Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jean Dominique Morancy, Individually and on Behalf His Minor Child, L. M., Petitioner v. Sabrina Alex Salomon, et al.

START OF APPENDIX

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A — Eleventh Circuit Opinion (May 8, 2025)

dees as wenssbierueeb as acsaceeiveconeecrenyssuseeanenvensia la

Appendix B — Court of appeals denial of rehearing (Jun.

23, ZOD) ......cceeecccccsescereserceeesssssneeeeeeeees 15a

Appendix C — District court opinion and order (Sept. 29,

2022) sscscasassacsssnissesecssencstcceecsnevaoscesneeees 17a

Appendix D — State Court in Orange County, Florida

Scheduled the final hearing by email

without adequate notice to Plaintiff

(Email thread extends across four

Appendix E — Petitioner emailed the notice of appeal to

state defendants on August 2, 2024 at

Appendix F — Notice of Florida Sixth Court of Appeal

Relinquishment order on August 2, 2024

At 12:48 p......c. cee ceeecee ee eee ects neecnene 32a

USCAI1I1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

la

APPENDIX A

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

Sor the Eleventh Circuit

No. 24-12505

Non-Argument Calendar

JEAN DOMINIQUE MORANCY,

Father

L.M.,

a minor, by and through her father, Jean Dominique

Morancy,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

SABRINA ALEX SALOMON,

GERALD FRANCIS ZNOSKO,

ANGELA LYNN LAMBIASE,

CARLOS A. OTERO,

KEITH FRANKLIN WHITE, et al.,

DSCAII1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

2a

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN

Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDJU, and WILSON, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Jean Dominique Morancy, proceeding

pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his request for

a preliminary injunction in his civil suit.! On appeal, he

argues, in part, that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion for a preliminary

injunction because it failed to support its decision with

1 We give “liberal construction to the pleadings of pro se litigants,

[but] we nevertheless [require] them to conform to procedural rules.”

Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) Gnternal

quotation marks omitted).

USCAII1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

3a

24-12505 Opinon of the Court 3

specific factual findings. Because the district court did not

apply the wrong law, follow incorrect procedures, or make

clearly erroneous factual findings, and because under

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), Morancy’s case was

unlikely to succeed on the merits, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Morancy’s request for

a preliminary injunction. As a result, we affirm.

Morancy filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against many people and institutions involved with his

underlying state court dependency proceedings.2 He

alleged that the various defendants had conspired to

commit offenses including fraud, abuse of power,

attempted murder, perjury, defamation, legal

2 Morancy petitioned in state court in late 2019 to resolve

timesharing and child support issues between him and the mother of

his minor child.

USCAI1I1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

4a

4 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

malpractice, obstruction of justice, and racketeering, in

relation to the state court case. The district court

dismissed the case under the Younger abstention

doctrine. Morancy appealed. This court reversed the

dismissal for reasons not relevant on appeal but declined

to address whether Younger abstention applied, instead

leaving that question for the district court to address on

remand. Morancy amended his complaint and a motion

for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining

order (TRO) or a writ of mandamus.

The district court denied Morancy’s request for a

preliminary injunction. The court stated that review of

Morancy’s second amended complaint and motions raised

the issue of whether the district court should abstain

under Younger because Morancy sought relief from state

court decisions. The court noted that all of Morancy’s

claims related to civil state proceedings and involved

USCA1I1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

5a

24-12505 Opinon of the Court 5

issues of child custody, child support, and paternity. The

court concluded that all three Middlesex? factors for

determining abstention were met: (1) that the

proceedings constituted an ongoing state judicial

proceeding, (2) that the proceedings implicated an

important state interest, and (3) that there was adequate

opportunity in the state proceedings to raise

constitutional challenges. So the court determined that

Morancy failed to establish a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits. The court denied Morancy’s motion

and ordered him to show cause as to why his claims

seeking injunctive relief should not be dismissed and his

claims seeking damages stayed under Younger. Morancy

filed this interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial

of his request for a preliminary injunction.

* Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar

Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 482 (1982).

USCAI11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

6a

6 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

II.

We review a district court’s ruling on a preliminary

injunction for an abuse of discretion. Klay v. United

Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir. 2004).

