Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/252.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2019-04-23 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-04-23
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Combined Summary:
The court documents pertaining to Aaron Surina’s case reveal numerous instances of potential unfairness, ethical misconduct, and bias against him, particularly concerning the possession and sale of his “Rocky Ridge” property. Aaron, the rightful owner, has been compelled to defend his title against unwarranted claims instigated by Keith Glanzer, creating an undue burden on him.
Several discrepancies in the court proceedings have been observed, including an incorrect date of judgment entry and an attempt to rush the implementation of a judgment that was still under appeal. This, coupled with the fact that crucial legal proceedings were scheduled without considering Aaron’s availability, suggests a lack of consideration towards him and potentially indicates an inclination favoring the other party.
Furthermore, there were instances of questionable financial conduct, such as an unexplained decrease in the Seller Credit amount, a premature inclusion of a non-final judgment payoff to Keith Glanzer, and the transfer of due funds to Attorney Keith Glanzer’s trust account without clear explanation. These actions, alongside the excessive legal fees charged by Attorney Rich Kuck for a mere phone conference, seem to impose an unwarranted financial burden on Aaron.
There is also a concern regarding the lack of transparency and communication towards Aaron, as evidenced by the need for his lawyer to request crucial documents for review and propose an alternate deed. The fact that Aaron’s concerns were not promptly or adequately addressed could be perceived as negligence or bias against him.
While some documents do not provide specific information about Aaron Surina or any explicit instances of bias or unfairness, they might contribute to the overall narrative when considered in the broader context of his case. These include documents listing residential information, mortgage transactions, and property reports.
In the absence of more detailed or explicit court documents, it’s challenging to identify additional instances of potential unfairness, unethical conduct, or bias. However, the existing evidence suggests a pattern of questionable conduct and potential bias detrimental to Aaron, warranting further investigation and scrutiny.
About The Author
