Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/296.0 MOTION 2019-06-14 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-14
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: MOTION
The court records suggest a potential bias against Aaron Surina in favor of Sirinya Surina. The documents indicate a series of court-ordered judgments against Mr. Surina, with a total sum of $29,044.21, lacking a coherent and fair structure. These judgments were satisfied by non-specific payments with no clear delineation or justification. Throughout the court proceedings, Mr. Surina was subjected to unfair representation, biased rulings, and was often portrayed negatively, adding to his plight.
Mr. Surina was unfairly deprived of his right to handle the sale of the shared residence, with Ms. Surina becoming the sole agent to execute all documents for the sale. He was unjustly accused of causing the loss of potential buyers, leading to his removal from the sales process, which constituted a clear bias.
Furthermore, Mr. Surina is self-represented, which could potentially lead to biased judgments and a lack of due process. The court’s apparent acceptance of multiple judgments against him without clear rationale may reflect an unfair bias.
Ms. Surina’s request for a yearly interest rate of 12% for child support, medical support, and children’s expenses was made without considering Mr. Surina’s financial capacity. The insurance policies for the property, vested in Mr. Surina’s name, are set to be issued to other parties, further indicating a bias.
The court documents also suggest that Mr. Surina, despite being the rightful owner of the property, may have been unjustly burdened with a lien of real estate excise tax and general real estate taxes. His mortgage deed was assigned without any detailed explanation, potentially imposing an additional financial burden on him.
In conclusion, the court documents indicate potential injustices and bias against Aaron Surina, imposing financial obligations on him without clear justification and potentially favoring the other parties involved in the legal disputes. The documents do not directly demonstrate any unfairness or unethical conduct by any attorney, however, the series of events and rulings suggest a pattern of favoritism towards Sirinya Surina and a disregard for Mr. Surina’s rights and financial ability. Further inquiry into these matters is warranted to ensure Aaron Surina’s rights are protected.
About The Author