Similarly, a district court’s decision to abstain under

Younger is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 31 Foster

Child. v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003). A

district court abuses its discretion when “it applies an

incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in

making [a] determination, or makes findings of fact that

are clearly erroneous.” Klay, 376 F.3d at 1096.

III.

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must

establish that

(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on

the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be

suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the

threatened injury to the movant outweighs

USCAI11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

7a

24-12505 Opinon of the Court 7

whatever damage the proposed injunction

may cause the opposing party; and (4) if

issued, the injunction would not be adverse to

the public interest.

Forsyth Cnty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 633 F.3d

1032, 1039 (11th Cir. 2011) Gnternal quotation marks

omitted). Courts need not address the other requirements

if the movant cannot show a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits. Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218,

1229 (11th Cir. 2011).

The Younger doctrine “derives from the vital

consideration of comity between the state and national

governments.” 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1274

(internal quotation marks omitted). Under Younger and

its progeny, “federal district courts must refrain from

enjoining pending state court procsciines except under

special circumstances.” Old Republic Union Ins. v. Tillis

Trucking Co., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997).

Younger abstention applies to three categories of cases:

ISCA11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

8a

8 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

(1) “ongoing state criminal prosecutions,” (2) “certain civil

enforcement proceedings,” and (3) “civil proceedings

involving certain orders uniquely in furtherance of the

state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.”

Sprint Comme'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 78 (2013)

(alteration adopted and internal quotation marks

omitted). In such cases, whether the case warrants

Younger abstention is then threefold: (1) do the

proceedings constitute “an ongoing state judicial

proceeding,” (2) “do the proceedings implicate important

state interests,” and (3) “is there an adequate opportunity

in the state proceedings to raise constitutional

challenges.” Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

The first factor is met when the relief sought by the

plaintiff would interfere with an ongoing state

proceeding. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1275-76. The

USCAII1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

9a

24-12505 Opinon of the Court 9

plaintiffs requested relief interferes with the state

proceeding if it would disrupt the normal course of action

in the state proceeding. Id. at 1276.

As to the second factor, the Supreme Court has

repeatedly recognized that states “have important

interests in administering certain aspects of their judicial

systems.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 12-18

(1987). Proceedings implicate important state interests

when they are necessary for the vindication of vital state

policies. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1274. Domestic

relations issues are historically considered important

state issues left to the discretion of state courts. See

Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 434-35 (1979) (family

relations are an “important” and “traditional area of state

concern”).

For the third factor, “plaintiffs have the burden of

establishing that the state proceedings do not provide an

USCAL11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

10a

10 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

adequate remedy for their federal claims.” 31 Foster

Children, 329 F.3d at 1279. “A federal court should

assume that state procedures will afford an adequate

remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the

contrary.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The

relevant question is “not whether the state courts can do

all that Plaintiffs wish they could” but whether the

available remedies are adequate. Jd. (internal quotation

marks omitted).

IV.

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Morancy’s request for a _ preliminary

injunction. The district court here provided both a

4 Morancy also requested an evidentiary hearing, and the district court denied

the request as moot. While a district court may hold an evidentiary hearing

before ruling on a preliminary injunction, we have determined that Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), which provides that a preliminary injunction shall

only issue after notice to the adverse party, “does not expressly require a

USCAI1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

1ia

24-12505 Opinon of the Court 11

factual background and caselaw and noted that the

requirements of the foundational caselaw were met. It

properly applied our test for when a preliminary

injunction is appropriate and determined that Morancy

failed to meet the first prong—a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits—because it was barred from

considering his claims under Younger. Though the

district court’s order was brief, it did specifically find that

the Middlesex factors were met and that Younger

abstention was warranted.

The district court’s analysis was not clearly

erroneous because the instant case directly involves civil

state court proceedings in a dependency and child custody

case, see Sprint Comme’s, Inc., 571 U.S. at 78, and it

hearing on every motion for injunctive relief.” Baker v. Buckeye Cellulose

Corp., 856 F.2d 167, 169 (11th Cir. 1988). Therefore, to the extent that

Morancy argues that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary

hearing on his motion, he is incorrect.

