there is a hyperlink to Mr. Klitzkie's letter to Michael Borja, Director of Land Management, dated February 17, 2016, found here. 

The letter is quite a read and a real education on the whole matter, but of immediate interest are these references to a female legal counsel for the archdiocese: