MASTER MYND

The architect of the hotel. The scheme I allege.

José Daniel Acosta Matos (JDAM) · Laura Patricia Acosta Matos (LPAM) · Sun Park

By Gil Marer — Por Derecho / Project Sun Rock

SATIRICAL / CARICATURE REPRESENTATION — NOT A REAL ADVERTISEMENT

Hotel / physical site: Sun Park · MYND Yaiza — PD-SP-O-0042.
Calle Janubio 3, Playa Blanca, Lanzarote 35580, Spain. This identifies the establishment and site, not a corporate owner or determination of title. Canonical address and source variants · Actors, proceedings and evidence.

Good people doing great things?

The words without the question mark are Canarian Hospitality’s public slogan. The question mark is mine. So is the allegation below. ^E6

I allege that JDAM and LPAM were active participants in a coordinated scheme to displace existing rights-holders and secure control of Sun Park for the Acosta Matos perimeter. I allege that community structures, the insolvency process and claims of authority were used in that operation. I ask for it to be examined as alleged criminal conduct—not reduced to a disagreement about a hotel refurbishment. ^E7

This page presents my accusation and the evidence on which I rely. It distinguishes documents, statements attributed to particular people, and my interpretation of their combined significance. It does not present an allegation as a conviction.

1. The two statements at the centre of this page

JDAM: €350,000 / 3% — commission attributed to the insolvency administrator

I attribute to JDAM an explanation of the economics of the Promontoria credit acquisition which included €350,000 in intermediation commission, attributed to the Administrador Concursal for managing the credit transaction. ^E1

This account was not first written down in response to a recent publicity campaign. An email addressed to JDAM on 24 January 2018 recorded the following entry and asked him to confirm or correct the figures:

“Intermediación/Comisiones (3%) - 350.000,00”

The source account distinguishes the explanation attributed to JDAM from the contemporaneous written entry. The email records the amount and description; the attribution to the administrator comes from the account of what JDAM said. ^E1

That distinction matters. I am alleging that he identified a commission for the insolvency administrator—not pretending that the email is a bank transfer. Payment, the ultimate recipient, the underlying service and any authorisation require their own documentary answers.

What was this commission? Who proposed it? Who was supposed to receive it? Was it paid, invoiced, accrued, reimbursed or included in another transaction? Where is the complete accounting trail?

LPAM: the judge’s personal number — daily contact with the judge and the administrator

I attribute to LPAM statements that she had the personal telephone number of the judge handling Concurso 36/2012, spoke daily with him and with the insolvency administrator, could call the judge immediately, and displayed numerous calls on her telephone. ^E1

The source account also attributes to her, in substance, a claim that everyone was fed up with us and the insolvency proceedings, and that the judge wanted the proceedings finished as soon as possible. These are remembered statements attributed to LPAM, including words she attributed to the judge—not independently verified statements by the judge. ^E1

Within my perimeter, that claimed proximity was described in a 5 June 2020 email as “la amiga del Juez”. That is the account’s characterisation of the relationship, not a verified verbatim quotation in which LPAM says, “The judge is my friend.” ^E2

My allegation is about claimed personal access to the people controlling the insolvency process. It is not merely about someone knowing a telephone number.

The existence, frequency, participants, purpose and content of the claimed communications must be tested. The account that a phone was shown does not, by itself, authenticate its contacts or calls.

2. Why I place those accounts together

A commission attributed to the insolvency administrator. Claimed daily access to the judge and that same administrator. Statements about obtaining entry, replacing the existing operation, putting security at the gate and refurbishing the hotel. ^E1E2E3

My allegation is that these were connected parts of an operation—not isolated remarks that should be examined in sealed compartments.

I also attribute to JDAM an explanation that CAM’s intervention was a favour his father was doing for certain dissident owners, that they wanted the insolvent company to disappear as soon as possible, and that CAM had offered to facilitate that outcome. This is the substance recalled in the source account, not a recording or a verbatim quotation. ^E1

The factual questions are specific: who sought what outcome; who held which rights; who exercised control; who enabled each step; and who received the resulting assets, income or commercial advantage?

That is what I mean here by the Acosta Matos perimeter: the relevant people, entities, professional roles and transactions. It is not a claim that everyone sharing a surname or appearing in a photograph has the same responsibility.

3. The public image. The Sun Park plans.

I identify at least some of the plans visible in the original corporate office photograph as Sun Park plans. I stand behind that identification. I am not claiming that every sheet visible in the photograph concerns Sun Park.

This is my identification of the plans. It is not presented here as a completed independent technical comparison.

The photograph is therefore part of the history I am asking the reader to examine—not simply a generic illustration of a property business. But its limits remain clear: a photograph cannot tell us everything said at a meeting, establish its date from a later publication date, or assign a common decision to everyone pictured.

