Anthony J. Lucero v. Paul Gordon, et al.

Pursuant to Rule 14(l)(a)

1. Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine permit this United States Supreme Court to review state trial court documents and judgments in this case within a case lawsuit which alleges patently egregious violations of Plaintiffs 14th Amendment to the Constitution due process rights by the state trial court, and then rule in favor of Plaintiffs claims for actual, compensatory, and continuing damages arising from Respondents’ legal representation failures, criminal deceptions to the courts, and illegal sham affidavit?

2. Did Respondents’ initial private-party, nongovernmental actions become open to federal constitutional scrutiny when the state trial court overtly encouraged and even ratified Respondents’ actions and illegal affidavit to consequently make Respondents state actors — with subsequent court rulings against Plaintiff intertwined with Respondents firmly established as state actors'?

3. Did the state and federal courts err when they should have taken judicial notice, in this legal malpractice case, of Plaintiffs timely, approved malpractice Certificate of Review as well as Plaintiffs 19+ evidence submissions, including evidence proving Respondents’ sole piece of never substantiated “evidence” - an affidavit that was introduced 11 months after evidence deadline - was a patently sham affidavit?

4. Did the state and federal courts err in their continued misunderstanding that - besides a trial-court-filed, in camera court approved, Certificate of Review - Plaintiff did not need an outside expert witness, as referenced in both Colorado Rule 702 and its twin, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, wherein both rules require, in part, that the expert be qualified to "help the trier of fact of fact to understand the