2014|Defensor Pueblo 4/14 (ENG)

Official complaint to the Spanish Ombudsman for the failure of the Spanish agencies to investigate negligence and malpractice of lawyers in Spain in their defense of victims of domestic violence

Complaint-Defensor del Pueblo|Wilcox vs. Spain 4/14

April 22, 2014

Dear Ms. Becerril Bustamante,

I hereby, under art. 9.1, 9.2, 10.1, 12.1, 13, and under the final ruling of the Organic Law (first) 3/1981, of April 6, of the Defensor del Pueblo, am once again contacting the Defensor del Pueblo regarding my case against Spanish government regulatory agencies and public authorities (art. 24 of the Spanish penal code inter alia – Ilustre Colegio de Abogados and Consejo General del Poder Judicial, inter alia) in their failure to assure positive action and due diligence within the Spanish judicial system in regards to the following:

  • Protection of victims of domestic violence and human rights violations within a country’s borders and jurisdiction (Gonzales vs. USA, Velasquez vs. Honduras, A vs. UK, inter alia)
  • Assurance of due process and the prevention of discrimination against women within Spanish courts by State and non-state judicial actors
  • Investigation of allegation of violations of rights and infractions of the law by State and non-state judicial actors in relation to judicial proceedings (Juzgado de Móstoles – Wilcox vs. González de Alcalá 607/2007, González de Alcalá vs. Wilcox 1140/2007 y 1143/2007 and all actions and related litigation)

My present correspondence is an official and final solicitation of the Defensor del Pueblo to assure that Spanish public authorities and all civil servants of the Illustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid, Fiscalia General del Estado, Consejo General del Poder Judicial (and all other pertinent government regulatory agencies in Spain) fulfill their obligations under the Spanish Constitution, Spanish penal code, Spanish law, and international law to investigate my allegations against State and non-State judicial actors in relation to cases in Juzgado de Móstoles – Wilcox vs. González de Alcalá 607/2007, González de Alcalá vs. Wilcox 1140/2007 y 1143/2007 and all actions and related litigation.

Please note that, with this correspondence I am hereby notifying the Defensor del Pueblo, and thereby the Spanish government, that this is my last recourse within the Spanish legal system before presenting my case to the European Courts of Human Rights against the Spanish government for their failure to assure the protection of victims of domestic abuse, discrimination against women by State and non-State actors in Spanish courts, and the lack of due process within their judicial systems.

Also, please note that the afore mentioned are not only human rights violations, but also fulfill the criteria of ‘crimes against humanity’ as defined by the Roma Statute of the International Criminal Courts (art. 7 – “murder, rape, torture, enslavement, imprisonment, persecution of a group, or other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health… when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack”).
Please find attached my previous complaints to public authorities in relation to my case:

  • Complaint to the Defensor del Pueblo (expediente:12008996) and Consejo General del Poder Judicial for violation of rights and lack of due process (supporting documents posted on https://worldpulse.com/node/52011)
  • Complaint to the Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid – My original complaint, the decision of the Colegio de Abogados (Preliminar 859/13) and my appeal of said decision.
  • Complaint to the Instituto de la Mujer for discrimination against women (supporting documents posted on https://worldpulse.com/node/50602)

Also, included are the following documents:

  • Resume of the infractions of implicated lawyers – Table 1: Infractions committed in the violation of laws and rights of their client & Table 2: Causal Relationships, Violation of Rights, and damages incurred in 609/2007, 1140/2007, 1143/2007 and all related court cases (see appeal to Preliminar 859/13)
  • Time-line (Wilcox vs. González de Alcalá 607/2007, González de Alcalá vs. Wilcox 1140/2007 and 1143/2007 and all related actions and litigation 2004-2103)

Unfortunately, my case is not isolated, but rather representative of problems within family courts in Spain and elsewhere. As evidence of systematic and extensive cover-up of domestic abuse by judicial actors and Spanish tribunals as well as the violation of rights of victims in Spain, please find attached Family Courts in Crisis newsletters (FCC Nov.-Feb. 2014), calling attention to the reports by Amnesty International – Spain (What Specialized Justice?) and Save the Children – Spain (Spanish Justice System Faced with Child Sex Abuse within the Family – Save the Children Spain).