The 10 February 2021 El Economista article reproduced by RICPE provides separate public context: it discusses hotel-renovation investment and Acosta Matos. The company’s own technical-office page describes its architectural and design work. Neither source is a finding on my allegations. ^E5E8

My case does not start with how the people in a photograph look. It starts with their alleged conduct, the documents and the chronology.

4. “The Architect?” is literal—and deliberate

The Sun Park architectural record identifies José D. Acosta Matos, architect, COAGC registration nº 2315, as “Redactor del Proyecto de Ejecución”, with 100% in the execution-project field. The document bears a 25 February 2022 Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de Lanzarote visado. ^E4

The work is described as:

“Reforma interior parcial y acondicionamientos exteriores de edificación turística.”

The location is Avenida Janubio s/n, Urbanización Sun Park, Playa Blanca, Yaiza. The declared promoter is the Comunidad de Propietarios Sun Park de Playa Blanca. ^E4

This establishes a concrete professional connection to the project. It does not, by itself, establish that the declared promoter held every authority or property right required for every intervention.

Architect of the execution project: documented.

Architect of the wider scheme: my allegation to be tested against his actions, communications, knowledge and role.

The double meaning is intentional. I am not suggesting that being an architect is suspicious. I am asking whether the person involved in designing the hotel was also involved in designing the route to its control.

Who commissioned the work? Who signed for the declared promoter? What authority was relied upon over common areas and separately owned units? Which drawings, instructions, contracts and permissions connect the proposed works to the rights actually held at the relevant time?

5. The 2018 call: entry, concealment, exclusion and works

The recorded-call evidence attributed to JDAM and Miguel Ángel Barreiro Cano must be read in full, not reduced to a slogan. The underlying conversation is reported as 26 February 2018; the accompanying Logalty / CallStamp certification records a custody event on 22 March 2018. The transcript identifies speakers by number, so identity, the underlying call date and the native-audio chain remain separate authentication questions. ^E3E9

I attribute the following passages to JDAM. Spanish extracts are preserved; the surrounding English is my explanation.

Entry—and how cooperation would be disguised

“Yo puedo entrar por la fuerza porque soy propietario ya del complejo.”

“me dejas pasar y te haces el loco”

“Podemos hacer el paripé, si te parece”

The passage is not just a request to arrange a visit. It describes entry, cooperation and a proposed appearance that the entry had not been facilitated. The fuller transcript returns to that arrangement: let him enter and, if the others appear, say he slipped in. ^E3

Replacement—and control of access

“dentro de dos meses ellos desaparecen y entramos nosotros.”

“Y ahí no va a entrar nadie”

“Porque ya tenemos… un acuerdo con la comunidad”

These passages refer to replacing the existing operation, security at the gate and a claimed agreement with the community. My allegation is that they describe anticipated control—not merely architectural ambition. ^E3

The works—and the commercial future

“Porque el que va a entrar en obra soy yo.”

“vamos a reformar el hotel.”

The transcript also discusses measuring the complex, maintenance and security services, future cooperation and a proposed reopening around Easter 2019. That proposed date is not presented as an achieved opening date. ^E3

The same conversation contains the speaker’s claim to ownership, reference to deeds, a preference to avoid confrontation, discussion of an unsuccessful agreement over the credit, and offers of future work. Those passages belong in the record too. The allegation must be tested against the whole conversation and the rights actually held—not by treating selected quotations as a self-contained confession. ^E3

6. The sequence I allege—not a collection of unrelated events

Credit acquisition → claimed institutional access → entry and exclusion → works and control → later commercial exploitation.

That is the sequence I allege. It is not a substitute for proving each connection.

The source account places the CAM meetings in December 2017–January 2018. The commission entry was recorded on 24 January 2018. The reported February call and March certification preserve a separate strand concerning access, security and refurbishment. The account of LPAM’s claimed relationship was written down by June 2020, before the later 2025–2026 institutional complaints. ^E1E3E9

The 2021 investment publicity, the 2022 Sun Park architectural record, and the later Sun Park / MYND history documented in the repository must be placed alongside—not substituted for—those earlier materials. A corporate photograph’s republication date is not the date on which its meeting necessarily occurred. ^E4E5E7

I allege that the displacement and control of Sun Park were coordinated in advance and subsequently consolidated through professional, corporate and institutional steps. Each alleged participant’s knowledge, contribution and benefit must still be established individually.

7. “We have the hotel lawfully”: the position reported to the journalist

The record must also include the answer attributed to LPAM.

My 19 January 2025 email to Javier Romera records what I understood him to have relayed about her telephone call: she asked him to wait until Monday for documents; said she would provide a judicial order supporting the position that they “tienen el hotel conforme a derecho”; denied a commercialisation agreement with MeetingPoint; and said MeetingPoint had marketed the hotel “como otro cualquier tour operador”, but no longer did. ^E10

This is my contemporaneous written account of what a journalist relayed—not a transcript of LPAM’s call and not independent verification of every word.

I preserve that position because it must be addressed. A request for time to supply documents is not, by itself, proof of censorship or wrongdoing.

