Whether Petitioner is entitled to $2.6 billion in civil RICO default judgment under Rule 55 where Defendants failed to respond, violating due process under the Fourteenth Amendment

The questions presented are: Question One: Whether Petitioner is entitled to $2.6 billion in civil RICO default judgment under Rule 55 where Defendants failed to respond, and trial and appellate courts refused review, violating due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Question Two: Whether Colorado ’s “finality ” clause in C.R.S. § 22-30.5-108(3)(d) violates due process and free speech rights by barring judicial review of charter school denials involving systemic antitrust, statutory noncompliance, and civil RICO violations. Question Three: Whether the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel ’s (OARC) unreviewable structure violates the Fourteenth Amendment by shielding attorney misconduct —sabotage, forgery, bribery, and RICO —from investigation or discipline. Question Four: Whether CCRD ’s refusal to assert jurisdiction over third-party employment discrimination — despite EEOC policy and federal law recognizing such claims —violates Title VII and denies whistleblower protection and constitutional redress. Question Five: Whether a state court may dismiss a Sherman Act claim for lack of jurisdiction despite 15 U.S.C. § 15(a) ’s express private right of action, and whether this denies due process and antitrust accountability. ii Question Six: Whether judicial suppression of subpoenas and evidence, and retaliatory gag orders, violate the Fourteenth Amendment when trial courts act under color of law to protect state-sponsored racketeering. Question Seven: Whether this Court should issue a preliminary injunction under Rule 23, the All Writs Act, and the APA to halt further charter approvals in DCSD and Jeffco while constitutional and RICO claims remain unresolved. Question Eight: Whether STEM School Highlands Ranch must be restored to Petitioner after its unlawful seizure by forged contracts and RICO conduct, and whether this constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Question Nine: Whether Petitioner is entitled to immediate approval of twelve charter schools wrongfully denied under civil and criminal RICO, and whether related federal funding obligations under IDEA and ADA must be enforced. Question Ten: Whether Colorado Supreme Court Justices violated due process and 28 U.S.C. § 455 by ruling on a motion in which they were named Defendants, rendering their denial void and federal review mandatory. This Petition involves fourteen named Defendants, over twenty-five attorneys, and a factually rich record spanning more than a decade of litigation, whistleblowing, and systemic retaliation. Given the massive scope, systemic coordination, and multi-agency entrenchment involved, this case demands a fuller summary than typical to convey the constitutional magnitude of the issues Hi before the Court. What follows is a focused account of the public education monopoly, regulatory suppression, and retaliatory discrimination that define one of the most urgent and expansive constitutional breakdowns in U.S. history. This case challenges a structurally insulated web of constitutional violations, civil and criminal racketeering, and retaliatory obstruction within Colorado ’s public education and legal regulatory systems. Between 2014 and 2023, Petitioner Judy A. Brannberg — a charter school founder and education entrepreneur — submitted seventeen charter school applications to DCSD and Jeffco. Each application was denied by state and local officials acting under color of law, in violation of statutory requirements and in retaliation for exposing fraud, discrimination, and public corruption. Beginning in February 2014, Petitioner warned DCSD, Jeffco, UMB Bank, CECFA, SBE/CDE, CCRD, and STEM School of systemic noncompliance creating foreseeable and escalating safety risks (ROA39653-39972). On May 27,2017 — two years before the school shooting — Petitioner sent a formal warning (ROA39681-39682) to the DCSD Board with evidence of STEM School ’s catastrophic financial failure, ineligibility for bond financing because of