JUZGADO PRIMERO DE DISTRITO EN MATERIA PENAL EN EL ESTADO DE QUERÉTARO
MARCO SCHACHTNER , of German nationality, residing at Lomas Casa Blanca, Calle 23, number 502, postal code 76080, Santiago de Querétaro, Querétaro, indicating the same address for notification purposes, and email address [email protected] , I appear before Your Honor with due respect, and in exercise of the constitutional right of action conferred upon me by articles 103, section I, and 107 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, in relation to articles 1°, 5°, section I, 6°, 17, 33 and other relevant and applicable articles of the Amparo Law, and I state:
CHAPTER I. ACT COMPLAINED OF
The act complained of is the ABSOLUTE AND CONTINUOUS OMISSION incurred by the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Querétaro, in the person of its head and the responsible Public Prosecutor, Attorney Lorena Vargas Moreno, by not having carried out any procedural action —nor notified any summons, proceedings, resolution or agreement of any nature— with respect to the five investigation files filed against the undersigned before said institution, namely:
File 24183/2023 , filed on July 5, 2023, by Heidi E. González, with accusation of animal abuse;
File 32313/2023 , presented on August thirty-one of two thousand twenty-three, by Javier Rivera García, with accusation of threats and acts of vandalism at home;
File 34163/2023 , submitted on September fourteenth of two thousand twenty-three, by Mónica E. Huerta, with accusation of gender violence;
Case file 37945/2023 , filed on October 13, 2023, by Heidi E. González, for repeated threats; and
File 41531/2023 , presented on November 10, 2023, by José Luis Alcocer de Alba, with accusation of dispossession.
From the date of the initiation of each of the aforementioned cases until the date of submission of this document, the responsible authority has not issued or communicated any determination, has not set a date for an initial hearing, has not filed charges, has not ordered any precautionary measures, has not dismissed or archived the case, nor has it carried out any procedural act whatsoever. This inaction is total and absolute and constitutes, in itself, a direct violation of the fundamental rights of the undersigned.
CHAPTER II. RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES
In accordance with Article 5, Section II, of the Amparo Law, the following authorities are designated as responsible:
First: The head of the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Querétaro, in his capacity as hierarchical superior and institutionally responsible for guaranteeing the proper exercise of the ministerial function.
Second: The Federal Public Prosecutor assigned to the aforementioned files, Attorney Lorena Vargas Moreno, in her capacity as an official directly obligated to promote the investigation ex officio and to respect the procedural deadlines and rights of the accused.
CHAPTER III. VIOLATED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
The omissions of the responsible authorities directly and immediately violate the following rights and guarantees recognized in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and in the international instruments to which Mexico is a party:
First. Right to legal certainty, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, second paragraph, by virtue of the fact that the undersigned is indefinitely linked to criminal proceedings without an initial hearing having been held nor his legal situation resolved, generating a state of absolute and unsustainable uncertainty.
Second. Right to due legal process, recognized in Article 14, second paragraph, and Article 20 of the Constitution, Section B, which guarantees the accused the right to know the charges made against him in the initial hearing, to offer evidence and to be heard, all of which has been materially denied to him by the omission of the authority.
Third. Right of effective access to justice within a reasonable time, protected in Article 17 of the Constitution and in Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits procedural indefiniteness and requires that every person be tried within a reasonable time or released.
Fourth. The right to the presumption of innocence, recognized in Article 20, Section B, Paragraph I, of the Constitution, is affected when a person remains indefinitely under active criminal investigation without any resolution, generating a prolonged state of public suspicion.
Fifth. The right to personal liberty, no longer being disturbed in his person, family, home, papers or possessions, recognized in Article 16 of the Constitution, since the existence of five open and indefinite files constitutes a latent and permanent threat to the legal sphere of the complainant.
CHAPTER IV. FACTS AND BACKGROUND
In order to inform Your Honor about the background that supports the present amparo proceeding, the following facts are presented, all of which will be proven with the accompanying documents:
First. The undersigned, Marco Schachtner, is a German citizen with regular residence in the State of Querétaro, with academic training of a master’s degree in finance and fifteen years of professional experience in regulatory compliance and prevention of money laundering in international banking institutions.
Second. Starting in July of the year two thousand twenty-three, the undersigned was the object of a coordinated and systematic series of criminal complaints filed with the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Querétaro, all of them without real basis, which constitute a pattern of procedural harassment implemented as a mechanism of retaliation for the investigations and complaints that the undersigned has promoted before various authorities.
