Whether a State court is permitted to issue decisions in conflict with Supreme Court precedents and violate fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court seized Petitioner’s law license for 18 months since March 25, 2022. This seizure is based upon the recommendation of the Board of Bar Overseers (“the BBO”), a subsidiary State ; agency of the court. Both the BBO and the court have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving attorneys admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The BBO’s duties include handling complaints against attorneys for misconduct. This case stems from Petitioner’s underlying divorce case. . The three questions presented are: 1. Whether, when dealing with its citizens, a State court is permitted to | issue decisions that are in direct conflict with this Court’s precedents, and in violation of the fundamental inalienable rights to fair proceedings and equal . protection under Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 2. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, § 9 (3), vesting in the BBO and its entire staff immunity from liability for any conduct in : the course of their official duties, is void for vagueness when the BBO’s actions and omissions create an adversarial environment that makes the BBO a fortress to reckon with. 3. Whether a State highest court’s failure to adjudicate a case on its merits is permissible, where the party is left with nowhere to turn to vindicate their . fundamental inalienable Constitutional rights. oi