# 3205/2014^ · Arrecife — primary-source translation, authority and allegations control

Control date: 30 August 2026
Revision: 3 — adds the contemporaneous/retrospective actor-action continuity control
Canonical proceeding: PD-SP-R-0021 / LZ-JUD-043
Historic organ: PD-SP-I-0023

**Controlling supplement:** read `.github/governance/COMMUNITY_CLAIMED_OFFICE_CRIMINAL_FIRST_AUTHORITY_PROTOCOL_30AUG2026.md` and Declaration 019. Every use of president/administrator below is a source-reported or claimed capacity, not recognition of lawful office, legitimacy, mandate, work authority or access rights.

## 1. Identity result and source-label correction

A contemporaneous court summons confirms case number 3205/2014 before the historic Juzgado de Instrucción nº 1 de Arrecife. The summons captions the matter as **Juicio de faltas 3205/2014**. A later legal-adviser summary dated 20 November 2018 calls the same number **DP 3205/2014**. The public record therefore uses the neutral title **3205/2014^ · Arrecife**, preserves both source labels and keeps their exact procedural relationship open pending the certified docket.

The caret remains identity-only. It confirms the case number and historic court. It does not confirm a procedural transformation, authenticate every allegation, prove injury or authority, identify the private second respondent, establish guilt, or establish the hearing result, appeal or finality.

The historic organ is kept separate from its current successor name: Sección de Instrucción del Tribunal de Instancia de Arrecife — plaza nº 1.

## 2. Public-safe source hierarchy

| Controlled source | Class | What it establishes | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|---|
| `PD-SP-SRC-DP3205-2014-COURT-SUMMONS-20140919` | Contemporaneous official procedural notice, located copy | Case number, historic court, `Juicio de faltas` source caption, participant-role labels, summons and scheduled oral hearing | Hearing occurrence, evidence received, judgment, guilt, dismissal, appeal or finality |
| `PD-SP-SRC-DP3205-2014-POLICE-COMPLAINT-20140903` | Contemporaneous police-recorded participant allegation, located copy | What the complainant alleged that day, the capacities she claimed, the reported access/key sequence and the reported act allocation | Truth, lawful authority, independent corroboration, medical causation, agency, self-defence or liability |
| `PD-SP-SRC-DP3205-2014-SUMMARY-20181120` | Dated secondary legal-adviser status summary | Later `DP` label, reported participant count and preservation of the case reference | Primary facts, procedural conversion, merits or outcome |

Later forwards and duplicate document copies preserve their respective source lineages only; they are not independent corroboration.

This public derivative omits raw private messages, source filenames and locators, personal or document identifiers, addresses, telephone numbers, signatures, exact unit or room numbers, accommodation-ledger details and the fully anonymised second respondent's identity, name or name variants. The native records remain outside the public repository.

## 3. Complete controlled Spanish reconstruction

### 3.1 Citación judicial

Una citación judicial emitida en Arrecife en septiembre de 2014 identifica el número 3205/2014 ante el Juzgado de Instrucción nº 1 de Arrecife y lo rotula como «Juicio de faltas». Distingue a una persona denunciante descrita en las fuentes como presidenta de la Comunidad, a una persona perjudicada descrita como administrador, y a dos personas denunciadas: Gil Marer y una segunda persona cuya identidad se mantiene omitida. Cita a Gil Marer para una vista oral en octubre de 2014 por una histórica «falta de lesiones».

Las instrucciones normalizadas indican que la persona citada debe comparecer e identificarse, puede acudir asistida de letrado aunque no sea preceptivo, debe aportar los medios de prueba de que pretenda valerse y, en caso de una eventual multa, documentación económica pertinente. La citación no prueba que la vista se celebrara ni contiene sentencia, declaración de culpabilidad, archivo o firmeza.

