Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/251.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2019-04-23 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-04-23
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
Aaron Surina, a middle-aged father of two, feels he has been subjected to severe injustices by the court system, his ex-wife, and her legal representation. He alleges that his legitimate ownership of their shared property “Rocky Ridge” has been unjustly classified as community property, leading to its unfair lien and possible sale due to community debts. Aaron asserts this action violates RCW 26.16.040 and was a deliberate attempt by his ex-wife and her attorneys to cause him financial harm. He also expresses concern over being denied access to his property, which he views as a direct infringement of his rights.
Court documents suggest potential misconduct and bias against Aaron, especially in the handling of the Statutory Warranty Deed. Aaron feels he was inadequately compensated for conveying his rights, title, and interest in a real property, raising questions about the fairness and ethics involved in the transaction. The documents also contain sections on ‘Perjury in the second degree’ and ‘Intimidating a witness,’ which could be seen as an attempt to tarnish Aaron’s reputation without substantial evidence.
Furthermore, certain provisions within the documents have potential for misapplication and could unjustly incriminate Aaron. Notably, RCW 92.88.05c mentions “trading in special influence,” and both RCW 40. S744 and RCW $4.72.920 refer to perjury, which could be utilized to accuse Aaron unfairly. RCW 4.24.385 and RCW 24.52.64 also have potential to be used against Aaron unjustly, infringing on his right to a fair trial.
The documents also suggest potential bias in a human trafficking case, where the law does not consider the defendant’s knowledge, intent, or circumstances while determining guilt or the severity of penalties. This could be seen as particularly unfair to Aaron, especially given the substantial fee associated with the crime, which could impose an unfair financial burden on him.
In conclusion, Aaron perceives significant bias and unethical conduct against him, including misapplication of legal provisions, unfair property classification and lien, denial of property access, and potential tarnishing of his reputation. Additional investigation is needed to ascertain the validity of these concerns and to ensure Aaron receives fair treatment under the law.
About The Author
