9TH TIME_ 15MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2

     
                                 SINCE March 3, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 9

(FAKE REDUNDANCY)

TRANSLATED

4.1.9 NINTH DECEITFUL ACT

         

         BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

   

         The Company while it is true that they closed

         

          an old plant,  PROCESS-2,  but on the other hand, 

          they opened a new plant, which I called 

          BITUMEN PLANT, and which they called 

  

          BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.

     

19TH TIME_ 15MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1

THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY

SINCE FEBRUARY 17, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12

(in view of the requirements of the business)

TRANSLATED 



4.1.12 DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12 
          
           BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ:


           IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "REDUNDANCY"
           EXISTS WHEN I WAS REMOVED FROM 
           EMPLOYMENT AS ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
           ASSERTED AND PROMOTED.

       

           (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 )

8TH TIME_ 14MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2

     
                                 SINCE March 3, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 9

(FAKE REDUNDANCY)

TRANSLATED

4.1.9 NINTH DECEITFUL ACT

         

         BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

   

         The Company while it is true that they closed

         

          an old plant,  PROCESS-2,  but on the other hand, 

          they opened a new plant, which I called 

          BITUMEN PLANT, and which they called 

  

          BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.

     

18TH TIME_ 14MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1

THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY

SINCE FEBRUARY 17, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12

(in view of the requirements of the business)

TRANSLATED 



4.1.12 DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12 
          
           BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ:


           IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "REDUNDANCY"
           EXISTS WHEN I WAS REMOVED FROM 
           EMPLOYMENT AS ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
           ASSERTED AND PROMOTED.

       

           (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 )

7TH TIME_ 11MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2

     
                                 SINCE March 3, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 9

(FAKE REDUNDANCY)

TRANSLATED

4.1.9 NINTH DECEITFUL ACT

         

         BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

   

         The Company while it is true that they closed

         

          an old plant,  PROCESS-2,  but on the other hand, 

          they opened a new plant, which I called 

          BITUMEN PLANT, and which they called 

  

          BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.

     

17TH TIME_ 11MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1

THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY

SINCE FEBRUARY 17, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12

(in view of the requirements of the business)

TRANSLATED 



4.1.12 DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12 
          
           BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ:


           IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "REDUNDANCY"
           EXISTS WHEN I WAS REMOVED FROM 
           EMPLOYMENT AS ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
           ASSERTED AND PROMOTED.

       

           (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 )

6TH TIME_ 10MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2

     
                                 SINCE March 3, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 9

(FAKE REDUNDANCY)

TRANSLATED

4.1.9 NINTH DECEITFUL ACT

         

         BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

   

         The Company while it is true that they closed

         

          an old plant,  PROCESS-2,  but on the other hand, 

          they opened a new plant, which I called 

          BITUMEN PLANT, and which they called 

  

          BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.

     

16TH TIME_ 10MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1

THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY

SINCE FEBRUARY 17, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12

(in view of the requirements of the business)

TRANSLATED 



4.1.12 DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 12 
          
           BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ:


           IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "REDUNDANCY"
           EXISTS WHEN I WAS REMOVED FROM 
           EMPLOYMENT AS ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
           ASSERTED AND PROMOTED.

       

           (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 )

5TH TIME_ 9MAR16_THERE WAS NO REDUNDANCY_DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2

     
                                 SINCE March 3, 2016

IN RE :

A.C. NUMBER  10084

ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ 

DISBARMENT CASE

DECEITFUL ACT NUMBER 9

(FAKE REDUNDANCY)

TRANSLATED

4.1.9 NINTH DECEITFUL ACT

         

         BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ :

(Contrary to 3.1.1 & 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2)

   

         The Company while it is true that they closed

         

          an old plant,  PROCESS-2,  but on the other hand, 

          they opened a new plant, which I called 

          BITUMEN PLANT, and which they called 

  

          BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.