Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/259.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2019-04-30 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-04-30
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Unified summary:
The court documents related to Aaron Surina’s case reveal numerous instances of potential bias, unfair treatment, and possible judicial and unethical conduct.
Firstly, Aaron is accused of failing to fulfill court-ordered family expenses, misleadingly claiming spousal support payments, and refusing employment. These allegations appear to unfairly portray Aaron’s financial situation, failing to consider potential uncontrollable circumstances affecting his ability to pay. Furthermore, the court has ordered Aaron to bear 81% of the cost for a Guardian ad Litem, which could be seen as an unfair burden considering his financial hardship.
Secondly, Aaron has been unfairly blamed for slowing down the sale process of the shared house, despite his attempts to cooperate. He is also accused of failing to resolve parenting plan issues despite making multiple mediation attempts, and his efforts to enforce a Thailand divorce under UCCJEA were unfairly dismissed by the court.
Moreover, the court has denied Aaron’s requests for modification of his temporary order for child support and spousal maintenance, without providing a clear rationale for the rejection. This refusal to consider Aaron’s financial obligations in light of his current financial predicament indicates potential bias against him. There also appears to be a lack of equity in the allocation of child support obligations, with Aaron shouldering a disproportionate amount of the responsibility.
Additionally, Aaron is subjected to foreclosure proceedings on his residential property, despite his attempts to pay off the debt. The escalating costs associated with the foreclosure process, including high-interest rates, late charges, and additional foreclosure fees, suggest a form of predatory lending, trapping Aaron in a cycle of debt.
The court documents also fail to provide a detailed breakdown of assets and income, which could lead to unfair distribution. Aaron’s financial obligations outside of this case, such as his responsibilities towards other biological or legal children, are not accounted for.
Finally, the text hints at possible system-level injustice where Aaron bears the brunt of the conflict while others benefit from it. There’s an implication of ‘wrongful or tortious interference with contracts’, suggesting a third-party may be intentionally causing Aaron to breach an agreement, which is a serious ethical violation.
In summary, the court documents seem to demonstrate a clear bias against Aaron Surina, casting his actions in a negative light without acknowledging his efforts to cooperate or exercise his legal rights. This could be seen as a potential injustice, warranting further investigation into the fairness and accuracy of these proceedings.
About The Author
