THE MARCHENA CASE PAPERS
One of the questions that was discussed, which everyone wanted to know, was the reason why the case of Sofia Marchena, the daughter of Judge Marchena, was different to all those before it in the history of democracy.
Here is where a journalist’s patience pays off, on more than one occassion. Now, it is me who has that papers that neither judges nor prosecutors managed to get hold of. Sometimes being a journalist has its good points.
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed, everything else is public relations”
Someone embellishing the story said that we journalists are like catch dogs that never let go of a subject. In a more prosaic way, it could be said that we are like endlessly annoying flies or, maybe, it is just that we have a proverbial patience and that we’ve been taught to always feel embittered for the things we are unable to show.
This is related with the case that this summer i revealed you what looked, and keeps looking as, a flagrant case of nepotism and corruption whereby Sofía Marchena, daughter of the President of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, could change exchange her judicial career for a fiscal career – which is strictly prohibited – and occupy a 36th seat to be trained as a new prosecutor when only 35 had been made available.
For the sake of simplicity and to save space telling you how much patient of a dog I have become, I askyou to read to reread Marchena’s Daughter, Marchenagate or The Triumph of Marchena, all of which were published last summer in this newspaper where journalism is made possible against all odds.
Then you will see why it to light.
The exclusive publication of that question amidst the apparent corruption and nepotism, in the form of the Judge Marchena’s daughter, with the collaboration of the Judicial School’s director, Gema Espinosa – coincidentally the spouse of Judge Llarena whose “boss” is Marchena – and with the collaboration of the untold Carlos Lesmes, caused a great stir, at least in the judicial and legal sector which perhaps didn’t have any technical problem in grasping the importance of what was being said.
So much so, that the judicial and fiscal associations – with the exception of the custodian who is suspected of favouritism – showed their indignation and requested the documentation of the process to be able to study it.
They did not recieve a reply.
They were never able to access the complete case file.
Also, from Congress, the deputies of Podemos made an official request to CGPJ to deliver the full documentation in order to analyze the legality of what had been done, so as to afford Sofía Marchena Perea the opportunity to take a step back in her professional judgement, for first time in history, to cease being a judge via entrance exams in the school of Barcelona, and to return to being a law student the school of Madrid.
Nothing. They have not received a reply.
And here is where, as a journalist, waiting patiently often pays off. Indeed, now I have those papers which neither judges nor lawyers nor members of parliament were able to get hold of.
Those beautiful things that being a journalist sometimes have.
One of the questions being discussed, that everyone wanted to know, was the reason why the case of Sofía Marchena, Judge Marchena’ daughter, was different to all this before it in democracy. The answer given was that a report from the director of the Judicial School revealed exactly this, but no one was granted permission to see the said report. Finally, I can reveal the slight of hand, the hoax, the reason why the case of Sofía Marchena was extraordinary in how she received special treatment.
The very treatment that Sofía Marchena hoped to exchange her judicial career, which she chose after passing her entrance exam, for a career as prosecutor.
Gema Espinosa’s report would not be so curious if were not so comical.
The document states: “Sofía Marchena could not be evaluated because she has not been able to acheive the minimum percentage required” due to sick leave, and for that reason “it cannot be considered that she has passed the course”.
Every is factual up to this point. “This situation is unique in Judicial School history”, Espinosa says, because there has been sick leave on preivous occasions but not as long, and there have also been some students that have not passed the course, however, due to their poor academic training.
The director feels that the solution envisaged in the rules which indicates that Sofía Marchena restart the course that she has not passed again, is not adequate.
So she resorts to the Spanish Royal Academy dictionary to explain that “repeat” is “repeat what has been done” but that Ms Marchena in reality has not taken the course in the judicial school insomuch that “you cannot repeat what has never been done”. Literally. Truly.
She doesn’t think it’s fair that sick leave would cause her to repeat the course in the same way if she had failed. This can only be understood if she already knows that Sofía Marchena doesn’t want to be a judge, given that, when she returned from sick leave, she was more interested in repeating the course and passing it. However, it’s obvious that something else is sought for.
That’s why instead of applying the regulation which Sofía the Judicial manages, Espinosa goes in search of the regulation Sofía the Attorney will end up.
She says that this regulation, the one from student lawyers, differentiates between not passing and not completing the course “due to force majeure” and that in the latter case “the course is considered as not done without any penalty as they preserve the grade from the entrance exam for the following course in which they participate as if it were the first”.
From that article, Espinosa concludes that what needs to be done with the daughter of her husband’s president is not that she repeat the judge’s course penalty-free – which is what this regulation also says – but to roll it back, not to the beginning of the course, rather to the time following the entrance exam, where you opt to be an attorney or judge, so she can make that choice again. An obvious choice, if your aim is to change over.
This bizarre report that signed by Espinosa on 1st December in Barcelona is later transformed on 23rd December into a proposal to the Permanent Commission that applies for this very return to the beginning but using a different text, which ignores the dictionaries and meanings, composed of a crude copy and paste with different formats and bodies and texts. Also, Espinosa appears on the last page, which only contains her signature, but this time date in Madrid.
Very strange, because strange is little.
After the publication of my articles in July and August last year, both CGPJ, the Selection Committee and a chorus of adscribed people came to say that nothing illegal had been done and that, also, no one had been injured by that measure.
So on 24th September, Sofía Marchena unbelievably began her second chance, unnoticed in the lawyer’s school in Madrid.
No harm done.
It is amazing then, that on 25th September, the following day, President of the Selection Committee, Javier Huete, dates three letters sent to Aitana Laín Brihuega, Cristina García Meléndez and Rocío Granado Corcoles. The three are recently graduated attorneys but the three were only attorneys because their first choice to be judges was denied because there were no vacancies.
The spot occupied by Sofía Marchena, which is now free after she left to go to the non-existant 36th attorney vacancy.
If Sofía had been decided to be an attorney, not thanks to her second chance but to her first one, these women could have accomplished their calling.
Thus, Huete now tells her that if they want to be judges they just have to say so and their careers will be changed- which is, we repeat, prohibited – with an special adaptation of the Judicial School’s syllabus.
Do you know what has happened? On the 24th, a contentious procedure is presented to the Supreme Court against that decision and it transpires that it was not true that no harm was done, as we said before. This is what happened.
It is documented through mailing receipt letters were sent to all three on 25th September. Those receipts prove that the maili was posted on 11th October (17 days after it was signed) at 11:30, 11:32 and 11:33. Only an response is recorded, saying that she rejects the proposal. This answer is from Rocí Granados and is dated from 1st October, ten days before the message with the request was received.
The text is brief and not even signed. Don’t tell me this is from the X-Files.
There will still be someone that says this process entire was perfectly legal and transparent and that noone did Marchana’s daughter a favour.
I do not doubt that the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court will also see what I have seen. I will keep revealing the truth, because there are people that don’t want me to do it, and as you already know, that’s journalism.Original Source (eldiario.es)