Document: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/180.0 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 2018-04-02 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-04-02
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Unified Summary:
The court proceedings, in their entirety, highlight a pattern of potential bias and perceived unfairness against Aaron Surina, the father. Throughout the proceedings, the court exhibited a rush to judgment, coupled with a low standard of proof that favored the petitioner. Despite the lack of sufficient evidence against Surina, the court issued a temporary order, which was executed without giving Surina a chance for objection or a fair hearing during the Ex Parte proceeding, a practice the court admits is inappropriate.
Further bias was observed when the court dismissed Surina’s financial struggles as a pro se litigant and suggested he seek legal advice without recognizing the financial burden this recommendation imposed on him. The court seemed content with the representation of Surina’s ex-spouse and children, neglecting to ensure the same for Surina. This lack of balance in representation signals potential bias and compromises Surina’s right to fair representation and due process.
Moreover, the court dismissed serious allegations of sexual assault without comprehensive investigation, and criticized Surina for making these allegations. The court’s decision to not redact sensitive documents, despite their potential to harm Surina’s reputation and his child’s wellbeing, further portrays a potential disregard for Surina’s rights and welfare.
The court also questioned Surina’s motivations, insinuating that he was utilizing the legal process for retaliation rather than protection. This prejudiced perspective, coupled with the court’s dismissal of Surina’s evidence, casts a shadow on the fairness of the proceedings. The court’s advice to Surina to seek support prior to proceeding with legal matters could be seen as discouraging and patronizing, rather than supportive.
In addition, the court’s assumptions about Surina’s actions and their implications on his character, as well as the court’s reluctance to thoroughly address all issues raised by Surina, hint at a disregard for his right to a fair hearing. Notably, the court also left open the possibility of additional fees levied against Surina, adding to the financial pressure on him.
Lastly, the court’s potential to grant an order to Carl Wilson without fully hearing Surina’s side, and the suggestion of Wilson being entitled to attorney fees, further indicates a potential bias against Surina. These actions can be viewed as unfair and potentially unethical, as they do not fully respect Surina’s rights to fair representation and due process.
In conclusion, the overall court proceedings seem to exhibit a bias against Aaron Surina, compromising his right to fair representation, due process, and justice. The court’s actions seem to favor the other parties involved without providing Surina with a fair and equal opportunity to present his case.
About The Author
