Summons
It identifies the number, court, complainant, affected-party and respondent roles, and schedules an October 2014 oral hearing concerning a historical falta de lesiones.
CONTROLLED PRIMARY RECORD · 30 AUGUST 2026
3205/2014^ · Arrecife
A contemporaneous police complaint and court summons are located. They establish the account made, procedural roles and a scheduled hearing; they do not establish the truth of the incident, valid authority, hearing occurrence, guilt or outcome.
AMBER · primary sources located · authority and outcome open
What the caret means. ^ confirms only case number 3205/2014 and the historic court. The summons says `Juicio de faltas`; a later summary says `DP`. Their exact procedural relationship remains pending the certified docket.
OFFICIAL SOURCE ≠ ALLEGATION ≠ CONTEXT
What each document establishes
Complaint
It records the account made on 3 September 2014. It proves the allegation was made, not that it was true.
Limit
No hearing record, judgment, dismissal, appeal or finality record has been located.
Source correction. The reported president is the complainant; the administrator is the affected party, not a second formal complainant. The second reported respondent remains fully anonymised.
Privacy. This derivative omits personal and document identifiers, addresses, telephone numbers, signatures, unit or room numbers, accommodation data and the second respondent's identity or name variants.
HISTORIC IDENTITY ≠ LATER NAME
The court and procedural label are time-controlled
Juzgado de Instrucción nº 1 de Arrecife
This is the historic court shown by the summons. The summons captions the matter as `Juicio de faltas 3205/2014`.
Current successor name
Sección de Instrucción del Tribunal de Instancia de Arrecife · Plaza nº 1, from 31 December 2025. It does not rewrite the historic caption or prove later activity.
PROCEDURAL ROLES AND CLAIMED CAPACITIES
The located records identify one complainant and one affected party
| Public label | Located role | What remains open |
|---|---|---|
| Reported president / complainant | Complainant; said she attended as Community president to perform work. | Confirmed identity: Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez^ (“Asperua” is a search/transcription variant); exact Community, lawful office, mandate and access remain open. |
| Reported administrator / affected party | Affected party; said to act as administrator and intervene in the struggle. | Confirmed canonical identity: Francisco Mario Matos Matas^; authority, act and causation remain open. The isolated MATA source-literal is not separately caret-confirmed. |
| Gil Marer | Respondent in the summons. | The complaint attributes no presence or physical act to him; basis of inclusion, instruction, agency and outcome remain open. |
| Second reported respondent | Respondent and alleged physical actor in the located package; identity withheld. | Identity, statement, defence and exact incident-date guest, occupant, worker or agent capacity. |
^ Identity only. The caret validates neither the reported office nor the allegation. This role split controls the located complaint and summons. The certified complete docket remains unavailable.
CONTROLLED INCIDENT SUMMARY · NOT A FINDING
Why they said they were there and how they described the altercation
Contemporaneous reason. The complainant said she and the administrator attended in their claimed Community capacities to carry out unspecified work. She said access had been altered; after unanswered calls, a man who identified himself as a tourist appeared and they obtained entry.
Entry and refusal to leave. According to the complaint, he invited them to speak with another person and, after she invoked her claimed presidential status, told them to leave. She refused and called the Guardia Civil to seek mediation. While they waited, she said they inspected owners' apartments and left a key in a specified unit.
Key and physical contact. She alleged that the man, who was frequently using a mobile telephone, tried to take the key and that she tried to stop him. She said he held her tightly by the arm and may have elbowed her in the back. She said the administrator suffered a left-thumb dislocation and was then pushed when he intervened. These are attributed allegations, not medical findings.
Gil, witness scope and later call. The complaint attributes the access-dispute context to Gil, but no presence, instruction, agency or physical contact. The complainant said only that the alleged actor might be related to him. She said her husband witnessed the surrounding events and prior conflict, not the alleged assault itself; the Guardia Civil arrived afterwards. She also reported receiving a later call from an omitted number about a possible agreement. The complaint does not identify Gil as caller or recipient.
Other reasons remain open. A later account by the reported president mentions accessing property belonging to her husband's relatives, but does not formally link that episode to 3205/2014. A regulatory and safety complaint bears a 27 August internal date but was officially received after the incident: it does not prove filing, receipt or action before 3 September.
GIL MARER'S DIRECT CRIMINAL ALLEGATION · NOT AN ADJUDICATED FINDING
“President” and “administrator” are reported titles, not legitimacy.
