Document: MOTION FOR COURTS RULING
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/125.0 MOTION FOR COURTS RULING 2018-01-26 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-01-26
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION FOR COURTS RULING
Comprehensive Summary:
The court documents reveal a series of actions, potentially biased and unfair, against Aaron Michael Surina. Through her attorney Keith A. Glanzer, Sirinya Surina has submitted various motions accusing Aaron of different violations, including submitting hearsay declarations and exceeding the stipulated page limit per LCR 94.04. These actions could be interpreted as strategic efforts to discredit and undermine Aaron’s evidence and arguments.
The hearsay accusations are primarily directed at Aaron’s submitted declarations and exhibits, which include photographs and statements made by their child and others. Glanzer argues these are unreliable and should be dismissed by the court, seemingly disregarding their potential relevance or validity. This approach might be perceived as an unjust bias against Aaron, whose evidentiary submissions are prematurely dismissed as hearsay without thorough evaluation.
Furthermore, the contention that Aaron exceeded LCR 94.04 page limits could be perceived as an infringement on his ability to comprehensively present his case, possibly restricting his right to a fair hearing, and consequently, representing an instance of injustice.
Additionally, the petitioner’s attorney has pursued several motions that appear to undermine Surina’s rights and responsibilities as a father. These include a Motion for Temporary Family Law Order and Restraining Order, which advocate for the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem, immediate listing of the family’s residence, and assigning the petitioner as the sole decision maker for healthcare. These motions seem to bypass Surina’s role as a joint decision-maker, particularly in healthcare matters for his children.
The petitioner’s lawyer has also accused Aaron of contempt of court relating to the parenting plan and residential schedule. In response, Aaron has provided extensive counter-evidence including 26 pages of declarations and 64 pages of exhibits, compared to the petitioner’s 11.5 pages of declarations and 8 pages of exhibits. This stark contrast might suggest that the court’s decision-making process does not adequately consider Aaron’s perspective and evidence.
Aaron has also filed motions contesting the petitioner’s secretive healthcare actions and failure to engage in joint decision-making, indicating the petitioner might be infringing on his rightful role as a parent. Such behavior can be deemed unethical, and the court’s apparent acquiescence may signal a bias against Aaron.
Overall, the court documents suggest a potential bias against Aaron Surina, with possible instances of unethical and unfair tactics that undermine his rights as a father.
About The Author
