Petition of redress 2017

IN TYNWALD The 5th day of July, 2017 To the Lord’s Lieutenant (Governor R. Gozney) and to the Members of Tynwald Court This Petition is made by G. Stephen Holmes, Manxman, of Wigan, Greater Manchester, and of Douglas, Isle of Man. Sheweth that – This year, 2017, is the 600th anniversary of the first promulgation of law in the Isle of Man; the legislative building has a fine framed poster, situated outside the Tynwald Library, of the Customary Law 1417 as promulgated that year [see page 3 of attached Appendix]. One section of that 1417 Act of Tynwald remains in force to this day; and several sections of what is now called the Customary Laws Act 1422 also remain in force to this day including “Royal Fish,” “Lieutenant may take Enquest” and “Partiality and misgovernment prohibited.”

Royal Fish states that porpoises, whales or sturgeon “found” between the “heads of man” are the property of the Crown; but the Lord’s Lieutenant is not interested in taking “Enquest”; and partiality (bias) and misgovernment have become the modus operandi (the method of working) in the Courts Administration section of the High Court (within the General Registry) and in the Chambers of HM Attorney-General. Misgovernment is also the MO of the Deemsters.

Section 45 (Partiality and misgovernment), is a statutory version of the bias rule of natural justice that no-one can be a judge in (his) own cause (nemo judex in causa sua). It is also the common law position – fairness in administration is essential. It is also the basis for the Deemster's oath.

In 1994, in Government and Law in the Isle of Man, (by Mark Solly), advocate David C. Doyle wrote about Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a fair hearing) and commented that it was the view of “Acting Deemster Field-Fisher” that this Article added “nothing to the common law position” – this was in 1994, twelve years before the Human Rights Act 2001 entered into force, but the Convention had persuasive authority in any event (since 1953).

According to Deemster Corlett (now the Second Deemster or “D2”) [in J906.htm CHP 2008/84: 2009 MLR p.112] the General Registry is “the government department responsible for the operation of the courts in the Isle of Man. … The General Registry is an entity capable of separate legal existence, see the General Registry Act 1965.”

The Chief Registrar will issue, on request, recordings of hearings in Isle of Man Courts, but on submission of an “application form” which was recently (22nd June 2017) sent to me by – Ms BK, Chancery Team Manager & Clerk to the First Deemster Isle of Man Courts of Justice, Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3AR. Web address:- www.Courts.im Tel:- +44 (0) 1624 685568 There follows an extract from the “instructions” for completing the form, prepared by “Jock” in the General Registry. [The “Author” in document properties is obiously Mr Jock Waddington].

REQUESTS FOR A COPY OF AN AUDIO RECORDING OF ISLE OF MAN COURT PROCEEDINGS If a request is approved, the prescribed fee for copies of a CD will apply. The cost of a copy CD can be found in the current Fees Order which can be found here Where a request is approved, the applicant will be required to pay in advance the fee for the CD. The applicant will also be required to sign an undertaking in advance of the CD being released. (The -1-

applicant must sign and return the undertaking by either posting, faxing, or scanning and e-mailing it, but an electronic signature will not be accepted.)

The audio recording may be transcribed by the user in accordance with the undertaking given in respect of the contents of the CD. Details for requests for CD recordings can be submitted to the Court by: Posting to – The Chief Registrar, (Isle of Man Courts building) Deemsters Walk, Bucks Road Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3AR emailing a scanned, signed copy to either the clerk of the court in question or to: enquiries@courts.im &c.

• • •

•

Undertaking I undertake not to copy all or any part of the requested CD audio recording.

I undertake not to disseminate all or any part of the requested CD audio recording save only for the release of the requested CD for the purposes of making a bona fide transcription.

I undertake not to use the requested CD audio recording for any purposes other than for listening to the recording of the court proceedings and, if necessary, for bona fide transcription of the recording, for the purposes only of the reason for which it has been requested.

I undertake to observe any duty of confidence and applicable proprietary and copyright requirements.

If you are unsure of your legal obligations, you may wish to obtain legal advice.

A telephone enquiry established that cheques are payable to Isle of Man Government.