### 3.2 Denuncia policial

La denuncia policial registra que, el 3 de septiembre de 2014, una persona descrita como presidenta de una comunidad de propietarios de apartamentos denunció una histórica falta de lesiones e identificó como perjudicado a una persona descrita como administrador.

Según su declaración, ambos acudieron al complejo hotelero en las calidades que alegaban de presidenta y administrador para realizar trabajos no especificados. Manifestó que encontraron cambiado el mecanismo de acceso a una zona a la que pretendían entrar. Después de llamar sin obtener respuesta, apareció un hombre que se identificó como turista y consiguieron acceder. Afirmó que el hombre los invitó a hablar con otra persona y que, tras invocar ella su condición de presidenta, les pidió que se marcharan.

La denunciante dijo que se negó a abandonar el complejo y llamó a la Guardia Civil para solicitar mediación. Mientras esperaban, afirmó que revisaron apartamentos de propietarios y dejaron una llave en la puerta de una unidad concreta. Alegó que el hombre que se había identificado como turista, y que se comunicaba frecuentemente por teléfono móvil, intentó llevarse la llave, que ella trató de impedirlo y que se produjo un forcejeo. Dijo que el hombre la sujetó fuertemente del brazo y posiblemente le dio un codazo en la espalda. Afirmó que, al intervenir para que la soltara, el administrador sufrió primero una luxación del pulgar izquierdo y después un empujón. El formulario también registra que la denunciante describió sus propias lesiones como leves. Son alegaciones de la declarante, no constataciones médicas.

La denunciante atribuyó el conflicto a que propietarios que consideraba verdaderos no podían acceder a sus inmuebles por causa de Gil Marer, a quien describió como explotador de parte del complejo. Preguntada por la relación entre Gil Marer y el presunto autor físico, contestó únicamente que podría ser una persona relacionada con él. La denuncia no atribuye a Gil presencia en el incidente, una instrucción, una relación de agencia ni contacto físico.

La denunciante dijo que su marido no había presenciado la agresión en sí, aunque sí el resto de los hechos y el conflicto anterior. La Guardia Civil llegó después de los hechos e identificó a las partes; el documento no dice que los agentes presenciaran el contacto físico. Añadió que, después, había recibido una llamada desde un número omitido para intentar alcanzar un acuerdo relativo al conflicto sobre las viviendas. La denuncia no identifica a Gil Marer como autor ni destinatario de esa llamada.

## 4. Full controlled English translation

### 4.1 Court summons

A court summons issued in Arrecife in September 2014 identifies case number 3205/2014 before Arrecife Investigating Court No. 1 and captions it as a `Juicio de faltas`, or minor-offence trial. It distinguishes a complainant described in the sources as Community president, an affected party described as administrator, and two reported respondents: Gil Marer and a second person whose identity remains withheld. It summoned Gil Marer to an October 2014 oral hearing concerning the historical `falta de lesiones` classification.

The standard instructions state that the summoned person must attend and identify himself, may be assisted by counsel although counsel is not mandatory, must bring the evidence on which he intends to rely and, if a fine might be imposed, relevant financial material. The summons does not prove that the hearing occurred and contains no judgment, finding of guilt, dismissal or finality.

### 4.2 Police complaint

The police complaint records that, on 3 September 2014, a person described as president of an apartment owners' community reported a historical minor-injury offence and identified a person described as administrator as the affected party.

According to her statement, they attended the hotel complex in their claimed capacities as president and administrator to carry out unspecified work. She said they found the access mechanism to an area they intended to enter had been changed. After calls went unanswered, a man appeared, identified himself as a tourist and they obtained entry. She said he invited them to speak with another person and, after she invoked her claimed status as president, told them to leave.

The complainant said she refused to leave and called the Guardia Civil to seek mediation. While they waited, she said they inspected owners' apartments and left a key in the door of a specified unit. She alleged that the man who had identified himself as a tourist, and who was frequently communicating by mobile telephone, tried to take the key, that she tried to stop him and that a struggle followed. She said the man held her tightly by the arm and possibly elbowed her in the back. She said that, when the administrator intervened to make him release her, the administrator first suffered a dislocation of the left thumb and was then pushed. The form also records that the complainant described her own injuries as mild. These are the declarant's allegations, not medical findings.

