Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/377.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2020-06-10 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2020-06-10
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Final Comprehensive Summary:
The court proceedings and orders surrounding Aaron Surina’s case reflect potential bias and a distinct lack of fairness against him, particularly concerning child support, asset division, parenting rights, communication restrictions, and procedural inconsistencies.
Mr. Surina’s job insecurity and financial circumstances have not been considered adequately by the court, as evidenced by the failure to adjust child support payments and potential fraud leading to the freezing of his Fidelity account. Moreover, concerning the current temporary “final orders,” the court seems to have executed a manipulative strategy by setting a one-year duration, potentially creating issues that could be used against Mr. Surina in a future review.
The court’s handling of the division of property and assets has exhibited bias against Mr. Surina. Despite community assets like the Rocky Ridge property, the proceeds from the sale were disproportionately divided. This inequity was further reflected in the skewed division of the Health Savings and Retirement funds, where Mr. Surina received significantly less after specific deductions.
Although recognizing the importance of substantial time spent with their father, the court has denied Mr. Surina shared parenting rights and limited his decision-making responsibilities. This decision, coupled with the ruling against mediation, has put Mr. Surina in a constant disadvantageous position, stripping him of his rights and ability to negotiate disputes outside of the courtroom.
The court has imposed communication limitations on Mr. Surina, restricting his interaction with his children and ex-spouse to a specific platform and rules. Further restrictions like maintaining a city block distance from his ex-spouse’s home, school, or workplace may limit Mr. Surina’s movement, potentially indicating an overreach of the court’s powers if not reciprocated. The confusing language regarding the one-year restrictions adds to the uncertainty and potential disputes.
Despite not being required to provide medical insurance for his children, Mr. Surina can choose to do so, but the cost is deducted from his child support worksheet, which could be seen as unfair. The court’s decision to not hold him responsible for daycare costs or obligations may also not consider the children’s best welfare.
Overall, the court documents indicate a significant bias against Aaron Surina, disregarding his rights, financial circumstances, and parental roles, while also exhibiting potential procedural inconsistencies and unfair restrictions. The rulings against Mr. Surina, especially the unjust sanctions amounting to over $33,000, further highlight the potential unethical conduct by the court and the attorneys involved, particularly Stanley Kempner, Keith Glanzer, and those representing Sirinya Surina, Carl Wilson, and Keith Glanzer.
This comprehensive review calls into question the fairness and integrity of the court’s proceedings and decisions, demanding a thorough reevaluation of the case to ensure justice for Aaron Surina and his children.
About The Author