Note the emboldened warning – If you are unsure of your legal obligations …

My reason for Petitioning today is to ensure that Right is Done in the High Court in matters relating to children, and receiving a form with this “Undertaking” on it has prompted me to Petition!

The Chief Registrar is the director of the government department that is responsible for the “operation” of the courts in the Isle of Man, including the High Court of Justice, established by Acts of Tynwald and now enshrined in the High Court Act 1991. Section 28 of this Act tells us that the Chief Registrar is an officer of the High Court appointed by the First Deemster and directed and supervised by the First Deemster (or the Deemster for whom he is “working at that time”). Unlike in England & Wales where the Lord Chancellor is the Minister for Justice and is in the cabinet and answerable to HMG and to “the people,” the First Deemster is answerable to no-one in the Isle of Man and consequently to no-one anywhere. The oath sworn by ALL Deemsters is based on section 45 of the Customary Law 1422 already mentioned as headed Partiality and misgovernment prohibited. Deemsters are human beings and ALL human beings make mistakes or misgovern events but it is impossible to bring into the public domain the mistakes of Deemsters; and applying to the High Court for a “doleance claim” will result in such being rejected because it may show incompetence in court. It has reached the stage that if a Deemster says something in Court that is wrong, (and all human beings err regularly), an “appeal in the Staff of Government Division” is necessary to correct the wrong, but once “the tree is poisoned” further wrongdoing ensues.

It is not possible to prove that a Deemster lied from the Bench (and others acted on this lawlessness) and remain “polite, decorous and respectful” but the Police never arrest anyone in a completely polite, decorous and respectful manner; and my complaint (for it is a FACT) is that the Deputy Deemster forged a document – a felony under section 3 of the Forgery Act 1952, so this Petition (note that it is also addressed to the Governor, Richard Gozney, to whom, by Statute, I may Petition to “take Enquest”) may not pass the polite, decorous and respectful test! That is of no concern to me because I do not trust a select committee to “get to the root of this matter:” the malfeasance (wrong-doing) of Deemsters.

-2-

In essence, the Chief Registrar (in “government”) is directed and receives legal advice ONLY from “D1” (or sometimes other Deemsters) and is therefore not accountable for his or her actions because Deemsters are not accountable for mistakes or wrongdoing (or even for nonfeasance – doing nothing). This lack of accountability was shown by Deemster David Doyle in December 2011, in a published judgment on a “government web-site” judgments.im Published early in 2012, J1149.htm (CHP 2011/83) contains the “D1” opinion – he calls it a “view” that “no fair criticism can be made” of a colleague. Later in that year, the High Court Office put in the public domain J1183.htm but removed the full names of “the parties” although members of the public had been in the court because the matter was NOT private law – it was public law.

In J1149.htm we find – 10. At paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Staff of Government Division the court stated that "… no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for … accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered …"

11. It can be seen therefore that the Staff of Government Division were of the clear view that "no fair criticism" could be made of Deputy Deemster Williamson for accepting that the orders had been properly registered.

12. Mr. Holmes this morning said that he did not dispute the Staff of Government Division decision.

In April/May 2014 (when the Form “REQUESTS FOR A COPY …” was published) the “policy” of the General Registry / High Court Office was (and still is) “If you are unsure of your legal obligations, you may wish to obtain legal advice” and that policy is still true. Doyle: – “at paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Staff of Government Division … accepting what he believed to be correct.” If a person, any person, “believes” something, and has sworn an oath to execute the laws of this Isle justly, then that person is 100% certain of his legal obligations, so the subsequent confirmation in paragraph 47 (there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did; ignored by Doyle in December 2011) is an admission of “guilt” of the Deputy Deemster; that he did not execute the laws of this Isle justly but issued a declaration that had no basis in law. In paragraph 47 (as published on-line) we find two crucial phrases relevant to a “case” in the High Court (contained in case file FD/UK/COR/04/02 but wrongly given reference DIV 2004/144); “when they had not been so registered” and “there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.”

From judgments.im/content/J1183.htm (paragraph 47) we find, with relation to the “so-called order” of 5th November 2004, – “Paragraph 1 of such order expressly recorded that the Lancaster County [English] Court orders had been registered, when they had not been so registered, and paragraph 2 of such order was founded upon the incorrect premise that there had been proper registration.

