Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/395.0 MOTION 2020-09-17 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-09-17
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Comprehensive Summary:
Aaron Surina, the respondent in the Surina Dissolution case, has lodged serious allegations about perceived judicial bias, unethical conduct, and injustices throughout the court proceedings, claiming his rights have been consistently ignored to his detriment and that of his children. Mr. Surina believes the court has favored the petitioner, resulting in what he perceives to be an array of unfair consequences.
Key issues highlighted by Mr. Surina include a series of clerical errors in the final order delivered by Judge Price. He alleges that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was unjustly altered which resulted in an unfair deduction of $1,800 from his account in review fees. He also expresses dissatisfaction with the total award from his retirement being more than the retirement amount itself and the changing of the separation date to the current date.
Mr. Surina further alleges potential illegal impersonation by the petitioner, demanding a subpoena to access retirement accounts to substantiate his claims of fraud. He argues that his financial details post-separation are irrelevant to the case and has voiced concerns about the court-ordered seizure and sale of his property to pay for a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to investigate the petitioner.
The respondent also criticizes the court for incorporating an order in the parenting plan that prevents his children from calling him, a provision he believes to be unjust and in contravention of the children’s rights of access to their fit and loving parent. Mr. Surina also claims that the court has failed to protect his children, who he alleges have suffered physical, sexual, and emotional assault during the three years this order has been in place.
Additionally, Mr. Surina feels that he has been a victim of misuse of civil proceedings, resulting in prolonged legal battles. He emphasizes that his case was not against the petitioner but rather her loan brokers. He also raises concerns about potential financial difficulties due to his job being outsourced. Furthermore, he alleges that the court has shown bias by continuing to protect revenue received from Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) incentives by keeping the children in the petitioner’s custody.
Despite the lack of specific details in the document provided, Mr. Surina’s claims warrant further investigation to properly assess and highlight any potential injustices, unethical conduct, or judicial bias against him. Consequently, he requests the court to correct these alleged errors and compensate him accordingly.
About The Author
