Document: FINANCIAL DECLARATION OF PET –
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/147.0 FINANCIAL DECLARATION OF PET – 2018-02-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-02-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Overall Summary:
The extensive review of the financial declaration document reveals certain imbalances and potential injustices against Aaron Surina. The document presents a stark income disparity between Aaron and his ex-partner, Sirinya. Despite earning a higher gross monthly income, Aaron’s net income is disproportionately low due to substantial federal and state taxes, social security, Medicare, workers’ compensation, and mandatory pension plan deductions. Furthermore, his liquid assets are extremely limited, with significant monthly expenses and a considerable debt, all of which are not proportionally reflected in his net income.
Aaron’s financial obligations seem to be overlooked in this document, presenting an unfair portrayal of his financial situation. The document lacks transparency and a detailed breakdown of his financial obligations, which could impact his financial stability and ability to cover expenses related to his children. Moreover, it seems to underestimate the significant legal fees and costs that Aaron has already paid and continues to owe.
The document includes “imputed income” for Sirinya without clear explanation, potentially leading to confusion or misinterpretation. More importantly, it does not provide any opportunity for Aaron to dispute the stated figures or offer an explanation, which could be seen as an injustice.
Aaron’s mounting financial burden, coupled with the high legal fees, might suggest an inequitable situation that could potentially hinder his ability to effectively advocate for his interests in court. While the document does not provide any explicit indication of unethical conduct or judicial bias, the financial pressures Aaron is facing certainly warrant further scrutiny to ensure fairness.
Lastly, the document stresses the importance of serving financial records to the other party and filing them separately with the court for privacy, but it does not provide any specific details about Aaron’s case or any actions taken against him. As such, without more specific context or case-related information, it’s hard to identify any unethical conduct, judicial bias, or injustices against Aaron Surina from this document. This document appears to be part of a standard procedure and doesn’t show any signs of unfair or unethical treatment towards him. However, given the complexities revealed in the reviewed document, a closer examination of the legal process and the roles of all involved parties, including attorneys such as Stanley Kempner or Keith Glanzer, may be warranted to ensure Aaron Surina is treated fairly and justly in this legal matter.
About The Author
