First Supplement to January 15, 2016 Petition for Redress of Grievances Pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of R. Gordon Gooch under IS16-61.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword I. Colonial's Non-Response on the Merits: No Claim that its Rates Are Lawful; No Claim that Scalping is Lawful. II. Colonial's Other Glaring Omission: Any Challenge to the Law as Presented by Elisabeth Myers and Me. III. Conclusion: The Commission Must Uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States: Stop Unlawful Rates and Stop Scalping in 2016. i FOREWORD This first supplement is precipitated by a document filed by Colonial entitled: "Response of Colonial Pipeline Company to Petition for Redress of Grievances of R. Gordon Gooch" (Response"). In the Response, Colonial addressed only one of the three allegations of unlawful conduct that I raised: (1) Colonial's rates are unlawful, conclusively proven by its own Page 700 showing revenues in excess of the claimed cost of service by almost a quarter of a billion dollars. (2) Scalping is unlawful because it violates the requirement that all rates charged for pipeline capacity be on file at the Commission, be just and reasonable, and also violates the prohibition on rebates above or below the pipeline filed rate. (3) Colonial's effort to limit liability under any and all laws was itself unlawful. Colonial responded only to this point, basically conceding that my points were valid. Colonial represented and warranted that its intent was very limited. Why respond to only one of the three issues on the merits? Because there was no answer to my protests of illegal and unlawful conduct. To claim that there were defenses would involve a potential violation of the statute 1 making it a crime to misrepresent matters to a Government agency. Instead of responding to all three issues, Colonial instead challenged my right to file a Petition for Redress of Grievances under the Constitution. Colonial is not content with Commission regulations which bar consumers from having any voice in the rates we must ultimately pay. Colonial wants to preclude consumers from exercising the Constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Lest you think I am guilty of hyperbole, here is Colonial's argument for suppression of my right to petition, characteristically, buried in a footnote: 3 Mr. Gooch argues that notwithstanding his lack of standing to be a party to this case, his Petition should be accepted based on the First Amendment to the United State