12/21/11: Cruz Update

By Tim Rohr

Senator B.J. Cruz seems to be the gift that keeps on giving this Christmas season. After having been confronted with our knowledge of his attempted trick to undermine Bill 323 immediately after he hosted a seemingly cozy public hearing, he has had to come up with continual new ways to cover his scheme.

Today, on K57 with Ray Gibson, Senator Cruz said the following in response to my allegation that he purposely tried to undermine the bill by sending erroneous information to the press (listen here):

If the truth be known, and yesterday I apologized to the, to the news person, the truth of the matter is that, um, it was after the hearing the reporter called me and asked me about that provision in the law. It wasn’t something that I was aware of prior. She had called me and I apologized to her, I told her that I didn’t want to be accused of intellectual property theft. She had done the research and she was the one that called me and I said yah, that’s probably right....

Let's take this apart.

If the truth be known,

Cruz is responding to my allegation that he had tried to undermine Bill 323 by tipping off the press to a provision in the law that appeared to make the bill unnecessary, and then asked them to not cite the source of the tip. (My allegations appeared in the Marianas Variety, the PDN, and on K57).

and yesterday I apologized to the, to the news person,

He's jumping ahead here from 11/8/11 when the tip first went to the press and 12/20/11 (yesterday). He will say why he "apologized" later.

the truth of the matter is that, um, it was after the hearing the reporter called me and asked me about that provision in the law. It wasn’t something that I was aware of prior.

There is a lot here. Cruz is asking us to believe that as a sitting Senator, an attorney, and a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Guam, and family court judge, where he presided over many cases involving minors, that he was not aware of the law relative to the types of medical treatment minors could seek without parental consent. He is asking us to believe that he only became aware of it ("It wasn't something I was aware of prior") when a reporter from the PDN called him after the public hearing and told him about it.

She had called me and I apologized to her, I told her that I didn’t want to be accused of intellectual property theft.

Here Cruz mixes up the timing again, referring to her supposed call after the public hearing on 11/8/11, and jumping ahead to 12/20/11 when he says he apologized to her for unintentionally stealing her work as he says here:

She had done the research and she was the one that called me and I said yeah, that’s probably right....

So Cruz claims that the reporter, Erin Thompson, "had done the research" and on her own had found the provision in the Guam Code that supposedly already required parental consent for abortion and advised the Senator/Attorney/former Supreme Court Judge about the provision, and Cruz said "yeah, that's probably right"!

Let's review:
  1. A reporter calls Senator Cruz after the public hearing (which ended at 9pm on 11/8) and advises him of a provision in the Guam code which would make Bill 323, or at least its primary intent, unnecessary.
  2. Cruz, a Senator, an attorney, a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Guam, and a family court judge for several years, says he has no prior knowledge of a provision in the law relative to the medical care of minors, and that the reporter is "probably right".

One wonders: has Senator Cruz no pride? We must conclude from Cruz' own words that not only is he incompetent as a Senator, he was completely incompetent as a judge, since he admits not knowing the law relative to minors in this regard, which is an open door to anyone whom he ever ruled against to have their case reviewed and thrown out!

However, Senator Cruz' biggest mistake in responding to the allegation is a result of how Ray Gibson asked the question. Gibson asks for Cruz' response to my allegation that there is a "conspiracy" between himself and the PDN to mislead the public on the need for Bill 323. I actually never used the word "conspiracy" but it serves as the basis for Cruz' response relative to the news story that appeared in the PDN. Thus, he goes on about how the reporter, Erin Thompson, did the research, found the provision that would make Bill 323 redundant, and how he agreed with her, and then reconfirms the whole scenario by saying that he called her and apologized for stealing her legal conclusions because he didn't want to be accused of "intellectual property theft".

HOWEVER! We want to know if he also apologized to Janela Buhain Carrera. Who is Janela Buhain Carrera? Janela Buhain Carrera is a reporter for the Marianas Variety. Apparently, she had also "done the research" and came to the exact same legal conclusion as Erin Thompson, for in her story of 11/9/11, the same day Erin Thompson's story appears, Carrera reports:

Current statute allows female minors to seek medical care for services relative to the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV, AIDS, pregnancy and substance abuse without parental consent.

However, the statute states: “It shall not include surgery or any treatment to induce abortion.”


Erin Thompson's story of the same day says:

A law requiring parental consent for any abortions performed on those under 18 got overwhelming support at the Legislature last night -- but the bill only strengthens regulations that exist already in Guam law.

According to Guam Code Annotated, Title 19, Chapter 10, minors are allowed to seek certain kinds of medical care for pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, or substance abuse without parental consent. However, the law specifically states "it shall not include surgery or any treatment to induce abortion."


Neither story cites a source, so it must be assumed that both reporters, on their own, did the research, and came to the same conclusion at the same time.  However, Cruz makes no mention of a conversation with Carrera - for apparently he also stole her "intellectual property" as well. He doesn't mention her because in trying to keep his story straight he forgets, as a result of Ray's mention of the PDN, that the Mariana Variety also COINCIDENTALLY had the same information.

We know that Senator Cruz was aware of the story in both papers because on Ray Gibson's show on 11/9, the day the stories both appeared, Cruz tells Gibson (listen here):

in the news, in both the Marianas Variety and the um, Pacific Daily News, they both make mention about there is current law that, uh...explicitly prohibits a minor from consenting to uh....anything that induces abortion. And so, I just wanted you to see that...where that section of the law came from and how...and the legislative history behind it.

Also, it is pretty amazing that after admitting that he had "no prior knowledge" of the key provision, he is suddenly quite knowledgeable only hours later and in fact, has already sent an email to Gibson to educate him. We know he sent Gibson the email because Gibson inadvertently gives Cruz' scheme to appear as though he had just read it in the paper that morning when Gibson says:

Good Morning. You sent me a note here on Public Law dash 22-84 on HIV testing. What is this that you wanted me to read up on?

A quick listen to how Cruz fumbles around at this point is easy evidence that Cruz realizes that Gibson has just publicly destroyed his cover.

But getting back to the reporters, and with no disrespect to their intelligence or legal skills, a glance at the detailed review of the provision in question by Attorney Shane Intihar will show you that a correct interpretation of the provision is no easy task. The provision deals with an old common law concept which gives minors the right to disaffirm a contract. The section is quite dense and assumes an understanding of the general rights of minors.

And what's more, if in fact these two reporters came to this legal analysis on their own, then not only are they both WRONG, they are dangerously wrong  since their opinions are rendered in the  context of pending legislation on a very grave matter in publications the public deems to be credible.

In the end, Senator Cruz incriminates himself since according to his own account, we are left with no other conclusion than to assume that Senator Cruz is dangerously incompetent and apparently relies on newspaper reporters to advise him on grave legal matters such as what is proposed in Bill 323.

But of course we do not accept that conclusion. We expected corruption and we got it. Senator Cruz' lies and action are just "more of the same" of what we have come to expect whenever legislation of this nature is introduced, or in Cruz' case, just about any kind of legislation.

(Go here for the next part of the story.)
Comments