Document: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/525.0 DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT 2023-09-07 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2023-09-07
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document title: DECLARATION AFFIDAVIT
The court proceedings involving Aaron Surina have shown various inconsistencies, potential bias, and possible unethical conduct. The documents indicate accusations against Mr. Surina of not properly serving court motions and pleadings. The Petitioner’s lawyer, Jonathan Bisceglia, claims he did not receive the “Ex-Parte Motion for immediate Orders” via any of Mr. Surina’s known email addresses on September 1, 2023. However, it is noteworthy that these documents were later served.
There is an implication that Mr. Surina made changes to the contents of his motion after it was sent via email. This could be seen as an attempt to cast doubt on Mr. Surina’s integrity and paint him as unprofessional and unreliable. It may reflect an attempt to create a bias against him in the court proceedings, suggesting possible unethical conduct by the Petitioner’s counsel.
There are several instances of unjust treatment and potential bias against Aaron Surina. Notably, a hearing scheduled for August 11, 2023, was not communicated to him or the opposing party, leading to a situation where a hearing occurred without either party present. This procedural discrepancy threatens the well-being of his children, David and Andrew.
Mr. Surina has also expressed concern about the mother’s unilateral decisions that could disrupt their lives, such as relocating the children and changing their school district. These actions directly violate RCW 26.09.260 and federal case law, including Troxel v. Granville, which uphold a father’s constitutional rights to the care, custody, and control of his children.
Mr. Surina has filed an Ex-Parte motion for immediate orders to prevent such unilateral decisions without the court’s involvement. He includes email exchanges where he is instructed to serve documents that were allegedly missing from his pleadings, which could suggest bias or negligence from the opposing counsel. This raises an issue of fairness and procedural justice.
Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the lack of communication and due process, which puts the case in a precarious state and raises questions about the integrity of the court’s procedures. He urgently requests ex-parte orders to prevent unilateral actions of the children’s mother, displaying his commitment to uphold principles of justice and professionalism throughout the litigation. His dedication to ensuring justice and fairness for all parties involved underscores his belief in the ethical conduct of legal processes.
In conclusion, from Surina’s perspective, the court’s handling of these hearings reflects unfairness, potential bias, and a disregard for ethical conduct. The lack of communication and due process, coupled with the unilateral actions of the children’s mother, may be causing irreparable harm to his children and infringing upon his constitutional rights as a father. This case highlights a clear need for an urgent examination of the procedural errors, potential bias, and possible unethical conduct against Aaron Surina.
About The Author
