Time to expose you, Mr. Bander

For the past 20 years, your favorite Balita newspaper has been providing you with news and information that serves both you, our dear readers, and our clients, who in their most honest way have been doing business in the Filipino community. And thanks to you, after two decades, Balita has become a habit, a tradition if you will, and has become a part of the Filipino American culture in the U.S. because of the trust that was built over the years between you and us. Sadly, in the past several weeks, a certain person wishes to destroy this trust. But what's worse is that some in the Filipino community, who use the might of the pen, think that they're doing the community a favor by working with that person, who has harmed the very same Filipino community they're supposed to serve.

By publishing his own newspaper, Atty. Joel Bander, launched a relentless attack on Balita and our CEO, Ms. Luchie Mendoza Allen, our leading advertiser and Bander's competitor in Atty. James G. Beirne, and all of our advertisers. But in a pending court case involving Bander, he accidentally exposed himself to the very same truth that he and his staff are claiming to be promoting in Pinoywatchdog – the tabloid that Bander and a few fake journalists had put up in an effort to smear Balita and Balita alone.

As you may have read in today's headline, it is clear that Bander launched Pinoywatchdog to malign Balita, Ms. Allen and especially Atty. Beirne. He has been since their first issue came out back in September and ever since Balita exposed what homeowners called a loan litigation "scam" by his firm, the Bander Law Firm. In all other issues since then, an article or two were about Beirne and his alleged but unfounded legal malpractices, and about Ms. Allen.

Bander and his minions have also been manufacturing lies after lies. They even claimed that a newspaper in the Philippines – People's Tonight – retracted an article about Mr. Bander's sexual molestation case. We at Balita dared them to produce that particular People's Tonight issue. To this day, they have never been able to come up with that article. And this was in their first issue, where the fake writers claim they were investigative reporters and boasted that they will be the vanguards of truth.

In the same sexual molestation case against Bander, which occurred in 2006 when Mr. Bander reportedly attacked a Filipina by the name of Cristina San Jose in a Manila condominium, the fake Pinoywatchdog investigative reporters also claimed that Ms. San Jose was fictitious. But what these fake reporters didn't know was that before a complaint becomes a criminal case, the complainant must submit herself to the police to report the incident and later face the prosecutor for an inquest. 

In our earlier issues, we presented evidence and documents where the prosecutor stated that the victim, Ms. San Jose, swore before him. Not only that, the prosecutor conducted an inquiry if there was merit to the case since:

a) A bogus complaint is a waste of taxpayers' money, the court's time and other resources;

b) The complaint seems minor, however, still classified as a criminal case;

c) There have been several cases involving Americans and other foreigners abusing Filipinas; and

d) The Philippines has been a haven of American criminals who have fled the United States and hiding in the Philippines.

As it turned out, a warrant of arrest was issued against Mr. Bander a year later. It was only in 2011 that he got the case dismissed but not after hiring one of the most expensive law firms in the Philippines and not after the victim no longer showed up in court. It should be recalled however that the victim first came to Bander in 2006, or five years earlier, to seek his help in securing a U.S. visa, meaning she has been wanting to leave the Philippines to seek greener pastures. For all we know, the victim may have already been working abroad after the incident, which is not unusual since there about 10 million Filipinos working all over the globe.

Actually, we here at Balita found out about Mr. Bander's criminal case in the Philippines way back in 2007 when the arrest warrant was issued. But we couldn't verify the report. We could only inquire from Mr. Bander, who was here in the U.S. at that time, but didn't give us any statement. 

Then a year later, in 2008, Bander representing a newspaper competitor suddenly filed a civil complaint against Balita, claiming that we have not been forthright to the community, to our readers and to our advertisers, that our claim to be the leading Filipino newspaper in Southern California was misleading. 

The case was never tried in court, however. It has been dismissed and the claims by our competitor were never proven. The parties have since settled the case, but not after Mr. Bander, who in his "hatred" against Balita, wrote to all our clients stating that we were dishonest and that they should become their witnesses against Balita. No client of ours of course entertained Bander and his evil motive.

Huh?! Did we just mention evil? Actually, that was the word used by many Filipino homeowners who lost their homes when Mr. Bander and the Bander Law Firm neglected them and hundreds more in the infamous "Save Your Home, Sue the Banks" loan litigation campaign that ultimately led to the demise of his own firm. Interestingly, according to his very own lawyers, the the main reason that forced the Bander Law Firm to file for bankruptcy in 2010 was due to Bander's "obsession" to Balita and Atty. Beirne.