Third. The five investigation files mentioned in Chapter I of this document were initiated between July 5 and November 10, 2023. From that date until today, none of them have registered any ministerial action, which demonstrates that their purpose is not the clarification of criminal acts but the generation of illegitimate procedural pressure on the undersigned.
Fourth. The pattern of harassment is perceptible simply by reading the accusations: the complainant Heidi E. González filed two complaints against the same defendant (files 24183/2023 and 37945/2023); Attorney Mónica E. Huerta filed an unsubstantiated accusation of gender violence; and the complainant José Luis Alcocer de Alba filed his complaint in direct retaliation for the complaint that the undersigned filed against him before the Tax Administration Service for duly documented tax and real estate irregularities.
Fifth. Given the complete inaction of the State Attorney General’s Office and having exhausted all available ordinary legal remedies, the undersigned filed a citizen complaint with the Comptroller’s Office of the State of Querétaro against the ministerial agent, Attorney Lorena Vargas Moreno. However, that office has not taken any action on the complaint. Furthermore, for more than four months, the undersigned attempted to contact the State Anti-Corruption Directorate, but was unable to obtain a response or a meeting with the Director, Mr. Benjamín Salazar. These efforts demonstrate the exhaustion of the ordinary legal remedies required by the Amparo Law as a condition for admissibility.
Sixth. My previous defense attorney, Everardo Velázquez Casas, Esq., formally appeared before the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Querétaro in at least one of the aforementioned cases, as evidenced by the recorded actions that demonstrate the existence of the proceedings and the official notification thereof. My relationship with said attorney was terminated by me, and I am currently without active legal representation before the responsible authority at the time of filing this document.
Seventh. The five investigation files are part of a broader scheme of harassment and organized crime linked to what I have documented as a network of diplomatic impersonation operating under the guise of honorary German consulates in Mexico. The fabricated accusations against me constitute coordinated reprisals intended to silence my public denunciation and obstruct my effective access to justice.
CHAPTER V. ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLE OF FINALITY
The present amparo proceeding is admissible under Articles 103, section I, and 107 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, as well as Articles 1, 5, section I, 17 and 33 of the Amparo Law, given that:
First, the act complained of is an omission by an authority, which, by its very nature, cannot be challenged through any ordinary remedy provided for in the National Code of Criminal Procedure, since there is no express resolution to appeal nor any time limit for appeal to run. The absolute and permanent omission does not generate a specific act that can be appealed, thus making direct amparo proceedings appropriate pursuant to Article 17 of the Amparo Law.
Second, it has been demonstrated that all ordinary institutional remedies available to the undersigned have been exhausted, including a complaint to the State Comptroller’s Office and inquiries to the Anti-Corruption Directorate, all without result. The practical impossibility of accessing these control mechanisms has been duly documented and justifies the granting of this amparo (constitutional protection) in accordance with the principle of relative finality recognized by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
Third, the deadline for filing this lawsuit has not expired because the omission claimed is continuous and permanent, being updated daily as long as the inaction of the responsible authority persists, in accordance with article 18, second paragraph, of the Amparo Law.
CHAPTER VI. CONCEPTS OF VIOLATION
First Ground of Violation. The responsible authorities violate the right to legal certainty and due process enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The undersigned is de facto linked to five criminal proceedings opened since 2023 without the initial hearing provided for in Article 307 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure having been held, nor has any formal charge been filed, nor has any legal situation been resolved. This indefiniteness violates the guarantee of legality in its most essential dimension, since the State cannot keep a person in a state of indefinite criminal uncertainty without acting in accordance with the timeframes and procedures required by law.
Second Ground of Violation. The responsible authorities violated the right to effective access to justice within a reasonable time, recognized in Article 17 of the Constitution and Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. According to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the State is obligated to process criminal cases within a reasonable time, determined based on the complexity of the matter, the procedural activity of the interested party, the conduct of the authorities, and the impact on the interested party. In the present case, none of these factors justifies the total inaction of more than twelve months in cases of an ordinary nature.
Third Ground of Violation. The responsible authorities violate the right to the presumption of innocence recognized in Article 20, Section B, Paragraph I, of the Constitution. The existence of five open investigation files, with recorded actions by defense counsel, but without any substantive resolution, constitutes a situation that objectively violates the presumption of innocence, since the undersigned remains under the social and institutional stigma of being subject to criminal investigation without the State having determined the existence or non-existence of the reported facts or established any kind of responsibility.
