DISBARMENT COMPLAINT IN PILIPINO

UNANG PANDARAYA

PANGALAWANG PANDARAYA 

PANGATLONG PANDARAYA 

PANGAPAT NA PANDARAYA 

PANGLIMANG PANDARAYA

PANG ANIM NA PANDARAYA 

PAMPITONG PANDARAYA 

PANG WALONG PANDARAYA 

PANG SIYAM NA PANDARAYA 

PANG SAMPUNG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABING-ISANG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA

HULING BAHAGI (13TH PART) 

RAUL QUIROZ  DEFENSE  PLEADINGS

DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST    
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ  FILED DOCUMENT HERE

Marso 22, 2013

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno

Supreme Court of the Philippines

Padre Faura, Manila

Republic of the Philippines

USAPIN :       Disbarment of

 Atty. RAUL QUIROZ

 ad perpetuam rei memoriam

Mahal na Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno,

Magandang araw po sa inyo.

PASIMUNONG PANGUNGUSAP : 
ALAMIN NG LAHAT, 

na kung sa daan ay napansin ang mga tinik sa
tatapakan at ang ginawa mo ay umiwas lang, 

aba eh  wag  magmaktol o maghimutok kung
ikaw  o  isa  sa  angkan mo ay matusok 

nito ngayon  o sa  kinabukasan.

1.0  PAGPAPAKILALA

1.1  Ako po si  G. Antonio L. Buensuceso,
      58 taong gulang, Pilipino, sa Pilipinas 

      po ay naninirahan sa 103 K. Ponso St.,
      Bauan, Batangas at dine naman po sa 

      Estados Unidos, ay nanatiling may
     hawak ng pasaporte ng Pilipinas 

     at may postal address na: 

                    12901 Francine Terrace 

                    Poway, CA   92064

                    USA

1.2  Ako po ang complainant sa kaso na 
       may bilang GR-183273 na may 

       pamagat na :  

      Antonio L. Buensuceso  vs. 

      Pilipinas Shell Petroleum 
      Corporation/Rico Bersamin

2.0  LAYUNIN SA PAGLIHAM

2.1  Your Honor,  upang ipaabot sa inyong 

        kaalaman na ako po ay naghahain ng
        kaso na disbarment laban kay

        Atty. Raul Quiroz,   Abogado 

        ng SHELL, may tanggapan 
         po sa 

        12th Floor Shell House, 
        156 Valero St.,

        Salcedo Village, Makati City,

        PTR No. 7058056:16/01/04; Makati City; 

        IBP No.607694, 16/01/04, 

        Cagayan de Oro Chapter, Roll No. 38465; 

        PACKET A : LABEL 2.1.1    
                             SHELL Position Paper

                            p.13, Atty. Raul Quiroz

                           professional circumstances shown

2.2    at para po sa inyong kaalaman, na  ako  po 

          ay humingi ng tulong sa Kagalanggalang na 

         Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, na 

         masampahan ng kaso at tiyaking mapanagot 

         si Kgg. Labor ArbIter, MICHAELA LONTOC, 

         Kgg.NLRC Commissioners,  TITO F. GENILO,  

         GREGORIO O. BILOG III, LOURDES C. JAVIER,  

         Kgg. Associate Justices  JOSEFINA GUEVARA 

         SALONGA,  MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON,  

         NORMANDY B. PIZARRO  at  

         Kgg. SC First Division Clerk of Court 

         ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA VIDAL at ang sulat 

         (ORDER)  mula sa Tanggapan ng OMBUDSMAN

         at ang akin pong tugon sa naturang ORDER  

         kaugnay ng usaping  laban sa mga "public officers "

         na naturan sa kanilang paglabag sa  

         R.A. 3019 BATAS LABAN SA KURAKUTAN AT

         KATIWALIAN ay inilakip ko sa liham kong ito sa 

         inyo, bilang katibayan o ebidensya ng paghahabol 

         ko sa kanila  at  gayon din, nais ko  po ring 

         ipabatid sa inyo, Your Honor, ang aking

         pagbibigay  pahintulot  sa kanino mang tao o 

         samahan ng mga tao na may kaso laban sa 

         lahat o  sa kanino  man  sa  mga "public  officers"  

         o sa  abogado  ng SHELL na ipinakilala ko,  

         at maging sa SHELL ,   kay G. Rico Bersamin  at   

         kay  Ms. Remedios Vargas  bilang kasapakat , 

         na gamitin  o magamit ang mga ebidensya , 

         mga pangyayari, mga pahayag na aking isinawalat

         sa usaping ito, upang maisakatuparan  ang mithiin 

         nila at ng ating pamahalaan at lalong higit, 

         ng ating HUKUMAN, para sa isang  matapat at  

         malinis  at marangal na paglilingkod bayan, 

         na  wala  ng kahit anong dungis ng  

         KABUKTUTAN,  KURAKUTAN  AT KATIWALIAN ;

