Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/383.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2020-06-22 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-06-22
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: Combined Summary of Affidavit of Plaintiff Petitioner
The court documents pertaining to the divorce case of Aaron and Sirinya Surina reflect a concerning narrative of bias and potential unfairness against Aaron Surina, the father. Sirinya Surina has been accused of attempting to manipulate the narrative by alleging errors in the QDRO order signed by Judge Price and condemning Aaron’s proposed order. These actions seem calculated to discredit Aaron’s credibility and efforts to resolve the case.
The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) reflects an uneven division of Aaron’s retirement plan, awarding a portion of the total vested account balance to Sirinya, despite Aaron being the participant. The division of the review fee for the domestic relations order, calculated without taking into account the relative financial situations of the parties involved, could lead to Aaron shouldering a disproportionate financial burden. Further, Aaron is made responsible for any federal and state income taxes on distributions made to his child or other dependents. This additional financial responsibility seems to be unfairly pushed onto him.
Sirinya’s self-representation due to financial constraints could potentially create an imbalance in the legal proceedings. The court documents do not provide any information on whether both parties had equal representation or were equally heard, raising concerns about potential judicial bias.
The court’s order to supersede the prior QDRO dated 12/20/2019 does not provide clarity on what changes have been made, leaving room for possible unjust amendments. Aaron’s financial burden is further exacerbated by the stipulation that he will be responsible for a one-time fee for the review of the domestic relations order. This fee is deducted from his account following the first review of the Order, which can be seen as another instance of biased treatment, as the financial responsibility is not shared equally.
Furthermore, the court’s decision to dismiss Aaron’s plea to register a child custody order from Thailand, impose sanctions against him for what it deemed a frivolous appeal, and grant Ms. Polarj’s request for CR 11 sanctions against him, suggests that the court failed to consider his desire to protect his children. Instead, it portrays him as a vexatious litigant.
The court’s decision to maintain exclusive jurisdiction over the case, despite Aaron’s efforts to register a child custody order from a Thai court, could be perceived as a disregard for international law, or at least an unfair preference for local rules.
Finally, the court’s decision to award attorney fee sanctions to Ms. Polarj under RAP 18.9 could be seen as a further financial penalty against Aaron, amplifying the potential perception of an unfair legal process.
Overall, these documents suggest a potentially unjust and biased treatment against Aaron Surina, placing a disproportionate financial and administrative burden on him, and potentially disregarding his rights as a father.
About The Author
