Did the Montana Supreme Court overlook a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically concerning free-speech, petition-to-redress-grievances, adversary-rights, privacy, by penalizing private discussions between two domestic partners in their home under the guise of 'Unauthorized Practice of Law' (UPL)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 US (1983), this Court ruled that the Appellate Court’s affirmation of disallowing the claims pending in another court’s jurisdiction violated the First Amendment's right to petition. In NAACP v. Button, 371 US (1963), this Court held that a State cannot . disregard constitutional rights under the guise of professional regulation. The Montana Supreme Court did not review our requested constitutional violations and precluded the issues it previously declined to review, regarding a court-appointed attorney administrator's withholding of information. The district court deemed the decedent’s domestic partner, by expressing her opinions from . online research in their home, provided ‘legal advice’ to her domestic partner. The court disqualified her from serving as decedent designated PR to retain an attorney, thereby preventing her from pursuing the decedent's actions against the administrator and a former fiduciary pending in federal court and other state courts (including allowing the decedent’s appeal reply deadline to expire). The administrator now refuses to provide bank statements and itemized bills for his claimed $1 million “expenses”, claiming beneficiaries lack standing. Despite determining it did not have jurisdiction over contract fraud, the district court granted a motion to dismiss the decedent’s pending actions against the administrator and the former fiduciary with prejudice pending in other courts. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Montana Supreme Court overlook a violation of First and i Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically concerning free speech, petition to redress grievances, adversary rights, privacy, by penalizing private discussions between two domestic partners in their home under the guise of “Unauthorized Practice of Law” (UPL)? 2. Did the Montana Supreme Court err in precluding the issues it had previously declined to review and disregarding constitutional issues regarding loopholes in Montana precedent law, whereby the utilization of PR’s authority could close the beneficiaries’ access to other courts to redress former fiduciaries’ breaches, when the probate court lacks jurisdiction? ii