Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER IN REPLY
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/192.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER IN REPLY 2018-06-08 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-06-08
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER IN REPLY
In the document, Aaron Surina, the respondent, is depicted negatively by Sirinya Surina, the petitioner. Sirinya alleges that Aaron manipulated his immigration sponsorship status and failed to manage household affairs, including timely payment of utility and maintenance bills. However, Aaron’s actions could be seen as efforts to manage their household under the stress of ongoing court proceedings.
Sirinya criticizes Aaron for taking time off work to represent himself in court and filing multiple motions, which she labels as unnecessary and vexatious. This critique unjustly depicts Aaron as he might merely be trying to exercise his legal rights and fight for the custody of his children.
Sirinya’s claim that Aaron has cost her a significant amount in legal fees portrays Aaron as financially irresponsible. However, this could be seen as an unjust accusation, as it’s plausible both parties are incurring legal costs due to the court case.
Additionally, Aaron is accused of tricking his son, David, into retrieving a phone from Sirinya’s house, allegedly mining private data before returning it. However, these allegations lack concrete proof, creating an imbalance in the presentation of facts, and possibly indicating bias against Aaron.
Aaron is also accused of having David “steal” the phone, violating their parenting plan rules. The allegation, bearing no clear evidence, tends to depict Aaron as manipulative and unethical, again highlighting potential court bias against him.
Lastly, the documents predominantly present Sirinya’s narrative about the phone incident and subsequent communication with Aaron. The noticeable lack of Aaron’s perspective suggests an imbalance in presenting the facts, potentially indicating an injustice against him, as it denies him a fair opportunity to present his side of the story.
Overall, the document reflects a potentially biased and unfair portrayal of Aaron Surina’s actions, suggesting possible injustices, and unethical conduct in the case proceedings.
About The Author