If you may also recall, these poor Filipino, Korean and Armenian homeowners paid Bander $8,000-$15,000 each, hoping that Bander can save their home as advertised in full pages in the same newspaper that he represented in the case against Balita. In our our investigation, however, it showed that Bander failed to attend to the homeowners' cases because: 

a) He was too busy going after Balita to the point that he made his attorneys and staff work on that case; 

b) He was obsessed with our CEO and Atty. Beirne as revealed by Bander's own lawyer, Timothy Umbreit, in a testimony that was submitted to the federal court; and 

c) Of his negligence as told by yet another lawyer in his own firm, Atty. Norberto Reyes III, in a declaration to the court that the poor homeowners while paying thousands of dollars where not even informed by Bander that their properties have been already foreclosed.

As much as we want to avoid sensationalized news or that talks about scandals, it is still our responsibility to expose the truth, especially when the truth, which is being twisted by Bander and his newspaper, involves our very own staff.

But they cannot fool the community. They know who you are Mr. Bander. Your bullying tactics may have worked before, but enough is enough. When push comes to shove, you will see that we will always be at the forefront to make sure that you, as have your failed programs and lost cases have come before you, will never do us and the Filipino community any more harm. 

L.A. Sheriff’s dep’t conducts criminal probe on Joel Bander

KFI reports that a criminal investigation was opened on the U.S. lawyer in 2010

By Rhony Laigo

(Editor’s note: The story below is the third of many articles that Balita has been publishing on Atty. Joel Bander, a U.S. lawyer who was accused of molesting a Filipina in the Philippines, and by hundreds of homeowners in the U.S. who claimed they were scammed by him. A newspaper tabloid claimed that the Filipina sexual assault victim was “fictitious” and that the events didn’t place. In our earlier articles, we produced evidence from the court to dispute those claims and we will continue to present to you, dear readers, legal documents and verified claims to show what his alleged victims say about Bander.)

“Preliminary Investigation: After a warrantless arrest, the arresting officer will submit the evidence to the Prosecutor (formerly known as a Fiscal) who will conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the available evidence merits the filing of formal charges. Evidence, in this case, may include testimony, complaints, and other sworn statements. The Prosecutor is required to file charges against you within twelve hours of an arrest for a minor offense like ‘oral defamation’ or ‘slander,’ or within 36 hours for serious offenses like ‘fraud, robbery, or rape,’ or to release you.  

If you have been arrested with a warrant, the Prosecutor will determine if probable cause exists and the execution of the arrest was proper. The Prosecutor then has 60 days to file the charges with the appropriate court. However, if the evidence presented by the police is not strong or sufficient to hold you, the Prosecutor can make a recommendation for your discharge and the dismissal of the charges.” (Embassy of the United States, Manila, Philippines: http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwharst.html).

So as not to give any distinction that this article may be biased, this author extracted the paragraphs above from the U.S. Embassy in Manila which is part of its instructions for its citizens who may be facing criminal charges in the Philippines instead of from a Philippine law book that may not be easily accessible. With respect to this article, the person involved is Atty. Joel Bander, who, for some reason, was able to convince a few fake Filipino investigative reporters that the incident that took place on July 15, 2006 was “untrue” and “without basis.” The incident in question involved a Filipino woman, who accused Bander of sexually molesting her at a condo unit in Manila that led to her filing of criminal charges against Bander.

The case was dismissed but only last March this year. And thanks to the fake investigative reporters’ recent article, they showed that there was a dismissal hearing that took place and an order to return the bail that Bander might have paid to the court for his provisional release. They also said that the 2008 warrant of arrest we here at Balita presented to you, dear readers, was withdrawn. Yes, but, again, only last March, this year. 

The fake investigative reporters said “we were two years late,” while referring to the withdrawal of the arrest warrant. But what we only said was that there was in fact a criminal record and a warrant of arrest, both of which we presented in our previous issues. We did so because the fake investigators kept insisting that the incident was “untrue” and “without basis.” They even said that People’s Tonight retracted its own story. Hah, until now, these fake investigative reporters have yet to produce that People’s Tonight article.