Although no fair criticism can be made of the Deputy Deemster for him accepting what he believed to be correct, namely that the orders had been properly registered, given that there was in fact no proper registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.” [Bold font added].

Given that THE LAW requires certain requirements to be followed for a “successful” registration and that Chief Registrar Peter Corkhill admitted IN WRITING that “this office” had acted “not in accordance with the requirements of” an Act of Tynwald, it was obvious BEFORE the hearing in the Staff of Government Division (on 24th September 2007) that the so-called registrations were unlawful and the subsequent declarations by the Deputy Deemster also unlawful (such that a Deemster should have known such and in any case ignorance of the law is no excuse – he should -3-

have sought legal advice) and subsequent actions by Deemster Kerruish and JA Tattersall and Deemsters Doyle, Roberts, Corlett and Melton were all fruit of a poisoned tree and therefore tainted and/or unsafe and biased. For example, Kerruish and Tattersall JA used the word “quashed” and purported (by “Court Order”) to revoke the order of Williamson of 5th November 2004 and part of the order of Williamson of 16th November 2005 when the so-called orders had no legitimate basis and could only be declared void from the outset (void ab initio) because there was nothing to revoke or quash. Also there was a propensity to use the words “proper” or “properly” when a couple cannot be “not properly married” or a woman “not properly pregnant.” The last phrase of paragraph 47 reproduced above should not contain the two words – it should be: “… namely that the orders had been registered, given that there was in fact no registration there was no legitimate basis upon which the Deputy Deemster could have made the order which he did.”

Without completing any “undertaking” I was given recordings of two hearings in August 2006 – one from 1st July 2004 and one from 5th November 2004. The advocate (now part-time Deemster) Kevin Edward O’Riordan prepared a transcript of the “kangaroo court meeting” of 5th November 2004 in which he was involved (as my “counsel”) and he sent me a copy of this transcript (in April 2011) which has entered the public domain. It is self evident that neither Williamson (presiding over the kangaroo court meeting) nor O’Riordan had the first clue about what they were doing and indeed the Deputy Deemster issued a declaration that had no basis in the laws of this Island; and he ORDERED that his false instrument (it is a certainty that the so-called order was a false instrument) be sent to the Police (in Douglas and Port Erin) and to a head teacher – the document was circulated in the General Registry, the DHA, the DOE and the DHSS (as these Government Departments were known at that time).

With regard to being “self-evident,” the SOGD (Staff of Government Division) used this term in paragraph 40 – “It is thus self evident that, pursuant to sections 7 and 12, for the orders made by the Lancaster County Court to be registered by the High Court it was required that the Lancaster County Court should send the High Court a certified copy of the orders made together with a copy of the Respondent’s application and any accompanying documents.”

It is further self-evident that it is the Appropriate Court that makes the “custody order” that must APPLY to the General Registry for such a registration and not a “member of the public.” It is further self-evident that the Appropriate Court is the High Court of Justice of England (& Wales) and NOT a County Court. These truths are self-evident if one reads sections 7, 12, 20, 21 and Schedule 1 of the Child Custody Act 1987, an Act of Tynwald; Williamson clearly HAD NOT READ THE 1987 ACT before authorising the registration on 28th May 2004.

One of the so-called orders that was purportedly “registered” is described in paragraph 7 of J1183.htm (2DS 2007/9) – “On the same day, a District Judge made a further order in which he granted leave to the Respondent to remove the children from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man permanently.” The District Judge in England granted leave for Manx children (and he KNEW that the children were Manx and not English, Welsh or Scottish) to be removed (by Mrs Holmes, a Manx woman) from the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales ONLY) and Northern Ireland TO THE ISLE OF MAN permanently. Only ONE person in the Isle of Man, the Amicus Curiae in the “appeal matter,” ever questioned the jurisdiction of England authorities after a district judge wrote and purportedly ordered “remove these children to the Isle of Man permanently.” It is self-evident to any Manx person, indeed anyone who has ever read “The Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom,” that with the word “permanently”, District Judge Forrester relinquished powers or jurisdiction over Katarina and Benedict Holmes on 24th February 2004 so that the so-called residence and contact orders made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (an Act of Parliament in Westminster that DOES NOT -4-

extend to the Isle of Man) could not be binding in the Isle of Man, and were spent and ultra vires in England & Wales.

