The Supreme Court has upheld the separation from service of a first sergeant of the Navy after dismissing his appeal against the expulsion sanction imposed by the Ministry of Defense. The military officer, stationed at the Arsenal of Las Palmas, was found responsible for very serious offenses for performing disrespectful acts against the Crown and institutions, as well as for repeatedly violating the duty of political neutrality. The ruling confirms that the non-commissioned officer used his social networks to spread ideological and mystical proclamations incompatible with his professional status.
The investigation by the Naval Security Section of the Canary Islands was decisive for his identification. Despite acting as a spiritual leader, the non-commissioned officer often identified himself as ‘military’ in his profiles, even posting videos in uniform filmed in his own office at the Arsenal during working hours. He even used technical naval jargon in his posts, bragging about having ‘brushed the machine’ of the tugboat Y-148, a maintenance task characteristic of his actual assignment that allowed investigators to unequivocally link his online activity with his physical identity.
The Supreme Court has confirmed the separation from service of a first sergeant of the Navy stationed at the Arsenal of Las Palmas, following one of the most unusual disciplinary cases in recent years. The military was sanctioned for very serious offenses of disloyalty to the Crown and violation of political neutrality, committed through an intense digital diplomacy activity that mixed political criticism with mysticism.
Arsenal of Las Palmas
What stands out most about the case is that the non-commissioned officer publicly presented himself as the ‘Prophet of Crom’ and ‘High Sukinsin’, leader and founder of a religious organization created by himself. Under this identity, he drafted a foundational document titled ‘Melting, Teachings and Revelations of Pacojavi 1 Prophet of Crom. Praise be to Crom and his Whore Mother’, which he even registered with the Intellectual Property Registry and disseminated among his fellow officers.
In his social profiles, the sergeant alternated his role as a spiritual leader with his condition as a military, even posting videos in uniform filmed in his own office at the Arsenal during work hours. In this content, he expressed harsh criticisms against the Head of State, the Government, and various judicial institutions, using terms that the court has classified as ‘contemptuous, defamatory, and offensive.’
During the proceedings, the appellant attempted to defend himself by claiming that his statements were made not as a military, but strictly in his capacity as ‘High Priest’ of his religion, arguing that he was protected by religious freedom. However, the Supreme Court rejected these arguments, pointing out that his military status does not disappear simply because he acts under a religious alias, especially when he himself identified as such to lend weight to his opinions.
Persecution
The court not only confirmed the expulsion but also dismissed the sergeant’s serious accusations of ‘religious persecution’ and prevarication against the instructor of the file. The ruling emphasizes that the military did not withdraw the publications even after being officially reprimanded, maintaining his challenge to the institutions he swore to defend until the end.
The most unusual aspect of the case lies in the creation of a parallel religious identity. Under the alias ‘Prophet of Crom’ and ‘High Priest’, he drafted and registered with the Intellectual Property Registry a document titled ‘Melting, Teachings and Revelations of Pacojavi 1 Prophet of Crom. Praise be to Crom and his Whore Mother’. In this writing, the military expressed his worldview and made political criticisms, a document he even disseminated among civilian and military personnel of his own workplace.
The content of his messages directly attacked the pillars of the State. According to the resolution, the sergeant labeled the Judiciary as ‘corrupt’, referring to the National Court as ‘National Audience’, and launched harsh criticisms against the Head of State and the Prime Minister. He also publicly expressed his sympathy for the Catalan independence movement and referred to those convicted in the Altsasu case as ‘political prisoners’. In a submission addressed to His Majesty the King, he even demanded an institutional declaration that delegitimized the regime prior to the Constitution.
In his defense, the appellant argued that his statements were dogmas of faith and that his expulsion was a ‘religious persecution’. However, the court rejected this argument as ‘artificial’, noting that excessive political criticism is not part of the freedom of worship. The ruling emphasizes that the right to religious freedom does not exempt one from the general duties imposed by law nor from respecting the political neutrality inherent to military service. By not having withdrawn the publications even after the opening of the file, the Supreme Court concludes that the sanction of separation from service is fully compliant with the law.
This news was written by Gara H. Vega. Edited and verified by Pedro Marrero. Information cross-checked without institutional filters. This analysis has not been funded by official advertising nor conditioned by lobby interests.
