Document: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/208.0 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 2018-07-25 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-07-25
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Consolidated Summary:
The court proceedings against Aaron Surina reveal numerous instances of potential bias, unfair treatment, and possible ethical concerns. Despite Mr. Surina’s reservations about the accuracy of their joint tax return, the court mandated the filing of an amended return within a strict timeframe, threatening a judgment of $2,325.50 if not complied with. This decision appears to dismiss Mr. Surina’s concerns without thorough examination of his claims.
Furthermore, the court’s inclination to hold Mr. Surina in contempt regarding the payment of expenses, despite his argument of having forwarded the necessary information, exhibits potential bias. The court’s threat of sanctions based on assumed misrepresentation of information, without presenting clear evidence of Mr. Surina’s wrongdoing, suggests a presumption of guilt that could be viewed as unethical.
Moreover, the court’s decision to potentially sanction either party based on the mailing address of the bills seems to place an undue burden of proof on Mr. Surina. The court also permitted Ms. Surina to claim a $117.22 water bill from Mr. Surina within 30 days, without clear justification for this financial responsibility.
The restraining order issue further highlights the perceived bias against Mr. Surina. The court found him in contempt for an alleged intentional violation involving his child, yet dismissed his explanation about the phone being a work phone. This dismissal suggests a disregard for Mr. Surina’s perspective.
The imposition of a $750 charge for attorney fees further amplifies the perceived bias against Mr. Surina. Despite these penalties, the court did not order supervised visits, indicating a potential inconsistency in the court’s stance.
Unfortunately, parts of the proceedings lacked specific information about Mr. Surina, any case details, unethical conduct, judicial bias, or perceived injustices against him. However, the overall proceedings suggest a potential bias against Mr. Surina, with multiple decisions made without sufficient justification or consideration of his viewpoint, raising serious questions about the ethical standards applied in these proceedings.
About The Author