The complainant attributed the conflict to owners whom she regarded as the true owners being unable to access their property because of Gil Marer, whom she described as operating part of the complex. Asked about the relationship between Gil Marer and the alleged physical actor, she said only that the person might be related to him. The complaint attributes no presence at the incident, instruction, agency relationship or physical contact to Gil.

The complainant said her husband had not witnessed the alleged assault itself, although he had witnessed the rest of the events and the preceding conflict. The Guardia Civil arrived after the events and identified the parties; the document does not say the officers witnessed physical contact. She added that she had later received a call from an omitted number in an attempt to reach agreement concerning the housing dispute. The complaint does not identify Gil Marer as the caller or recipient of that call.

## 5. Participant and capacity control

| Public label | Registry treatment | Located proposition | Open proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source-reported president / complainant | Contextual candidate PD-SP-P-0004; primary source name form strengthens but does not silently merge the identity bridge | Made the complaint; claimed to attend as Community president to carry out work | Exact identity control, exact Community, office effective on the incident date, mandate, work order and access authority |
| Source-reported administrator / affected party | Contextual candidate PD-SP-P-0009; shortened primary source form remains controlled | Described as administrator and affected party; reportedly intervened in the key dispute | Exact identity, appointment, mandate, act allocation, medical causation and legal authority |
| Gil Marer | PD-SP-P-0001 | Listed as a respondent in the summons and described in the complaint as operator of part of the complex | Why he was procedurally included; notice, statement, act, instruction, agency, court treatment and outcome |
| Second reported respondent | Private role-only candidate | Listed as a respondent; the complaint attributes the alleged physical conduct to a man who said he was a tourist | Primary role-to-person bridge, incident-date guest or operational capacity, statement, instructions, defence and outcome |
| The Community | Exact legal person unresolved | The complainant invoked president/administrator titles | Legal person, statutes, date-effective appointments, resolution, mandate, funding and work authority |

## 6. Why the two Community-capacity actors said they were there

The contemporaneous complaint supplies the clearest stated reason: they said they attended as president and administrator to carry out unspecified work. It also records that, once inside, they inspected owners' apartments. A later account by the source-reported president says she was seeking access to property belonging to relatives of her husband; that later account is a candidate incident bridge, not a formally proved DP3205 source.

A regulatory and safety complaint bearing a 27 August 2014 date requests inspections under claimed Community authority. The located copy was officially received after 3 September 2014. Its internal date therefore cannot be used to prove that it was filed, received or acted upon before the incident. It may still supply context for a genuine regulatory concern or for an attributed pressure hypothesis, but it proves neither motive.

The located 2011 appointment material is historical authority evidence only. It does not establish a date-effective office, mandate, owner consent, work order or right to enter on 3 September 2014. A disputed Community record dated 28 August 2014 is contrary governance context, not a certified determination of authority.

## 7. Meaning of the reported tourist and physical altercation

The phrase “identified himself as a tourist” is a statement reported by the complainant, not a booking or guest-registration record. No incident-date booking, accommodation registration, employment record, agency instruction or exact capacity proof has been located in the public control.

If genuine guest status were proved, it would provide an ordinary independent reason for the person's presence and would not by itself make him Gil's employee, security provider, agent or co-participant. If an operational role were proved, instruction, scope of authority and agency would still require separate evidence. Guest and operational capacities are not logically exclusive, but neither is established here for the incident date.

The complaint places the altercation within an access, possession and key dispute, not a documented random encounter. That makes authority to enter, authority to inspect units, the request to leave, control of the key, protection of guests and property, mutual or defensive force, and the hotel's response legitimate questions. It does not answer them.

