The defense of the considered number two of the Gürtel, Pablo Crespo, has been sued today for prevarication against Baltasar Garzón for the recording published in moncloa.com in which the ex-commissioner José Villarejo affirms that he met with the exjuez to speak of Gürtel one day before admitting the cause to proceed.
The complaint, which Efe has had access to, has been presented this morning by Crespo's lawyer, Miguel Durán, in the courts of Plaza de Castilla in Madrid and in it the lawyer asks that, in case it is admitted to process , the judge who will take the cast take a statement to Villarejo, for whom he also requests special protection in the prison of Estremera (Madrid), where he is admitted.
Refers to the information published by moncloa.com according to which in a lunch held in October 2009 Villarejo, investigated in the National Court for using police information for private work, said that one day before Garzón admitted to process the case met with the then judge of the National Court and with other police officers to "prepare the Gürtel".
In the complaint, Crespo's lawyer, sentenced to 37 and a half years in prison for the first time of Gürtel and another 13 years and 3 months for the Valencian branch of the plot, recalls that in the Gürtel case several of the defenses already alleged that Garzón had known of the cause of irregular form.
It was on August 6, 2008, when the judge stayed with this case after the complaint filed by the Office of the Prosecutor two days before, on the understanding that it had a connection with another case already investigated by Garzón, that of BBVA-Privanza, since in it The lawyer Luis de Miguel, considered the financial architect of La Gürtel, had been investigated.
However, for the defense of Crespo this reference to the BBVA-Privanza case "was a mere fraud of law to pretend, or at least substantiate, the irrogation for himself of the Gürtel case," in which he was interested in "a very political purpose". concrete".
"In other words, it was very clear to the defendant and his possible collaborators that, if competence in the case was not guaranteed, it would not have procedural and political dominion of it, and things could not go according to the plan that had been devised. ", says Durán.
A "trick", insists the lawyer, in which Garzón, who was disqualified for 11 years for allowing illegal eavesdropping on Gürtel, "was the top of the package of absolute bias" with which, he says, he directed the instruction of Gürtel.
Thus, it indicates that the complaint is interposed by the "absolute contempt towards the Spanish legal system" of Garzón and for "using the process for purposes other than the exercise of the judicial function."
As for the published conversation, he recalls the complaint that in the recording Villarejo relates to the commissioner Gabriel Fuentes who would have met, one day before the admission to proceed, with Garzón, with Juan Antonio González, then General Commissioner of Information, and with José Luis Olivera Serrano, then head of the UDEF.
"The foregoing makes clear that the defendant would have filed for himself a case designed and prepared extraprocessively for him to instruct himself," the complaint states, which dismisses this action as a "conspiracy" to "direct the cause".
This "conspiratorial behavior" of Garzón "would reveal a direct interest in the Gürtel operation", which according to the complaint would be a cause of abstention, since "he conspired extraprocessively in the ideation, preparation and execution of the Gürtel operation".
He insists that he incurred a crime of prevarication by failing to comply with the National Audience's distribution rules in order to "achieve the purpose of the Gürtel operation".
In the lawsuit, Miguel Durán requests the testimony as witnesses of Villarejo, the commissary with whom he is allegedly heard on the tape, Gabriel Fuentes, and the two high-level police officers with whom he allegedly met before admitting the complaint. the Gürtel.
Regarding Villarejo, he also requested that the necessary measures be taken in the prison of Estremera to protect his physical integrity, given his "special situation of vulnerability".
This is due to "the extraordinary seriousness of the facts that are denounced (because they affect the very structure and functioning of State institutions), as well as the fact that it has relevant information from people of public interest."