1. Do the Intervenors have an absolute right to
intervene as a separate, bona fide Party in the
State's action to take common lands of their
HOA pursuant to ARCP! Rule, 24(a) (2)?

2. Does the State's failure to provide Notice and
Summons to HOA homeowners per ARS? §121145 constitute fatal error?

8. Did the State's Settlement with the HOA fairly
settle the Intervenors' Takings Claims?

4, Was the Trial Court's approval of the State's
HOA Taking settlement, over and above the
Intervenor's objection to the taking and without
addressing the prohibitions and supremacy
clause contained in Prop207° raised by the
Intervenors, a reversible error?

5. Was the Intervenors' Interlocutory Appeal, based
on Prop207's prohibitions, properly rejected by a
single Judge Pro Temp., allegedly because the
trial judge's order was not a "final ruling," when
in fact the immediate consequences were
irrefutably final?

6. Was the Trial Court's declaration of Summary
Judgement plain error?

7. Was the Trial Court's insistence on the statutory
formula for damages plain error?

8. Did the State's and HOA's experts fail to
correctly interpret statutory language to quantify
real-world bank value losses per ARS?

9. Is the Substitute Facility Remedy the Only
"Just" Remedy?

10.Does ARS Prohibit Punitive Damages in this
Case?

11.Was the Court's failure to proceed to trial a
reversible error?

12.Was the Award of Fees to the HOA's Attorney
Proper?

Do the Intervenors have an absolute right to intervene as a separate, bona fide Party in the State's action to take common lands of their HOA pursuant to ARCP Rule 24(a)(2)?