Can alleged acts of harassment – ‘harrasment’ in English, a civil and criminal offense in the United Kingdom – be part of the functions of a monarch or a director of an intelligence service?
The lawyers of John Charles I – exiled in Abu Dhabi – they maintain that yes. Why? Because this allows them to request the protection of their client -and incidentally that of the former director of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) Felix Sanz Roldan– Through article 14.1 of the State Immunity Law of 1978 against the acts of harassment and illegal tracking that her ex-lover has reported Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein at the London Court of Civil Appeal during the years 2012 and mid-2014, before the abdication of the king.
The prosecution of the events after June 18, 2014 by the judge Matthew Nicklin it is already insured in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. But now, after the seven-hour long hearing this Tuesday, November 8, three judges – Lady King, Lady Slmpler and Lord Popplewell, a female majority – are going to elaborate a sentence that they have already announced as very “important & rdquor; and “complex” that will establish jurisprudence on whether that can discern in a former head of state or monarch his official or public acts and his private acts. Corinna’s lawyers maintain that they are private acts, those of Juan Carlos I defend their public nature. I am the state, all acts committed by the king are acts of statewhat Louis XVI or Louis the Great of France and Navarre would say, the one known as the “Sun King”.
If you judge by the number of times that the three judges and the ‘barristers’ (lawyers who defend the cases in court) of the plaintiff and the defendant have pronounced his name this Tuesday, General Félix Sanz Roldán will go down in history as the best known military man in the UK of contemporary history. But it is a toxic fame. He owes it to the allegedly illegal scare and search operations he set up against Corinna in the UK, Monaco and Switzerland in 2012.
Straw woman or figurehead
While the first podcast in a series of eight “Corinna and the King” tour London and European capitals, the plaintiff was not present at the hearing on Tuesday the 8th.
In their response to the legal arguments of the appeal, Corinna’s lawyers have presented information subsequent to Judge Nicklin’s ruling on March 24.
They maintain that Juan Carlos I transferred the 100 million dollars on June 2, 2012 to Corinna to use her as a straw woman or figurehead of some funds “that he did not declare to the Spanish Treasury and that in this way [buscaba] have hidden access to them”.
Corinna’s lawyers point out: “The reasons for the gift of 100 million dollars [por afecto a ella y a sus hijos] Turns out they were more sinister. Due to changes in banking legislation in Switzerland that required making public the participation of Juan Carlos I in the Lucum Foundation of Panama and his refusal to do so in the tax amnesty [del ministro del PP Cristóbal Montoro, en 2012]. Juan Carlos I considered that he could hide her funds by giving them as a gift to Corinna but prevailing over her to use them. He designed her actions to control her with that goal in mind & rdquor ;.
They point out that their client was informed by the lawyer [Dante Canonica, Suiza] that he prepared the documents for the irrevocable donation of the 100 million dollars (64.8 million euros in 2012) that Juan Carlos I should not be given access to these funds, unless they were transferred to an account in his name, possibility that was flatly rejected by him & rdquor ;. This clarification occurred at a meeting held on September 16, 2014 at The Connaught Hotel, in the London capital, in which Juan Carlos I, Corinna and Canonica participated.
Do you have evidence, emails, recordings, about that meeting? The meeting was called by Corinna. Evidence, according to English judicial sources consulted, will not be lacking.
Another of the revelations of the ‘skeleton arguments’ or pleadings refers to the Spanish firm called Grupo Eulen, which, according to EL PERIÓDICO DE CATALUNYA, exclusively contracted the services of the company Algiz Security to spy on the ex-lover in Monaco , in April and May 2012.
State operation or personal?
“It was not the National Intelligence Center, but a team from the Eulen group founded by a friend of Juan Carlos I and owner of the then king’s favorite winery [Bodegas Vega Sicilia de David Álvarez, ya fallecido]. “This new data provides context for the pre-abdication acts, that is, they were not part of a state operation but rather a covert and personal campaign by Juan Carlos I, relying on his friends & rdquor;.
The lawyers argue about the relationship between Sanz Roldán, former director of the CNI at the time of the 2012-2014 harassment events, during the reign of Juan Carlos I, who “it is stated that he has traveled 18 times to Abu Dhabi & rdquor ;, where he lives the emeritus since August 3, 2020.
According to the lawyers, this would abound in the personal, private relationship between Sanz Roldán and Juan Carlos Iwhich survives after the departure of the first from his official duties (he works for the firm Iberdrola) and the second, after his abdication on July 18, 2014.
Harassment by publication is also provided in the allegations, in the time before the abdication of the monarch, to keep Corinna controlled.
“The ex-partner of Juan Carlos I already knows that the trial is going to be held for the events after the abdication. Therefore, we are in a phase in which it is about pedaling and delaying the examination of the tests as much as possible & rdquor ;, points out the ‘barrister’ in London Josep Gálvez.
The possible compensation
Like any civil lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks, without quantifying, compensation for damages. And, among them, Corinna’s lawyers have raised the existence of personal damage caused by the persecution. “Article 5 (a) of the 1978 Immunity Law contemplates an exception to the general immunity regime, that is, that protection does not cover when it comes to personal damage, including psychological damage that could be caused to Corinna, such as those made to material goods in the United Kingdom (possible damage to your home, for example).
Related news
James Lewis, Corinna’s lawyer, pointed out that the State Immunity law does not play any role because the acts committed have to be official or public acts. “The Spanish State, if that were the case, would have to demand immunity or give it up voluntarily. Neither is nor expected & rdquor ;, he explained to the judges.
To those who are still suspiciousthe “route” of the case, it should be noted that the emeritus does take charge of the tour. Because, precisely this London demand, keeps him exiled at a distance of 7,500 kilometers from Madrid.