Also, important to examine is the UN report (Advancement of women: In-depth study on all forms of violence against women, Report of the Secretary-General – FCC Dec. ‘13) which explains the dynamics of violence against women and the legal responsibility of the State to protect victims. And, the report of the Center for the Study of Democracy (Examining the Link Between Organized Crime and Corruption) and the International Council on Human Rights Policy (The Relationship Between Human Rights and Corruption) (FCC –Feb. ’14) which explains and details how corruption works in relation to the violation of rights in judicial systems.

It should be noted that there is a high correlation between criminality and domestic abuse, within high social-economic levels (white collar crime) as well as lower social-economic levels (violent crimes) – with the former more adept at hiding and covering-up the abuse. Also, please note that one of the principle actors in organized crime and the corruption of judicial procedures are lawyers (FCC, feb. ’14, p.-25), and therefore deductively there exists a high-rate of abusers within the legal profession – reminding that domestic abuse is about power and control, and the abuse of that power (rather than violence in and of itself), and that abusers maintain their power through networking, manipulation of others, and corruption.

During a divorce, abusers utilize their connections within judicial networks (see FCC Feb., p.23-38 and diagrams at closing of correspondence), in order to manipulate, corrupt judicial actors, obtain custody of their children, and defraud their wives of common property assets in order to continue harassing, intimidating and silencing them. Also, lawyers, as well as judges and other judicial actors are easily manipulated and swayed by the following prejudices:

  • Domestic violence only affects a small percentage of the population, is very rare, and are isolated incidents
  • Domestic violence occurs only in poverty-stricken, uneducated, and immigrant families
  • Alcohol abuse causes domestic violence
  • Battered women are masochists and provoke abuse. They must like abuse, if not they would have left the abuser long ago
  • Men have the right to punish their wives for bad behavior. Wife beating is not a crime
  • The majority of accusations by women are false and/or exaggerated that over-load the courts unnecessarily
  • Many times women manipulate and brain-wash their children so that they hate their fathers, Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS). It is not abuse that children are rejecting when they reject their fathers, but only PAS. For this reason, the courts do not even investigate the allegations of victims.
  • Women receive preferential treatment during divorce proceedings (statistics show a 95% favoritism rate for men, NOT women)
  • Women, above all homemakers, are nothing more than ‘gold-diggers’, that profit from the hard-work of their husbands during marriage and they do not deserve to receive common property assets and funds in the liquidation of assets, access funds in order to pay legal expenses during a divorce, or receive alimony after a divorce.

These prejudices are producing a ‘failure to protect’ rate of 75-95% within judicial systems, noting that an estimated 7000 children/year in Spain (and 200,000/year in USA, Canada, Europe and Australia) are handed over to physically and sexually abusive parents (without counting cases of psychological abuse) in custody decisions. This means that at present in these countries alone, extreme abuse of 2-4.5 million children by custodial parents is sanctioned by family courts, and therefore governments who refuse to sanction implicated judicial actors (fulfilling the criteria of ‘knowingly’ in the definition of crimes against humanity.)

Behind the reports of Amnesty International and Save the Children (inter alia) the Spanish government cannot deny the systematic and extensive failure of judicial systems to protect the security and rights of victims; recalling that international courts have recognized the obligation of a State to protect victims of domestic abuse, and the failure to do so, a human rights violation (A vs. UK, Velásquez vs. Honduras, y Gonzales vs. USA).

