Document: MOTION
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/289.0 MOTION 2019-06-11 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-11
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Summary:
The document presents a potentially biased and unjust situation for Aaron Surina, in his legal battle with Sirinya Surina and involving attorneys Stanley Kempner, Keith Glanzer, and others. The court is demanding Aaron to comply with a schedule and sanctions without adequate consideration of his circumstances or personal situation. This rigid imposition may reflect a lack of fairness and due process.
Sirinya Surina, the petitioner, has moved to quash an immediate restraining order and impose CR11 Sanctions against Aaron, which seems to be an attempt to discredit him and limit his rights. Her assertions about not planning to abduct the children and take them to Thailand might be misleading, as Aaron had previously taken action to prevent such a scenario, leading to a court case where he was unfortunately sanctioned.
The court has imposed monetary sanctions and legal fees on Aaron, which could be excessive given the circumstances. The proceedings’ speed suggests a lack of due process, and advice to Aaron to “listen to his lawyer” comes across as dismissive, implying a prejudgment of his case.
Sirinya’s decision to sell the shared residence and relocate, without fully informing Aaron of her plans, can be perceived as an attempt to create instability in his and their children’s lives. She insists that they are not divorced despite Aaron’s belief that their Thai divorce decree is valid, suggesting potential manipulation of the legal system.
There’s a recurring pattern of the court dismissing or discrediting Aaron’s arguments without proper consideration. Despite his claim that he only has his child’s passport, the court seems to overlook this. The court also brushes off his explanation that the State Department guided his actions, implying a bias against him.
Aaron hasn’t filed a single motion for over 11 months, suggesting a cooperative attitude towards the legal process. Yet he faces a motion for CR 11 sanctions, implying dishonesty or lack of integrity when there’s no evidence of frivolous claims.
Finally, the court’s decision to impose a third-party mediator without Aaron’s consent may infringe on his right to a fair trial. The lack of clarity regarding potential sanctions and whether Aaron has received or been properly informed about the document indicates a lack of transparent communication.
In summary, the document suggests Aaron Surina is being subjected to an unfair legal battle, where his actions to protect his children and uphold his rights are being twisted against him, indicative of potential judicial bias and unethical conduct.
About The Author