Fourth Ground of Violation. The responsible authorities violate Article 16 of the Constitution by maintaining open criminal proceedings without any action being taken, thus constituting a permanent and unjustified intrusion upon the complainant. This ministerial omission amounts to an indirect and continuous disturbance of the undersigned’s liberty and property, as he lives under the latent threat of acts of authority that could be carried out at any moment without prior notice or resolution.
CHAPTER VII. REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION AND RELATEDNESS
Based on Article 57 of the Amparo Law, which allows the accumulation of trials when there is a connection due to the subject, the act complained of or the responsible authority, and taking into account the criteria of procedural economy and logical consistency in the resolution of linked controversies, the undersigned respectfully requests that this District Court accumulate in a single file the study of the five investigation files indicated in Chapter I of this document.
The accumulation is appropriate in this case for the following reasons: all the files originate from the same responsible authority; all correspond to the same complainant as the accused; all exhibit an identical pattern of absolute inaction; and all form part of a coordinated scheme of procedural harassment whose joint resolution is indispensable to guarantee consistency, effectiveness and non-contradiction in the resolutions that this jurisdictional body may issue.
CHAPTER VIII. SUSPENSION OF THE CHALLENGED ACT
Based on articles 125, 126 and 138 of the Amparo Law, the undersigned requests the suspension ex officio and immediately of the challenged act, with the effect that the responsible authorities refrain from issuing any determination, order of linkage to process, order of appearance, restriction of movement or other precautionary measure in the files identified above, while the present constitutional trial is resolved.
The suspension is appropriate since the execution of any subsequent act derived from the files in a state of procedural abandonment could cause damages difficult to repair to the undersigned, and its granting does not affect public order or social interest, since what is claimed is precisely the omission of the State and not the performance of a positive act.
CHAPTER IX. EVIDENCE
To prove the facts and rights set forth in this document, the undersigned offers the following means of proof, which are attached to this document:
Public document. Copies of the acknowledgments of receipt corresponding to the investigation files 24183/2023, 32313/2023, 34163/2023, 37945/2023 and 41531/2023, which contain the file numbers, the date of presentation of each complaint and the data of the complainants.
Public document. Records of the actions recorded by the former defense attorney, Attorney Everardo Velázquez Casas, in at least one of the aforementioned files, which prove the formal existence of the proceedings and the institutional notification thereof.
Private document. Technical Guide of the File prepared by the undersigned, with a prior presentation date, in which the pattern of procedural harassment, the reprisals suffered, the exhaustion of citizen instances and the relationship between the fabricated complaints and the diplomatic impersonation network subject to federal investigation are systematically documented.
Private documentary evidence. Records of the actions taken before the Comptroller’s Office of the State of Querétaro against Attorney Lorena Vargas Moreno and before the Anti-Corruption Directorate against Director Benjamín Salazar, which demonstrate the exhaustion of the ordinary control mechanisms available.
Legal and human presumption. In all matters that favor the undersigned.
Procedural documents. In all matters arising from this trial.
CHAPTER X. PETITIONS
For the reasons stated above, I appear before Your Honor and respectfully request:
First. The present indirect amparo proceeding is admitted.
Second. The responsible authorities are required to submit their justified report within the legal timeframe, in order to prove the ministerial actions carried out in the investigation files indicated in Chapter I of this document, or, if applicable, acknowledge the omission claimed.
Third. The suspension of the challenged act is granted in the terms requested in Chapter VIII of this document.
Fourth. The accumulation of the five investigation files into a single amparo file is decreed in accordance with the request in Chapter VII.
Fifth. After the legal procedures, the undersigned is granted the protection of the Federal Justice system, with the effect that the responsible authorities proceed to process and resolve the investigation files within the period determined by this jurisdictional body, either by archiving, resolving the non-exercise of criminal action or initiating the criminal process in accordance with the National Code of Criminal Procedure, all within the applicable constitutional and legal deadlines.
Sixth. The present amparo lawsuit shall be notified to the Attorney General of the State of Querétaro for the corresponding legal purposes.
I PROTEST AS NECESSARY.
Santiago de Querétaro, Querétaro, March 17, 2026.
_________________________________________________
MARCO