DP 1901/2026: the 14 September order changes the documentary map.
The paper copy received on 18 September identifies the same DP 1901/2026, NIG 3501643220260016977 and IUP LI2026017152, treats it as a proceeding for alleged judicial prevarication, records a Public Prosecution report dated 29 July 2026 seeking dismissal, and orders final dismissal/archive.
19 SEP action state. A separate urgent notice to the Fiscal Superior of the Canary Islands has been prepared —not filed— concerning competence, preservation and identification of the 29-Jul prosecution report, coordinated with the E.G. 745 response. The report author remains unidentified by primary source and is not attributed to the Provincial Office or any other office without that source. GitHub preparation is not filing or service.
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.
The order, present as a PDF on its own page
A paper copy was received by post on 18 September 2026. The complainant photographed that paper copy with a device and uploaded the page images. Until the native electronic court PDF is obtained, this viewer shows a controlled public PDF derivative of the transcription checked against those source photographs. It is not presented as an authentic court copy and does not replace the signature, verification code or legal-notice metadata.
Source boundary: the native electronic court PDF and legal-notice metadata remain outstanding. The PDF displayed here is a reproducible public presentation of the controlled text, not a substitute for the native judicial document.
Contextual, interconnected critique bounded by the available evidence
The order must be read together with DIP 2/2026, the daily-reference-24 judicial complaint, the Control 21 private-actor complaint, RPL 3304/3319 and E.G. 745. The critique below identifies verifiable tensions and production questions; it does not convert them into findings of guilt.
1 · Proceeding identity: Ref. 21 → DP 1901 is contemporaneously corroborated; the later Ref. 24 association remains unexplained
The order says DP 1901 was opened for alleged judicial prevarication. The source-by-source reconstruction now also establishes that the 18 June judicial complaint and the 25 June private-actor complaint were autonomous filings; that the 25 June judicial supplement expressly belonged to daily reference no. 24; and that on 9 July private-actor material was physically tendered under DP 1901/2026, Plaza 6. The official 12 July direction then linked that same DP to DIP 2/2026. The collision is no longer a generic inference, but the initiating document, certified allocation trail and any joinder/reassignment/segregation act remain missing; the site records Ref. 21 → DP 1901 as the complainant’s firsthand chronology, contemporaneously corroborated by the 25 June procuradora email and the 9 July operational mapping; the official initiating/reparto event and later Ref. 24 association mechanism remain unproduced.
2 · Competence: if the object was judicial prevarication, the TSJ route needs an explanation
The LOPJ assigns the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Justice the investigation and trial of criminal cases against judges and magistrates for offences committed in office in the autonomous community, unless jurisdiction belongs to the Supreme Court. If DP 1901 was in substance deciding an allegation against the Mercantile judge for judicial acts, the record should explain why an ordinary Investigation Section decided it or what competence/allocation treatment occurred. The question does not itself establish nullity.
3 · The appeal statement mixes personal identity with corporate appellants
The order says the decisions could have been appealed by “him” and that there is no record he did so. The controlled record shows appeals by Aweswell Limited and Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. —RPL 3319/2025 and RPL 3304/2025— against the removal decision. If the sentence refers only to Gil personally, its relevance to the criminal theory needs explanation; if it describes the status of the underlying orders, it needs reconciliation with the existing corporate appeals.
4 · “No minimum evidential basis”: we now know more about what was tendered, not what was actually examined
The order says the allegations lack a minimum objective/evidential basis. It is now documented that an autonomous judicial package existed, that it had a separate supplement, and that on 9 July private-actor material was tendered under DP 1901/Plaza 6. This makes it essential to distinguish physical tender from electronic incorporation, transmission to Fiscalía and actual review. The decisive question remains what documentation actually formed the DP 1901 file and what corpus reached the Fiscal before the 29 July report. Without a certified index and the prosecution report, the sufficiency assessment cannot be audited against the complete denominator.
5 · The 29 July prosecution report exists, but its reasoning remains unavailable
The order establishes three points: a Public Prosecution report exists, it is dated 29/07/2026, and it sought dismissal. Missing are the author, full text, assignment, source corpus, transmission index, any review/instruction and treatment of the DIP 2 appeal correction. Without those sources it is impossible to know whether the Fiscal understood DP 1901 as Control 21, as daily reference no. 24/DIP 2, or as a combined file.
6 · Final dismissal and evidential-insufficiency language: two planes worth separating
The order invokes Article 637.2 LECrim —the fact is not criminal— and orders final dismissal. At the same time its reasoning repeatedly stresses lack of a “minimum” objectively testable/evidential basis, language closer to the evidential-insufficiency plane that the LECrim distinguishes from final dismissal. The critique does not say Article 637.2 was necessarily unavailable; it asks for clearer reasoning separating legal non-criminality from insufficiency of the material before the court.
7 · The private-actor lane cannot silently disappear under judge-only reasoning
If DP 1901 contains Control 21 private-actor material, an order reasoned exclusively in terms of judicial prevarication does not show whether that lane was separated, referred, joined or left without its own disposition. The request is not to assume the order dismissed Control 21; it is to obtain the initiating document, full docket and allocation map before attributing that effect.
8 · Order date, notice date and remedy deadlines are separate facts
The order is dated 14 September and prints remedy routes/deadlines, but no deadline should be fixed from the decision date alone. The electronic service/access record is an independent source that should be preserved and controlled.
Boundary: these criticisms concern procedural identity, competence, evidential denominator, the appeal premise and clarity of the dismissal basis. They do not prove that the DP 1901 judge, the 29 July Fiscal, the Mercantile judge or any private actor acted criminally or in coordination.
New controlled fact. The prosecution report is no longer hypothetical: the court order records its date and the relief it sought. The signed report, its author, reasoning and source corpus are still not in Por Derecho's controlled record.
What remains open
Prosecution report
Produce the 29/07/2026 report, author, assignment, source corpus, transmission cover/index, any review/instruction and the reasoning for seeking dismissal.
Daily references no. 21 / no. 24
The separation of the two filings is now supported by stamped covers and controlled hashes, and the 9 July physical tender of private-actor material under DP 1901 is also established. The formal bridge remains missing: initiating document, certified allocation trail, ingestion history or a joinder/reassignment/segregation act explaining how that material came to coexist with the DIP 2/prevarication lane.
E.G. 745/2026
The 12 September draft asked whether a DP 1901 prosecution report existed. That condition is superseded: a dated prosecutorial act and requested outcome are now recorded. Review now turns to author, corpus, reasoning and routing.
Notice/deadlines
The date of the order is not treated as the legal notice date. Receipt/notification metadata must be preserved before any deadline calculation is fixed.
Attributed adverse posture · evidential boundary
Gil Marer and Aweswell Limited maintain their position that the Public Prosecution Service is an adverse institutional actor in this matter and allege a wider neutralisation/protection pattern. The 29 July report is now a concrete prosecutorial act to be tested actor by actor. It is not published as proved prevarication, capture, coordination with third parties or criminality.
Decisive missing source: the full prosecution report and the file/corpus provided to its author. A request for dismissal may have a lawful prosecutorial explanation; the controlled question is why it was made, in what procedurally identified matter, and on what material.
Immediate documentary actions
Complete certified electronic index of DP 1901/2026.
The initiating document and allocation record that generated DP 1901.
Allocation trail for Control 21 and daily reference no. 24.
29 July prosecution report, author, corpus and transmission index.
Any order/minute joining, reassigning, accumulating or segregating the complaints.
Receipt/notice metadata for the 14 September order.