PDPor DerechoCross-proceeding judicial traceability

INSOLVENCY 36/2012 → CLUB SEI → MEETING POINT 357/2024

The same judicial name appears in two files linked by a documentary question.

The signed record establishes that Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia^ of the then Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria signed decisions addressing material protection, inspection and liquidation issues in Insolvency 36/2012^. Three 24 October 2024 insolvency-register publications later attribute the extension of effects in the joint Meeting Point 357/2024 pre-insolvency proceeding in the then Commercial Court No. 3 to Magistrate López Villarrubia. Gil Marer expressly alleges that this attributed involvement crossed an already-crossed line: it connects the earlier failure to protect the active estate and productive unit effectively with a proceeding for three Meeting Point-perimeter debtors which Gil Marer alleges was connected to and may have benefited from the Club Sei project; the exact entity and benefit remain unproved. The attribution is documented in three archived copies; public authenticity and custody are not closed, and the signed original, allocation or substitution, knowledge and disclosure record are missing. Those gaps are production targets, not a reason to erase the allegation.

36/2012acts signed by Magistrate López Villarrubia
24 OCT 2024register attribution; original pending
Allegationconflict, concealment and injury to investigate
CAEPR31/31 unique · 32/32 rows · all is^

Two lanes, one production question

What is signed, what is attributed and what must not be merged.

Then Commercial Court No. 1 · Insolvency 36/2012^

16 APR 2018

Magistrate López Villarrubia approved the liquidation plan and CAM proposal with publicity/improvement safeguards, separating LPB property from third-party property.

12 MAY 2020

Demolition, access, expert and inspection requests were treated as new/out of time in that review; the order did not decide that the events had not occurred.

24 FEB 2021

His signed order maintained refusal of judicial inspection and an independent expert. The photographs did not identify ownership of interiors; conservation was treated as the insolvency administrator's function.

18 MAY 2021

Auto 164 records that the third-party bidder did not attend, was not personated and lodged no bond; it definitively approved CAM's proposal. The former erroneous description of a third-party bidder victory is withdrawn.

Then Commercial Court No. 3 · Meeting Point 357/2024

23 / 31 JUL 2024

Three debtors jointly filed; the communication was deemed made on 31 July.

24 OCT 2024

Three Public Insolvency Register copies attribute the extension to Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia. The signed original and allocation, substitution, support or correction trail remain missing.

23 JAN / 18 FEB 2025

The three debtors requested AUREN REESTRUCTURACIONES SLP. Signed Auto 97/2025, issued by Guillermo Fernández García, appointed Auren.

OPEN

No controlled record shows what Sun Park/Club Sei material entered the communication, annexes, Auren file or SEPI/FASEE monitoring.

The legitimate connection: not “two judicial names = irregularity”. It is whether the person attributed to the 24 October act had previously decided matters affecting the asset from which the Club Sei commercial layer emerged, what he actually knew, and what allocation, abstention, recusal, disclosure and custody records exist.

Civil, insolvency, institutional and criminal analysis

What is wrong—or requires explanation.

1 · Verifiable protection

The neutral source was refused

The 24-Feb-2021 order refused inspection and expert valuation despite recording works, debris and blocked-access allegations. No resulting neutral property–photo–damage–value baseline appears in the controlled record; the certified docket could complete or rebut that gap. The law places conservation on the administrator but allows court assistance; allocating competence does not by itself show supervision was effective.

2 · Truncated productive unit

Property is not operation

LPB was the only debtor and the hotel was mixed-owned. That made it necessary to determine which properties, participations, contracts, flows, goodwill, rescue capacity and claims belonged to LPB or generated rights for its estate, and to value only that perimeter without absorbing third-party assets. Gil alleges that this productive layer was disabled and not effectively protected.

3 · Control and market before title

Club Sei is not mere chronology

Commercial sources support pre-title preparation and presentation of Club Sei Lanzarote at the same location. Gil alleges that an unidentified Meeting Point/FTI legal person was a potentially injuring actor in that mechanism. The brochure, pilot and offer do not prove contract, opening, bookings, revenue, authority or crime.

4 · Appearance in 357

The attribution needs authentication

It is wrong to convert three publications into a proved personal signature; it is also wrong to ignore them. The signed original and allocation history are required. Ordinary substitution, support, reassignment or a register error could explain the names.

