Document: COPY
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/404.0 COPY 2020-09-30 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-09-30
Summary (Justice Demanded)
After a thorough review of the court documents provided, there are several points of concern that could potentially indicate a biased and unfair treatment toward Aaron Surina. First, Aaron has been served a lawsuit with an unusually stringent timeframe of 21 days to respond under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The urgency and strict timeline may not afford him adequate time to prepare a robust defense, possibly hampering his ability to present his case effectively. Any default on his part due to these restrictive conditions could lead to a default judgment against him, an aspect that can be perceived as a form of bias or unjust conduct.
Further, the documents do not detail the nature of the allegations against Aaron, restricting his ability to fully understand the claims he needs to defend against. This lack of information could be construed as an unethical practice, impeding Aaron’s right to a fair and just legal process.
The documents also reveal potential irregularities that could be prejudiced against Aaron. The list of defendants includes various individuals and entities, but there is ambiguity in the way their details are presented. This lack of clarity could be seen as an attempt to confuse or mislead Aaron, potentially infringing on his right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, the basis for jurisdiction isn’t clearly defined. The document implies that the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, but does not specify which constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated. This vague assertion may hint at a lack of substantial evidence or probable cause, raising questions about the ethicality and justice of the case.
The documents also suggest that the venue of the court, the Eastern District of Washington, might be inappropriate. If all defendants do not reside in this district, forcing Aaron to defend himself in this court could be seen as a strategic move to disadvantage him, constituting judicial bias and an infringement of his right to a fair and impartial trial.
Despite the incompleteness and illegibility of parts of the document, there is an implication that Aaron feels that his rights as a parent were unjustly infringed upon, and he was unfairly denied access to his children. Moreover, there might be other parties involved who could potentially be influencing the case against him.
However, due to the lack of clarity and fragmentation of the documents, the specific details of these injustices remain ambiguous. Therefore, further investigation into the allegations, based on more comprehensive and legible documents, is necessary to substantiate these potential instances of unethical conduct, judicial bias, or injustice against Aaron Surina.
About The Author
