Document: AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/397.0 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF PETITIONER 2020-09-21 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-09-21
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Consolidated Summary:
The court proceedings involving Aaron Surina exhibit potential bias, unfairness, and potential misconduct against him. The plaintiff petitioner, Sirinya Surina, exhibits a dismissive attitude towards Aaron’s arguments and paints him in a negative light by emphasizing his sanctions for frivolous appeals without providing Aaron an opportunity to dispute these claims. This bias is further echoed in Sirinya’s allegations of Aaron’s emotional and psychological manipulation of their children, which are serious and unverified claims that could unjustly bias the court against him in matters related to child custody or visitation rights.
The court’s dismissal of Aaron’s attempt to register a child custody order from Thailand, despite evidence of notice being served to Ms. Polarj, is a serious ethical concern, suggesting a bias in favor of the jurisdiction of the State of Washington. Likewise, the court’s imposition of CR 11 sanctions, meant to prevent baseless filings and abuses of the judicial system, seems unfair and potentially indicative of an abuse of discretion favoring Ms. Polarj. The court’s refusal to consider any legal authority Aaron cites supporting his argument that the Thailand orders supersede the Washington State Superior Court orders also indicates potential bias.
Moreover, the court’s decisions, particularly the approval of Ms. Polarj’s request for attorney fee sanctions, suggest a disregard for Aaron’s rights as a party to the lawsuit. This coupled with the court’s suspension of all phone contact between the children and whichever parent does not have them in their care, as well as ordering Aaron to refrain from contacting Ms. Surina for a year except through a specific app, can be seen as drastic measures impeding on Aaron’s rights as a father.
The presiding judicial officer unilaterally assigning the case to themselves and making assumptions about Aaron’s future behavior further highlight the potential bias against him. Furthermore, the officer’s statement about having “four full notepads with notes from this trial” and threatening to adjust the hearing time according to the perceived problems seems to indicate a degree of pre-judgment.
The court’s designation of Ms. Surina as the primary custodian for both boys, influenced by claims that Aaron has “repeatedly engaged in abusive behavior” and “involved the minor children in this conflict,” further harms his reputation and rights. The court’s use of specific language to frame Aaron negatively, without providing context or giving him the chance to respond, is a significant concern. These actions together seem to undermine the principle of impartiality, a cornerstone of any fair legal process.
In conclusion, Aaron Surina appears to be facing a series of perceived injustices, biases, and potential misconduct in these court proceedings. It is crucial that these concerns be addressed to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of a just judicial system.
About The Author
