Document: EXHIBITS-VARIOUS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/174.0 EXHIBITS-VARIOUS 2018-03-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-03-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
In a comprehensive summary of the court document related to the divorce proceedings of Sirinya Surina and Aaron Michael Surina, a number of potential biases, injustices, and instances of unethical conduct by the attorneys representing Sirinya Surina are noted.
Firstly, the document details a unilateral (Ex Parte) request for an immediate restraining order against Aaron Surina that appears to have been hastily filed without giving Aaron the opportunity to present his side of the story. This act could be considered unethical and an indication of bias. The instructions contained in the document could allow Sirinya to obtain court approval of the order without Aaron’s presence, which could further exacerbate this perceived bias.
The document also outlines severe restrictions on Aaron’s actions, including prohibitions on visiting his children’s daycare or school, and restrictions on leaving Washington State with his children. The severity of these restrictions, imposed without a hearing, could be seen as extreme and unjust.
The request further includes a blanket order instructing both parties not to dispose of any property. This could potentially infringe on Aaron’s rights to manage his own assets. A restrictive demand is also made for Aaron not to make changes to any medical, health, life, or auto insurance policy that covers either spouse or any child. This is deemed unfair as the reasoning or context is not provided.
Additionally, Aaron is expected to pay spousal support, cover the spouse’s lawyer’s fees, and other professional fees and costs for the case without clear justification. This raises questions of fairness and indicates an assumption about his financial situation.
The document seeks a Protection Order and Restraining Order against Aaron, which carry serious implications. However, no evidence or detailed reasoning for such drastic measures is provided, suggesting bias in the proceedings.
Aaron is also required to stay away from his home, workplace, school, and the daycare or school of any children listed. The severity of this requirement could infrac upon his rights and freedoms without a clear reason or explanation.
Parts of the document are largely unreadable and incomprehensible, which in itself could be perceived as an injustice. It prevents Aaron from fully understanding the proceedings and potentially defending his rights effectively.
Finally, the Notice of Hearing document provided lacks clarity, indicating a lack of transparency in court proceedings. The lack of detail about who requested the hearing and the warning that the court may sign orders without hearing his side could be seen as a form of intimidation, potentially infringing on his rights to fair treatment and justice.
Overall, the document could be perceived as biased and unfair towards Aaron. He appears to be subjected to severe restrictions, financial burdens, and potential infringements on his rights without a transparent explanation or an opportunity to present his side.
About The Author
