Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/306.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2019-06-21 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-21
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Combined Summary:
The comprehensive analysis of the court documents reveals a series of allegations by Aaron Surina, the father and respondent in the case, decrying systematic unjust and unethical treatment. Surina, previously the primary custodian of his children, Andrew and David, argues that he has been the victim of fraudulent conduct by court officers, resulting in the loss of his rights to equal custody without any proven misconduct.
Surina maintains that these actions amount to class discrimination, as he has been ordered to pay expenses beyond his means, causing financial ruin and unnecessary bankruptcy, while the opposing party lives lavishly on court-ordered sanctions. He insists on the withholding of crucial financial details that should be considered in the trial, alleging ex parte communications and possible defamation against him.
Surina also raises serious concerns about his children being subjected to emotional duress to sever his relationship with them, possibly to shield Carl Wilson, a friend of opposing counsel and non-lawyer co-partner, from a potential sexual assault investigation. He believes that the narrative presented in court is based on hearsay and a fictional story conceived by Wilson, leading to an impossible prejudice and resultant injustice against him.
Surina further accuses Keith Glanzer of bias, alleging that Glanzer’s undue influence in court intimidates other lawyers and sways decisions against him. Surina contends that the court lacks transparency and accountability, with decisions seemingly made behind closed doors and most legal professionals, including judges, unwilling to challenge Glanzer. He asserts that Glanzer’s influence led to the removal of protections for minor US citizens, effectively erasing their American heritage, and resulted in a $32,000 overpayment in child support to his ex-wife, Sirinya.
Surina also alleges Glanzer’s manipulation of his sarcastic comment, taken out of context, further tarnished his reputation and led to additional charges. He suggests that his repeated pleas for upholding the law and his constitutional rights have been stifled by Glanzer’s influence, painting a picture of significant bias and injustice against him.
Moreover, Surina alleges that the court proceedings are tainted by unethical conduct, with his requests being granted only when unchecked with Glanzer. He accuses Glanzer of fabricating evidence against him and suppressing the truth, thus violating his constitutional rights and breaching international, national, and state laws.
Surina’s following of the law in finalizing his divorce in Thailand was allegedly perceived unfavorably by Glanzer, suggesting prejudice based on lies and power dynamics within the court. He also claims that third parties felt threatened for providing evidence in his favor, causing his child’s school and counselor to withdraw support.
Additionally, Surina highlights an incident where Linda Wirtz, a potential character witness, allegedly received communication from Glanzer before her testimony, prejudicing against him. Despite these challenges, Wirtz reportedly suggested a 50/50 custody agreement, which the court ignored.
In conclusion, Surina’s affidavit presents a distressing picture of a court system allegedly skewed against him, rife with accusations of bias, threats, and suppressed evidence. He insists that he has been unjustly treated and requests a mistrial, citing prejudice and unethical conduct by Stanley Kempner, Keith Glanzer, and those representing Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, and Keith Glanzer.
About The Author