USCAI1I1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

12a

12 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

satisfies all three Middlesex factors. See 31 Foster

Children, 329 F.3d at 1275-79. The first Middlesex factor,

requiring ongoing state judicial proceedings in which

federal litigation would interfere, is satisfied because

Morancy requests the transfer of his state court case to a

different state court. See id. at 1275. Morancy’s request

indicates not only that the state case is ongoing, but also

that Morancy explicitly requested intervention in the

state proceedings. See id. And Younger does not, as

Morancy appears to argue, apply only where there are

pending criminal! proceedings. See id. At 1274.

The second factor, requiring that the state

proceeding implicate important state interests, is

satisfied because domestic relations issues have been

historically considered a state interest. See Middlesex,

457 U.S. at 432; Moore, 442 U.S. at 434-35. While

Morancy’s second amended complaint arguably raises

USCAI1I1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

13a

24-12505 Opinon of the Court 13

federal issues, the underlying state proceedings he seeks

to challenge fall squarely within the realm of state

interests, and the district court therefore properly

concluded that this factor was met. See Moore, 442 U.S.

at 434-35; Klay, 376 F.3d at 1096.

The third factor, requiring adequate opportunity in

the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges,

is also satisfied because the court may presume that the

state proceedings will afford an adequate remedy, and

Morancy did not provide any unambiguous authority to

the contrary. See 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1279.

Morancy’s claims about the bias and corruption of various

state court actors are irrelevant to the third factor

because the third factor is not concerned with questions

of substance or equity, but is procedural, and Morancy

could raise his due process claims in the _ state

USCAI1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 05/08/2025

14a

14 Opinion of the Court 24-12505

proceedings. Johnson v. Florida, 32 F.4th 1092, 1101

(11th Cir. 2022) Gnternal quotation marks omitted).

In sum, the district court did not apply an incorrect

legal standard, follow incorrect procedures, or make

clearly erroneous factual findings when it found that the

three Middlesex factors were met and that Younger

abstention was likely warranted. Therefore, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Morancy’s

request for a preliminary injunction because he was

unlikely to succeed on the merits. See Forsyth Cnty., 633

F.3d at 1039; Klay, 376 F.3d at 1096. Because the district

court did not err in finding that Morancy failed to

establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits,

we need not consider the other prongs of the preliminary

injunction inquiry. See Bloedorn, 631 F.3d at 1229.

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCAII1 Case: 24-12505 Document: 57

Date Filed: 06/23/2025

15a

APPENDIX B

In the

United States Court of Appeals

Sor the ‘Eleventh Circuit

No. 24-12505

JEAN DOMINIQUE MORANCY,

Father

L.M.,

a minor, by and through her father, Jean Dominique

Morancy,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

SABRINA ALEX SALOMON,

GERALD FRANCIS ZNOSKO,

ANGELA LYNN LAMBIASE,

CARLOS A. OTERO,

KEITH FRANKLIN WHITE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

USCAI11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 06/23/2025 Page 2 of 2

16a

Appeal from the United States District Court —

for the Middle District of Florida Calendar

D.C Docket No. 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN

ON PETITION(S) FOR REHEARING AND

PETITION(S) FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before Rosenbaum, Abudu, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED,

no judge in regular service on the Court having requested

that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc. FRAP 40.

The Petition for Panel Rehearing also is denied. FRAP 40.

Case 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN Document 217

Filed 07/31/24

17a

APPENDIX C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

JEAN DOMINIQUE MORANCY

and L.M.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 6:23-ev-714-CEM-RMN

SABRINA ALEX SALOMON, GERALD FRANCIS

ZNOSKO, ANGELA LYNN LAMBIASE, CARLOS A.

OTERO, KEITH FRANKLIN WHITE, JOHN DAVID

WILLIAM BEAMER, ELAINE AGNES BARBOUR,

NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA,

FLORIDA SIXTH COURT OF APPEAL, ZNOSKO &

REAS, P.A.. FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

ANNA ARCENEAUX, ALBERT & DONNELLY LLC,

JOHN JOSEPH ALBERT, WANDA MARIE REAS,

OTERO FAMILY LAW P.A., JAY PAUL COHEN,

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD

SUPPORT PROGRAM, IRENA MONICO, JUDY

NICHOLSON, DAVID MUGUERCIA, MICHAEL T

USCAI11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 06/23/2025

18a

DONNELLY, II , TIFFANY MOORE RUSSELL,

REVIVAL PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHREIBER,

NICHOLAS SHANNIN, SHANNIN LAW FIRM P.A.,

CAROL BRADSHAW SHANNIN, DANIEL E.