My response is substantive: identify the precise title, order, mandate or agreement authorising each disputed act at the time it occurred.

Which property did it cover? Which person or entity could act under it? Did it address the earlier entry, exclusion, works and commercialisation challenged in my account? The assertion that the hotel was held lawfully does not answer those separate factual questions by itself.

8. What I am alleging—and what the record must answer

I allege a coordinated scheme of unlawful displacement and appropriation of control over Sun Park, involving named private actors and the alleged misuse or enabling role of institutional processes. ^E7

The two central accounts remain the starting point: JDAM’s alleged explanation of a commission attributed to the insolvency administrator, and LPAM’s alleged claims of personal access and daily contact with the judge and administrator. ^E1E2

Those accounts must be examined with the call, the title and authority documents, the community records, the architectural commission, the sequence of physical control and the financial consequences. I am asking for a connected investigation, not collective guilt.

The required answers are concrete: the commission’s complete financial trail; the basis and purpose of the claimed contacts; the native call evidence; the authority for each disputed intervention; and the transactions through which control and commercial benefit were obtained.

Anyone named may respond with documents, corrections or a competing explanation. A substantive response belongs beside the allegation, not outside the record.

The hotel had an architect. The wider operation must be accounted for.

The project architect is identified in the professional record. My allegation is that the wider route to control was also designed.

I am not asking readers to infer criminality from a family photograph, a profession, a surname or a slogan. I am asking them to examine what particular people are alleged to have said and done, what contemporary documents record, and how those acts connect to the later outcome.

The slogan is theirs. The allegation is mine. The evidence—and every response to it—must be open to scrutiny.

Read the connected record

Acosta Matos family dossier · Acosta Matos perimeter · RICPE / Sun Park · Actor register

Evidence and image notes

E1. Signed factual source account, 28 July 2026, §§4–11: meeting sequence, statements attributed to JDAM and LPAM, and the 24 January 2018 / 5 June 2020 email trail. This source distinguishes direct recollection, documentary entries and matters not independently established. The witness’s name and personal details are not reproduced in this public-facing draft.

E2. Final CGPJ appeal statement, 28 July 2026, §§6–8: claimed contacts and the distinction between the phrase “la amiga del Juez” and a verbatim LPAM quotation.

E3. Four-page CAM / Sun Park worker telephone-transcript package: certification on page 1; substantive transcript on pages 2–4. Extracts retain the source’s speaker-attribution qualification. Native records containing personal data are not embedded in this page.

E4. Sun Park Hoja de Dirección / visado, 25 February 2022, reproduced at page 3 of the inspected “Anexo II”: execution-project author, COAGC nº 2315, declared promoter, project description and address. The separate visado-stamp number 21428 is not used as JDAM’s personal registration number.

E5. El Economista article reproduced by RICPE, 10 February 2021: public investment and hotel-renovation context, not a finding of wrongdoing.

E6. Canarian Hospitality, About Us: the published slogan, without the editorial question mark.

E7. Por Derecho’s Acosta Matos family dossier and the author’s 19 January 2025 Romera correspondence: the author’s wider allegation and chronological framework, not independent adjudication.

E8. The original four-person photograph is identified through the archived El Economista article and its RICPE reproduction. The source JPEG matches the existing repository asset byte for byte. A different Acosta Matos technical-office screenshot appeared in the earlier draft and is not this photograph. The identification of at least some visible plans as Sun Park is Gil Marer’s asserted identification. Ten source plan pages have now been recovered; an independent sheet-to-photo demonstration remains open.

E9. Documented criminal complaint, 25 June 2026, §46.8: the reported 26 February 2018 underlying conversation, subsequent March certification, speaker attribution and authentication requirements.

E10. Gil Marer’s email to Javier Romera, 19 January 2025: reported account of the 16 January telephone exchange. It is a mediated account, not a recording of that call.

Image distinction. The MASTER MYND poster is an AI-assisted editorial adaptation, not documentary evidence of a meeting or its contents. The four-person original corporate photograph is kept separate and unaltered. The identification of plans applies to the original photograph, not to any plan detail reconstructed in the poster. “MASTER MYND”, “The Architect?” and the added question mark are editorial commentary, not an official MYND or Canarian Hospitality publication.

Publication scope. This edition preserves the author’s allegation, source quotations, source limitations and right of reply. Private native evidence is not embedded; the public page does not certify an adjudicated finding or completion of independent authentication.

Architecture: the source’s own limit

The inspected Hoja de Dirección identifies José D. Acosta Matos as execution-project author, COAGC 2315, for the declared promoter CDAD. PROP. SUN PARK DE PLAYA BLANCA; visado 25 February 2022, reference22/000036/7800. It expressly does not presume commencement of works or actual intervention by the technician. The100% execution field is an authorship field, not a certificate of completed building works. Historical membership, later College responses, the full mandate, licences, authority and title must remain separately reconciled. Architecture documentary node and open College correspondence.

Canonical site profile, source provenance and open proof steps.