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?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Pursuant to Rule 14(1)(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 14 ‘ 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 792, wherein both rules require, in part, that the expert be , qualified to “help the trier of fact of fact to understand the a evidence” except that in this particular, extremely simple : : . legal malpractice case the trier of fact is a sitting judge, an attorney at law, already an expert legal malpractice witness : according to case law, who had only to weigh some very simple evidence documents from Plaintiff and one solitary Respondent evidence proffered of a patently sham affidavit to conclude that Respondent attorney’s legal malpractice was plainly wrong, deceptive, grounds for disbarment and ‘ injurious to Plaintiff on so many levels? i} LIST OF ALL PARTIES [ : Rule 14 (1)()Q@): 7 The case caption contains the list of all parties. . ‘ Petitioner is Anthony J. Lucero. Respondents are Paul , Gordon and Paul Gordon LLC. ;