PACKET  A :  LABEL  2.2.1   ORDER from the OMBUDSMAN
                                                 FIRST page    SECOND  page

                        LABEL  2.2.2   TUGON KO PO SA ORDER

                                                 ng OMBUDSMAN
                                                 FIRST page    SECOND page
                                                THIRD page    FOURTH page
                                                 FIFTH page    SIXTH page
                                                          LAST page

2.3  na kung sakaling abutin ako ng pangyayaring  hindi 

       ako magkaroon ng pagkakataong maisakatuparan 

       ang pangangailangang legal na panunumpa sa 

       katotohanan ng mga kadahilanan na nagbunsod ng 

       mga usaping ito sa harap ng  isang notario publiko, 

       sa dahilang pong kasalatan sa pananalapi, o dili 

       kaya po ay pagkakasakit o paglabo hanggang 

       paglaho ng paningin  o pagmaliw ng diwa at ala-ala, 

       o mawala ako na parang bula  o  lalong higit  ay  

       mangyaring mauna ang aking kamatayan bago ako 

       makapanumpa ay ipinababatid ko sa inyo at sa lahat,

       Your Honor, ang aking nag-aalab na mithiin  na 

       maituloy ang usaping ito,

      ad perpetuam rei memoriam,

      PARA  PO SA KAPAKANAN NG 

      ATING INANG BAYAN at LALONG 

      HIGIT PO PARA SA  KADAKILAAN  

      AT KAPURIHAN  NG DIYOS .

3.0  Mga basehan ng kasong disbarment

        laban kay Atty. Raul Quiroz

3.1  Attorneys and Admission to Bar, 

       Rule 138-Rules of Court, Sec. 27 

      

       Rule 138 - Rules of Court

     Attorneys and Admission to Bar

Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by 

               Supreme Court on what grounds. -  

  

             A member of the bar may be removed
            or suspended from his office as attorney

            by the   Supreme Court    for any deceit, 

            malpractice, or other gross misconduct

            in such office, grossly immoral conduct, 

            or  by  reason  of  his  conviction  of   a 

            crime involving moral  turpitude, or for 

            any  violation  of  the oath  which he is 

            required  to  take  before     admission

            to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience 

            of any lawful  order of a superior court, 

            or for corruptly  or  wilfully  appearing as 

           an attorney for a party to a case without 

           authority  so   to  do.  The  practice   of 

           soliciting cases at law fo  the purpose 

           of gain, either personally or  through 

           paid agents or brokers,  constitutes

           malpractice.

            Specifically, 

             3.1.1  XXX .... A member of the bar  

                       maybe removed or suspended 

                       from his office as attorney by 

                       the Supreme Court for

                       any deceit, xxx.

              

             3.1.2  XXX... or for any violation of

                        the oath, (Lawyer's  Oath shown 

                        below, mine)  which he is required

                        to take before admission to 

                        practice, or...xxx

                           Lawyers oath

           Form 28 of the Judicial Standard Forms

           prescribes the following oath to be taken 

           by the applicant:

           I, ______________________ of

            ___________, do solemnly swear that I 

           will maintain allegiance to the Republic of 

           the Philippines; I will support its Constitution

           and obey the laws as well as the legal orders 

           of the duly constituted authorities therein;

           I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing 

          of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly 

          promote or sue any groundless, false or 

          unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the    

          same; I will delay no man for money or malice,

          and will conduct myself as a lawyer according 

          to the best of my knowledge and discretion with 

          all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my 

         clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary 

         obligation without any mental reservation or

          purpose of evasion. So help me God.

         Specifically,

          3.1.2.1  FIRST COUNT, VIOLATION OF 

                        THE LAWYERS OATH

                        XXX .... I will do no falsehood, 

                        nor consent to the doing of any 

                        in court, xxx

           3.1.2.2  SECOND COUNT VIOLATION OF 

                         THE LAWYER'S OATH

                         XXX......I will not wittingly or 

                         willingly promote or sue any 

                         groundless, false or unlawful 

                         suit nor give aid nor consent

                         to the same;....xxx

DINE PO ANG SUNOD (second part) NA BAHAGI...

