First, we must find in this ruling, errors of facts or law rulings in order to be heard and especially to obtain a different decision TAQ. This body has never reversed a decision CPTAQ in our type of activity before. A different appellate court has done in 1996 but the TAQ were we appear this time has refused the appeal from the Lafayette Club in 2007 mainly due to the absence of errors in the expulsion order served by CPTAQ to the club Lafayette. Or, more accurately, the inability of representatives from Lafayette to find errors of fact or law to the satisfaction of TAQ as they pointed in their judgment.

This is the first step that we must overcome. Our lawyer had found 5 reasons or mistakes of fact or law, so we can be considered for a possible change in the decision of expulsion. Our lawyer was able to presented and explain very well his 5 reasons and I must say that the lawyer of our opponent has only worked mostly to try to demonstrate to the  2 judges that our reasons were not good and, therefore, that their expulsion should remain in force.

For the rest, their lawyer has not been very combative except to mention and emphasize the size of our models perhaps to instilled a sense of damage to crops and the presence of bitumen on the agricultural soil with the possibility of difficult withdrawal of this material if necessary. These two points have been identified by judges who posed us several questions on these subjects and I believe that we responded well and were able to dissipate their fears.