Document: MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/469.0 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 2021-03-08 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2021-03-08
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Comprehensive Summary:
The court documents indicate allegations of severe bias and unjust treatment against Aaron Surina, the father of the children involved in this case. There are multiple instances of non-compliance by Sirinya Polarj with a court order issued on November 27, 2019, including claiming tax exemptions for the children for the year 2019, depriving Surina of his lawful rights.
Further unethical conduct is demonstrated by Polarj’s counsel, who are accused of failing to adhere to the court’s ruling requiring them to consult with Surina prior to filing the final pleadings. The counsel allegedly manipulated the final pleadings, removing items in favor of Mr. Surina, which is part of a continued pattern of unethical conduct spanning over three and a half years.
Polarj’s refusal to provide her tax returns for 2019 and 2020, despite their relevance to the case and Surina’s legal rights, is another instance of the bias demonstrated against Aaron Surina. Additionally, there are concerns over financial transparency, as Polarj reportedly spent over $150,000 in cash in the last year despite claiming unemployment.
Surina further alleges that the court has been involved in unfair dealings, including overpayment and trafficking of him and his two children. It’s reported that there’s a fraudulent judgment of over $19,000 awarded to Mr. Glanzer which was previously denied in court.
Additionally, Surina was forced to sell his half a million-dollar house for the petitioner’s GAL due to accusations of abuse and neglect of his children. This seems to be an unjust situation where he paid for something in cash that he never received and still lost his house.
Surina also seeks to have any restrictions removed that prevent his children from contacting their family members or emergency services, as this infringes on the children’s rights. The court’s refusal to reconsider its decision on the tax exemption issue, even when new information about the possible financial impacts was presented, could be perceived as a disregard for Mr. Surina’s rights and interests.
Furthermore, Mr. Glanzer, acting on behalf of Ms. Surina, declined to pay $4,000 awarded by the court to Mr. Surina, seemingly using the monetary award as leverage to influence Mr. Surina’s decision over his legal rights.
Overall, these documents suggest a systematic bias and unfair treatment against Aaron Surina, with multiple violations of the court’s order by Polarj and her counsel, and a disregard for Surina’s lawful rights and interests.
About The Author