## 8. Account comparison and allegations against the Community-capacity actors

The primary complaint presents the president and administrator as complainant and affected party. A later account by the president describes the alleged actor as a person who said he worked for Gil. A 2016 participant transcript appears to attribute the assault more broadly to Gil or his client and expands the group said to have been assaulted. Those later accounts may reflect dual capacity, colloquial attribution or compressed memory; they are not formally linked to DP3205 and must not be fused with the primary complaint.

Gil Marer's contemporaneous counteraccount alleges forced access, aggression against the on-site manager and a later reversal of the facts in the complaint. It is a materially adverse attributed allegation, not a finding. The referenced manager account and recording have not been located in this recovery set.

The combined evidence supports a narrow inquiry into whether Community titles were validly held and used, whether access or inspection exceeded any mandate, who controlled the key, who initiated or lawfully responded to physical contact, and whether later accounts were accurate. It does not establish false accusation, harassment, arbitrary self-help, abuse of process, agreement, shadow administration, assault, defence, civil liability or criminal responsibility.

## 9. Multi-track control

| Track | Supported question | Mandatory limit |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal injury | What contact occurred, who initiated it, and what injury was independently supported? | The complaint is an allegation; no medical source, neutral eyewitness or outcome is located |
| Community authority | Did the claimed president and administrator hold date-effective office and a mandate for the stated work and entry? | Historic titles and minutes do not prove incident-specific authority |
| Property and access | Who owned or controlled the relevant unit and access area, and who authorized entry or inspection? | No title, proxy, owner consent, work order or lock/key record closes the question |
| Hotel possession and safety | What was the second respondent's incident-date capacity and what duties applied to guests, occupants and operators? | Self-identification as tourist is not guest-registration or agency proof |
| Regulatory | Was the visit connected to bona fide inspection/safety concerns or an improper pressure campaign? | The regulatory document bears an earlier date but was officially received after the incident; chronology alone proves no motive |
| False complaint / procedural abuse | Were any material statements knowingly or recklessly false, and how did the court dispose of them? | Inconsistency and an adverse counteraccount do not establish falsity; the final court outcome is missing |
| Prosecutorial comparison | How were distinct 2014 Community-related allegations treated in separate files? | The earlier Fiscalía archive concerned different allegations and procedure; different treatment does not prove bias or joinder |
| Concurso 36/2012 | Did the incident affect estate access, operation or assets? | No formal link, insolvency-administration instruction or estate consequence is located |
| Civil | Were there duties concerning premises, access, injury or agency? | Duty, breach, causation, employment and damages remain unproved |

## 10. Formal isolation and finite recovery

No located source proves joinder, transformation, inhibition, appeal or another formal relationship between 3205/2014 and DP 332/2014, DP 1132/2018, Auto 804/2018, Fiscalía 39/2014, Concurso 36/2012 or any other proceeding. Contextual comparison does not change that rule.

Bounded authorised searches across the accessible connected Gmail, Drive and repository sources located the police complaint, court summons, later summary lineage and contextual accounts described above. They did not locate the certified docket, a procedural order reconciling the `Juicio de faltas` and `DP` labels, medical evidence, a neutral eyewitness statement, the second respondent's statement, the referenced manager account or recording, CCTV, complete police attendance material, the hearing record, judgment or dismissal, appeal, or certificate of finality. This is a result for the accessible searched corpus, not a claim that every possible source or the official court archive was searched; absence from it does not prove that an official record does not exist.

The remaining recovery set is maintained in `archive/MISSING_EVIDENCE_REGISTER_DP3205_2014_APPEND_30AUG2026.md`, `ME-112` and `CP-GAP-008`.

## 11. Gil Marer's direct criminal allegation and the contemporaneous counter-record

Gil Marer states that Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez and Francisco Mario Matos Matas had no legitimate Community office or work mandate on 3 September 2014. He characterises their use of the titles, entry, unit inspection and key conduct as part of a criminal hijacking/capture and holding out of Community authority originating in the disputed 2011 sequence. This is a direct party allegation, not a judicial finding.

