Juan Carlos Peinado, the judge who, in the wake of a complaint of the ultra -right -wing Clean Manos. before the Prosecutor's Office the illegality of his Villa de la Adrada (Ávila).
Built in violation of urban norms, the history of that 858 square meters that rises on a plot of almost 0.3 hectares began to take shape two decades ago. What happened since then speaks, according to the Prosecutor's Office, of “indications of urban crime” focused on a crime – prevarication attributable to municipal officials of the adrada predecessors of the current mayor (pp) – which in any case would have already “prescribed.” The quotes belong to the decree for which on June 16 the Prosecutor's Office of Ávila filed the complaint of Fernando Jabonero, exconcejal of the PSOE in Pastrana (Guadalajara) and who is defined as “anti -corruption activist.”
Now, Jabonero has received a summons to appear on September 23 in the Court of First Instance 63 of Madrid. This is what the legal slang calls “act of conciliation” prior to the interposition of criminal complaint if the defendant does not accept to retract at that time. Nor, in this case, he does not accept the 25,000 euros that the magistrate demands him as a compensation for damage.
Speaking to Eldiario.es, Fernando Soaponero considers that he has not even overwhelmed with his hairstyle attacks on the old Twitter – the current X – nor has any reason to reverse his conclusions about the magistrate's performance regarding Begoña Gómez's wife. “In December,” Jabonero remembers, “Minister Óscar López already called him prevaricador and the Supreme Court has had to stop when resolving that he wanted the imputation of the Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, despite the absolute absence of indications.”
Will the hairstyle complaint come into a court if you finally present or find a door? Contributing an answer is at the moment impossible mission. What is known is that, to date, the Superior Court of Madrid (TSJM) inadmitted in 2024 the complaints for prevarication formulated by both the president of the Government and his wife. The most recent decision of the TSJM relative to the case occurred in June: the court annulled the sanctions imposed by hairstyle to the lawyers of the case for serving the media. The lawyer of Begoña Gómez, the magistrate had fined 5,000 euros. For Vox lawyer and also the ultra -rightist make you hear had set the tenth part: 500 euros.
Is this the first legal action of the Judge Peinated against those who reproach him for his methods in the instruction of the Begoña Gómez case or question his appearance of impartiality – as he did soap – by staying in charge of those proceedings while his daughter exercises as a councilor of the PP In the Madrid municipality of Pozuelo de Alarcón? That he knows, hairstyle maintains a demand for honor against the analyst and Tertullian Max Prade “The battle against defamations”.
eldiario.es has tried unsuccessful to contact Judge Peinado. The legal sources consulted when transcending the announcement of Querella against Fernando Jabonero have limited themselves to pointing out that the magistrate raises actions against other natural persons and against “several media” although they did not specify which or what arguments.
What Peinado aims with the judicial citation of Jabonero is that this “comes to recognize” four things. The first, which throughout 2024 requested the City Council of the Adrada urban information about its “second residence” – the villa built illegally and disconnected from the Water Net intimate ”.
The second objective of the judicial threat is that Jabonero recognizes that if he filed a complaint against combs – admitted by the Superior Court of Madrid in September 2024 – it was to “question the instruction” against Begoña Gómez and to “artificially create a cause of challenge” to remove it from the case.
As a third goal, the judge proposes that the complainant of his illegal and critical constant villa with his procedure admits as “radically false” that his actions in the case “have a prospective character” – or, without sustenance in objective indications and only founded in conjectures – or a “political purpose” or that there is “foreseen political or economic considerations for their instrumental actions.” Judicial hairstyle decisions – he says himself in his demand – “are autonomous, objective, impartial and independent.”
Haly closes the demand loop claiming soaponero to compensate with 25,000 euros for “moral damages.” But in the previous paragraph introduces a notice that is summarized as follows: that “it is agreed to not perform defamatory, insidious, vexatious, insulting, slanderous or offensive manifestations linked to Mr. Juan Carlos Peinado García.” Everything indicates that, except for the last minute change, there will be no possible conciliation between both parties. Will the judge take the passage of filing complaint against soaponero? If so, will the courts admit at a time when political discourse has normalized calling the president of the Government? The question remains open.
