José Daniel Acosta Matos^
Open the actor's controlled record
25 JUNE 2026 · DAILY REFERENCE 21 · SEPARATE PRIVATE-ACTOR COMPLAINT
Daily reference no. 21 — autonomous private-actor complaint — 25 June 2026
By 9–12 July, DP 1901/2026 was being used and contemporaneously understood as the file for this complaint. The certified initiating and allocation record establishing which filing created DP 1901 remains outstanding.
86-page operative complaint26-page immediate amplification19-page July amplificationOriginal DP allocation: uncertified
Planning update · 19 September 2026
DP1901 and E.G.745: response target for 20 September evening
Gil Marer’s operational target is to complete the respective responses by the evening of 20 September 2026, Canary Islands time, at the latest. This is a working target, not a verified legal deadline or a change to any applicable period. No filing is announced here.
DP1901 · personal actionsComplete notices, requests and preservation steps Gil can initiate himself, with a distinct recipient and function.
DP1901 · judicial remedyA separate lane requiring professional review and filing. It is excluded from the personal-action count.
E.G.745 · separate responseIncorporate the DP1901 module and complete the successor response within the same operational target, without waiting indefinitely for other authorities to reply.
Controlled state:13 recovered direct personal-action candidates; 20 connected economic, recovery or access routes. These working sets establish neither 33 necessary new filings nor an exhaustive historical census. The final total remains open. Drafting, registration, receipt and incorporation are separate states.
The 14 September Auto, received on paper by post on 18 September and photographed, records a 29 July Fiscal report seeking archive. The native electronic court PDF, signed report, author and corpus, and official Ref.21/Ref.24 allocation/association bridge remain outstanding. The Ref.21→DP1901 chronology is contemporaneously corroborated; the direction of the identity collision is not certified.
One economic chain; distinct powers and proof
Gil Marer/Aweswell’s attributed hypothesis connects Community authority and minutes, debt/voting/exclusion, procedural use, insolvency and supervision, control/title, RIC/RICPE, works/HNT/MYND, incentives/FEDER, operation and income. It is a criminal and patrimonial hypothesis to test, not a guilt finding. Later participation or instrumental inclusion of third parties does not establish knowledge or intent.
Preserve first → trace value → determine merits → recover or restitute where legally available. Each authority receives a request within its powers. No indiscriminate confiscation is sought; portfolio sales, management-company turnover and asset values are not added together.
Control 19/09/2026. Publication describes the programme; filing requires the exact submitted bytes and official receipt. These notices do not suspend the judicial remedy period.
One complaint, five separately identified private actors
The stamped 25 June cover documents an autonomous criminal complaint against the five people below. Each allegation must retain its own actor, capacity, act or omission, source, contrary evidence and proof requirement. Naming a person in a complaint does not establish guilt.
Laura Patricia Acosta Matos^
Open the actor's controlled record
Francisco Mario Matos Matas^
Open the actor's controlled record
Antonio Cogolludo Rojas^
Open the actor's controlled record
Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos^
Open the actor's controlled record
The caret ^ confirms canonical identity only. It does not certify an allegation, role, knowledge, intent, causation or liability. Family, corporate and professional relationships do not transfer responsibility.
Three intake records must remain distinct
| Date / daily reference | Subject | Controlled relationship |
|---|---|---|
| 18 June · Ref. 22 | Insolvency Administrator complaint | Gil identifies this as the first complaint allocated and opened, later DP 1956/2026. The July ATLANTE record displays DP 1956 at Plaza 1; the certified intake-to-DP bridge remains outstanding. |
| 18 June · Ref. 24 | Judge-related notitia criminis | Separate TSJC-addressed filing, expressly not a formal querella. Its 25 June supplement belongs to this same intake record. |
| 25 June · Ref. 21 | Complaint against five private actors | Autonomous filing. Its 9 July amplification was physically tendered under DP 1901/2026, Plaza 6; electronic incorporation and original allocation remain to be certified. |
Daily references 21, 22 and 24 are reception locators, not case numbers. Their numbers—and the relative numbers 1901 and 1956—do not certify a creation sequence across different court plazas.