We’re also at a loss why they still don’t understand that there should be “sufficient” evidence before a case is filed, not to mention that the Filipino woman swore before a prosecutor, and that the Philippine government has 60 days to file charges, meaning they have to investigate first, which involves tax payers’ money, before they go to the judge and file the case. As stated by the U.S. Embassy “the (Philippine) Prosecutor will determine if probable cause exists and the execution of the arrest was proper” prior to the filing of the case. The Embassy added that “the Prosecutor can make a recommendation for your discharge and the dismissal of the charges,” which means the prosecutor could’ve immediately ignored the case in 2006 when the complaint was filed, and yet it took Bander five years, in 2011, to have it dismissed by the court.

For them to tell us that this was “untrue” and “without basis” is the fake investigative reporters’ own problem. They should ask the prosecutor in the Philippines why they filed the case against Joel Bander, who was charged with “Acts of Lasciviousness”, in the first place. And if this molestation incident didn’t take place – because Bander claimed the complainant was fictitious – why did the court issued a warrant of arrest against their master, er, Bander, two years later? 

It would be recalled that when these fake investigative reporters (who we earlier referred here as dogs to give semblance to their relationship to their newspaper that carries the same name, but because we probably touched a nerve so we will call them instead watch dogs) broke their “most celebrated” article against this author, they said they had a People’s Tonight story that retracted the Joel Bander sexual molestation incident. These watch dogs even said that the same story published phrases that stated Bander was involved in “illegal recruitment charges” and that the complaint was filed in “Branch 78, Taguig” which the watch dogs said “does not exist.”

We here at Balita are still wondering where the heck did this information come from, and where the heck is that People’s Tonight that they said published a retraction. In our first article regarding this matter, we presented a legitimate copy of the criminal information that stated that the case was filed in Branch 27, Metropolitan Regional Trial Court, City of Manila. We also presented a photo of the actual People’s Tonight copy that ran the Joel Bander sexual molestation story. 

The July 22, 2006 “The Price of a U.S. Visa” People’s Tonight article written by Allan Bergonia, which can be found on our website www.balita.com, didn’t mention any “Branch 78” nor “Taguig” nor “illegal recruitment charges.” (Hey, watch dogs, produce the People’s Tonight article that you guys have! You owe it to your readers, and so I can stop badgering you with this demand.)

But while Joel Bander and his watch dogs are busy trying to defend themselves on this People’s Tonight retraction, let us offer you another article – this time published here in Los Angeles – by Eric Leonard of KFI AM 640 Talk Radio (as shown in the photo). This is the same radio station you listen to when you hear Atty. Bill Handle and his morning crew report on current issues, and it is also where you hear the very popular conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh, makes his daily rant against President Obama and all other liberals. 

Found on KFI’s website (www.kfiam640.com) is this article: “Loan Attorney Investigated” (http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/EricLeonard.html?article=6822105) by Eric Leonard who wrote that the L.A. Sheriff''s Department has opened a criminal investigation on Atty. Joel Bander

 

Found on KFI’s website (www.kfiam640.com) is this article: “Loan Attorney Investigated” (http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/EricLeonard.html?article=6822105). Lo and behold, it’s about Atty. Joel Bander!

According to Leonard’s article, “A criminal investigation has been opened into a lawyer already accused in civil court of ripping off loan modification clients. Attorney Joel Bander, named in two class-action lawsuits alleging malpractice and fraud, is also the subject of an L.A. County Sheriff’s Department investigation…”

The particular story, Leonard said, involved Bander’s alleged loan litigation scam, where he reportedly failed to act on the cases of 800 homeowners who signed up in the Bander Law Firm “Sue the Banks” program resulting in foreclosures to many Filipino, Korean and Armenian homeowners. Each homeowner paid at least $8,000, but claimed they did not get the legal services that they expected, and worse were not even refunded after they demanded that their moneys be returned.

So, our dear readers, Bander might have escaped from what he might have done against a Filipina in the Philippines, but he may yet have a pending criminal case here in the U.S. That shows you who this U.S. lawyer is.

800 homeowners claim they were ‘duped’ by Atty. Joel Bander and his firm

Lawyers Geragos, Singer, Miller sue Bander Law Firm on behalf of its own former clients

By Rhony Laigo

It’s been two weeks and we have yet to hear from the pseudo investigative reporters of their claim that there exists a People’s Tonight story – Manila’s most popular afternoon tabloid – that the paper said they retracted their own story when they published an article that Atty. Joel Bander was criminally charged with “acts of lasciviousness” for allegedly molesting a Filipina.

While they try to deal with this problem, this author would like to clarify to Balita readers that the letter of inquiry submitted to the Philippine Bureau of Immigration as presented by the pseudo investigative reporters in their own newspaper was a mere request to find out why a foreigner who has a standing warrant of arrest can go in and out of the country.

