Document: AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT
Link: [Open PDF](https://42o.org/l3g4l/588.0 AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RESPONDENT 2024-03-26 .pdf)
Filing Date: 2024-03-26
Summary (Justice Demanded)
Document Title: Affidavit of Defendant Respondent
In the court documents, Aaron Surina, the Respondent, conveyed a series of allegations highlighting significant instances of unethical conduct, particularly by Stanley Kempner Jr., the Petitioner’s counsel. Surina identified Kempner’s failure to disclose crucial information to both him and the court, directly concerning the custody hearing. This critical lapse is seen as a calculated attempt to reopen issues previously decided in Surina’s favor, consequently putting him at an unfair disadvantage.
Surina further raised objections to the conspicuous lack of candor shown by Kempner towards the tribunal and the judge presiding over the case. He accused Kempner of taking undue advantage of the inherent challenges associated with pro se litigation, as Surina was representing himself. It was alleged that Kempner’s intentional obfuscation of essential procedural steps and previous court rulings contradicted the principles of fairness, transparency, and justice.
Given the severity of these actions by Kempner, a veteran attorney, Surina urged the Court to exercise its judicial oversight by reprimanding him for perpetuating fraud upon the court and displaying a striking lack of candor. Surina also called for an investigation into Kempner’s conduct and the imposition of suitable sanctions for the identified ethical breaches.
In addition, Surina requested the Court to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by reaffirming the decisions previously made in his favor. He also called for a new trial and demanded that the court grant all other reliefs as requested in his initial motion for reconsideration and its amendments.
Despite the fact that the provided documents do not offer specific details about the case or actions taken by the court, Surina’s conviction that he was subjected to unfair treatment and bias was evident. The text primarily consists of an administrative formality wherein Surina agrees to accept legal documents at a specific address and verifies his identity before a notary public. This lack of substantive information, however, does not diminish Surina’s claim for justice and fair treatment. Further details from the case or specific instances of perceived bias would further bolster a comprehensive review and summary of his allegations.
About The Author
