By Tim Rohr
Whether the Director of Land Management, the Attorney General, and the "counsel for the title holder" complied with the law or circumvented it, we'll probably never know. Not being a party to the issue, Bob lacked standing to pursue the matter legally. However, Bob wasn't done.
In his March 30, 2016, letter to DLM Director Borja, Klitzkie recalls a KUAM News report in which Borja identifies the two parties of interest as DLM and the Archbishop of Agana, and states that it is a "civil issue." In other words, the implication was that it was none of Bob's business.
“...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."
Bob then sets the record straight. (Note: some explanatory and extra notation is added parenthetically. Additionally, I have hyperlinked certain referenced documents.)
There are indeed two parties involved, “the Archbishop of Agana…and The Redemptoris Mater Archdiocesan Missionary Seminary of Guam (RMS), as recognized in your letter to Elizabeth Barrett-Anderson, Esq. of December 29 (2015). So while Kristan Finney, Esq. (the Deputy AG) was anxious to “sit down with Jackie,” there apparently was no willingness to sit down with the other party (RMS), which you recognized as a separated entity. Who is counsel for RMS, and why was he or she not included?
Bob is correct. The missing document from the certificate of title ("CT") was the Declaration of Deed of Restriction ("Deed"), which, even if it didn't convey title to the property in full (which it did), at minimum, it restricted use of the property for the purposes of a Neocat seminary, i.e., Redemptoris Mater Seminary.
Because the erroneous CT of 10/30/15 did not show the Deed, it was as if no such restriction existed, which, in the real world, was a harm to RMS. I say "real world" because in the "real world," if you sell or give away a property, the buyer or receiver wants the transaction on the record, the title.
But this wasn't the real world. It was (and still is) a Neocat world, where Apuron and the Neocats were playing a shell game with the title because Apuron had recorded the Deed not only without the canonically required approvals, but also while lying to his finance council and to Catholics in the Archdiocese of Agana generally.
The matter was NOT between DLM and the church (Archbishop of Agana), and Borja's framing it that way increased Bob's suspicions that something else was going on. He was right, as he almost always was.
Not only did you nor Ms. Finney not include RMS in the “sit down with Jackie,” had I not attended the performances, even I wouldn’t have known who represented the Archbishop of Agana…as counsel’s name doesn’t appear in any of your or Ms. Finney’s papers or your news releases. (Note: "performances" is Bob being sarcastic about his meetings with Borja and Finney, where Bob believed he was being misled by both.)
This is ironic because Jackie Terlaje, Esq. identified only orally by Ms. Finney, was involved in the certificate of title fiasco from the beginning. Ms. Terlaje, with the assistance of Bertha Evangelista, ordered the October 30 (2015) certificates of title, which your deputy registrar issued without the necessary memorial of the Declaration of Deed Restriction, which Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General, published on the front page of the Umatuna…on November 29 (2015). That was the start of the fiasco. Your deputy registrar then handwrote in the necessary memorials on December 9. As was brought to your attention (in Bob's letter to Borja) of December 23, the memorials were not in favor of the correct party. I have attached a transmittal memo showing that the erroneous certificates were sent to Jackie Terlaje, Esq. on December 15. So Ms. Terlaje had the erroneous certificates from December 15 on. More than three months later, after going through the “sit down with Jackie” charade a couple of times, I learned from your News Release of March 17 that Kristan and Jackie had apparently finally sat down!
The two documents, mentioned by Bob, which show that "Jackie Terlaje, Esq...was involved in the certificate of title fiasco from the beginning, were 1) the receipt for payment for the CT's by Terlaje (and Evangelista) with a personal check; and 2) the "transmittal memo showing that the erroneous certificates were sent to Jackie Terlaje, Esq. on December 15.
However, what Bob doesn't clarify above is that these are two sets of CT's, both of which are in error.
The first set, which is what Jackie paid for on 11/19/15, left out the memorial of the Deed altogether (this is the one that was published in the Umatuna). The second set, sent via email to Jackie on 12/15/15, had the missing memorial handwritten in by Andrew Santos. Both were erroneous, the first for leaving out the memorial altogether, and the second because not only did Santos not have the authority to correct the CT on his own (as we demonstrated in Part 2), but in the "In Favor of" section, he had written in "Archbishop of Agana," when in fact it was supposed to say RMS. So now there was a double error.
Imagine buying a property, then requesting a copy of the title for your new purchase, only to find that the title states the transaction was "In Favor of" the previous owner, leaving you out of the deal altogether.
That's what happened. But because Apuron and the Neocats were playing this shell game with the title, it's hard to blame the registrar for getting this all mixed up. However, the fact that he did get it so mixed up was all the more evidence, for Bob, that the poor registrar was being ordered about like a trained monkey, and because the whole circus was about falsifying a land title for the purposes of serving the lies of Apuron and the Neocats, the registrar was probably nervous as hell, and his mistakes, especially the second one where he put the wrong party in the "In Favor of" column shows it.
Before moving on with this story, it is important to remind the reader that this is not a rehash of some old stuff from a decade ago. In fact, upon my reanalysis of the facts, I uncovered a critical piece that had not been identified, where, in Part 2, I demonstrated that the only way a correct CT could be issued without going through the courts was for the title holder to present a duplicate.
Assuming the title holder (Apuron) presented a duplicate as required by law, this was the smoking gun. Apuron had the CT showing the missing Deed all along, but through Jackie, had ordered a CT without the Deed, which is exactly what Jackie paid for on 11/19/2015, and then, as the evidence suggests, transmitted the false CT to Msgr. David C. Quitugua, the Vicar General, who had it published on the front page of the Umatuna on 11/29/15.
Beyond that though, the real reason for exposing this fraud, or at least providing a fresh retelling, is to keep in front of the whole world (which reads this blog), the nefarious intrigue of the Neocats, something which continues unabated in this archdiocese (and almost everywhere else where the Neocats have set up shop), and because it continues unabated, we must assume that our now not-so-new archbishop is either one of them or, which is more likely, controlled by them. He has yet to prove otherwise.
And it is no coincidence that Bertha Evangelista, GM for Title Guaranty, was also a member of the NCW. Her role as a neo was to make sure the whole issue was hidden as much as possible. The influence of the NCW appears everywhere illegal or questionable actions occur.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this was the case with Evangelista or not, but in the NCW community, the community gets to know your sins by requiring the equivalent of public confessions. This then becomes leverage. One can easily imagine how this leverage was used to manipulate or even force otherwise decent people to do stuff for the Neocat superiors that they never would have done in their professional lives.
ReplyDelete