Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/219.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2018-12-31 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2018-12-31
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
The combined summary boils down to a series of allegations against Aaron Surina, the father implicated in the case. These range from financial improprieties to potential unethical conduct. Notably, Aaron’s ex-wife, Sirinya Surina, accuses him of deliberate non-cooperation in the sale of their shared residence, leading to the loss of a beneficial offer. She further alleges Aaron’s failure to fulfill his mortgage payment obligations, concealment of financial information, and the breaking of a promise to add her name to the house title despite convincing her to sign a quitclaim deed.
Additional allegations claim Aaron failed to make timely car payments as ordered by the court, forcing Sirinya to prevent the car’s repossession through borrowed money. Sirinya also expresses concern that Aaron might continue obstructing their residence’s sale, potentially leading to foreclosure.
From Aaron Surina’s perspective, these accusations may be part of a broader attempt to tarnish his image and bias the court against him. If Aaron was not provided with a fair opportunity to counter these allegations or defend himself, it might be seen as a form of prejudice. Nevertheless, without additional information, it’s challenging to definitively ascertain whether Aaron Surina has been a victim of unfairness or unethical conduct.
The document also hints at potential misconduct, suggesting that someone – possibly including attorneys Stanley Kempner or Keith Glanzer – might be elevating themselves above the law. Aaron might perceive the law as being applied inequitably. With references to considerable financial loss (“400K and counting Down the drain”), Aaron may feel he has been unjustly financially disadvantaged. The document’s mention of “wrongful or tortious interference with contracts” implies a third party may have intentionally instigated a contract breach. This could represent an instance where Aaron’s rights may have been violated, potentially constituting an act of unfairness against him.
However, without more specific details, it remains challenging to point out definitive instances of bias, injustice, or unethical conduct. These summaries underscore the need for further documents or testimonies to establish any bias against Aaron Surina conclusively.
About The Author
