Document: MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/124.0 MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL 2018-01-25 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-01-25
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: Comprehensive Motion for Order Summary
The court documents pertaining to Aaron Surina’s case suggest a potential bias and unfairness against him, with several instances pointing to potential infringements of his rights. The documents reveal a series of allegations against Mr. Surina, with potential falsehoods and misrepresentations surfacing, suggesting an unjust portrayal of Mr. Surina. These include allegations of harassment, domestic violence, and substance abuse, none of which are substantiated by substantial evidence.
A Temporary Anti-Harassment Order was issued against Mr. Surina without giving him an opportunity to contest it, raising concerns about due process. The court’s decision to enforce this order without providing concrete evidence or details regarding the alleged harassment is particularly troubling, reflecting potential bias and unfairness.
Moreover, there are indications of a language barrier which could unfairly disadvantage Mr. Surina in presenting his case and understanding the proceedings. The lack of clear reasons for the protective measure against Mr. Surina’s children, David M Surina and Andrew A Surina, further indicates a potential bias against Mr. Surina.
The court’s Temporary Protection Order against Mr. Surina places an unfair burden on him, infringing on his personal freedom and limiting his ability to defend himself. The severity of the restrictions imposed on Mr. Surina, such as maintaining a specific distance from the petitioner and surrendering his firearms without substantial evidence, suggests an unjust limitation of his freedom of movement and right to self-defense.
The court documents also reveal concerning incidents involving Carl Wilson, who appears to have engaged in aggressive and potentially dangerous behavior towards Aaron Surina and his child. Despite these alarming accusations, the court appears to overlook these incidents, hinting at a bias against Aaron.
Moreover, the opposing counsel seems to be leveraging the situation unfairly, refusing to agree to signed translations of all declarations by the petitioner who allegedly does not speak English. This could potentially skew the case in their favor. The opposing counsel’s insistence on personally selecting the mediator and being present during the mediation process, and their attempt to appoint a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) of their choice, further reflects potential prejudice against Mr. Surina.
In summary, the court proceedings involving Mr. Aaron Surina raise serious concerns about potential bias and unfairness against him. The allegations and restrictions imposed on him are not substantiated by substantial evidence, potentially infringing upon his rights and undermining the fairness of the proceedings.
About The Author
