and For the referral of the dicbucsement Vouchers purchas tequet and aut- horaation 40 tte NBI. Associate Gustice Hemander andl Associate Ong Inhibited themalves but ‘he. request of Marquez thal the questioned docy- ments be erred {0 The WE was net acted upon ~ Marquez filed ‘the subject Wohin fo Refer Rosecurtion's Eviden- ce for Brarrination by the Guestionecl Dacments Sechien of the Nationa Bareou op Inetigation..In hs motion he again inasted thot his purported signatures on the vouchers were yoyed. ~ Marquez never raised ne defense of Fomery either when he fled his Joint” Comter-AFFidauit with the OMB Also, in his veripied motion “for concideratton dated May 24, 2003 and Supplimental Motian dated duly 4, $0 fited with the COA,n» allegation oF pprgery wac mace ~ In his reply, Marquez. insisted thal he never admitted that hic signature on the disbursement vouchers , puchace request ont authorization requests were hic and that hig motion wac hot intended +6 delay the pro- ceedings . ~ nits Render, the prosecution reiterated its earlier argunents and added that the caunan tected and idlettiried the Signatures of Marquez in the subject yoschers It Further noted that Mavque2 imoved to refer the documents 12 the Ney only wo and a half (2%») yecie arter the formal OFFer oF caid documente.