Whether the Colorado courts denied the petitioner an equitable and honorable consideration of the legal arguments presented

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado Court of Appeals and the District Court, San Miguel County, CO were corrupt in failing to legally assess the evidence and applicable case law presented by Plaintiff, Petitioner Appellant pro se, and in so doing, denied and deprived him of an equitable and honorable consideration for his legal arguments. 2. Whether the Colorado Court of Appeals engaged in serious wrongdoing by usurping the State of Colorado Supreme Court from a ruling duly provided for in 02SC102 Mortgage Investments Corp. v. Battle Mountain Corp. dated May 12, 2003 and as modified on Denial of Rehearing June 9, 2003. The judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals have a duty to adhere to and honor the ruling from the State of Colorado Supreme Court, and do not have the ability or discretion to interpret or render their own new opinion. 3. Whether the two part and separate rulings by San Miguel County District Court Judge Mary Deganhart were incomplete and incorrect while lacking any substantative case precedence. The first ruling was based on a generality wherein she states that it is not illegal to ask for repayment of a debt. That notwithstanding, would be a correct statement. However, this wasn’t applicable as a result of the Defendant no longer having a legal right to ask for the repayment of the alleged debt since the alleged debt was null and void, legally unenforceable, and must be extinguished under C.R.S. 13-80-103.5 and C.R.S. 38-39-207. The second ruling was that Plaintiff did not have legal standing as the real party in 5 _ interest to bring the complaint filed in San Miguel County District Court and was not the a real party in interest, citing that he was no longer the owner of the property which had been previously transferred from Plaintiff to Sunshinemesa LLC many years earlier. Again, this ruling by San Miguel County District Court Judge Mary E. Deganhart was horribly flawed. The ruling was incomplete and incorrect. Nowhere does any case law, cited by the District Court judge or the Colorado Court of Appeals’ judges, state that in order for the party to be deemed to be a real party in interest, that the individual or entity must be the owner of the property. Plaintiffs have standing to sue if they have either suffered or are threatened with an injury of sufficient magnitude to reasonably assure the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented. The essential element of the cause of action is injury to one’s interest in the property — ownership of the property is not. The judge refused to address and adjudicate the preliminary issue . presented by Plaintiff of whether the substantial amount of money ($ 220,000.00) given by Defendant (mother) to Plaintiff (son) over a period of years prior to the execution of the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust was a gift or a loan. The judge failed to even apply sound legal principles controlling a gift and IRS rules and regulations pertaining to a gift or a loan, that would have supported and validated Plaintiff’s position that the money, as referenced above, should have clearly been deemed to be a gift and not a loan. 6