The “Leave to remove the children from the UK order” was made under sections 13 and 33 of the Children Act 1989, sections that are not mentioned in the Child Custody Act 1987, so it is selfevident that the “leave to remove” order could not be registered under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987 either.

My delay in Petitioning The Queen’s representative in the Isle of Man Major events have happened since (say) 1st June 2016 – I was preparing a Petition of Redress for 5th July 2016 – which have made 2017 (the 600th Anniversary of The First Written Law of 1417) a better day on which to ask for an investigation. People in the Isle of Man did not have a vote in the “Leave or Remain in the European Union” vote; the fall-out of that matter did not have a resolution until January 2017, my daughter Katarina Holmes was involved in a Road Traffic Accident on 26 th June 2016, and has been in hospital in Liverpool since Monday 27th – it was more important for me to visit Walton on 5th July 2016 than Petition Tynwald to ask for something that will not happen because the reputation of the Isle of Man will suffer as a result of adverse publicity; and in April 2017, Public Inquiries: Wrong Route [Roads] on Bloody Sunday by Louis Blom-Cooper was published. I have seen Sir Louis QC (a former Appeal Judge in Jersey and Guernsey) interviewed and read much of his book, the content of which is relevant to The Holmes Matter, 2004-2017 (and continuing).

“Our Lord or his Lieutenant may take any Enquest.” An Inquiry is a non adversarial hearing, just like a Coroner’s Inquest. A Children matter is, in England & Wales, listed as Re The Child but in the Isle of Man is listed as parent versus parent. This listing of a children matter as adversarial is WRONG. The “game played in court” should not be adversarial but it is, and the Deemster or presiding judicial officer ALWAYS enters the dispute on one side or another side or even his own side. I was reminded of these games at the end of May 2015, shortly after I left the land of my birth to live in England (part of the jurisdiction of England & Wales) in April 2015, with the unfortunate death of Professor John Forbes Nash, Nobel Laureate. Nash created non-adversarial game theory for games like Public Inquiries, Coroner’s Inquests and Children matters. In an nonadversarial game, everyone can gain but if the matter is listed as (for example) Holmes versus Holmes, then there is only ONE winner (no matter how many players), and everyone else, including the child or children, are losers.

The transcript of the kangaroo court meeting of 1st July 2004 begins as follows – [DDW] “Right just let me come up to speed on this” (silence for 90 seconds, save for the sound of papers being rearranged on the Bench) [DDW] “Right what am I being asked to do here good people: you appear to have a – an order from Lancaster that is registered here in any event.”

Within 110 seconds, the Holmes family (Manx mother, Manx father, Manx children) was destroyed because those so-called orders had not been registered.

Despite a hearing and judgment in 2007, on 14th December 2011, Deemster Doyle (now D1) judged (and he stated 25th May when the SOGD gave the correct date of 18th May 2004) – [in paragraph 4 of J1149.htm] – “4. On the 25th May 2004 the Claimant applied to the High Court in the Isle of Man for a residence order in respect of both his children. At a hearing of such application on the 1st July 2004 Deputy Deemster Williamson told the Claimant that the English Orders made on the 24th February 2004 had been registered and dismissed his application. The Claimant did not appeal against such dismissal of his application. There was no appeal by either party against the English order made on -5-

the 24th February 2004.”

Note that Doyle had read “paragraph 47” so he must have read “when they had not been so registered” and yet at paragraph 4 of the judgment of an “educated Deemster” he confirmed that Williamson had in fact LIED FROM THE BENCH on 1st July 2004 for he stated that Williamson told ME that the English Orders made on the 24th February 2004 had been registered when they had not been so registered. An appeal against a dismissal of an Application is ludicrous – no “order” was made in the Isle of Man and the default order with respect to a child under section 1(5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2001 is “no order at all.”