UNANG PANDARAYA

PANGALAWANG PANDARAYA 

PANGATLONG PANDARAYA 

PANGAPAT NA PANDARAYA 

PANGLIMANG PANDARAYA

PANG ANIM NA PANDARAYA 

PAMPITONG PANDARAYA 

PANG WALONG PANDARAYA 

PANG SIYAM NA PANDARAYA 

PANG SAMPUNG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABING-ISANG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA

HULING BAHAGI (13TH PART) 

RAUL QUIROZ  DEFENSE  PLEADINGS

DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST    
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ  FILED DOCUMENT HERE

 Letter to Hon. CJ Sereno postage receipt

JOHN DONOVAN JANUARY 31, 2014 ARTICLES

Shareholders have grounds to bring lawsuits against Royal Dutch Shell Plc?

Jan 31st, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

According to an informed source, there is significant potential for shareholder lawsuits against the directors of Shell on the basis of their failure to control spending, possibly in breach of both their fiduciary obligations and internal corporate procedures. The expenditure of $26 billion on “unconventionals” suggests that in North America spending was completely out of control. Message to the mainstream media. Check with your lawyers. I believe they will confirm the likelihood of a flood of class actions lawsuits. 

By John Donovan

According to an informed source, there is significant potential for shareholder lawsuits against the directors of Shell on the basis of their failure to control spending, possibly in breach of both their fiduciary obligations and internal corporate procedures. The expenditure of $26 billion on “unconventionals” suggests that in North America spending was completely out of control. Comments on this site and in the press suggest that little of this expenditure is likely to be recovered, with multi-billion dollar write-downs of US assets expected to be a feature of Shell’s accounts for years to come.
 
The Brent price fixing investigations have been largely stalled by Shell’s actions in attempting to block the sharing of discovery information between the various government agencies investigating the allegations. The sharing was authorised by a federal court, but this ruling has been appealed by Shell, effectively stalling the process.
 
A cynical view is that the major projects in Alaska, Pennsylvania and Louisiana (and possibly unconventionals) were primarily about buying political influence. In states where employment is a major issue much of the business of congress is taken up with bringing home “pork” to their home states and landing these projects would have been major achievements for the congressmen concerned.
 
The cancellation of the Louisiana GTL plant, the doubts surrounding the viability of the Pennsylvania petrochemical facility, and the indefinite postponement of the Alaska exploration programme should be seen as both a means of reducing capital expenditure by Shell and as a means of putting pressure on the US government. The reality is that Shell can ill-afford any of these projects.

Message to the mainstream media. Check with your lawyers. I believe they will confirm the likelihood of a flood of class actions lawsuits. 

Now we all know the real reason for the early retirement of Peter Voser. He must have known what was coming at the time when he announced his surprise departure last May for a “lifestyle change.” Shareholders were kept in the dark until the profit warning was issued on 17 January, some eight months later.

The position of CFO Simon Henry is beginning to look untenable.He too may have to face a lifestyle change, but don’t be too concerned. He and his former boss amassed millions while ruining the company. And they will no doubt be fully indemnified by Shell against any claims arising from their conduct as executive directors of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Posted in: Alaska, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Oil, Oil Company Profits, Oil Price Fixing, Peter Voser, Profits Warning, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Simon Henry, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · John Donovan · Litigation · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

You cannot escape history: Royal Dutch Shell and Allseas

Jan 31st, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

1 comment

INTRODUCTION BY JOHN DONOVAN: Royal Dutch Shell Plc (Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes) and Allseas were given advance sight of the article below on Tuesday and notified of my intention to publish today. They were offered the opportunity to point out any factual inaccuracies plus an invitation to supply comment for publication on an unedited basis alongside the article. I stated that if no response was received by today, Friday 31 January, I would take that as confirmation that Shell and Allseas do not challenge the facts as stated. No response was received from either company.

EXTRACT FROM THE ARTICLE: “So we are now in this twisted historical situation that a company with a heavy burden on its shoulders regarding supporting Nazi Germany during and after the leadership of Deterding in the 1930′s, has ordered a company with an equally dubious history to decommission Shell oil platforms using a ship named in honour of a former SS officer.”

