Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/323.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2019-08-06 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-08-06
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
The document in question presents a skewed depiction of Aaron Michael Surina, a respondent in a marital dispute case. The plaintiff, Sirinya Surina, unjustly accuses Aaron of intrusive behavior regarding title insurance, real estate transactions, and GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) assignments. Such involvement could be interpreted as Aaron’s rightful attempt to protect his interests, rather than unwarranted interference.
Sirinya also suggests that Aaron is attempting to manipulate the GAL work without her input via her attorney, insinuating that Aaron fears the complete narrative coming to light. This accusation unjustly assumes malintent on Aaron’s part, with no substantial evidence to support such a claim.
Moreover, Sirinya criticizes Aaron for appearing to reject the order for a GAL due to his unwillingness to offer alternatives to her suggested GAL options. However, this portrayal may be unjust, as Aaron could have valid reasons for his refusal.
Furthermore, Sirinya questions Aaron’s motives for selecting Mari Luna as GAL, alleging that Aaron only prefers Luna because her attorney removed Luna from the original list. This accusation implies unjustified assumptions about Aaron’s intentions without substantial proof.
Sirinya also condemns Aaron’s requests for discovery, disbursements, IRS 8332, and ROI for Counseling Records as frivolous, aimed at harassment and unnecessarily escalating litigation costs. This interpretation discredits Aaron’s legitimate right to request essential information for his defense.
Additionally, the document implies that Aaron is neglecting his financial responsibilities, despite having a Health Savings account. Attorney Keith Glanzer threatens to file a contempt motion if Aaron fails to provide payment proof, potentially portraying an unjust pressure tactic.
Furthermore, Glanzer accuses Aaron of instructing his son, David, to withhold information from Ms. Murray-Mills about his appointments, an allegation made without substantiated evidence. This could be viewed as an unjust attempt to damage Aaron’s reputation and question his parenting abilities.
Glanzer also demands Aaron’s income tax information to file joint taxes amidst ongoing divorce proceedings, potentially infringing on Aaron’s privacy or using undue pressure.
Finally, Glanzer plans to file a motion to put the house on the market, claiming that neither party can afford the house payment. This action may be perceived as an overreach, making a decision without considering Aaron’s preferences or financial capacity, potentially signifying an injustice.
The document collectively appears to demonstrate bias against Aaron Surina, painting him as an obstructive individual without duly acknowledging his legitimate legal rights and interests. These actions underscore potential unethical conduct and bias against Mr. Surina, unfairly targeting him and exerting unnecessary pressure during an already stressful period.
About The Author
