Document: ORDER DENYING MOTION PETITION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/372.0 ORDER DENYING MOTION PETITION 2020-03-31 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-03-31
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Upon review of the court documents related to Aaron Surina’s case, a pattern of potential bias and unmerited treatment emerges. The court denied Surina’s motion petition without giving a solid reason, suggesting a potential lack of procedural fairness and due process. Allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault, vulnerable adult abuse, stalking, and harassment led to the denial, despite a clear absence of specific incidents, dates, or substantial evidence to support these allegations.
The protection order petition lacked the necessary detail, casting doubt on the sufficiency of the evidence against Surina. Furthermore, the court did not establish that Surina committed acts of domestic violence or would do so in the future. Notably, the court didn’t consider whether the petitioner had knowingly and willingly agreed to end the protection order. It remains unclear whether Surina received adequate notice of the hearing or the opportunity to present his case, potentially compromising his right to a fair hearing.
The court failed to substantiate charges of sexual assault and vulnerable adult abuse. It did not find proof of nonconsensual sexual contact, penetration, abandonment, abuse, or financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Similarly, it acknowledged the petitioner didn’t meet the “interested person” definition as per RCW 74.34.020(9).
Despite a lack of evidence, the court refused to dismiss the case, raising concerns of possible bias against Surina. The court also denied Surina’s request to waive the filing fee, dismissed his request for a temporary order, and rejected his request for a full order. This dismissal contradicts the court’s order that any previously entered temporary order would expire at a specific time, potentially undermining Surina’s legal rights.
The court’s refusal to grant Surina a temporary/final Order to Surrender Weapons is further indicative of potential injustice. This is particularly concerning considering the court’s order for law enforcement to return firearms and dangerous weapons to the restrained person, in spite of the acknowledged lack of evidence against Surina.
Overall, the court documents suggest a string of procedural irregularities, potential bias, and possible unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, culminating in a possibly unjust legal outcome. Without the full content of the documents, however, a more comprehensive evaluation is not possible.
About The Author
