Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/364.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2020-03-11 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-03-11
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Aaron Surina, the defendant respondent in this case, argues that he is being unfairly victimized by constant litigation that is causing him to lose necessary wages, vacation time, and pulling him away from critical job responsibilities amidst a pandemic. This incessant litigation, Surina claims, is not just a form of abuse against him, but is causing significant trauma to his children.
Surina voices concerns about a secret hearing on June 6, 2019, where a judgment of $19,000 was passed against him without an evidentiary hearing or his presence. This suggests a potential bias and unjust treatment by the court. He alleges that this judgment and another large one were entered against him without any factual findings or his knowledge, indicative of unethical conduct.
Furthermore, Surina’s request to quickly submit the QDRO in December 2019 was overlooked, leading to financial losses due to the stock market crash. This action, he contends, renders the previous financial order unfair due to these unforeseen circumstances.
Surina also indicates that judgments were unjustly awarded and deceitfully inserted into the case after his representative, Rich Kuck, withdrew. He is facing an ongoing assault of litigation threats from Mr. Landrus and Ms. Polarj, viewing it as a blatant injustice. His two sons are being emotionally manipulated and scarred for life, a deeply unfair and harmful issue.
False accusations are being leveled against Surina that he is causing problems regarding the QDRO, when it is his ex-spouse who refuses to submit a valid QDRO. This false portrayal adds to his mounting grievances.
Surina is also advocating for relief for Sirinya, unable to secure employment or pay rent, fearing she cannot return home without complications. He is urging the court to lift the gag order currently preventing his children from freely communicating with him. This restriction, insisted upon by Ms. Polarj, is seen as an unfair limitation on his and his children’s rights.
Lastly, Surina expresses deep concern about the continuance of the litigation and the wellbeing of his children under the care of their mother, whom he believes has consistently shown malevolence and a total disregard for their welfare. These concerns underscore perceived biases and injustices in the ongoing litigation process, suggesting a need for the court to address these issues and prioritize the welfare of Surina and his children.
About The Author