Gil's position. Gil Marer alleges that Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez^ and Francisco Mario Matos Matas^ held no legitimate Community office or work mandate on 3 September 2014. He characterises their invocation and exercise of those titles as part of a criminal hijacking/capture and holding out of Community authority originating in the disputed 2011 sequence. The allegation is preserved at full strength; its truth, legal characterisation, knowledge, intent and actor-specific responsibility remain for evidence and competent decision.
Contemporaneous counter-record. A 7 October 2014 email to legal advisers proves that Gil/Patricia already alleged at the time that Aizpurúa acted in an office she did not hold, that the asserted 2011 basis was illegitimate or alternatively expired, and that a forwarded 2 October account described forced entry, aggression against the manager and a later complaint altering the event. The email proves the counter-allegation existed contemporaneously. It does not authenticate the referenced statement or recording, prove a false complaint or decide which account is true.
Authority-first test. The required chain is: exact Community legal person → owner/title → convening/notice/vote → appointment and term → work mandate → right of entry/inspection → key authority → first physical act → necessity/proportionality → medical and judicial outcome. A source label, minute or complaint cannot replace a missing link.
2011 → 2014 → 7 JUNE 2018 → DP 1901
A mid-chain corroborative lead, not an automatic conspiracy bridge.
The primary complaint documents two people jointly invoking claimed Community capacities in an access, unit-inspection and key confrontation. The contemporaneous counter-email documents that Gil disputed their legitimacy and described the event as forced access at the time. A 30 April 2018 party summary repeated the alleged illegitimate-office, unilateral FMMM-appointment and disputed debt/vote theory weeks before the 7 June 2018 material-control event.
This can corroborate a method-and-continuity investigation into claimed authority, access, account consistency and later reliance. It does not prove that the two 2014 actors planned 7 June, that CAM directed them in 2014, that later actors inherited their knowledge or intent, or that any proceeding is formally joined.
FMMM^ · inside the five
Francisco Mario Matos Matas^ is one of the five private actors expressly named in the NEXUS 36 / DP 1901/2026 complaint architecture. That filing is a party complaint, not a finding of guilt.
Aizpurúa^ · separate present status
Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez^ is not one of those five. Gil presently identifies her as a material historical witness and possible future additional party. Any reclassification requires objective indications of her own conduct and full procedural rights.
Date correction: the controlled takeover date is 7 June 2018, not 7 July 2018.
FINITE PERSON CENSUS · NO LIABILITY BY ASSOCIATION
People referenced in this proceeding and predecessor-to-Acosta-Matos continuity scope
DP 3205 / predecessor lanes: Gil Marer; Patricia Domínguez; Álvaro Campanario Hernández; Asunción Aizpurúa Sánchez^; Juan Carlos Prieto Puente; Esteban López Noriega; Antonio Cogolludo Rojas^; Shaila María Cogolludo Ramos^; and Francisco Mario Matos Matas^.
Separate insolvency lane: Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte.
Acosta-Matos and bounded witness lanes: José Daniel Acosta Matos^; Laura Patricia Acosta Matos^; Gerardo Nicanor Acosta Armas (not Gerardo Zacarías); Fernando Aguiar Acosta^; Javier Acosta Matos^; Gerardo Zacarías Acosta Matos^; and Laura Aguiar Acosta^.
Protected role-only references: the anonymised second respondent, complainant’s husband and hotel manager remain unnamed and receive no caret. The exact present DP 1901 five are Antonio, Shaila, FMMM, JDAM and LPAM; Aizpurúa is not a sixth person.
CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD ↔ RETROSPECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION · DP3205-P16 · DP3205-P17
Every person is linked to an action—or an express no-located-act statement—across the relevant tracks.
This is Gil Marer speaking. Gil expressly alleges that the disputed private-actor authority mechanism was criminal, not merely civil or innocuous, and that it contributed to later harm to the hotel trade, Community/CEXP stability and the position reached by 7 June 2018 and the Acosta Matos perimeter. This is Gil's present criminal attribution, not an adjudicated finding and not a rewriting of the 2011 or 2014 sources.