A 7 October 2014 email to legal advisers is contemporaneous evidence that Gil/Patricia already alleged that Aizpurúa acted in a position she did not hold, that the asserted 2011 basis was illegitimate or alternatively expired, and that the 2 October forwarded account described forced entry, aggression against the manager and a later complaint altering the event. The email establishes the existence and timing of that counter-allegation. It does not authenticate the referenced manager statement or recording, prove intent, establish a false complaint or decide which account was true.

## 12. Hotel-community and private-respondent capacity clarification

Gil supplied private identity, prior-relationship and capacity details concerning the anonymised respondent. Their combination remains outside Git because it could create an indirect identity bridge. The public-safe record retains only what is necessary: contemporaneous 2013–2014 communications describe an active-retirement/community offer for semi- and fully retired people aged 50+, real guests and residents, establishing an operating hotel/community setting in which a guest or occupant had an ordinary independent reason to be present.

Guest status, acquaintance or voluntary assistance does not establish employment, marketing appointment, security responsibility, agency, instruction or concert. The person's name, accommodation ledger, prior relationship and distinctive role combination remain outside the public repository.

## 13. 2011→2014→7 June 2018 continuity and DP 1901 perimeter

DP 3205/2014 can be used as a mid-chain corroborative lead because it documents the joint invocation of claimed Community capacities in a concrete access, unit-inspection and key confrontation, and because Gil's contrary authority/criminal allegation was preserved contemporaneously. A 30 April 2018 party summary repeated the alleged illegitimate presidency, unilateral FMMM appointment and disputed debt/vote mechanism before the 7 June 2018 material-control event.

This permits a method-and-continuity investigation. It does not prove that the 2014 actors planned 7 June, that CAM directed them in 2014, that later actors inherited their knowledge or intention, or that the proceedings are formally connected. **7 June 2018** is the controlled date; `7 July 2018` in the originating dictation is treated as a speech slip.

The 25 June 2026 NEXUS 36 complaint associated with DP 1901/2026 names five private actors: José Daniel Acosta Matos, Laura Patricia Acosta Matos, Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Antonio Cogolludo Rojas and Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos. Aizpurúa is not silently added. Gil presently classifies her as a material historical witness and possible future additional party. Any procedural reclassification requires objective indications of her own act, knowledge, intent and contribution and full defence rights.

## 14. Two-ledger actor/action continuity control

This control uses two linked but non-merged temporal ledgers. The **contemporaneous
ledger** preserves what a dated source or counter-source recorded and what it did not
record. The **retrospective reconstruction ledger** separately records Gil Marer's
present, proposition-specific allegation that the private-actor conduct was criminal,
not merely civil, administrative or innocuous, and contributed to later harm. Hindsight
must not be injected into the earlier source; later corroborative significance must not
be erased merely because it was recognised later.

The complete finite-scope control is
`assets/data/dp3205-contemporaneous-retrospective-actor-action-matrix-v1.json`
(`PD-SP-DP3205-ACTOR-ACTION-001`). It reconciles exactly 17 public people and three
protected role-only references. Every record states a dated action/omission or an
express no-located-act result, temporal layer, evidence status, source, applicable
track, limiting proposition and open proof. The nine tracks are Community authority,
hotel trade, access/possession, complaint/procedure, insolvency, property/finance,
criminal/prosecutorial, regulatory/public support and witness/custody.

This is Gil Marer speaking for the present criminal attribution. It is recorded at full
strength as his allegation and is not an adjudicated finding. No knowledge, intention,
agreement, criminal attribution, guilt or liability transfers from co-appearance,
family, office label, chronology, perimeter membership or association alone. The
exact DP 1901 five-person perimeter and Aizpurúa's separate attributed material-witness
/ possible-future-party classification remain unchanged.