1) I would like the Supreme Court to review my case which successfully achieved sworn testimony from
Englewood Lock and Safe, Inc. owner Tom Gallegos that he knew of the hostile work environment and
systemic harassment against me orchestrated and promoted by his wife and co-owner Sheila Gallegos.
When questioning Tom Gallegos about knowing about the harassment he looked directly at Judge
S. Kato Crews and admitted he was weak for not protecting me as an employee (his exact words to Judge
Crews "I was weak!"). This proves the Defendant's lied this entire time by claiming ignorance hiding under
unreported HR procedures that I felt I could not utilize without facing retaliation (husband and wife
are HR).

2) Tom Gallegos, owner of Englewood Lock and Safe Inc., admitted that he paid a male employee
with no locksmithing experience more than me. Both Judge S. Kato Crews and the Appeals Court
acknowledge his admission of guilt but because I did not ask what the pay differencial was they
ruled in the Defendant's favor. How are the two courts able to override the Defendant's admission
of guilt from their own sworn testimony?

3) Englewood Lock and Safe, Inc. has been a Colorado company for over 50 years. I am concerned
that the courts have been biased and unfairly implemented sympathy in the favor of the Defendant for
being a family-owned company native to Colorado. While questioning Tom Gallegos, he started to
become hostile and defensive and Judge S. Kato Crews excused his poor behavior because he said
I was "going after his business".

Defendant's-admission-of-guilt-overridden