The defense of Sumar’s former spokesperson, Íñigo Errejón, filed an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid in which he accuses the strategy of the woman who denounced him for sexual assault, Elisa Mouliaá, whose lawyer , alleging that she is on leave for advanced treatment of her pregnancy, motivated the judge to provisionally close the proceedings without him being able to testify to defend himself against what he describes as a “false complaint”. He understands that this is a “fraudulent” maneuver and requests that the classification of the file be revoked.
“Mr. Errejón’s wish was to file judicially on the date scheduled for today, November 12, or as soon as possible, in order to be able to offer the corresponding explanations before the judicial investigating body and expose the reality of the facts , which are far from those described by Ms. Mouliaá in his false complaintand this can be distorted with the evidentiary procedures carried out throughout the investigation phase,” indicates the letter put forward by LaSexta and to which ABC had access.
According to the argument, the incorporation of lawyer Carla Vall into the file is “fraudulent and flawed from the start” because the lawyer obtained sick leave on November 7 “and on that date she had not yet been designated by Ms. Mouliaá. or “She has been formally represented, the free choice of lawyer therefore falls on a professional who cannot practice law for medical reasons and therefore cannot take charge of the procedure.”
“The appearance of a lawyer who is physically disabled to intervene in the trial as soon as it appears”, affirms Errejón’s defense, led by lawyer Eva Gimbernat, to emphasize that in this case “fraud of the law and abuse of rights require proof”.
He therefore understands that “this research and this choice of lawyer were malicious, since they aim to postpone the start of the investigation for an indeterminate and unbearable number of weeks”, particularly in the case of a person widely publicized in the media.
“It is obvious that formally designating, on November 11, 2024, by proxy, a lawyer in an advanced state of pregnancy and on sick leave since November 7, with an alleged disposition for immediate maternity leave, constitutes a clear abuse. of law and legal fraud, and violates, at a minimum, the rights to effective judicial protection without defense, to a trial with all guarantees and without unjustified delays; and accept the request of a person who is not a party to the procedure and who does not prove an advanced state of pregnancy, the height of legal absurdity,” he argues.
According to him, the “real objective” which “underlies” emerges from the statements that Mouliaá herself made to different media, and concerns “the fact that the lawyer organizes and coordinates, under his direction, several joint complaints, and thus obtaining time “before” the obvious lack of substance in the complaint who initiated this procedure; and the plaintiff’s weak and contradictory account, according to her countless public statements.”
“We are faced with an unprecedented situation, with an indefinite paralysis of the training phase. By deliberately generating and provoking unjustified delays, in a process of such media and public magnitude, by extending Mr. Errejón’s sentence, being able to choose from tens of thousands of lawyers that they exercise throughout the Spanish geography who could intervene immediately in the procedure, demonstrate bad faith, fraud of the law and abuse of rights”, he assures.
“This did not happen during treatment”
In this sense, he maintains that “this situation of temporary incapacity did not occur during the processing of the instruction, once it was correctly presented, but that its presentation is rather flawed and falsified, due to of the impossibility of procedural intervention from the start“. Concretely, he specifies that he only officially entered the court as Mouliaá’s representative on November 11 and that his medical leave was dated the 7. The problem is that on the 6, before being in person and having the recognition her temporary incapacity, she has already done so. asked to postpone due to her pregnancy.
In defense of the former deputy, “which cannot be allowed, with the dangerous judicial precedent which would imply accepting this type of imperfect ab initio personalities, to delay, in a deceptive manner, criminal cases”, It is procedural fraud consisting of appearing with incapable lawyers temporarily process an instruction from the moment it appears.
He believes that this precedent “could now be exploited both by the persons investigated and by the complainants (among them, those who fear or are convinced that their complaint will not succeed), to indiscriminately paralyze criminal proceedings”. And thus unfairly prolong prison sentences and, in this case, also the sentences imposed on the media.
