1. Is a Complaint a cognizable 'three-party '
Contract (simple or specialty, and ultimately of
record, i.e. judgment), between the State and the
parties, a substantive benefit and property
interest created by state law, and does that
Contract, including the State 's rules, regulations,
statutes, ordinances, resolutions, and policies or
procedures,- expressed or implied - (adhesion
contract clauses) rise to the level of a legitimate
claim of entitlement protected by the US
Constitution 's 14th Amendment due process
clauses, both procedural and substantive, and
the 5th Amendment 's protection of property
without due process?

2. Since New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass 'n u.
Bruen (2022), how does this Court reconcile and
continue to justify the constitutional
construction and congressional intent found in
Pierson v. Ray (1967), Stump v. Sparkman
(1978), inter alia , for judicial immunity under 42
USC § 1983 considering Randall u. Brigham
(1868); and the application of 17 Stat. 13, to
include judges as proper parties for civil liability
within the sets as defined by "That any person
who " found therein, and "Every person who ... "
found within 42 USC § 1983?

3. In protecting Petitioner 's procedural and
substantive due process rights under the US
Constitution 's 14th Amendment protected, the
questions fairly included herein are:

(a) was Petitioner 's Colorado Rule of Civil
Procedure ("CRCP ") Rule 59 Motion to
Reconsider timely filed?

(b) was Petitioner 's Colorado Rules of Appellate
Procedure ("CAR ") 4(a) Notice , of Appeal
timely filed?

(c) Is the use of the word 'terminated ' or 'mailing '
in CAR 4(a)(3) and (5), respectively void for
vagueness , with respect to the calculation of
time with respect to CRCP Rules 59 and 58?

Is a Complaint a cognizable 'three-party' Contract