Did the Arizona Court of Appeals errantly affirm and allow Arizona Superior Court to designate Bourne's vexatious litigants and dismiss their case?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the Arizona Court of Appeals errantly affirm and allow Arizona Superior Court to designate Bourne’s vexatious litigants and dismiss their case under A.R.S. § ; 12-3201 and through their claimed inherent authority under Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8, 14, 1 17 (App. 2012)? 2. Do the actual adjudicated facts, written in the October 9, 2020, Court Order, (February 2019 October 2020), completely contradict the State’s vexatious litigant label and the dismissal of Bourne’s complaint as a sanction? 3. Asamatter of law, a cell phone recorded adjudicated, October 9, 2020, Court Order, victim with adjudicated. October 9, 2020, Court Order, medical record diagnosed, respondent (defendant) caused injuries, now needs the ‘ Supreme Court of the United States, as a matter of national importance for victim’s rights, across our entire country, to decide: Is this action designating adjudicated victim’s vexatious litigants and dismissing their cases to . be stopped, reversing this injustice, or in opposition, to approve Arizona and United States courts declaring proven victim’s (as in petitioner’s case) vexatious litigants and dismissing their cases? 4, Following the October 9, 2020, Court Order’s adjudicated factual medical record admissions and the | uu adjudicated factual cell phone recording admissions is this same Arizona Superior Court Judge, after 2020 holidays, allowed to now claim Banner can use any defense, even one court adjudicated to be factually false, to obtain their motive. avoid paying very sizeable damages in this medical malpractice case? 5. Did the State of Arizona courts errantly not apply zd. ARS § 18-2702 perjury crime and ARS § 23-785 crime of willfully and knowingly making false statements about an adjudicated material fact, Banner’s confirmed diagnosis regarding Banner patient Paula Bourne being opioid : poisoned as evidenced in both Banner’s medical records and recordings and yet Banner attorney, Elizabeth Petersen, unconscionably stating otherwise, as ; evidenced _ intentionally lying about this court adjudicated fact both verbally and in her briefs. As a : matter of law, was Banner attorney Elizabeth Petersen, to be held accountable, as an officer of the court? 6. Has the Arizona Court of Appeals errantly affirmed the Arizona Superior Court’s violation of the US. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, “State of Arizona depriving Bourne’s constitutional right to life, liberty, and property, without due process of law; and denying the Bourne’s equal protection of the laws” by not providing defendant exhibits to Bourne’s and then allowing Banner prejudicial Judge having her personal bias as her close Banner doctor, relationship, with father-in-law’s pulmonology Banner practice directly 4 across the street as clearly at the March 11, 2022 sanctions hearing, unconstitutionally dismissing Bourne’s medical malpractice case and civil complaint? 7. Does Ariz. R. Evid. 201, same as Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts, (b) (2) apply in this case regarding Banner Health’s 2018 event hospitalization medical records “as own : admissions” and 2018 event hospitalization cell phone recordings “as own admissions” in Court Order, filed on October 9, 2020, with Court Order clearly adjudicating above as “Banner’s own admissions” (adjudicated facts)? 8. Have the State of Arizona courts turned their eyes away and allowed Banner attorney Elizabeth Petersen’s highly evidenced Banner Rapid Response falsified flow : sheet? 9. Was this Rapid Response flow sheet continually used as Banner’s only piece of evidence as provided to each Banner expert witness misleading them, with falsified perfect measurements, that Paula was fine? 10.Was this falsified evidence used throughout discovery, at all depositions, at all hearings, and going to ‘ be used at trial? 11. Was falsified Rapid Response flow sheet, with crude Ww hand scribbled out redactions