Document: JUDGMENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/269.0 JUDGMENT 2019-05-08 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-05-08
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: JUDGMENT
The court document demonstrates a concerning potential bias against Aaron Surina, who has been burdened with a contempt charge for purportedly failing to comply with orders issued on several dates spanning from September 27, 2017, to June 27, 2018. The court accuses Mr. Surina of bad faith for alleged non-payment of auto and mortgage dues, alongside a supposed violation of a civil restraining order. It raises questions of fairness as the court readily presumes that Mr. Surina “intentionally” violated these orders without adequately exploring his perspective or circumstances.
Further compounding these issues, Mr. Surina is held responsible for a civil penalty of $500, a lawyer’s fee of $1,500, and penalties for non-payment of auto and mortgage dues. This paints a picture of an arguably excessive financial burden imposed on him, without sufficient evidence of willful non-compliance.
The court’s judgment that Mr. Surina “intentionally violated” a civil restraining order, which restricted his communication with the petitioner to writing only and only on child-related issues, further fuels concerns about potential bias. The lack of consideration for Mr. Surina’s viewpoint suggests a potential disregard for his rights, including his right to free communication.
Moreover, the documents indicate a seemingly unjust financial strain on Mr. Surina. He is ordered to pay both a civil penalty and legal costs, alongside a high interest rate of 12% for child support, medical support, and children’s expenses. The contempt charge, which can only be rectified upon payment of all the judgments entered, appears to threaten Mr. Surina’s financial stability and could be seen as an unethical leveraging of power.
Overall, the court’s judgments appear potentially biased and arguably unjust towards Aaron Surina, imposing heavy financial penalties without clear proof of intentional violation of the orders, and seemingly disregarding his rights and perspective. The lack of transparency in detailing the reasons behind these charges only heightens these concerns. This case raises questions about the fairness of the proceedings and the conduct of the attorneys involved, particularly Stanley Kempner, Keith Glanzer, or anyone representing Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, or Keith Glanzer.
About The Author
