Falsification of the project's real name by the Prosecutor's Office to mislead

The identity of the project is not a detail in this case: it is the object on which the investment, the valuations and the accusation bear. This annex documents how it was named.

The two names

• mildeseos.com: the name that appears in the Basque Government's administrative file, in the valuation report of page 4, in the rectification of page 125 (A.10), in the technicians' Report-Proposal (A.5) and in the internet archive trail (A.25).
• "miavatar.com": the name that appears in pieces of the accusation referring to the same project.

The verifiable effect of the name change

Anyone examining the case searching for "miavatar" will not find: the valuations of 1,778,000 euros, the inspections preceding the payments, nor the project's public archive. All the documentation favourable to the accused is indexed under the real name. The incorrect name in effect disconnects the accusation from the administrative file that contradicts it.

Is there an ordinary explanation?

A material transcription error is possible in any document. What distances that hypothesis is the function of the erroneous datum: it is not an incidental date but the identity of the object of the proceedings, repeated, never rectified, and coinciding in its effect with the other documented omissions — the unvalued deeds (A.1), the unmentioned inspections (A.5), the valuations absent from the non-compliance order (A.6).

How to verify it

Compare the name of the project in the accusatory pieces with the one appearing on pages 4 and 125 of the administrative file (A.10) and in the internet archive (A.25). There are two names; only one has a file.