Similarly, the SOGD confirmed that Williamson lied from the Bench – but the two judges also confirmed that it was Mrs Holmes who wrote to the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson to request registrations. The Clerk to DD Williamson was directed and supervised by the Deputy Deemster, and the Assistant Chief Registrar who purportedly registered the so-called orders on 28 th May 2004 would also have been acting under the direction and supervision of the Deputy Deemster (rather than D1 Kerruish who would have known nothing about the so-called process under sections 7 and 12 of the Child Custody Act 1987) but it was an unlawful process.

The BIG mystery of the totality of this long running malfeasance is why Mrs Holmes was the “respondent” to my appeal about the registration for although Mrs Holmes informally (in a handwritten note) requested the Clerk to Deputy Deemster Williamson, Family Division to “register” in the Isle of Man courts two photocopies of documents labelled Children Act 1989, by LAW this request should have come from the Appropriate Court that made the order. Just reading sections 7 and 12 of the 1987 Act would have told the Deputy Deemster what the due process in fact was; but Williamson was a common law criminal law magistrate and not versed in Civil law although he “bore virtually single-handed all the work of the Family Division” from September 2002 to 31/12/2007. Confirmation of Williamson’s responsibility for the Family Division was made by Deemster Andrew Corlett when he was promoted to Second Deemster on 1 st April 2011.

Since 1422 partiality or bias has been prohibited – misgovernment has been prohibited. The common law position demands a fair hearing as confirmed by David C. Doyle quoting Field-Fisher in 1990 [1990-92 MLR p. 74] and since 1st November 2006 Statute (the Human Rights Act 2001) also demands a fair hearing. On 1st July 2004, Deputy Deemster Williamson lied about a registration – he said that there was the appearance of a – an order from Lancaster that had been registered. In 2017 I read the paper Judgments under Uncertainty by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky which begins with a description of when uncertainty is a factor. “You appear to have” – but ignorance of the law is not an excuse. No order had been registered and even Doyle, Kerruish and Tattersall confirmed that Williamson told me that orders had been registered. I knew nothing about the registration for the text of the Order mentions it not.

The hearing WAS NOT FAIR because the welfare of the children was NOT paramount – the defective due-process was paramount to the “court” (i.e. Williamson) and there was in fact no registration. What was there to appeal? This should have been “a blank order.”

The text of the so-called order of 5th November 2004 was even more confusing – and remember that the totality of this order had no basis in law.

FD/UK/COR/04/02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ISLE OF MAN -6-

FAMILY DIVISION Between: YVONNE HOLMES

Applicant

and GORDON STEPHEN HOLMES

Respondent

and IN THE MATTER of Katarina May Holmes (born the 19th May 1996) and Peter Elliott Benedict Holmes (born the 28th August 1999) and IN THE MATTER of the Orders of the Lancaster County Court of the 24th day of February 2004 end the 27th day of October 2004 and registered in this Court on the 28th day of May 2004 and the 4th day of November 2004 respectively At a Court at Douglas (in chambers) on the 5th day of November 2004 His Honour (the bastard) THE DEPUTY DEEMSTER Williamson UPON consideration of the said mattters and of the representations of the Applicant in Person and of Counsel on behalf of the Respondent And UPON the Respondent’s undertaking given to this; Court through his Counsel in the Respondent’s Presence that he Will abide by the terms of the said Orders of the Lancaster County Court IT IS DECLARED 1. that the said Orders of the Lancaster County Court regisered in this Court are of full effect and enforceable within the jurisdiction of this Court that is to say within the Isle of Man and that this Court is not empowered to vary such Orders 2. that the Respondent have indirect contact with the said children as is authorized by Clause 2 of the said Order of the 27th day of October 2004 of the Lancaster County Court AND IT IS ORDERED 3. that the Applicant do serve a plain copy of this Order upon the Head Teacher of Rushen Primary School 4. that a plain copy of this Order be lodged at Police Headquarters Douglas and Port Erin Police Station SEAL OF THE HIGH COURT

There is no Act of Tynwald listed on this “declaratory order” so no-one knew what Act of Tynwald was purportedly being used to implement an Island-wide policy of “Manx Respondent have indirect dealings with his own Manx children” which meant that the Manx children HAD NO FAMILY LIFE with their Manx father from 10th November 2004 (when this so-called order was released and entered the PUBLIC domain (it was sent to the Police) until – well – today. Now the children are adults – although Ben does not reach 18 until 28th August this year – he is holidaying in Asia at this time.

