Misop Baynun v. Bruce Hiltunen, et al.

In accord with Supreme Court Rule 10(c), since a state court “has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court” and in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 10(a), since a lower court and an Appeals Court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power” the Petitioner seeks this Court’s answer to the following questions:

1. Were the constitutionally protected First Amendment (Amendment I) religious freedom or freedom of faith rights of the Petitioner breached?

2. Did the Appeals Court sanction things done in the lower court proceedings that so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial procedure as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power?

3. Was the implementation of the purported will that resulted in the violation of the Petitioner’s religious freedom or freedom of faith rights done so in violation of Federal and State law?

4. Was the Massachusetts Appeals Court’s award to the Respondents of $10,000 of legal fees from the Petitioner unfair and not in compliance with State law?

5. Would keeping the lower court’s Decision as it stands now be unjust and unfair to everyone?