Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/310.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2019-06-24 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2019-06-24
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
The court documents depict a troubling picture of an apparent bias against Aaron Surina, the respondent in this family law case. Aaron alleges ethical misconduct and undue influence by Keith Glanzer, the opposing attorney, who seems to have engaged in ex-parte communications with court staff, and who has been allowed to testify as a key witness without being subjected to questioning by Aaron. This situation seems to violate Aaron’s rights and creates an unfair advantage for the opposition, potentially resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Aaron’s rights were further infringed when he was denied a default order due to an unjust intervention by court staff, specifically Amanda, who was not his legal counsel. This action forced Aaron into a continuance, complicating the case and further disadvantaging him. Additionally, despite being found the only fit parent, Aaron claims he has been denied the benefits guaranteed by RCW 26.16.125 for two years, amplifying the sense of bias and unfairness in the proceedings.
Moreover, Aaron’s requests for a jury trial due to the complexity of his case have been ignored, compounding his struggle to get a fair hearing. His financial constraints and inability to secure legal representation, despite having a substantial amount in proceeds, put him at a further disadvantage, as he struggles to afford trial-associated costs.
Aaron’s ADHD diagnosis has also been used against him in court, threatening him with incarceration for interruptions, a symptom often associated with his condition. This treatment can be interpreted as discriminatory, as no reasonable accommodations are made for his disability.
Despite all obstacles, Aaron has shown willingness to negotiate and cooperate, especially regarding the parenting plan for his children. His attempts at mediation, however, have been consistently turned down by the opposing party, denying the children meaningful family access and potentially harming their best interests.
The documents also hint at unethical behavior by Mr. Glanzer, who Aaron alleges lied to the court about Aaron’s tax filings from the previous year. Furthermore, Mr. Glanzer’s absences and requests for hard copies of documents seem to be tactics to delay proceedings and add unnecessary hurdles in Aaron’s path.
In conclusion, the court documents depict a seemingly imbalanced legal process, characterized by perceived judicial bias, alleged unethical conduct by the opposition’s counsel, and lack of accommodations for a diagnosed disability. This has resulted in Aaron, a defendant and a father, feeling like a ‘second class citizen’, struggling to protect his children and his rights in a system that seems to favor the opposition.
About The Author