TRAVER, and CARRIE ANN WOZNIAK,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs!

Motion for Preliminary Injunction/Temporary

Restraining Order and Issuance of Necessary Writs

(“Motion,” Doc. 138), to which Defendants Elaine Agnes

Barbour, John David William Beamer, Jay Paul Cohen,

Florida Attorney General, Florida Sixth District Court of

Appeal, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, Charles

Schreiber, Daniel E. Traver, Keith Franklin White, and

Carrie Ann Wozniak filed a response, (Doc. 148), and

1 For convenience, Plaintiffs Jean Dominique Morancy and L.M. will be

collectively referred to as “Plaintiff.”

Case 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN Document 217

Filed 07/31/24

19a

Defendant Florida Department of Revenue - Child

Support Program filed a response, (Doc. 161). Also

pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Request for an

Evidentiary Hearing Related to the Motion for the

Preliminary Injunction/TRO (“Request for Hearing,” Doc.

159). As set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion will be denied

and the Request for Hearing will be denied as moot.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant

must sufficiently establish that “(1) it has a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury

will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the

threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever

damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing

party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be

adverse to the public interest.” Forsyth Cniy. v. U.S.

Army Corps of Engrs, 633 F.3d 1032, 1039 (11th Cir.

2011) (quoting Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th

Cir. 2000) (en banc)). “A preliminary injunction,

USCA11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 06/23/2025

20a

moreover, ‘is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to

be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the

burden of persuasion as to the four requisites.” Llovera

v. Florida, 576 F. App’x 894, 896 (11th Cir. 2014) (per

curiam) (quoting Forsyth Cnty., 633 F.3d at 1039).

Plaintiff seeks relief from state court decisions.

Plaintiff requests this Court enjoin Florida Department

of Revenue - Child Support Program from garnishing

Plaintiffs wages; grant child custody in his favor; and

transfer the paternity case from the Ninth Judicial

Circuit to the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, among other

forms of relief. (See Doc. 138 at 14—15; see also Doc. 117

at 94-99). Review of the Motion and Plaintiffs Second

Amended Complaint, (Doc. 117), thus raised concerns

whether this Court should abstain pursuant to Younger

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

The Younger abstention doctrine “requires a

federal court to abstain where a plaintiffs federal claims

Case 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN Document 217

Filed 07/31/24

21a

could be adjudicated in a pending state judicial

proceeding.” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202

(1988). “The Supreme Court has recognized only three

types of state proceedings where abstention is warranted:

(1) criminal prosecutions; (2) civil enforcement

proceedings; and (8) civil proceedings involving certain

orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state

courts’ . . . judicial functions.” Leonard v. Ala. State Bd.

of Pharmacy, 61 F.4th 902, 907-08 (11th Cir. 2023). All

Plaintiffs claims relate to civil state proceedings, with at

least one count directly referencing the actions of legal

counsel at the state level and state court judges. (Doc. 117

at 26-51). Furthermore, the proceedings involve issues of

child custody, child support, and paternity, which fall

under the domestic relations exception to federal

jurisdiction. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 308

(2006) (“{O]nly ‘divorce, alimony, and child custody

decrees’ remain outside federal jurisdictional bounds.”).

USCAI11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 06/23/2025

22a

“{Flederal courts generally dismiss cases involving

divorce and alimony, child custody, visitation rights,

establishment of paternity, child support, and

enforcement of separation or divorce decrees still subject

to state court modification.” Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d

368, 369 (11th Cir. 1988). Therefore, this state proceeding

is covered by the third category discussed in Leonard.

The Court must then ask three questions before

determining abstention is warranted: “first, do the

proceedings constitute an ongoing state judicial

proceeding; second, do [the proceedings] implicate

important state interests; and third, is there an adequate

opportunity in the state proceedings to raise

constitutional challenges.” 31 Foster Children v. Bush,

329 F.3d 1255, 1274 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Middlesex

Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S.