Also, under the Constitution (art. 14), Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and Equality Act, inter alía, government agencies are in violation of the laws when they fail to investigate all and any allegations of acts (and omission of acts) by judicial actors that have resulted in discrimination against women, violation of her rights, and/or infractions of Spanish and/or international laws:

  • Bar associations have the obligation to investigate allegations of negligence, malpractice, and acts that are contrary to the interests and/or rights of clients by lawyers
  • District Attorneys have the obligation to investigate all allegations against lawyers and/or other persons that have infringed the law and penal codes
  • The Judicial Review Board has the obligation to investigate allegations of judicial decisions that have discriminated against women and/or violated her rights, as well as the acts of civil servants that violate judicial procedures and/or the law
  • Regulatory agencies of psychologists and social workers have the obligation to investigate allegations against court-psychologist and social-workers of the courts with the highest level of diligence in light of the weight their recommendations play in judicial decisions.

Therefore, the public authority agencies above mentioned have the obligation under Spanish and international law, (as well as the Spanish penal code) to investigate my complaints and allegations against judicial actors and other implicated persons with diligence, sanctioning guilty parties to the letter of the law. The failure of public authorities (Ilustre Colegio de Abogados, Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Fiscalía General del Estado, etc.) to investigate complaints against judicial actors, not only grants impunity to implicated actors, but also sends a strong message to abusers, as well as lawyers, judges, psycho-social teams, district attorneys, public prosecutors for minors, court civil servants, etc. that covering-up evidence of domestic abuse, professional negligence, and violation of the rights of victims will always be supported and encouraged by the Spanish government (as is the case at present).

Governments that do not hold judicial actors accountable for their negligence and malpractice become accessories to the crimes committed by the abuser as well as the cover-up by judicial actors for said crimes. I call attention to Table 1 y 2 – Violations of Rights & Infractions of Law in Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox which enumerates all of the crimes and infraction of the law alleged against the lawyers in my case (Gonzalo Martínez de Haro, María Fernanda Guerrero Guerrero, Belén García Martin, Jose Manuel Hernández Jiménez (court-appointed lawyer,) Jorge Capell de Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, Alberto Fontes García Calamarte, Miguel Martínez López de Asiain, and Ignacio González Martínez). It should be noted that regarding these violation the Bar Association of Madrid in their decision Preliminar 859/13, contends that:

  • The violation of the rights of a victim of domestic violence and discrimination against women “exclusively affect fundamental rights recognized in the Spanish Constitution (CE) and norms in international agreements, and not in any way norms under ordinary laws and thereby protects lawyers from any wrong-doing. (Demonstrating a lack of recognition of the hierarchy of judicial norms in Spain by the Colegio de Abogados.)
  • The malpractice and negligence of implicated lawyers are decisions by lawyers [that] fall under their independence, prerogative that assist in the execution of their function as provided for under article 542.2 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, 33 of the Estatuto General de la Abogacía and 2 of the Código Deontológico de la Abogacía Española, [and] that immunizes them from all interference and is the exclusive territory of the defense, without any possibility of a deontological revision” (Demonstrating a lack of recognition of article 1, 9, and 10 of the Spanish Constitution, inter alia by the Colegio de Abogados.)

The fact that public authorities (the Bar Association of Madrid in this case) in their official decisions are sanctioning and supporting the systematic and extensive re-victimization of women and children by their lawyers, elevates these crimes to crimes against humanity.
Please find attached the report Domestic Violence and Abuse in Our Societies and Court Systems that enumerates the various problems in the failure of judicial actors to protect victims;

  • Incompetence of Legal Counsel“the lack of adequate training of lawyers for courtroom work is a … very serious problem in the administration of justice… 75% of the lawyers appearing in the courtroom were deficient …citing the examples: poor preparation, inability to frame questions properly, lack of ability to conduct a proper cross-examination, lack of ability to present expert testimony, lack of ability in the handling and presentation of documents and letters, lack of ability to frame objections adequately, lack of basic analytic ability in the framing of issues, lack of ability to make an adequate argument to a jury, and lack of basic courtroom manners and etiquette.”  – Chief Justice Burger

