Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/311.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2019-06-25 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-25
Summary (Justice Demanded)
The document titled “Affidavit of Plaintiff Petitioner” outlines numerous instances of potential bias against Aaron Surina, raising serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. It alleges threats of incarceration and disproportionately high financial penalties leveled against Aaron.
Aaron was reportedly threatened with jail time due to his behavior in court, which may have been an understandable response to perceived injustices. Additionally, the court required Aaron to pay $2,500 to Sirinya Surina immediately, despite his attorney fees being covered by the same funds the court was withholding. This decision seems to favor Sirinya and financially disadvantage Aaron.
Despite Aaron’s child support payments being made directly by his employer, he is portrayed as being in contempt for failing to pay family expenses. Aaron is also depicted as refusing to execute closing documents for disbursing funds to Sirinya, without providing any context or reason for his alleged refusal.
The document outlines a property sale transaction involving Aaron, with a detailed breakdown of costs, but no clear indication of bias or unfairness. However, a critical review reveals potentially excessive attorney fees and real estate commissions, large holdbacks, and a substantial sum due from the borrower. These costs, totaling thousands of dollars, appear to impose an excessive financial burden on Aaron, indicating potential unfairness or bias.
Aaron’s concerns for his children’s safety and wellbeing were dismissed by the court, despite his valid fears regarding possible abduction and potential abuse. His requests for placement of the children with him were rejected, and his evidence supporting his concerns was deemed insufficient.
Aaron was threatened with a $100 fine for speaking out of turn and was denied the right to defend himself against a motion to show cause for contempt, which was not in the court file. Furthermore, he was penalized with a $1500 attorney fee and a $1000 sanction for what the court deemed as inappropriate actions. When he questioned whether other attorneys who provided similar testimonies would also be sanctioned, the court responded negatively, suggesting a bias against him.
These instances, along with the court’s rush to conclude the hearing, suggest a potential bias and unfairness against Aaron, raising questions about the ethical conduct of the proceedings. Aaron was ordered to pay a total of $2,500, including $1,000 in sanctions and $1,500 in lawyer fees and costs to Sirinya, at a high yearly interest rate of 12%.
The disparity in representation, with Aaron being self-represented and Sirinya being represented by an attorney, may have contributed to an imbalance in the case handling, leading to an unfavorable ruling for Aaron.
Aaron was compelled to liquidate assets to meet several judgments, the highest being $19,469.21, indicating an undue financial burden imposed on him. These payments were made to Sirinya through her attorney’s trust account, hinting at potential conflicts of interest, particularly if the attorney played a role in determining the payment amounts.
In summary, the document raises significant concerns about the potential bias against Aaron Surina and the ethical conduct of the proceedings.
About The Author