423, 432 (1982)). If the answer to those inquiries is “yes,”

then federal courts must abstain from intervention in the

Case 6:23-cv-00714-CEM-RMN Document 217

Filed 07/31/24

23a

ongoing, state court proceedings. It appears that all three

of these factors are met here. Therefore, Plaintiff has also

not established a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as

follows:

1. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary

Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order and Issuance of

Necessary Writs (Doc. 138) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiffs Request for an Evidentiary Hearing

Related to the Motion for the Preliminary Injunction/TRO

(Doc. 159) is DENIED as moot.

3. On or before August 19, 2024, 2024, Plaintiff

shall SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why the claims

requesting injunctive relief should not be dismissed and

the claims seeking damages stayed pursuant to the

Younger abstention doctrine. Failure to do so will

USCA11 Case: 24-12505 Document: 51

Date Filed: 06/23/2025

24a

result in the dismissal and stay of the claims

without further notice.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on

July 31, 2024.

/S/ CARLOS E. MENDOZA

CARLOS E. MENDOZA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

25a

APPENDIX D

“SOO SI WEA soNLorUNUMMOS Jo puke souepuodsauod ‘spremeTTW pue

ANY 20 sated T Ty Adoo skewer TSAyy nox “suoAue woy suoyeorununuo> FLUVd-XA 2412291 jouTED eoryo s aspar amy yeup Jaquiomas aseaig

- “3]4Js poe Joqumu aseo apnpout 0}

[eMe mod Jo am] Walqng ap UT AoUATIIMy,, o}PoIpPUT se [Jam se DoNOPy am Jo Adoz e SPHIMY pnogs 449]> egy WO saapyery Aouedse0y AuYy

“62 UOISTAIC] epUaTeD [Ty

“SPIND Jas/) © pure Jepud|ed Ty Joy mojsq sy] papracid

o.ae] | 9ouRMeAtoD Ino Joy “amu aBed s_snoqmeg a¥pne Uo punoy aq uED yoryss ‘aU Bunseay a[geyre.se J0y ‘YOo] 0} Fepusyey [Vy 24} esN 0} ams

99 Id UVAONATVO IV ONISN OL GANOLLISNVUL ATIN FAVH FM “SOVE ONISN WIONOT ON SI 6Z NOISIAIC ‘NOLLNALIV

‘ATMOYs payya aq Jas Japlo Wy “Iaplo eIA Jasay Uaaq sey EL oq],

sabewy moys sfemjy 40 saBewl moys ‘sabew! payd0\q sueyuoo abessaw sl &

anbiunwog wear ‘OueIOW ‘OYSOUZ pje1ay ‘UOSUIOW aluUay ‘aserquie7 ejabuy :0;

X

Buo2afur0@zqreh> swo0ly

JA Wid 8S2 98 E202 ‘EE IN YON Ge augsUY> ‘Udyo)-yazE1g S)

ZA xoquyooues NOWO1VS A ADNVYOW 9929146102 - L4S3Y TIM “3

a

a eae weds @ aed HM anow BY anyoy I fe D WD peATS

26a

Wd Pb:2 €202 ‘be Anr ‘Aepuow Quas

<lW0'SEAIOYSOUZH/SSEIQWUe ]Y¥> aseique’] ejabuy :wuol4

“SOTIT] PUL SIIEP IIQR]TEAR Joy JEpus[eTy 0} Jojas Wes q

167 DOISLAIG] SUOLTTSY WysemOg Ayan, esae1KC 10j seu} Bovis

3. ALALAL

)j

j

isSoLivay Suyjyes WaqyAs 6[-P OT “ON 8PIO aAnex simpy 0} sayaa bseatg

(Bio RONEN pa OA

Losay SaINpadoIg 67 WOISLUg] 4pUNO-) aBaeAGC O} Jayo1 asvotg

(GO TROIDGMM) EpHOTY Jo MMOD MASI PEIIpAT TUT | Moqre” “Y SUETY

:oSedqaas S,rnoqueg “y aurteyy espur

LPMON]PUN® Jona ‘wexBeysuy “Jooqs7e,{

BIO SHI TACT

TRET-GES-LOF -2°WO

Q6T MooRIo;)

