18 JUNE 2026 · daily reference no. 24 · 25 JUNE SUPPLEMENT · OFFICIAL STATUS UNCONFIRMED
On 18 June 2026 Gil Marer presented a complaint / report concerning acts attributed to Alberto López Villarrubia, then Judge of Commercial Court no. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. This page states the complainant's position, the identified documents, the 25 June supplement, the unknown status of the criminal route, and the strictly delimited relationship with a formal private-prosecution complaint and the other judge-related actions.
Planning update · 19 September 2026
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.
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.
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.
Gil Marer's clarification of 19 September 2026. He states that on 18 June he filed two separate documents: the AC complaint, daily reference 22, and this notitia, daily reference 24. On 25 June he filed the autonomous private-actor complaint, daily reference 21; that day he personally saw the Ref.24 papers still at the Decanato and saw his supplement placed with the 18-June papers. He says that on 25 June or shortly afterwards he had confirmation that the AC complaint had been sent to a court and opened, identifying it with DP1956.
Gil categorically maintains that DP1901 began as the private-actor matter and the judge notitia was associated later; he disputes joint-opening and judge-first reconstructions. This is his attributed position. The July records support operational use of DP1901 for the private actors; the initiating document and electronic association timestamps remain outstanding. The 14-September order instead says the proceeding was initiated for alleged prevaricación: that discrepancy requires a documentary explanation.
Read the autonomous Ref.21 complaint and its documentary sequence →
The description faithful to the filing is written denuncia / notitia criminis / reporting of facts, expressly distinct from a formal querella and appearance as a prosecuting party. Describing it as a notitia does not mean it cannot also be a denuncia.
LOPJ article 73.3.b assigns the TSJ Civil and Criminal Chamber investigation and trial of alleged official-function crimes by judges within the autonomous community, unless reserved to the Supreme Court. LOPJ articles 406–409 provide initiation and transmission mechanisms; a formal querella is not the only statutory mechanism. This supports requesting the competence and transmission decision, without asserting TSJC admission or automatic invalidity of every preliminary step.
Same-day filing or earlier opening of the AC matter does not automatically make DP1956 the correct destination: connection and competence under LECrim articles 17–18 and the special judge-related competence require examination. Statutory check: 19 September 2026.
The located operative source is a 79-page signed package: a 31-page principal-document bundle (4 pages presentation/front matter + 27-page principal pleading) and ten selected annexes. It was addressed to the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands and requested registration, preservation, documentary examination and a decision on competence and procedural route.
The package defines itself as a written complaint / notitia criminis, not a formal private-prosecution complaint or appearance. It requested notification if opening a formal case required a complaint filed through counsel and court representative, while preserving the existing complaint and documents as a registered antecedent.
“24” is the handwritten or internal locator used by the Dean's Office. It is not published as a NIG, preliminary-proceedings number, High Court registration or criminal case. The absence of an official identifier remains a priority gap.
A 13-page self-contained dependent supplement was located. It refined the treatment of the credit, improvement threshold, later invocation of res judicata and beneficiary identity. The complainant says he observed its physical joining to the daily reference no. 24 package. That account supports an alleged custody route, not proof of judicial remittal or admission.
The complaint identifies the ONA/Clubotel alternative, conditional financing, due diligence, valuation, operating agreement and June–September 2018 communications. The question is not whether the Court was bound to approve it, but what formally arrived, which payoff and security were required, which temporary protection followed and what useful decision responded.
The recognised credit must be separated from figures used for a third party to improve the proposal, interest liquidation, mortgage cap and credit eventually extinguished. daily reference no. 24 asks which act, if any, transformed an instrumental threshold into a figure with materially definitive effects.
The 28 November 2018 deed, the €400,000 price and the 24 October 2019 order lead to a finite question: what restitution, cancellation, regularisation, new title or accounting treatment implemented the non-validation before the assets reappeared in the later operation.
The requested inquiry was to reconstruct publicity, time, access, data room, deposit, third-party bidder/ONA, economic comparability, asset condition, May 2021 decisions and 2022 title. The existence of an alternative interested party does not prove it was entitled to the award.
The complaint asks that CAM S.A., CAM S.L. and any other company or label be separated: who was creditor, enforcing party, bidder, adjudicatee, deed party and registered owner in each act. A typographical error or lawful succession may explain differences; deeds, powers, orders and registries must prove the answer.
Each module follows: existing document → incorporation and date → direct judicial knowledge → specific decision → effect → lawful alternative explanation → measure capable of confirming or excluding the hypothesis. An adverse ruling alone does not prove judicial misconduct.
| Date / point | What may be stated | What remains open |
|---|---|---|
| 17 June 2026 | Internal date of the presentation sheet and signed package. | It is not by itself the registry date. |
| 18 June 2026 | Personal presentation at the Dean's Office; handwritten daily reference no. 24 locator and routing adaptation. | Complete electronic entry, time, inventory and outgoing route. |
| 25 June 2026 | Presentation of a supplement; the complainant describes physical joining to the 18/24 package. | Electronic date metadata, joinder entry and complete remittal. |
| After 25 June | Requests were made for location, custody, remittal and preservation. | Recipient body, NIG, opening, dismissal or any jurisdictional decision. |
| 4 September 2026 cut-off | Public status remains “presented; official destination and outcome not confirmed”. | Dean's Office/High Court certification and any notice to the complainant. |
The judicial layer is not limited to daily reference no. 24. The repository connects, without conflation, prosecution file DIP 2/2026, CGPJ Information File 169/2026 and Administrative Appeal 286/2026, insolvency appeals, administrator removal, culpability proceedings, active-estate supervision and the formal private-prosecution route. Each retains its own object, competence, standard and result.
It does not state that the judge knowingly issued an unjust decision, acted because of an improper relationship, engaged in corruption or should be convicted.
An omission requires a concrete duty, knowledge, ability to act, materiality, qualified injustice and causation. Legal disagreement, error or absence of a document from this corpus is insufficient.
Judicial signature, procedural management, registration, notice, custody and remittal are attributed to the responsible person or unit in each act; they are not transferred automatically to the judge.
DIP 2/2026 and DI 169/2026 have their own results. They do not establish the destination or merits of daily reference no. 24, and daily reference no. 24 does not itself reopen those files.
The page is maintained through a structured node-and-edge register. Every update must preserve originals, distinguish draft, signed, filed, admitted and decided, and propagate changes to the judge page, DP 1956, DP 1901, sitemaps, search and handover. Affected persons may submit a documented response under the corrections protocol.
daily reference no. 24 ≠ NIG or DP · daily reference no. 24 ≠ formal private-prosecution complaint · supplement ≠ autonomous complaint · related ≠ consolidated · shared evidence ≠ shared responsibility.
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.
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
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.