Document: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/207.0 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 2018-07-25 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-07-25
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
The court proceedings involving Aaron Surina were characterized by apparent bias, dismissive attitudes, and potential unethical conduct, particularly from the presiding official, the Honorable Nichole Swennumson, and attorneys representing opposing parties.
Throughout the proceedings, Mr. Surina was consistently treated unfairly. The court often insisted on ‘exact answers’, refusing to allow clarifications or additional context, and dismissed his comprehensive information as ‘extra information’. This was evident when Mr. Surina attempted to explain his tax return situation, which the court dismissed without proper consideration.
Furthermore, the court showed a dismissive attitude towards Mr. Surina’s responses, especially with its abrupt ‘Nope’ to his tax claims. This apparent bias compromised Mr. Surina’s right to a fair trial.
In addition, the court reviewed new information at the start of the hearing, despite the case being filed some time ago, indicating a lack of preparation and potential bias. This last-minute review could have disadvantaged Mr. Surina by affecting the court’s understanding and interpretation of the case.
Moreover, the court’s interactions with Mr. Glanzer were rushed and dismissive, potentially depriving Mr. Surina of a fully presented case. The court provided no clarity on its decisions, stating it would be “doing an order,” without detailing what this order entailed. This lack of transparency indicated a bias against Mr. Surina and left him uninformed about key decisions affecting his case.
The court also abruptly ended the conversation, implying a lack of consideration for Mr. Surina’s position and suggesting potential prejudice.
Lastly, the transcriptionist, Susan L. Robson, claimed she had no financial interest in the litigation, but no verification was provided to Mr. Surina, creating a potential conflict of interest and further contributing to the perception of bias and unethical conduct.
Overall, the proceedings were marked by clear signs of bias and potential unethical conduct, raising serious concerns about their fairness and the impact on Mr. Surina’s case.
About The Author
