Document: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/586.0 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 2024-03-26 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2024-03-26
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Final Summary:
The court proceedings provide evidence of potential bias, unfair treatment, and possible unethical conduct against Aaron Surina, who is representing himself. Despite Mr. Surina’s efforts to advocate for his children’s welfare, the court’s conduct seemingly impedes his ability to express his concerns effectively.
The court criticizes Mr. Surina for over-emphasizing his children’s interests, implying a potential bias that undervalues their welfare compared to Ms. Surina’s convenience. It also subjects Mr. Surina to intimidation via security threats for mere interruptions, possibly discouraging him from voicing his concerns, thus limiting his ability to understand the proceedings and articulate his perspective effectively.
The court dismisses Surina’s objections to the relocation, mainly his concerns about the lack of support networks at Cheney Schools, claiming there’s no evidence to suggest inferiority. This dismissal may suggest an injustice as it seems to disregard Mr. Surina’s legitimate concerns.
Mr. Surina’s attempts to address various factors are repeatedly dismissed by the court, stating he hasn’t fulfilled his burden of proof. The court concludes none of the factors weigh in Mr. Surina’s favor, which may suggest a preconceived bias against him. The court’s dismissal of Mr. Surina’s arguments without providing a clear and fair evaluation could underscore a perceived injustice.
There’s an evident asymmetry in the court’s evaluation of the parent-child relationship strength, favoring Ms. Surina. The court also holds Mr. Surina to a higher standard of evidence provision than Ms. Surina, suggesting potential bias or unfair treatment.
Additionally, the court allows the opposing counsel to file a motion for attorney’s fees without hearing Mr. Surina’s side, which could be interpreted as an ethical breach. The court also threatens to strike out Mr. Surina’s arguments from the docket because he left the courtroom, not considering his emotional distress, indicating a lack of empathy and potential bias.
The court dismisses Mr. Surina’s petition without a detailed explanation and decides on the children’s school district without adequately consulting or considering his views, reflecting a lack of fairness and potential bias against Mr. Surina.
The court’s decision to have Mr. Kempner prepare an order for attorney’s fees under CR 11, without detailing the reasons, can be seen as an undue burden imposed on Mr. Surina, implying court favoritism towards the opposing party.
Overall, the proceedings depict a narrative of Mr. Surina being silenced and dismissed without a fair chance to represent his case, suggesting judicial bias, potential unethical conduct, and a lack of fairness. One document, a standard notary public’s certification, does not provide context or evidence of bias or unfairness. However, the overall narrative from the combined summaries illuminates the considerable challenges Mr. Surina faces in this legal battle.
About The Author