In our past two issues, we presented real documents from a Manila court identifying Joel Bander as being accused in 2006 (Weekend Balita Oct. 15) and a warrant of arrest that was issued against him two years later, in 2008 (Weekend Balita Oct. 22). Again, we reiterate that Balita was forced to published the documents, one of which described the graphic sexual attack allegedly perpetrated by Bander against the victim, to dispute the claims of the fake investigative reporters that the victim was fictitious and that the events were “untrue and without basis.”

But what's truly amazing is the fact that despite the criminal case in the Philippines, these pseudo investigative reporters, who are Filipinos by the way, have chosen to defend an indefensible American lawyer, who was also accused by more than 800 American homeowners of committing what could be one of the biggest loan litigation scams in the U.S. Most of these homeowners are – listen up fake investigative reporters! – Filipinos, your own kababayans, here in Southern California.

For a clearer picture, these 800 homeowners were former clients of Bander himself. They were those who had signed up with the Bander Law Firm (BLF), which had advertised (in full pages in a broadsheet newspaper that he used to also represent as its legal counsel) that they(BLF) would sue their lenders and save their homes from foreclosure.

Among those who filed a complaint against Bander were  Antonio “Anjo” Sanchez of Coachella Valley, Grace Laurel of Victorville, Lisa Resuta, Joseph Parcacio, Daniel De Leon and Bach Quiaonza of Long Beach. There were also Korean victims, such as Carol In, Ji Chang, Ted Yoon and Chul Soo Kim. Ted Yoon claimed he paid the Bander Law Firm $26,000 for multiple properties, but was never given the legal service he was promised. 

If that's not enough, Atty. John B. Miller Jr. alone filed on September 9, 2009, a complaint to the California State Bar against Bander on behalf of 29 homeowners. This complaint at the State Bar prompted Bander to sue Miller for allegedly “soliciting his clients” but was dismissed by the court. Miller had told Balita that each had paid the Bander Law Firm (BLF) at least $8,000.

Ted Yoon and several others later sued the BLF for fraud and for violations of the RICO Act or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is a federal crime. For the benefit of the pseudo investigative reporters, Yoon was represented by Atty. Anne Singer, in case they choose to "investigate" this matter.

Another case – this time for breach of contract, fraud and deceit, negligence, etc. – were filed by another lawyer against Bander and his law firm by Shin K. Yoon, aka Lisa Yoon, and represented by Atty. Robert Mills.

The class action lawsuit filed by celebrity Atty. Mark Geragos on behalf of  homeowners against Joel Bander and his firm.

Yet another case was filed against Bander and the BLF filed by, are you ready for this?, Atty. Mark Geragos on behalf of Taguhi Hakobyan and Grigor Alemsharyan (two Armenian nationals) and “All Others Similarly Situated” homeowners – a class action lawsuit. Yes, he is the same Atty. Mark Geragos, the celebrity lawyer who once represented Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder – the same criminal lawyer you always see on CNN.

All these cases filed against Bander’s law firm may no longer proceed because the 25-year-old firm filed for bankruptcy in early 2010. Sadly, the homeowner victims may not get a single cent from the thousands of dollars they paid to the firm.

If these lawsuit don’t convince you, dear readers, that there’s something wrong with Joel Bander, it is our hope that the criminal case filed against him in the Philippines for allegedly molesting an innocent Filipino woman, who was seeking his help to get a U.S. visa, hopefully will. 

Even if Bander says that the case was dismissed, it wasn’t because she was “fictitious” as he claimed she was, it was because she didn’t appear in court, which was understandable given the fact that the humiliation she will have to face and against one of Philippines’ most popular and most expensive lawyers may be too much to bear. 

Who paid for Bander's expensive lawyer in the Philippines? Your guess is as good as ours, although the other lawyers claimed that Bander might have earned millions of dollars from the homeowners they said he “duped.” Try this: 800 homeowners multiply by $8,000. Answer: $6.4 million. And yet the BLF said it was bankrupt. 

Warrant of arrest issued vs Atty. Joel Bander in 2008

Above is a photocopy of the warrant of arrest issued against Atty. Joel Bander in 2008, two years after he was charged with "Acts of Lasciviousness" and "unjust vexation" for allegedly sexually abusing a Filipina in 2006 but has reportedly not appeared in court for months.

