Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/243.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2019-04-15 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-04-15
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Comprehensive Summary:
Aaron Surina has faced an array of injustices and unethical conduct throughout his legal battles, which he believes were instigated and perpetuated primarily by Stanley Kempner, Keith Glanzer, and their clients.
Surina’s rights have been repeatedly violated, as evidenced by the denial of hearings and the forced sale of his property, which he asserts was orchestrated by Kempner and Glanzer to cover their legal fees. The court’s insistence on selling off Surina’s property, despite his protests and the fact that he is the sole provider for his community, amounts to bullying and a gross violation of his property rights.
Further, Surina alleges that Carl Wilson coerced Sirinya into signing a fraudulent deed, which transferred Surina’s half of their previous marital property settlement to Wilson. This act resulted in Surina losing a potential buyer and his property being ordered to be sold immediately, violating his rights to manage his property effectively.
The court hearings were conducted in a manner that violated Surina’s rights, with no opportunity given to him to attend or cross-examine witnesses. He asserts that the handling of his case veers off into Spokane family law, which isn’t part of Washington state legislation, causing further confusion and bias.
In the absence of a guardian ad litem (GAL) and with his children showing signs of physical harm, Surina fears that Kempner and Glanzer intentionally stifled the process to avoid scrutiny. Surina was also allegedly manipulated by Kempner and Glanzer, who advised his wife to abandon him, leaving him homeless and resourceless. This situation was compounded by significantly higher than recommended child support orders, which Surina believes were influenced by Kempner and Glanzer.
Surina also alleges that Kempner and Glanzer, paid by Wilson, manipulated the situation to obtain a temporary restraining order against him, leading to further distress. Kempner and Glanzer also reportedly interfered with a realtor showing Surina’s house and tampered with a court-ordered release of payoff quote, furthering the perception of unethical behavior.
Surina’s financial stability was significantly impacted by Kempner and Glanzer’s actions, including crashing his finances, forcing him to live in his car, and denying him the right to rent his property. The court’s decision to serve a restraining order based on frivolous testimony prevented him from accessing his property, which Surina believes was a violation of his rights.
Despite his efforts to seek psychological help for his son, Surina has been obstructed by his ex-wife’s refusal to allow further sessions, further exacerbating the emotional damage caused by the parents’ conflict. The court’s handling of this situation, including ignoring the recommendation of a licensed clinical social worker, raises questions about the fairness and reliability of the judicial process.
Surina was also unfairly burdened with an 81% share of the cost of retaining a court-ordered GAL, with no explanation or justification provided, which might suggest a lack of transparency or possible bias against him.
Despite enduring these hardships, Surina has fulfilled his obligations, including managing his financial commitments and ensuring the welfare of his children. However, his attempts to protect his property rights and the wellbeing of his children have been repeatedly thwarted by unethical conduct, bias, and potential misconduct from opposing counsel and other parties. In light of these injustices, Surina pleads for a fair and unbiased judgment from the court.
About The Author
