On the irrationality of some experts (part 3)

Return to Part 1: On the irrationality of some "experts" (Part 1)

Only two days after filing the criminal complaint in person at the corresponding court, I received the response, already back in my home country: it was dismissed, as it was considered that the matter reported did not fall under criminal law, but rather administrative law. The judicial resolution allowed for an appeal, so I requested—via telematics—a court-appointed defense from the Illustrious Bar Association of Barcelona (ICAB), since self-representation is not permitted in these matters in Spain. But how was I able to access a court-appointed defense if the applicable legislation explicitly states that I must be physically present in Spain to request it? Well, I suppose the ICAB finally applied common sense after having denied me defense in person up to three (3) times, and after I notified the Consulate of my country in Barcelona, which became my legal address for hearing and receiving notifications.

Fig. 1 During one of the 3 face-to-face visits to the ICAB Legal Guidance Service to request public defender services (October, 2025).

Thus, it was not until a month after the assignment of my court-appointed defense was approved that my lawyer was in a position to file the appeal against the Court's resolution. To this end, I wrote her an email stating two critical points that, in my view, should be included in the appeal: 1) the impossibility of having resorted to administrative channels due to a state of manifest defenselessness, and 2) the need to see the alleged "new report" from the UPC Doctoral School, which constitutes irrefutable proof that the previous "report" is apocryphal, showing the beginning of the series of arbitrary acts committed by the previous university administration regarding the matter. Surprisingly, neither point was even mentioned in said appeal. As if that were not enough, once I requested to see the filed appeal, my lawyer's response was: "We do not provide copies of the filed appeals." In other words, in the opinion of this criminal lawyer, the right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in Art. 24 of the Spanish Constitution, has no place and can be applied at her discretion.

Naturally, I had to know the content of the filed appeal, so I requested it by email from the Court without going into further detail. The response was (literally): "Good morning, it is not possible; for that, you have a representative." I assume they were referring to my lawyer, who was responsible for drafting and signing the document. As a last resort, I wrote a duly substantiated and motivated email to the Attorney (legal representative), who is part of my defense—a figure little known but of vital importance, as their functions include processing documents, receiving notifications, and ensuring deadlines are met, among other critical activities. This is how I gained access to the content of the appeal, which was finally accepted for review by a higher instance, the Provincial Court of Barcelona.

The Enemy Within: My Own Defense

It is clear that the actions of those who should be defending me are, quite simply, a betrayal of public trust. Unfortunately, we know this is not the first case, nor will it be the last, where even private defenders do not always act according to the client's interests. My defense not only withheld information but also ignored overwhelming evidence. I presented 30 pieces of documentary evidence that dismantled the official version, and my defense decided, at their own risk, not to mention a single one in the key appeal. It’s like going to war and having your own general decide to hide the ammunition just before the battle.

To reach the second instance, notice must first be given to the Prosecutor, a sort of "devil's advocate" who issues an opinion, usually aligned with the interests of the State or administration, which often significantly influences the judge's decision. At this point, it should be noted that this is a fact based on statistics, not a simple opinion. Therefore, in a sense, an unfavorable opinion—as is the case here—tips the scales before the situation is even known and analyzed by the one in charge of sentencing. At this point, I will avoid going into the details of the Procedural Order issued by a Clerk of the Administration of Justice, which includes the Public Prosecutor's report. Despite having several weak points from my perspective (and that of generative artificial intelligence, fed by much of the information from this criminal process), I will not mention them publicly to avoid showing my hand, which will be done in due course. However, I will mention what I personally consider serious faults, condoned by the judicial system, and—without fear of being wrong—under some form of coercion to avoid criminal liability.

Paper Justice: When the False Becomes an "Unintentional Error"

Imagine for a moment that someone presents a fake check at a bank, or an invented university degree to access public office. Now imagine that, upon being discovered, justice responds: Yes, the document is false, but we see no intent to deceive. It sounds like the script of a dark comedy, but it is the reality of what is happening in this case. However, the Prosecutor has had to admit that the "report" issued by the doctorate coordinator IS APOCRYPHAL. In layman's terms: it is a document that is not what it claims to be; fabricated evidence. Yet, in a twist of logic that insults anyone's intelligence, the prosecution has decided to look the other way. Their argument is that, although the report is false, "there was no intent to cause harm". With this, they intend for the issuance of false documentation not to be classified as a crime, but as a simple administrative fault.

Fig. 2 Translation: "The report is indeed apocryphal". According to the Royal Spanish Academy, "apocryphal" means: False, feigned, erroneous or spurious.

Since when does document forgery in a public body depend on the mood of the person committing it? If the document is false and was used to affect someone's rights, the damage is done. But in this system, it seems the truth is optional if the one lying is part of the institutional machinery. To make matters worse, we encounter an administrative disorder that is frightening. The Prosecutor himself acknowledged that the judicial file was not even paginated (numbered). In a complaint with 22 pages and three dozen pieces of evidence, a file without order is a file where evidence can get "lost" or be ignored without a trace. It is the perfect recipe for filing away and forgetting.

Fig. 3 Translation: "...the Public Prosecutor's Office points to the complaint and the documentation attached to it, without being able to point out its pages since the case is not paginated".

At this point, my defense took nine (9) days to notify me—and only after I requested it—of the aforementioned Procedural Order, leaving me outside any deadline to react through a motion for reconsideration, due to that serious procedural defect regarding the zero organization of the file. It is a chain of errors that seems designed to make the citizen grow tired, give up, and disappear. Fortunately, I am not that kind of person. I am a rare type who, the harder the test, the more momentum I gain to overcome it, and I believe that has been more than demonstrated.

The Right to a Real Defense

This is not just my problem. It is a warning for everyone. If we allow justice to accept false documents under the excuse of "lack of intent," and if we accept that court-appointed lawyers work behind their clients' backs, effective judicial protection is a lie.

To rule on the appeal, the hearing was set for Thursday, February 12, but before that date arrived, I requested the immediate substitution of my Lawyer and Attorney. Not out of caprice, but for legal survival. What use would a "defense" be under these conditions? Because justice that accepts the apocryphal and rewards negligence is not justice: it is simply bureaucracy with the power to destroy a career. So far, I do not know what the result has been. Was the legal procedure halted, or has the Provincial Court already issued a ruling?

By the way, to those directly responsible: how far do you intend to go? Is it not enough for you to have been exposed technically and scientifically, that you now also want me to expose you judicially? Fortunately, my voice is reaching other spheres, and next week I will have an interview with a journalist from a national Spanish newspaper. I will tell you more later...

Fig. 4 How far do they intend to go?