“Particular skills which he suggested…opening arguments, direct and cross-examination, the art of     objecting and summation…drafting complaints, answers, motions, and interrogatories, and the taking of depositions and the interviewing of witnesses.” – Judge Kaufman

  • Incompetence of JudgesJudges play important roles in the legal system’s response to domestic violence… (and) hold substantial power to sanction (or absolve) batterers, protect (or not protect) battered women, and to send messages to the community, the victim, and the batterer alike that domestic violence will not (or will) be tolerated. Sometimes judges exercise their discretion (in interpreting or enforcing laws) in ways that undermine victim safety and batterer accountability.
  • Incompetence of Prosecutors… In spite of strongly worded laws prohibiting assault in some countries, prosecutors are often reluctant to enforce these laws in domestic violence cases… Prosecutors may also believe the same myths and stereotypes that absolve the perpetrator of personal responsibility for his actions.
  • Incompetence of court-psychologists… Court psychologist play a vital role in custodial determinations as judges often hand down decisions based exclusively upon their recommendations. Therefore, their role and qualifications should be scrutinized closely in examining the failure of courts to protect victims of domestic abuse.

“… it is important to make a distinction between professionals licensed by forensic clinics…and professionals that are members of psycho-social groups…(who lack) a specific status and whose activities are not duly regulated…

What capacity do they (court psychologists and social workers) possess to carry out this role? We have only found “procedural protocol” or “good practice guides” in certain CCAA, but never any specific norms, nor a reference to their professional qualifications, nor specific knowledge of psychology or social work…”

…in examining the complaints of gender violence, we have found cases that have violated the rights of women victims (…) These violations are produced in the majority of cases during judicial procedures and on occasions by psycho-social teams during their examinations, who lack training in gender violence and do not have sufficient resources to carry out investigations or inquiries to understand the conflict between the two parties.

…the determinations of psycho-social teams was accepted by the court as an irrefutable conclusion. The courts consider the technical teams experts for the simple fact that they have obtained this position.

However…one can confirm that a large majority of decisions which are over-turned are based on mala praxis of psycho-social teams assigned to the courts and their lack of specialization in child psychology, deficiencies in the methodology used in their reports, and in many cases in violation of principles of ethics, breaking deontological codes…

…in 85% of cases studied where there have been the intervention of psycho-social teams or an expert psychologist assigned by the courts, the courts dutifully follow the recommendations of those reports. The percentage increases to 88.24%when the intervention comes from the psycho-social team.
In regards to this criteria, the rulings and indications of the team become dogma of faith, absolute truths molded into court decisions without any more reason than those given by the technical teams, without any value, consideration of proof, nor analysis of the circumstances of the case or of the minor.”

  • Incompetence of psychiatrists…  Few forensic doctors receive any training on how to work with domestic violence victims. Forensic doctors expressed extreme skepticism of women victims of violence…They expressed the opinion that a woman would lie to achieve an advantage in a court case…they universally expressed mistrust of women.

“Lack of theoretical knowledge (by mental health care professionals) about domestic violence, its causes and consequences, is superseded by stereotypes in patriarchal cultures that effect communication with the victims.

Please see and read with diligence the attached time-line (http://worldpulse.com/node/67522). While the negligence and malpractice of implicated judicial actors has been extensive and systematic, as already stated my case is not an isolated one, but rather representative of the behavior of the majority of judicial actors in cases of domestic violence and gender violence. An examination and analysis of all negligence, malpractice, and infraction are detailed in my complaint to the Madrid Bar Association (attached), but the major points of negligence are the following:

1. The negligence of Mr. Gonzalo Martínez de Haro to defend my interest and appeal court decision 607/2007 assuring that there would be a final judgment against me which declared me an ‘alcoholic/drug-addict’. An accusation against me which he is well aware is false. Also, knowing that such a judgment would be used against me in my divorce and as ‘evidence’ in the exoneration of my husband for his abuse – clearly counter to the interest of his client.