The best analogy is the Deputy Deemster ORDERED that “a fork be known as a spoon” and it took AN APPEAL – and my letter of appeal (which was indecorous) was lodged on 19th March 2007 to confirm that a fork is, in fact, a fork. In children matters, it is the law that to delay is considered detrimental to the welfare of the child(ren) – but it was six-months before a hearing (24th September 2007) and another month before a judgment was released, and the only item that anyone ever read was “no fair criticism” which was biased and therefore has been unlawful for 595 years! Williamson actually ordered “Abuse the rights of children and their father throughout their (the children) childhood and arrest Mr Holmes if he attempts to see his children, even in a public place” and that “order” stood for three years.

-7-

I need to address a comment by Doyle on 14th December 2011 “Mr. Holmes this morning said that he did not dispute the Staff of Government Division decision.” IN COURT I did not “dispute” what Doyle said or that the SOG Division used the words “no fair criticism” but if I had asserted that the Late Deemster Kerruish and Tattersall JA (who now often sits with Doyle) had acted unlawfully, I could have been held in contempt of court and sent to prison – by 15th December 2011 I had changed my mind and absolutely dispute the Staff of Government Division “view” that no fair criticism can be made of a colleague who committed forgery (in my view which is equal in value to the view of any other human being, especially by a Deemster who has sworn to be impartial).

Section 13 of the Customary Law of 1422 is “Alsoe we give for Law, that our Lord or his Lieutennant may take any Enquest at his own Will and Pleasure.

This Petitioner seeks that – Tynwald does record this Petition in its records The Lord’s Lieutenant has also been petitioned at the Tynwald “ceremony” on 5th July 2017 to undertake (take) an Enquest (an Inquiry) into failures of justice in the High Court because of the malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance of Deemsters and administrators in “family matters” especially matters relating to CHILDREN. Because this Petition concerns Her Majesty’s Deemsters and Attorney General and Solicitor General, I cannot ask for a Select Committee to undertake the investigation – indeed the Law does not require a “select committee” – this Petition, although addressed to the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court, is a copy of the Petition addressed to the Governor in his capacity as “the Lord’s Lieutenant Governor who may take Enquest”. The Governor was the head of Government – although the President of Tynwald is now head of Tynwald – the LAW, the same Customary Laws Act 1422 that gives rise to the Deemster’s oath, allows the Governor to undertake an Inquiry – or he could appoint an unbiased individual to clarify Children law in the Isle of Man and to ensure that in future maladministration is not the modus operandi in the Kangaroo Court of Injustice and Corruption of the Isle of Man (also known as the “High Court of Justice”).

As can be seen from the attached Appendix, The Petitioner’s “Committee” (a committee of one: the Petitioner himself) has investigated the malfeasance and included as much proof as possible of wrongdoing. It is staggeringly inept of the High Court to include in a judgment that the Deputy Deemster told me something and then reveal that what he told me WAS NOT TRUE. The High Court under Deemster Doyle’s presidency has become a joke: a kangaroo court, in my respectful, decorous and polite opinion. When anyone in the Isle of Man, right “up” to the LG, and including the Deemsters, AG, SG and all persons in the courts administration part of the General Registry, tells a member of the public to “seek legal advice” or asks if you are sure of your legal obligations what he (or she) means is “I have no idea what the law is, but cannot be bothered checking!” It is the “Manx Disease” and the best example is “Tynwald is the oldest Parliament in the world.”

There is little evidence that Tynwald “governed” before 1417 – and any law before the Customary Law 1417 (see Appendix) was kept in the bowels of the Deemsters and unknown to anyone else.

The Deemsters used to be part of the Council, but are now completely independent of Tynwald and act accordingly – being unaccountable to anyone or anything except, respectfully, but what is in their bowels.

………………………………………….

G. Stephen Holmes Petition includes 1 Attachment: an Appendix -8-