5 · Conflict

Factual overlap is not an automatic ground

LOPJ Article 219 requires a specific ground such as direct/indirect interest or prior participation in the same or a related matter. Deciding another insolvency is not enough. The CAM–Club Sei–Meeting Point link, personal knowledge and decisional effect must be proved before alleging a mandatory recusal.

6 · SEPI

No personal notice duty is proved

SEPI documents EUR 31 million for Meeting Point. No current record traces it into Sun Park, proves omission from FASEE/357 or creditor harm, or establishes a personal judicial duty to notify SEPI. The proper inquiry is into loan terms, debtor disclosures, SEPI monitoring and the Auren file.

Attributed criminal thesis: Gil Marer^ and Aweswell Limited^ allege that control/exclusion, loss of operation and rescue capacity, works/pilots and pre-title marketing created the information, valuation and competition conditions that caused or conditioned adjudication. They allege that Club Sei^ was the commercial layer of a potentially injuring actor in the Meeting Point perimeter. This is not a criminal judgment and does not prove that any of the three debtors committed a crime. Criminal attribution to a judge requires duty, personal adoption, objective or manifest injustice and the historically applicable mental element—knowledge/intent under CP 446 or gross negligence/inexcusable ignorance under CP 447—as well as causation; an adverse ruling or chronology alone is not enough.

Criminal first · evidence in both directions

Nine nodes: fact, inference, criminal element, counterevidence and production.

Rule: every link reads forward and backward. Forward asks what inference the source permits. Backward asks what record, custodian or lawful explanation can confirm, narrow or destroy the bridge. Three finite denominators remain separate: the six-surface specialist census is 31/31 unique — 32/32 rows confirmed, all is^; its eighteen-route first-hop census is 61/130 — 69 pending, partial; and the repository-wide unitary census is 21/24 — 3 pending, partial. A result in one scope never fills another.