Two years after being accused of molesting a Filipina, the U.S. lawyer became a wanted man in the PHL

By Rhony Laigo

Last week, we here at Balita presented compelling evidence that may have disputed the pseudo investigative reporters’ claim in their new newspaper – which they call their new baby – that showed that there was an incident that allegedly took place on July 15, 2006 involving U.S. lawyer Joel Bander for reportedly molesting a Filipina client. The Filipina claimed the incident took place in a Manila when she came to the office of Atty. Joel Bander to help her secure a U.S. visa.

Though graphic in nature, the photocopy of the criminal information we published last week described how Atty. Joel Bander allegedly committed “Acts of Lasciviousness” against the person of one Cristina San Jose Y Aler at the Imperial Bayfront Tower, where Bander allegedly was entertaining clients. The same criminal information was the basis for the People’s Tonight story and its reporter, Allan Bergonia, when he wrote that Bander was slapped with the criminal case for committing “acts of lasciviousness” and “unjust vexation.” A photocopy of the same People’s Tonight story of Mr. Bergonia was also published in our midweek edition, which can be read in its entirety in our website balita.com.

The main reason for presenting the documents in our previous issue was to dispel the claims of the pseudo investigative reporters, who we will refer here as dogs so we can all identify them as being staffmembers of their newspaper which bears part of the same name. Two weeks earlier, these dogs published a story claiming that this author based his letter to the commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration of the Philippines on a “People’s Tonight story” that they said was later “retracted by People’s Tonight.” According to the dogs, People’s Tonight deemed it “untrue and without basis” and that the complainant was “fictitious.” Even the subhead of their article said that this author “was unaware” that the complaint “was filed by (a) fictitious accuser.”

Perhaps, the dogs didn't know that such criminal information did exist that stated that a certain Cristina San Jose swore before a prosecutor when she filed the complaint back in July 2006.

Therein lies the problem of the dogs. The real People’s Tonight story stated that Bander was facing criminal charges based on a true incident report and a true complaint filed before a Manila Prosecutor’s Office, specifically at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 27, as written by Bergonia.

The dogs claimed in their so-called investigative reporting that the same newspaper, People’s Tonight, published the same incident, but the dogs stated that People’s Tonight published it as being filed in Taguig, Branch 78. However, as we presented here last week, and as posted on our website, the story of Mr. Bergonia didn’t make any mention of Taguig, nor Branch 78. Bergonia also wrote that the complaint was filed at the Manila Prosecutor’s Office.

At this juncture, Balita poses this challenge to the dogs – who may have been FED not with “dog food” by their master/owner but maybe RAT POISON (but since they’re animals they ate them anyway not even thinking that they didn’t have the actual documents with them) – to produce their own copy of People’s Tonight that stated otherwise.

Be that as it may, as we have promised last week, we are presenting here another document that may eventually kill whatever credibility these pseudo investigative reporters have (if they had any) for being careless, unprofessional and unworthy of their claim to be the dogs of the community.

As you can see, the warrant of arrest issued against Atty. Joel Bander on July 10, 2008 was based on the same July 2006 incident. Although the dogs reported that Bander attended the initial hearings against him, there were no succeeding appearances made on his behalf or by him in person that warranted his arrest, the Manila prosecutor’s office told Balita.

According to the court, Mr. Bander could no longer be located and that his attorneys could no longer make representations on his behalf. The warrant of arrest was signed by Judge Joel A. Licuanan of Branch 27, Manila, Metropolitan Trial Court.

In 2011, Bander appeared before the same judge, or five years after the 2006 alleged molestation incident and a year after erstwhile BID Commissioner Marcelo Libanan issued a watchlist order on Bander in 2010.

Libanan reportedly found out that Bander made trips to the Philippines at least five times in 2009 but never faced the courts nor inquired about his case, when he knew for a fact that a criminal case was filed against him. He apparently never even informed his lawyers that he’s been to the Philippines several times.

But what’s funny was that the dogs also wrote about the dismissal of the case – a stark evidence that there was indeed a case and has been pending since 2006. For these dogs to infer that People’s Tonight – the most popular afternoon daily tabloid in the Philippines – retracted its own story because it was “untrue” and “without basis” was ill-advised and laughable to say the least. And did we mention that the warrant of arrest was issued in 2008 or two years after the case was filed in a criminal court?

(Next week, we will publish parts of articles that will portray the character of Atty. Joel Bander and why several Filipinos filed a complaint against him at the California State Bar.)

