Charles R. Campbell v. Hollie Bennett, et al.

Coincident May 2013 Divorce action and mandated co-Parental Evaluation, Petitioner, a long-time profes­ sional with no previous criminal history, was falsely arrested (App.91a, “Incident Report”). His female Accu­ ser had two previous Convictions. Neither Court Evalu­ ator nor Guardian-ad-Litem interviewed Petitioner post Arrest in the Full Year prior the Final Hearing. Yet each made multiple, direct references to the Arrest in Final Reporting to the Family Court, explicitly Pre­ suming Petitioner’s guilt. Petitioner’s Criminal charge was dropped/expunged (App.ll5a “Expungement”) without negotiation/trial in April 2016. Petitioner won Civil suit for Defamation in November 2016. But by then Petitioner had been bullied into Final Divorce Agreement (May 2014) (App.l02a), removing all Visita­ tion rights. Petitioner has not seen his children since the False Arrest seven years ago. Constitutional Ques­ tions regarding loss of access to Petitioner’s children and illegitimate Restraining Orders are Prima Facie relative the Fourteenth Amendment. Regardless Obvi­ ous Civil issue and approximately $20,000 in fees, Petitioner has been blocked from obtaining Repre­ sentation to re-establish his Parental Rights. Petition­ er raises question of Sixth Amendment applicability due to Criminal Case Encumbrance never expunged from his Family Case. The District Magistrate raised the question of Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, as well as “State Actor” requirements for Defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Questions Presented are 1. Right to Counsel for Defence. Whether i) The Sixth Amendment establishes a defined expectation of Individual Due Process Rights relative any and all Criminal Charge;