Right to Counsel for Defence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Coincident May 2018 Divorce action and mandated co-Parental Evaluation, Petitioner, a long-time professional with no previous criminal history, was falsely arrested (App.91a, “Incident Report”). His female Accuser had two previous Convictions. Neither Court Evaluator 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 Presuming Petitioner’s guilt. Petitioner’s Criminal charge was dropped/expunged (App.115a “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.102a), removing all Visitation rights. Petitioner has not seen his children since the False Arrest seven years ago. Constitutional Questions regarding loss of access to Petitioner’s children and illegitimate Restraining Orders are Prima Facie relative the Fourteenth Amendment. Regardless Obvious Civil issue and approximately $20,000 in fees, Petitioner has been blocked from obtaining Representation to re-establish his Parental Rights. Petitioner 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; ii ii) This Court’s previous established willingness to affirm an Individual’s Right against Self-incrimination, among other such liberties, in venues where Criminal Liability might infer/occur even as the venue itself is ; not directly a Criminal Court proceeding, might then inform other like Due Process rights such as the Right of Counsel for Defence and Equal Protection; iii) The unusual of Petitioner’s Arrest can be shown to have Unilaterally spoiled Petitioner’s Family Court proceedings to such degree as to positively confer Petitioner a Right To Counsel even in Civil venues, and as necessary to effectively protect from Criminal responsibility all Liberties, Privileges, and Immunities contemplated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, especially that of such significance as Petitioner’s Right to Family; and iv) The South Carolina State Bar, defined as the “Administrative agency of the South Carolina Supreme Court” (S.C. Code Ann. § 40-5-20), is appropriately held accountable for Petitioner's Right to Counsel, relative any and all infringements from the original Criminal Charge, especially as given probative evidence of extensive efforts by and previous capability of Petitioner to procure such Counsel of his own regard. 2. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine. Whether: ; i) in deliberately failing over significant time to access reasonably available, exculpatory information relative Petitioner’s arrest, including as a minimum a direct interview with Petitioner, the Family Court Evaluator, Defendant Shelton, and the Guardian-adLitem, Defendant Bennett, both failed in the Investigative phase of their duties, as opposed the Judicial iii phase, thus invalidating application of the Rooker. Feldman Doctrine; and/or ii) as this Court may sit in Final Review of Constitutional Questions inherent to State Court judgements, the District Court’s Rooker-Feldman ruling can be presumed immaterial, and the aforementioned Inves. tigative failure, coupled with collusive withholding of key information from the Family Court Judge, as well as presumptively false statements relative possible Petitioner Guilt explicitly included in Reports to the Judge, taken together sufficed to deny Petitioner any opportunity of Constitutionally provided Due Process in his Family Court matters.