Setting the record straight: Atty. Joel Bander was wanted in the Philippines for 'Acts of Lasciviousness'

A copy of People's Tonight disputes a claim by another newspaper regarding the alleged molestation incident by Atty. Joel Bander against a Filipina woman he claimed to be fictitious.

THE PROBLEM with pseudo investigative reporters is that they never verify any claims, especially if these are provided by their own boss. You may have recently seen a new tabloid in the market that “reported” on events that another newspaper had published, which happened to be us, Balita.

To set the record straight, we are providing here a copy of a People’s Tonight story, (“The High Price of US Visa”) dated July 22, 2006. In the story, you can see that Allan Bergonia wrote that the complaint was filed before the “Manila Prosecutor’s Office.” The complaint was filed, according to the story, “yesterday” or July 21, 2006.

Unlike what the other paper had printed, Bergonia didn’t write any other city or place other than Manila. Maybe the pseudo investigative journalists have a different People’s Tonight copy because they had stated that the complaint was filed in a fiscal’s office that “does not exist.” Also, Bergonia’s story didn’t say any word about “illegal recruitment charges” as published by the other paper.

But the next document that Balita possesses and that we are providing to you here tells a story that such person that the other paper said was “fictitious” may be a real person when she filed the complaint.

How, you may ask?

Above is the criminal information filed by the Manila Prosecutor's Office on October 17, 2006 against Atty. Joel Bander on behalf of a Filipina who claimed that she was molested by Bander. The case "People of the Philippines versus Joel Bander" accused the lawyer of "Acts of Lasciviousness" based on an alleged incident whereby the woman, who said she came to Bander to seek his help in acquiring a U.S. visa, was reportedly abused by Bander back in July 2006.

1. As stated, the case was filed at Branch 27 of the Metropolitan Regional Trial Court, City of Manila as so stamped. The case is docketed as Criminal Case # 433318 and filed on Oct. 17, 2006.

2. The case says “People of the Philippines” versus “Joel Bander” with the address Imperial Bayfront Tower, 1624 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila. As stated, Joel Bander, who Bergonia wrote was “An alleged trader who assists applicants in securing United States visas” is the accused.

3. 2^nd Assistant City Prosecutor Rector E. Macapagal, Chief of the Eight Division, so stated that the “undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor, upon sworn complaint fi led by the offended party CRISTINA SAN JOSE Y ALER…hereby accuses JOEL BANDER, of the crime of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS...” In case you missed it, UPON SWORN COMPLAINT.

Now, for the benefit of all pseudo investigative reporters, before any prosecutor files a case, a police report is required. According to Bergonia, Ms. San Jose filed the complaint before the Manila Police District.

Bergonia wrote that Bander allegedly molested the complainant and that the incident allegedly took place on July 15, 2006. This means that the prosecutor and the police investigator worked for three months to verify if such complaint merits the filing of the case. To understand this better, perhaps an episode of Law and Order would be helpful, especially for those who never even covered the police beat (where most if not all cub reporters begin their professional careers to become full-fledged journalists) and the courts.

What we’re trying to say here is, the prosecutor doesn’t just invent a person to criminally prosecute any person, let alone a foreigner, which the Philippines has been courting to conduct business in the

Philippines, invest there and spend their dollars in the country. (But then again, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas revealed, albeit carelessly, that almost half of all Americans who come to the Philippines go there to engage in sex, but that is another story.)

In the People’s Tonight story, Bergonia wrote that Ms. San Jose said “she gave Bander $100 as partial payment for the visa application.” The story goes that Ms. San Jose had sought Bander’s “help” in getting a U.S. visa.

Several years later, the case was dismissed and Bander claimed that Ms. San Jose was fictitious and because the complaint was based on “trumped up charges.”

It should be noted, however, that Ms. San Jose was seeking Bander’s help for a visa five years earlier, back in 2006. This could mean that Ms. San Jose has been wanting to leave the country for greener pastures.

Balita, which, as mentioned by the other paper, had gone to the Philippines – because this is how an investigative story is conducted – had inquired from the prosecutor’s office about the Bander case. Indeed the documents showed that there was a case filed, that a certain Ms. San Jose swore before a prosecutor, and a People’s Tonight story was published.

Five years may have been too long and perhaps Ms. San Jose is no longer in the Philippines. Besides, how could the case progress when the accused was never present in the Philippines? And this we will present why in our next issue.

(Next week, we will publish here a copy of the warrant of arrest. We will also present more legitimate and legal documents in succeeding issues.)