Gil Marer's clarification of 19 September 2026
Expressly affirmed account: Gil states as truth and fact that on 25 June the Ref.24 package was untouched, unscanned and unallocated, as he observed and verified with Decanato and TSJC; he saw staff place his supplement with the papers filed a week earlier. He says that on 25 June or shortly afterwards he had confirmation that the Administrator complaint had already been sent to a court and opened. He recalls Plaza 1 with a qualification; the 9 July ATLANTE listing independently shows DP 1956 at Plaza 1.
Categorical party position: Gil maintains that DP 1901 was opened for the private-actor complaint and that the judge notitia became associated with it later. He rejects a reconstruction in which the judge matter initiated DP 1901 or both filings initiated it simultaneously. That position is recorded expressly, separately from what he observed physically and from the still-unproduced internal creation and association records.
Gil expressly affirms his underlying account as truth and fact. This editorial account does not imply a signature, oath or independent institutional certification. The certified initiating record and audit trail must confirm or contradict the asserted internal sequence.
The complaint and its amplifications
The existing source register records complete text-layer processing of the three source PDFs. Page counts and hashes identify controlled source versions; they do not alone certify the exact bytes filed, judicial admission, electronic incorporation or transmission to the Public Prosecution Service.
| Source / count | What is controlled | Public reader / remaining source |
|---|---|---|
| 25 June complaint · 86 pages | Operative final source; text layer processed 86/86. Separate stamped cover proves presentation under daily reference 21. | Public-safe section index below; raw PDF withheld. A publishable full-text PDF derivative is not presently linked. |
| 26 June amplification · 26 pages | Immediate amplification source; text layer processed 26/26. Source-byte identity is separate from a filing/ingestion receipt. | Public source-control record; exact filing and ingestion evidence still required. No public PDF derivative located. |
| 9 July signed amplification · 19 pages | Signed source; text layer processed 19/19. Separate stamped cover proves physical tender under DP 1901, Plaza 6. | Public-safe section digest below; electronic incorporation and exact corpus sent to Fiscalía remain open. No public PDF derivative located. |
| 9 July stamped DP 1901 tender | Stamped amplification cover recorded in the source-closure register; distinct from the 19-page PDF source. | Public-safe provenance summary. Original cover remains in private custody; no approved public image/PDF derivative located. |
PDF availability: the three complaint sources and stamped cover are not published as raw files. This page provides their controlled inventory and public-safe digest. It does not present a substitute document or claim that the complete filings are publicly viewable.
86-page complaint · indexed subject matter
The controlled index covers: named persons and related entities; object and evidential discipline; territorial competence and procedural autonomy; questions for investigation; factual chronology; individualised conduct; damage, benefit and causation; provisional criminal classification and limitation; asymmetric evidence custody; requested investigative measures; complainant protection and traceability; and relief sought. These are pleaded matters, not judicial findings.
19-page July amplification · indexed subject matter
The indexed amplification develops the alleged chain from apparent authority to decision and value; Community documents and their later use; actor-specific knowledge and representation; the pleaded RICPE and hotel-operation perimeter; business accounts and customer/platform value; professional custodians; and priority investigative measures. Each connection requires its own source and actor-specific proof.
Source hashes · SHA-256
- 2026-06-25 · 86
3f4bd2bbbc963605e4cc94bc73d116157e2bf4a2266e2285b013f38de9e90736- 2026-06-26 · 26
a7f057fd99d0bdf1a891cf4610f69ed19788d2e40f9f23a6ff66fc6255d97846- 2026-07-09 · 19
0d42dcbe30679331c557f4c3750e478e592a9a449c6b5ecb84e32f6fa56ad16f- 2026-07-09 · stamped / sellado
dfad6f405b7a2ec047a98a7183a9cbfd0698427d3925d02b2a50b4de76de8f71
What the dated evidence actually establishes
| Date | Evidence class | Established scope / limit |
|---|---|---|
| 25 June | Stamped presentation + contemporaneous account | Ref. 21 is a separate private-actor filing. The Ref. 24 supplement belongs to the judge lane. A same-day account reported that the judge package was still at the Decanato. |
| 9 July | Official listing + stamped physical tender | ATLANTE displays DP 1901/Plaza 6 and DP 1956/Plaza 1, with Gil as complainant, without identifying their defendants or subject. The separate stamp proves private-actor material was tendered for DP 1901. |
| 9–12 July | Contemporaneous correspondence, summarised | Communications to counsel identified DP 1901 with CAM/private/Community allegations and DP 1956 with the Administrator. The 12 July account described follow-up at Plaza 6 concerning that private-actor matter. These accounts do not replace a certified allocation record. |
| 12 July | Signed providencia | The same DP was referred to Ministerio Fiscal for five days on admission in relation to DIP 2/2026. This is a documented linkage for that purpose, not proof of an initiating identity or consolidation. |
| 29 July | Report recorded by the later Auto | The Auto records a prosecution report seeking archive. Its signed text, author, assignment and exact incoming corpus remain unlocated. |
| 14 / 18 September | Court order / receipt account | The 14 September Auto characterises DP 1901 as alleged judicial prevaricación and orders sobreseimiento libre/archive. Gil received a paper copy on 18 September; the operative service metadata remain to be certified. |
Why did the judge notitia appear in the private-actor file rather than the Administrator file?
