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
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
plainly wrong, deceptive, grounds for disbarment and was
injurious to Plaintiff on so many levels?

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?