Node and source dossierSource fact → permissible inferenceCriminal gateCounterevidence → falsification/production
N01 · actor/capacity
Judicial knowledge and supervision matrix →		Signed orders fix acts, dates and allegations recorded in 36/2012.
Inference: test whether supervision left a material evidential deficit.		Exact decision/duty, personal adoption, objective/manifest injustice, applicable mental element, capacity and causation.26-Jun-2018 suspension, 24-Oct-2019 non-convalidation, Aweswell standing, partial reasoning correction and remedies.
Produce: certified file and act–evidence–knowledge–duty–result matrix.
N02 · estate/productive unit
Primary preservation record →		The architecture distinguished LPB assets from third-party assets; inspection/expert evidence was refused and conservation placed with the administrator.
Inference: measure the property–photo–damage–value gap's effect on preservation, value and competition.		Ineffectiveness/error is not crime; omission requires duty, knowledge, capacity, causal equivalence and required intent.Suspension/non-convalidation, Aweswell standing, mixed ownership, unidentified photos and administrator function.
Produce: property–owner–works–damage–value map, expert record, accounts and operating inventory.
N03 · 7-Jun control
Material control and exclusion →		Disputed material operation and incomplete authority chain; separate Community, administrator and CAM lanes.
Inference: test whether the alleged restriction/loss of access or operation connects to works, information, rescue and market.		Who ordered, authorised, executed, knew or ratified, and who had a concrete duty and practical capacity to prevent; actor-specific authority, intent, benefit and harm.Security, conservation or limited management; provisional criminal archive/Order 804; no proved direct instruction or common purpose.
Produce: instructions, security, access, keys, inventories and person–act–time trace.
N04 · adjudication/title
Adjudication documentary reconstruction →		The third bidder did not attend or lodge a bond; CAM's proposal was approved; credit, value, payment, set-off and title are distinct.
Inference: test whether earlier deficits conditioned competition or outcome.		Specific deception, author, knowledge, use, judicial error, disposition, benefit and harm; separate judicial test.Documented bidder default and approved competitive conditions.
Produce: hearing, bid/bond, assets, credit–value–payment–surplus, deed, Land Registry and accounting.
N05 · Club Sei
Pre-title project and marketing →		Sources support pre-title preparation, pilot and presentation; exact legal person, authority, bookings and revenue remain open.
Inference: test whether a Meeting Point/FTI actor gained authority, information, opportunity, benefit or custody.		Exact legal person, act, authority, knowledge, intent, revenue/benefit and loss.COVID; marketing/pilots do not prove opening, bookings, revenue, contract, whole-site authority or crime.
Produce: NIF, contracts, rooms/properties, PMS/OTA, invoices, commissions and payments.
N06 · SEPI/FASEE
Public support, insolvency and transfer →		SEPI documents EUR 31m: EUR 20.7m participating and EUR 10.3m ordinary; FASEE allocates by entity.
Inference: if Club Sei rights/risks existed, test disclosure, monitoring, custody and public loss.		Obligor, duty, materiality, knowledge, reliance, use of funds and quantified loss.No proved Sun Park tracing, omission, impairment, harm or personal judicial notice duty.
Produce: instruments, security, source/use, disclosures, monitoring, repayments and impairment.
N07 · 357/Auren
357/2024 judicial traceability →		Repository controls record three archived copies of 24-Oct notices attributed to Magistrate López Villarrubia; Auto 97/2025 proves three debtors, corrected chronology and Auren appointment by Guillermo Fernández García.
Inference: trigger production on signature, allocation, knowledge, Article 219 and 357/Auren custody.		CP 446: adoption, objective/manifest injustice, knowledge/intent and causation; CP 447: applicable gross-negligence/inexcusable-ignorance test; concealment needs exact offence/duty.Substitution, support, reassignment, correction or registry error; no proved Article 219 ground.
Produce: originals, metadata, allocation, recusal/disclosure, communication and Auren workpapers.
N08 · ONA exit
Funded exit and counterfactual →		Proposed ONA–Clubotel–Aweswell/LPB architecture subject to incomplete conditions, security, approval and drawdown.
Inference: measure whether control/exclusion prevented that proposed architecture and affected value/competition.		Negotiation failure is not interference: feasibility, authority, knowledge, causal act, purpose, benefit and loss.Missing closing, security and conditions; possible independent commercial/legal failure.
Produce: term sheet, finance, security, conditions, closing/break and communications.
N09 · result/benefit
Unitary reconstruction for authorities →		The 2022 notarial transaction and official public-support and procedural-state records are observable; exact current beneficial title, the current legal operator, income and distributions remain open.
Inference: reconstruct backward beneficiary, asset, expected record, causation and loss.		Separate offence and actor: act/duty, knowledge/intent, nexus, benefit, injured party, quantum and no double recovery.The adjudication may have been lawful; documented bidder default, reasoned decisions and missing documentary bridges.
Produce: title/beneficiary, capex, income, finance, distributions and claimant–property–loss–remedy.

Complete human matrix → JSON control → ^ census →

Unitary criminal reverse engineering → · Attributed 2011–present hypothesis → · Separate unitary ^ audit → · Identity registry →

Dependency visual

From estate protection to the disclosure question.

Reading rule: this five-box line is a simplified chronology of the alleged mechanism, not the 13-edge evidence topology. Its order does not assert that each adjacent box is a proved causal bridge. The nine-node matrix contains the exact bidirectional map; every transition requires its own record and proximity does not transfer knowledge or guilt.

CAEPR · identity, not responsibility

Complete ^ audit: 31 of 31 unique identities confirmed; 32 of 32 occurrence rows resolved.

Exhaustive scope across the six controlled surfaces: 32 occurrence rows resolve to 31 unique eligible identities after deduplicating the ONA-funded-exit and Clubotel role rows. Confirmed: 31/31 unique identities and 32/32 rows. Pending: 0. Suspended: 0. ALL IS^ — VERIFIED FOR THIS STATED SCOPE.