2. The failure of Ms. Belén García Martin to request an advance for legal expenses and temporary alimony in the medias de la previa 1140/07, knowing full well that I did not have any income or salary, that my husband had already cancelled my credit cards on various occasions in the prior months, and that all of our funds were under his name (refusing me access), made her complicit to the efforts of my husband to defraud me of common property funds, misappropriation of common property assets by the courts during 2008, as well as assuring that I would not be able to properly defend myself within the courts and future judicial procedures.

Ms. García contended that “in Spain husbands do not have to pay for the legal expenses of their wives…. And there is not any law in Spain that obligates lawyers to demand legal expenses for women/clients, and therefore [she] did not have any legal obligation to do so.” These contentions of Ms. García show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the principles of common property law, as well as of penal codes and laws against fraud and conspiracy to defraud – noting that ignorance of the law is no defense in terms of violation of the law, even for judicial actors.

The above mentioned negligence of Ms. García assured that I could not access common property funds in order to pay legal expenses in relation to my divorce in Spain, could not obtain evidence and proof of my husband’s abuse (including initiation of litigation against my web designers in Florida for their breach of contract and attempted extortion), continue with the creation and development of Global Expats/www.global-xpats.com and obtain financial independence from my husband – exactly as he had planned since 2004. The actions (and omission of actions) of Ms. García are directly responsible for the total poverty in which I have lived in the past 7 years, as well as responsible for lost income to my company in the these years, estimated at hundreds of millions of euros (with competing websites having earned $100-250 million usd in 2013).

3. When Jorge Capell de Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira accepted my case, he was well aware that due to the negligence of Ms. García, I did not have any funds with which to pay legal expenses until common property funds were liquidated (estimated at €3-6+ million euros in hidden foreign accounts). I never hid the facts of my situation and he accepted the case in total knowledge of the circumstances, and voluntarily accepted the conditions and was under obligation to assure my defense and the defense of my interests and rights at all times.

One of the principle reasons that I contracted Mr. Sr. Capell is that he is “specializes in banking litigation (disputes involving complex financial products). He has acted in many national and international disputes and arbitrations, particularly in Latin American and English speaking countries.” (http://www.cuatrecasas.com/lawyer/jorge_capell.html).

My ex husband had worked in the banking industry during 23 and knows all too well how to manipulate bank accounts and hide funds. He was hiding millions of euros of common property assets in foreign bank accounts – noting that during 15 years as expatriates we did not pay any rent or mortgage, school fees for our children, trips, and other expenses, with my husband’s salary at approximately €200.000+ (€16.700+/month). Our monthly expenses during these years were €3.000/month in food, clothing, electricity, leisure, etc. – and therefore savings of between €5.000 and €10.000+/month.

Mr. Capell had very clear instructions to investigate and examine all bank records, tax declarations, and investment records in the name of my ex husband between 1991 and 2008. But, he always refused to initiate even a minimum of legal proceedings in order to obtain the necessary records through a court-order. His omissions of actions made him an accessory to fraud. Then, his omission of action to introduce evidence as to the abuse of my ex-husband, above all evidence in relation to my website/company and his efforts to sabotage it, rendered him accessory to the penal infractions of my husband.

Additionally, his refusal to appeal the divorce decree (which was highly defamatory to me personally and professionally) made it impossible for me to stay in Spain and be near my children, left me homeless and in total and complete poverty and my ex-husband with millions, (awarding all common assets and funds to my ex-husband and all common liabilities to me), made it impossible for me to recuperate my website through litigation or have a new one built, and assured that my ex-husband could continue to harass and threaten my safety and security (with no protection from the courts) aggravated his negligence and malpractice. Also, according to Mr. Ignacio González Martínez in my conversations with him (2010-2012), Mr. Capell incited Mr. López de Asiain, and Mr. González Martínez to act with negligence and malpractice in relation to my case (in order to cover-up his own negligence and malpractice), once again aggravating his criminal responsibility, as well as damages and prejudices.