Contemporaneous 2011–2014 actions
Aizpurúa: source-reported 2011 chair/president; 2014 complainant invoking the disputed office, entry, inspection and key account. FMMM: source-reported administrator; 2014 affected party/intervenor. Gil: cited respondent with no complaint-attributed presence or physical act; later counter-account source. Patricia: correspondence/preservation lane, with no physical act attributed. Campanario: 2011 meeting secretary. Prieto and López Noriega: professional-representation relay; no located act in the 3-September incident. Shaila: 8-April-2014 Community/Pamanil communication; no located incident act.
Later private-actor continuity alleged by Gil
Antonio: later corporate and source-reported Community/security lane. Shaila: later registered company-power lane. FMMM: alleged continuing administration/records/debt/vote bridge. JDAM and LPAM: later CAM creditor/title/instruction/project perimeter. These five remain the exact present DP 1901 complaint perimeter. No 2014 CAM direction, automatic knowledge transfer, continuous agreement, guilt or liability is established.
Separate institutional, corporate and witness lanes
Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte: separate Insolvency Administrator lane; Gil alleges later adoption/reliance or omission, not a DP 3205 act. Javier Acosta Matos and Gerardo Zacarías Acosta Matos: later corporate/meeting or attributed-image records, with no located DP 3205 act. Fernando and Laura Aguiar Acosta: bounded professional records-custody witnesses only. Gerardo Nicanor Acosta Armas: no attributed act in this scope; retained to prevent identity merger.
Protected action records and multi-track test
Anonymised second respondent: complaint-attributed physical actor. Complainant's husband: surrounding-event witness, not witness to the alleged assault itself. Hotel manager: subject of the forwarded aggression counter-account; underlying statement/recording remains unverified. Each record is tested across Community authority, hotel trade, access/possession, complaint/procedure, insolvency, property/finance, criminal/prosecutorial, regulatory/public-support and witness/custody tracks where applicable.
Two-ledger rule: hindsight cannot be inserted into the contemporaneous source; contemporaneous source status cannot erase later corroborative significance. Every bridge retains actor, date, capacity, act/omission, source status, contrary or limiting evidence and open proof.
MULTI-TRACK ANALYSIS · NOT A CRIMINAL CONCLUSION
What an altercation with a hotel guest or occupant can mean
Independent reason to be present
Gil supplied private identity and capacity detail that is not reproduced because the combination could indirectly identify the anonymised person. The public rule is sufficient: guest status, acquaintance or voluntary assistance does not establish employment, marketing appointment, security responsibility, agency, instruction or concert.
Operating 50+ community context
Contemporaneous 2013–2014 communications describe real guests and residents and an active-retirement/community offer for semi- and fully retired people aged 50+. That establishes an operating setting in which a guest or occupant had an ordinary reason to be present. It does not prove the private person's incident capacity.
Authority and property
If the two claimed offices and work mandate were invalid, entry, unit inspection and key handling may support holding-out, arbitrary-self-help, trespass/coercion or complaint-truth inquiries. If valid authority and consent existed, a good-faith access attempt remains possible. Neither route decides the use-of-force question.
Physical contact and defence
A guest or occupant may seek departure or protect property, but lawful defence still requires the first act, necessity and proportionality. Injury requires medical causation. The complaint attributes the physical acts to the anonymised respondent and no presence, act or instruction to Gil.
Cannot be concluded: proved assault, false complaint, lawful defence, unlawful entry, abuse of authority, harassment, agreement, instrumentalisation, shadow administration, civil or criminal liability, or institutional bias.
Reasonable alternatives. A good-faith Community or owner-access attempt under disputed authority, a personal or family visit, excessive or unauthorised entry, a mutual or defensive key confrontation and independent intervention by a guest or occupant remain live.
FORMAL ISOLATION
Context does not merge proceedings
No located source proves joinder, transformation, inhibition, appeal or another formal relationship with DP 332/2014, DP 1132/2018, Auto 804/2018, Fiscalía 39/2014, Concurso 36/2012 or another proceeding. Prosecutorial, regulatory, Community or insolvency comparison remains contextual.
FINITE RECOVERY SET
Evidence still required
- Certified docket and the bridge between the `Juicio de faltas` and `DP` labels.
- Certified complaint incorporation, annexes and filing chain.
- Medical evidence, complete police material, a neutral witness and objective evidence.
- Exact Community, effective offices, mandate, work order, consent and access/key records.
- Incident-date accommodation, employment, agency and instructions under privacy minimisation.
- Second-respondent and manager statements, referenced recording and CCTV.
- Hearing record, judgment or dismissal, appeal and finality.