Gil Marer^ · Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia^ · Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte^ · Guillermo Fernández García^ · Aweswell Limited^ · Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.^ · Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.^ · Sun Park Owners’ Community^ · Sun Park Exploitation Community / CEXP^ · Meeting Point Hotels — commercial perimeter^ · Club Sei^ · Meeting Point Hotelmanagement (Canaries), S.L.U.^ · Meeting Point Spain, S.L.U.^ · Meeting Point Investment, S.L.U.^ · AUREN REESTRUCTURACIONES SLP^ · Auren — generic professional perimeter^ · FASEE^ · then Commercial Court No. 1 / current position No. 1^ · then Commercial Court No. 3 / current position No. 3^ · SEPI^ · Public Insolvency Register^ · Spanish Public Prosecution Service^ · General Council of the Judiciary / CGPJ^ · Insolvency 36/2012^ · Meeting Point 357/2024^ · Meeting Point Hotelmanagement Holding GmbH^ — Club Sei trademark-side legal person · Clubotel La Dorada, S.L.^ — exact ONA-side legal person in the 6-Jun-2018 instrument · Clubotel La Dorada, S.L.^ · Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Canary Islands High Court — Las Palmas seat^ · Las Palmas Provincial Prosecution Office^ / General Registry^ · Spanish Court of Auditors^ · CGPJ Administrative Appeal 286/2026^.

Decisive boundary: ^ confirms identity. It does not confirm conduct, date-specific capacity, signature, knowledge, relationship, conflict, concealment, liability, notice authenticity or outcome. The three exact debtors are not thereby identified as the Club Sei contracting party; Meeting Point Hotels^ remains a commercial perimeter. A pending marker receives no caret.

Denominator separation: this exhaustive specialist census is 31/31 unique identities and 32/32 occurrence rows, while the repository-wide unitary census is 21/24. The specialist scope is ALL IS^; the repository-wide scope remains PARTIAL — NOT ALL IS^.

Open complete ^ audit → Open machine control →

Full ^ · first-hop evidence corpus

130 objects examined: 61 confirmed; 69 pending.

The second audit covers the visible body of the 18 reciprocal primary routes for the nine nodes, deduplicates each ES/EN pair and does not follow deeper links. The denominator is 27 people + 64 organisations or express perimeters + 25 institutions or sub-organs + 14 proceedings. Coverage: 61/130 = 46.923076…%. Verdict: PARTIAL — NOT ALL IS^.

This is a completed finite census, not complete identity resolution: every one of the 69 pending objects retains its collision and exact source need. ACTÚA is not Actyus; the Owners’ Community, CEXP and bare “Community” remain separate; the wider ONA perimeter is not automatically Clubotel outside the identified 6 June 2018 instrument; the Meeting Point commercial perimeter is not merged into the three Spanish debtors or the German companies; BLUESEA is not Gestora Blue Sea Partner; generic Auren is not AUREN REESTRUCTURACIONES; and parent CGPJ does not transfer sub-organ identity to its Permanent Commission or Inspection.

Occurrence rule: an object-level confirmed identity does not license ^ on unresolved “Carlos”, “José D.”, surname-only “Irigoyen”, short “Laura” or bare “Community”. The occurrence must be expanded or reconciled outside a source literal. A perimeter ^ confirms only that perimeter, never an exact legal person, contract, mandate, conduct or responsibility.

Open all 130 records and source queue →

Finite production capable of changing the conclusion

No presumption is needed. Production is.

  1. Signed 18-Sep and 24-Oct-2024 originals; allocation, substitution, support, reassignment and register corrections.
  2. Complete Article 583 communication, annexes, creditors, litigation, claims and contingencies for all three debtors.
  3. Any abstention/recusal/disclosure record and the exact LOPJ Article 219 ground relied upon.
  4. Auren acceptance, mandate, conflict check, requests, received material, reports and workpaper index.
  5. Exact entity, contracts, authority, inventory, PMS/OTA, bookings, invoices, commissions and revenue for Club Sei/Sun Park.
  6. FASEE instruments, terms, security, source/use, monitoring, disclosures, repayments, interest and current exposure.
  7. Property–photo–works–owner–damage–value map and complete administrator reports/accounts.
  8. Complete bid, third-party offer, bond, attendance, CAM proposal, credit, payment, deed and accounting chain.

Active estate 36/2012 → 357/2024 → Club Sei → SEPI / FTI →

Legal sources and control

The law confirms distinct duties, not automatic guilt.

Right of reply: documented allocation, signature, knowledge, conflict, Auren or SEPI-disclosure evidence will be added with equal visibility and may weaken or withdraw the hypothesis.