4. The refusal of Mr. López de Asiain, and Mr. González Martínez to follow my instructions and obtain all of common property financial records (1991 – 2008) through a court-order and subpoena, as well as present my case, reclamations, and legal arguments to the courts and judge according to my written instructions, sent to them in February 2011 (see document #1H – Complaint to Bar Association against Miguel Martinez Lopez de Asiain and Ignacio Gonzalez Martinez), renders them accessories to the fraud of my ex husband, for an estimated €2-4 million.

Also, the actions of Mr.López de Asiain, and Mr. González Martínez in relation to the sale of common property real estate in Marbella (see document #10H), and the transferring of funds were so questionable that even the Spanish Consulate in Washington, DC questioned the intentions of these lawyers, objecting to the terms of the power-of-attorney that they requested I sign.

During all of my divorce (2007 – 2012), implicated lawyers continually refused to follow my instructions, treating me as if I was nothing more than a ‘stupid woman’ who did not understand anything about anything. They claimed that since they had been handling divorces for many years, they knew what they were doing, even though it was obvious they had absolutely no idea what they were doing – confirmed by the mess they have created in my case, and the 75-95% negligence rates within family courts.

Under the reasonable person principle, it is impossible that lawyers and judges are doing their jobs properly within a legal/judicial system that is as utopian as the Spanish system, but where the rights of women and children are being violated at rates of 85-95%. Obviously there is a serious problem. The root of the problem is not in the passage of adequate laws, and more laws, but lies in the fact that lawyers do not know or understand how to utilize laws in the defense and interests of their client. The prejudice and negligence of lawyers is so deep and ingrained that even when supplied with explicit instructions on how to utilize the laws and what arguments to present to the courts, they are incapable of following simple instructions which would enable them to do so.

Women’s organizations have a clear responsibility to promote a political platform which establish and promote the rights of women and children within the home and family – challenging and contradicting the patriarchal rhetoric and prejudices predominate in family courts and society at large. But, these organizations, and activists, are so bogged down with political inertia that they have been ‘spinning their wheels’ fighting the same political battles time and time again for the past 30 years. As Betty Friedan states in her book The Second Stage (1981), “the first stage of the women’s movement did not involve a new mode of thought. Once we broke through the feminine mystique and said that women were people, we merely applied the abstract values of all previous liberal movements and radical revolutions, as defined by men, to protest our oppression, exploitation and exclusion from man’s world, and to demand an equal share of its rewards and powers as previously wielded and enjoyed by men. In fact, we got into ideological trouble when we tried to apply too literal an analogy from old revolutions of class or color to women’s situation in life….That borrowed rhetoric often blinded us to the complex, changing reality of our own experience.”

Even though women’s rights organizations through-out Europe, North America and Australia (inter alia) are well aware of the rampant violations of rights of women and children within family courts, they have been so busy “pushing that unless you were out there working, and making the bucks – you were nothing” (The Second Stage), that the rampant violations of rights and discrimination within family courts has gone unchallenged by the feminists for decades.

So in the past years, I have been using my case to develop a political platform and legal arguments which defend and promote women’s rights within the marriage and family, as well as lobbying women’s and human rights groups in the USA and Europe to integrate this platform into their policies. Please see my blogs on the Huffington Post: www.huffingtonpost.com/quenby-wilcox-/, Womenalia.com: www.womenalia.com/us/blogs/having-it-all, and Family Courts in Crisis newsletter http://worldpulse.com/node/71182).

Within this platform is the stance (in concurrence with UN recommendations and rhetoric) that family law lawyers, judges, court-psychologists and prosecutors (as well as Bar Associations, Judge Associations, Psychological Associations, Judicial Review Boards, etc.) have a clear and pressing obligation to take positive action, not only in assuring that their own actions are in compliance with the law, but in assuring that the actions of their colleagues are in compliance with the law – rather than turning a blind-eye and covering-up for colleague’s negligence, malpractice, and illegal acts.

