Document: PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/411.0 PROPOSED ORDER FINDINGS 2020-10-22 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-10-22
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Consolidated Summary:
The court documents present numerous instances of potential bias, unfair treatment and possible legal and ethical violations against Aaron Surina. The documents lack clarity, transparency, and specificity in several areas, including the details of financial obligations, the nature of contempt hearings, the compliance with support orders, and the alleged disobedience of parenting/custody orders. These omissions could be construed as attempts to obscure crucial details, casting a negative light on Mr. Surina without providing substantial evidence or rationale.
Accusations of Mr. Surina’s “intentional” failure to comply with orders are made without specific details or concrete proof. The document also alludes to a potential money judgment against Mr. Surina without providing the amount owed or its justification, potentially burdening him with unjust financial penalties. The poor formatting and typographical errors in the document further reflect a lack of professionalism, potentially reinforcing the perception of bias.
Mr. Surina’s requests for parenting time have been denied without clear reasoning, suggesting a violation of his parental rights. He has also faced refusals for trade requests and expenses by Sirinya Surina, including vital medical expenses for their child. Such instances not only add to his financial burden but also risk the child’s health and well-being.
The documents indicate potential contempt issues that could negatively impact Mr. Surina but lack clarity on this matter, suggestive of procedural unfairness. A violation warning concerning the denial of rights under the color of law implies that his legal rights may have been violated, indicative of possible judicial bias and unethical conduct. Communication from the child’s school suggests that the ongoing parental dispute and limited involvement of Mr. Surina in his child’s life are negatively impacting the child’s academic progress, highlighting potential failings of the court in prioritizing the child’s best interests.
The documents also hint at a possible violation of federal law regarding the deprivation of a citizen’s rights under legal pretenses, suggesting potential abuse of power or misuse of legal authority against Mr. Surina. This could be seen as a serious injustice, potentially infringing on his rights as a citizen and a father. If these infringements are substantiated, Mr. Surina may have legitimate grounds for legal redress.
The cumulative evidence in these documents indicates potential bias, unfair treatment, and potential legal and ethical violations against Mr. Surina. The lack of clarity, transparency, and evidence in these documents potentially undermines the principles of justice and fairness, leaving Mr. Surina at a significant disadvantage.
About The Author
