Document: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/521.0 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 2023-08-30 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-08-30
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Consolidated Summary:
In the court proceedings regarding the case of Aaron Surina against his petitioner, Sirinya Surina, there appear to be numerous instances of potential bias and unfair treatment against Aaron. Despite his self-representation, the court has shown a lack of assistance or consideration towards him.
The court dismissed most of Aaron’s affidavits as hearsay without proper analysis, indicating a potential bias against him. This bias is further reflected in the court’s quick dismissal of his concerns about his ex-wife’s undisclosed relocation and the admissibility of an email exchange, which Aaron claims is crucial evidence.
The court’s failure to address Aaron’s concerns about his ex-wife’s alleged violation of court orders, drinking in the presence of their children, and the impact of her relocation on their children’s school district further demonstrates this bias. The court’s dismissal of these concerns shows an apparent disregard for Aaron’s rights as a father and his children’s welfare.
Moreover, the court’s refusal to provide legal advice to Aaron, who lacks legal representation and expertise, and its insistence that he point to a specific affidavit to charge his ex-wife with contempt, illustrates an unfair treatment. The court’s dismissive attitude towards Aaron’s concerns about clerical errors in the court documents, tax benefits tied to the custody of their children, and the admissibility of oral rulings further exemplifies this potential bias.
The court’s decision to proceed with a trial for relocation and custody change without resolving a motion could potentially disadvantage Aaron. Furthermore, the court’s refusal to award attorney fees to either party, particularly if Aaron is less financially resourced, and its lack of transparency in the preparation and submission of the order could limit his ability to adequately represent his interests in court.
Lastly, the court’s acceptance of Aaron’s ex-spouse’s statement that the restaurant is not a bar without further questioning, the court’s assumption about her ability to claim tax benefits without clear evidence, and the court’s refusal to find contempt for drinking alcohol reflect potential injustices towards Aaron.
In conclusion, the court proceedings seem to be marked by potential unfairness, bias, and possible unethical conduct by attorneys representing Sirinya Surina, with Aaron’s concerns and evidence being repeatedly dismissed or overlooked.
About The Author
