Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/187.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER 2018-05-29 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-05-29
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The court documents present a narrative that appears to be biased against Aaron Surina, as evidenced by a series of allegations made by his ex-wife, Sirinya Surina. These allegations range from Aaron’s supposed possession and misuse of a phone containing personal data, non-payment of various bills, to an alleged failure to cooperate in filing their 2017 federal income tax returns. However, these claims are presented without adequate context or evidence, which could potentially paint Aaron in an unfairly negative light.
The allegations of not paying necessary bills, including telephone, water, medical, and car payments, insinuate that Aaron is neglecting his financial obligations, without considering his financial capability. The document also suggests that Aaron is responsible for Sirinya’s mother’s sponsorship, despite the lack of a legal mandate obligating him to bear this responsibility.
Moreover, the documents reveal potential bias through their lack of clarity and context. For instance, there are a series of bills and payments for the Spokane County Water District #3 addressed to both Aaron and Sirinya, with no clear indication of who is responsible for these payments. This ambiguity could potentially hold Aaron accountable for bills or payments that he is not directly involved in or aware of.
There is also an incident involving a disputed phone, where Sirinya alleges Aaron took the device from their home and is using it against her in their divorce proceedings. Despite Aaron not having been given a fair chance to respond to these claims, they were presented to the court, which could potentially influence the court’s decisions in Sirinya’s favor.
Lastly, there are documents such as a standard acknowledgment of payment and a general service email from a water utility company, which, while not containing specific legal content, claims, or decisions related to Aaron, still add to the overall narrative against him.
Taken together, these documents present a one-sided narrative, potentially portraying Aaron Surina in a biased and unfair light. This could be seen as potential injustices and unethical conduct by attorneys representing Sirinya Surina, including Stanley Kempner and Keith Glanzer. It is therefore necessary to ensure a proper investigation and fair hearing of both sides to uphold justice and ethical conduct in this case.
About The Author