By Ton Biesemaat

You cannot escape history: Royal Dutch Shell and Allseas

Two companies with a dubious past history come together. One is Royal Dutch Shell, which under her chief managing director Sir Henri Deterding financially supported Nazi Germany. The other one is Allseas, owned by Edward Heerema. He is the son of Pieter Schelte Heerema, pioneer of the offshore business and a former Waffen SS member and diehard Nazi.

Allseas has ordered a South Korean ship builder to produce one of the largest ships in the world for decommissioning obsolete oil platforms in for example the North Sea. European legislation, which originates from the famous Brent Spar affair, obliges oil companies to dismantle these oil and gas platforms in an environmentally safe way. A whole new multi billion dollar business in the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico is emerging. The mega ship from Allseas is now in its test phase.

It is called Pieter Schelte, named after the father of Edward Heerema, despite his anti-Semitic Nazi past.

This ship with its dubious name was partly designed with a subsidy of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Questions about this were asked in the parliament in The Hague when the author of this article discovered this affair. But the Dutch state said it could do nothing about it anymore. Strangely enough this affair was published in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and then the international press, but the important Dutch mainstream papers did not publish anything about it.

Now the ship with its Nazi linked name has got the first assignment from Royal Dutch Shell. In 2015/16 it will start dismantling (decommissioning) some Shell Brent platforms in the North Sea.

It seems that Royal Dutch Shell has no problem with the name of this ship, which has already created controversy, as reported by The Telegraph newspaper under the headline “Dutch outcry over naming ship after Nazi,” when work begun on its construction in 2008.

Extract

However Pieter Schelte also served in the SS and the choice of his name for the ship has provoked outcry from politicians and Jewish groups, reviving painful questions about Dutch collaboration with the country’s Second World War occupiers. “For people who know his pitch-black history, this ship should not be named for him. Not now, not ever,” said Ronny Naftaniel, director of CIDI, which monitors anti-Semitism in the Netherlands.

One has to know that Pieter Schelte Heerema remained all his life loyal to his dark beliefs*. In South America he supported former SS men who had escaped from Europe after the German defeat. He was known to have been interested in the Adolf Hitler diaries during the late 1970′s (Stern-affair) which later were proven to be falsified documents. Heerema hoped he could prove that Hitler did not order the Holocaust.

His son Edward Heerema managed the big offshore company of his father when the former Waffen SS officer passed away in 1981.

At the funeral of Pieter Schelte Heerema the then head of the board of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Gerrit (“Gerry”) Wagner, spoke warm words about the offshore pioneer.

Edward Heerema got into a row with his brothers about the family business and started his own company Allseas. It is not known if his contacts with the fanatic Neonazi leader Mrs. Florrie Rost van Tonningen and his involvement with an extreme right magazine published in Flanders were partly the source of this fissure within the Heerema Group. This widow (Black Widow was her nickname) of the Second World War Dutch Nazi front-man Meinoud Rost van Tonningen had previous contacts with the founding father of the Heerema companies. Like Wagner of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, she attended the funeral of the man after which the mega ship was named.

So we are now in this twisted historical situation that a company with a heavy burden on its shoulders regarding supporting Nazi Germany during and after the leadership of Deterding in the 1930′s, has ordered a company with an equally dubious history to decommission Shell oil platforms using a ship named in honour of a former SS officer.

Thanks to EU legislation, a ship with a connection to a terrible past will sail to a glorious future.

* The ships of the Heerema Group are named after Germanic gods.

ENDS

ANY COMMENT SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED FROM EITHER PARTY WILL BE PUBLISHED HERE

RELATED: Allegations made against Allseas Group

Posted in: Adolf Hitler, Corporate Governance, Germany, GoogleNews, John Donovan,Michiel Brandjes, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Sir Henri Deterding.
Tagged: Allseas Group · John Donovan · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Ton Biesemaat

Shell keeps Woodside sale in play

Jan 31st, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

• Matt Chambers
• The Australian
• January 31, 2014 12:00AM

OIL giant Royal Dutch Shell has confirmed it is considering the sale of its Australian fuel retailing and marketing assets, along with its Geelong refinery, as part of an accelerated campaign to raise $US15 billion ($17.1bn) from sales of its portfolio across the globe.

The admission, made in the company’s fourth-quarter profit report released last night, comes as new chief executive Ben van Beurden looks to quickly turn around what he sees as unacceptable capital efficiency operational performance and project delivery.

FULL ARTICLE SUBJECT TO SUBSCRIPTION

Posted in: Australia, Ben van Beurden, Oil, Oil Company Profits, Profits Warning,Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

The TRUTH will set you FREE.