Document: MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT DECLARATION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/232.0 MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT DECLARATION 2019-03-27 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-03-27
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The court documents unveil a series of potential biases and injustices against Aaron Surina, creating a situation that seemingly disfavors him. Sirinya Surina is empowered with sole decision-making authority concerning the sale of the family residence, despite it being titled under Aaron’s name. This implies a possible bias favoring Sirinya and infringes on Aaron’s rights as the property’s sole owner.
Furthermore, Sirinya allegedly coerced Aaron into signing the Purchase & Sale Agreement, leveraging Carl and On Wilson’s Deed of Trust, to drop a loan she had received to defend herself against Aaron. This act suggests manipulation that led to an unjust outcome. Additionally, despite having secured the counsel of Roger Coombs for advice on real estate issues, Aaron was suddenly left without representation after Mr. Coombs unanticipatedly withdrew his services. This withdrawal potentially infringes on Aaron’s right to legal counsel and exacerbates the unfairness he faces.
Aaron is also forced to comply with a $4,000.00 judgment for attorney fees and sanctions awarded to Sirinya without his consent, further highlighting the potential bias and unethical conduct within the court proceedings.
Aaron’s attempts to cooperate, including traveling to Thailand to acquire legal documents and agreeing to sign the closing documents under the presence of his attorney, are overlooked, and instead, he is portrayed as obstructive. Contextual details are omitted, and Aaron’s refusal to sign the closing documents is presented in a potentially misleading light. Even his decision to remove his name from the Avista account, possibly a sound financial choice, is negatively interpreted, implying he intended to cause financial distress to Sirinya.
The document also proposes the court approve an order naming Sirinya as the exclusive member of the marital community authorized to execute all documents related to the family residence’s sale. This proposal could be seen as an unfair attempt to marginalize Aaron from decision-making processes involving shared assets.
Finally, Aaron is requested to pay $1,500.00 in lawyer fees and costs, an additional financial burden imposed without fair justification.
Overall, the court document appears to paint an unfavorable portrayal of Aaron Surina, potentially without balanced consideration of his perspective. This portrayal suggests a bias against him, potentially leading to further injustices throughout the proceedings.
About The Author