Until, and unless regulatory agencies and judicial actors send a strong message of accountability and responsibility to all those in the legal profession – rather than a message of impunity – governments will never fulfill their legal obligation to assure equality for women in the courts and protection for women and children against the rampant human rights violations within their homes.

In the expediente: 12008996 the Defensor del Pueblo contends that my case is “a private legal matter”, and “only a case involving the custody of my children”, declaring that “the discrepancies with the resolutions dictated by the courts and tribunals must be handled through legal channels provided for in our procedural laws, that you must exercise under the technical direction of your lawyer under the assumptions and requirements of said laws provided for before the competent courts of justice” – making the same assumption that my accusations of abuses of power and illegal activities are false and unfounded, as lawyers and judges are making in evaluating my accusations against my ex-husband, with the same prejudices and discriminatory norms.

My case, and thousands of other cases in Spain each year are not only “custodial issues” – without any importance. In light of the potential dangerous consequences (mortal in many cases) that children may suffer under the custody of emotionally unstable parents, taking custodial decisions lightly is irresponsible and extreme negligence of any public authority that under the law has a responsibility de protect the personal security of citizens (and all persons in their jurisdiction) and their rights.

Additionally, my case is not “a private legal matter”. The threats upon my life, destruction of my property (computers, website, etc. in order to prevent me from starting a company and obtaining financial independence), harassment, intimidation, fraud, defamation of character, etc., as well as the cover-up of these infraction, are criminal offenses and not “private legal matters”.

The first step that governments have to take in preventing the violation of the rights of their citizens is to assure that public authorities (Colegios de Abogados, Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Fiscalía General del Estado, Colegios de Psicólogos, etc.) investigate all complaints and allegation by victims; assuring total transparency, accountability, and responsibility in their judicial systems.

In consideration of the above mentioned, I hope that the Defensor del Pueblo will investigate with the utmost diligence my allegations against judicial actors and the failure of the Ilustre Colegio de Abogados, Consejo General del Poder Judicial and Instituto de la Mujer to investigate my complaints and allegations and/or the failure of said authorities to transfer my case to the appropriate authorities during 2012-2013.

Quenby Wilcox
Founder – Global Expats



Time Line of Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox, Spain – 2004-present

Table 1 & 2 – Violations of Rights & Infractions of Law in Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox

Domestic Violence and Abuse in Our Societies and Court Systems – report by Quenby Wilcox

Failure of Family Court to Protect Child of Sexual Abuse – report by Quenby Wilcox

Family Cpurts in Crisis – 1-14 Amnesty Internacional – What Specialized Justice ENG

Family Courts in Crisis – 12-13 Violence Against Women as a Human Rights Violation ENG

Family Courts in Crisis – 11-13 Save the Children Spain ENG


Linea de tiempo – Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox – SPA — 2004 – Jan. 2014

Tabla 1 y 2 -Infracciones cometidos con las violaciones de derechos y leyes indicados

Queja Oficial al Defensor del Pueblo Espanol (Wilcox vs. Spain) – SPA

Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox – Caso de Discriminacion Sancionado por el Estado y Debido Diligencia – CGPJ y Defensor del Pueblo


Crises en Tribunales de Familia – 1-14 Amnistia Internacional – Que justicia especializada SPA

Crises en Tribunales de Familia – 12-13 Violence Against Women as a Human Rights Violation SPA

Crises en Tribunales de Familia – 11-13 Save the Children Espana SPA

Violencia de Genero y Abuso de Poder en Nuestras Sociedades y Sistemas 

Instituto de la Mujer modelo de denuncia – Quenby Wilcox – firmado

Quejas al Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid – Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox 1143-2007 – INTRODUCCION

Quejas al Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid – Gonzalez de Alcala vs. Wilcox 1143-2007 – CONCLUSION

Recurso al Preliminar 859-13 Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid – Quenby Wilcox