Is a Complaint a cognizable 'three-party' Contract

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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 14‘* Amendment due process | clauses, both procedural and substantive, and | the 5° Amendment’s protection of property ! without due process? 2. Since New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. 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 v. 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? 8. In protecting Petitioner’s procedural and substantive due process rights under the US Constitution’s 14° 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 i , time with respect to CRCP Rules 59 and 58? ii ; CERTIFICATE OF