Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/436.0 MOTION 2020-12-03 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-12-03
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: MOTION
The court documents outline a contentious scenario involving a Temporary Restraining Order (TMRO) issued against Aaron Surina, favoring Sirinya Surina. The order is established under the case number 173018170, filed on December 3, and supersedes all preceding restraining orders related to the same case. The court asserts that Aaron presents a risk to Sirinya’s physical safety, yet the evidence or specifics of the perceived threat are conspicuously absent.
Aaron is accused of being a credible threat and is ordered to maintain distance from Sirinya and their children, David and Andrew Surina. The absence of any detailed incident or activity validating this claim suggests a potential bias against Aaron. This TMRO seems to have been issued without a comprehensive evaluation of both parties or a fair chance for Aaron to defend himself.
Aaron is also indicated to have access to weapons, an assertion devoid of context. The mere possession of weapons, without any evidence of a harmful or unlawful intent, could be viewed as an unjustified attempt to bias the case against him.
Moreover, the documents reveal an imposition of a restraining order under RCW 26.09.060, .110, .120, .194, .300(2), that prohibits Aaron from possessing any firearms or dangerous weapons and requires him to surrender them. The justification for this action appears to be based solely on unchecked boxes, with no specific instances of Aaron using, displaying, or threatening to use a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a felony.
Despite the lack of concrete evidence of Aaron’s alleged threats or harm to public safety, the court has issued the order, which suggests potential bias or unfair treatment against Aaron. The court has not provided him with an opportunity to contest this order, indicating a potential violation of his rights.
Furthermore, the documents show that the order was presented exclusively by the petitioner without the respondent’s presence or agreement, infringing on Aaron’s rights to due process and implying potential judicial bias.
In conclusion, the court proceedings surrounding Aaron Surina seem to be riddled with potential bias, lack of substantial evidence, and possible violations of his rights to a fair hearing and due process. This situation presents an unfair and possibly unethical legal landscape for Aaron, where he is subjected to significant restrictions without clear evidence or an opportunity to defend himself.
About The Author