That is the precise traceability question raised by Gil's account. Neither common facts nor a shared insolvency background explain the choice of destination. The currently located sources do not identify who made any association, when, by what route, or under which formal act.
- Which exact filing and creation event generated DP 1901/NIG/IUP?
- What were the intake, dispatch and destination records for Ref. 21, Ref. 22 and Ref. 24, including the Ref. 24 supplement?
- What competence decision and formal joinder, remittal, reassignment, segregation or electronic-association event—if any—connected Ref. 24 to DP 1901?
- What subject, parties and documents were recorded at creation and on 9 July, 12 July, 29 July and 14 September?
- What exact corpus reached Ministerio Fiscal, and what did the 29 July report assess?
- What did the 14 September order dispose of, and what separate treatment remains for the Ref. 21 private-actor allegations?
An unproduced bridge is not proof of intentional manipulation, an unlawful joinder or a named person's responsibility. A lawful allocation or competence explanation, an administrative association, or a mistaken operational identification must be tested against the records. The adverse order remains part of the evidence.
REF. 21 → DP 1901 CONTEMPORANEOUSLY CORROBORATED · OFFICIAL REPARTO / REF. 24 ASSOCIATION HISTORY OUTSTANDING
Read the documented connections
Express affirmation: unscanned and unallocated on 25 June
Gil Marer expressly states as truth and fact that Ref.24 was untouched, unscanned and unallocated on 25 June, based on his observation and checks with the Decanato and TSJC. He saw staff attach the supplement to the earlier 18-June/Ref.24 package. The previously suggested possibility of earlier scanning is therefore expressly disputed by his testimony. Independent system-history corroboration remains outstanding; no signature or oath is inferred from this account.
The CGPJ text dated 25 June records the supplement's initial “25” annotation, its replacement with “18”, addition of “24” and physical attachment. Both filing dates must remain visible. It also reports that on 18 June staff required the handwritten instruction “Al Juzgado de Instrucción que por turno corresponda” while the original TSJC heading remained. That earlier routing step and the later electronic handling require separate reconstruction.
The contemporary text supports paper custody and non-remittance; it does not expressly say “unscanned”. The no-scanning/no-allocation statement is Gil's current express affirmation. His 25-June email says the AC complaint had been sent onward but registration/numbering completion was still awaited. The suggestion that Ref.24 remained at Decanato for additional weeks is uncertain, not a fixed date.
19 September 2026 · proposed CGPJ response
The Ref. 21 / Ref. 24 chronology and the firsthand statement that Ref. 24 remained untouched, unscanned and unallocated on 25 June are incorporated into the complete draft. Certified electronic creation/association history remains outstanding.
Informational publication only: not a CGPJ filing, not a judicial appeal against the order, and not a filed E.G. 745/2026 response.CANONICAL CORPUS · 21 SEPTEMBER 2026
Six documents · 278/278 source pages processed
This dossier belongs to the joint Ref.21 / Ref.22 / Ref.24 source corpus. The canonical digitisation locks filename, pages and SHA-256 and requires complete page coverage: Control 21: 86/86 + 26/26 + 19/19; Reference 22: 55/55; Reference 24: 79/79 + 13/13.
Open the complete six-document matrix → · Machine/hash manifest →
Interconnection: Ref.21 · private actors · Ref.22 · Insolvency Administrator · Ref.24 · judicial conduct. Facts and sources may cross tracks; attribution, knowledge, intent, causation and procedural identity remain actor- and track-specific.