LO8ZE “Li “opuepg ‘snueay a8ueIO N SZP

asnowpNo; AWUNoD sFUeIO

6¢ WOISTAIC, SUOHETAY ONSeurO”]

moqmeg “y sure] y a8pny 04 yoesissy PEISIpNy

WayoD-yaesrg lL eaAsuy)

jAep [aysopuom & oaey pue nod yueYT,

27a

‘sinojuud yons jo saidoo Aue pue sjuawyoeye Jo jlew-e a4) Jo synoyuud Aue Aonsep pue eipaw afeso)s 10 saauip Aue wtoy 108194)

seidoo ye pue ‘syuawyreye Aue ‘pew-s ay) ajajep Ajuaueuwad pue Ajeyerpawuu sn Ajqou ‘soue ul [eUW-2 Siy] paAieoes eaey nod anayeq Nod 4 ‘syuawWYyoeYe |

40 eUs-2 ayy jo asn Aue Guryew woy Jo syuawysepe Aue 10 peu-2 arp yo Buvnaa sayyny Aue Woy payqiyoid aue nod yuardoas Papusjui ayy jou ese NOA 3) nyrejuN

aq Aew pue paygiyoid Anoins si GurAdoo 40 'uoyeumuessip ‘uognquisip ‘emsopsip ‘esn pezuoujneun Auy ‘@SSSBIPPe Sty JO ASN ayy 40} AjUO Papuajut SI pue ‘Me;

ajqeoydde sapun asnsopsip woy ydwaxe pue | GOUd WHOM ASNYOLLWY JO/PUE GIOIA WAMd LNAITO-AANYOLLY 29 Aew “WILNSGISNOD S! 'L2S2-0152

28S O'SN St Py eau, suopesunuUOD d1U0N28/3 ey) Aq palaA0d ese sjueWYSeNe Aue pue HEW-2 SIU! “YIWIVIDSIO ® ALTIVILNSGISNOD 40 JDILON

|

|

|

“bsg ‘eseiquie’] ejaiuy

‘spieBay puty

"We 00:6 12 yr IsnGny uM poob are ayy paniasey

NOWOWS A AONVYOW 9929106102 - LSU TIL :3u 3elgns

<wor ooyeA@opafougn> sndiuiwog uear

“AQUeLOW ‘<W09'Sk9J04S0UZD)0xSOUZ4)> OASOUT PjeIaD ‘<WOI"SBAIOYSOUZMUOSWOWP> UOSIIOW aluUar ‘<b10'29[uI0@zqoeho> euysuyy ‘UaYyo-yolesg :oy

28a

ping 3989) Ty

“67 BOISIAIC] JepUrTED FY

“SPIN Jasy] B Pur FepuaTe. Py JO} Mojaq SYUT popracsd

DAey | ‘WUSTBEAUOD INCA JOT “amnpUO aBed s moqieg eBpne vo punoy 3q Ed YoryA ‘UM Busway 2/Qz[TeAe Joy YOO] 0} JepurTe>D Ty ay} asn 07 ams

99 8SPId WVANFTVO IV ONISN OL GHUNOLLISNVEL ATTN FZAVH 3M “SOVE ONISN UFONOT ON S167 NOISIAIC -NOLLNELIV

"Auyiqeyreae oA

pUe [TEMS SITY JO Jtadar LANTOS as¥a[_ “WE 6 Ie PT SHINY 0} JoSaI 9q 0} PIT [TIA WE 6 Ie gp IsHBNY Jog Jas [LIN AL

‘Toomlaye poop

ybiy :esuepoduy;

NOWOTVS A AONVYOW 99291406102 - 14538 TWIdt 228fqns

<W0d OOYEAMOPSloOwqn> anbiuiwog ueer

‘ouelopy '<uidy SSIDYSOUZMoseique [y> Sseique] Qjabiry ‘<il0s SbaloySOULZOps0UPe)> OYSOUT Pjesad ‘<WOT Ses OySOUCHUOSIUO;YT > UOSIIOW S1UUSL 707

Wd $21 £207 ‘LE Aint ‘Aepuow suas

<HITTIDSOCGIENS> sunsuyy ‘veyoo-yayesg wos4

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-36]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]