26 januar time 01.30 is not ready to send.
January 2023. this is the draft of the letter I am sending to at least these mentioned authorities, companies and persons.
The Prime Minister’s Office.
The Danish Parliament and the Government
Prince Jørgens Gård 1.
1218 Copenhagen.
Denmark.
Please present it to Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen
And
Ministry of Justice
Slotsholmsgade 10.
1216 Copenhagen.
I request that you hand the letter over to Head of Department: Johan Kristian Legarth, who can familiarize himself with the contents of the letter.
And that the Head of Department then presents the letter to the Minister of Justice, Peter Hummelgaard
Please note that this is a draft and parts of what has previously been written to the Danish state, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, the Ministry of Justice, Minister of Justice Peter Hummelgaard, Denmarks Nationalbank and the Nationalbank’s director who, as of 1 February 2023, will be Christian Kettel Thomsen and the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority Jesper Berg.
You can follow the creation of the Letter here.
A letter that deals with how deeply ingrained corruption is in the Danish State, authorities and large Danish organisations and companies as law firms.
Unless these people and companies all agree with, Jens Steen Jensen, Birgitte Frølund, Kurt Rasmussen, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård, Henrik Hyltoft and Martin Lavesen in that none of these shared examples are violations of good legal practice.
A little further down I insert several examples, of what the members of the Danish Bar Council, as according to Supreme Court Justice Kurt Rasmussen do not consider to be a violation of the rules for good legal practice, but a reference to what these persons themselves have come to an agreement on.
And then asks by letter and email, at least each of the mentioned persons, authorities and organizations as well as companies, whether they agree with what, Jens Steen Jensen from Kromann Reumert lawyers, Birgitte Frølund from Horten lawyers, Kurt Rasmussen from the Supreme Court, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård from the consumer complaints board and Henrik Hyltoft from the Organization Dansk Erhverv “Denish Business” has decided, a decision that Martin Lavesen from DLA Pipper lawyers also agrees in.
Jens Steen Jensen, partner in Kromann Reumert, lawyers, has decided that the clients do not Need to know what their lawyers are doing.
foto Kromann Reumert.
Birgitte Frølund, partner in Horten lawyers, has decided that the clients do not Need to know what their lawyers are doing.
foto Horten advokater.
Kurt Rasmussen, the Supreme Court Judge has decided that the clients do not Need to know what their lawyers are doing.
Then the bar council with the chairman. Supreme Court judge Kurt Rasmussen, in front, chose to cover up Jyske Bank’s bribery of Lundgren’s lawyers, and decided that lawyers do not need to hand over either the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s pleadings to the client, the client has no right to get a copy of pleadings.
SEE THE COMPLAINT AND APPENDIX HERE.
foto advokatnævnet.
Martin Lavesen formand for Advokatrådet.
Partner i DLA Piper advokater. Oslo Pl. 2, 2100 København.
160 Aldersgate St, Barbican, London EC1A 4HT
6225 Smith Ave, Baltimore, MD 21209, USA
The DLA Piper lawyer agrees, has decided that the clients do not Need to know what their lawyers are doing.
foto. DLA PIPER.
Jens Steen Jensen, Birgitte Frølund, Kurt Rasmussen, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård, stand united behind the decision that a lawyer who hides and withholds one or more pleadings from their clients does not violate the rules of good legal practice, I suspect that they all act in the same unethical way towards all their clients.
Find Jyske Bank Boxen her
I would like to repeat the names of those who I assume all work to oppose justice, and who together in association have helped to cover up the corruption Jyske Bank A/S was behind, when the bank’s lawyers assisted the management to bribe Lundgren’s lawyers, presumably by help from Philip Baruch, former partner in Lund Elmer Sandager lawyers, and member of the board of Jyske Bank.
If Jyske Bank, Lundgren’s lawyers or Lund Elmer Sandager’s lawyers think I am wrong, call and arrange a meeting where we can examine my assumptions together.
Jens Steen Jensen from Kromann Reumert lawyers, Birgitte Frølund from Horten lawyers, Kurt Rasmussen from the Supreme Court, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård from the consumer complaints board and Henrik Hyltoft from the Organization Danish Business.
A decision that Martin Lavesen from DLA Pipper lawyers also agrees with, that none of the inmates and mentioned examples are any violations of the rules of good legal practice.
I am inserting parts of the complaint, “translated into English”, so that there are direct references to the fact, that the bar panel together in agreement and in association has decided, that none of the examples mentioned and inserted are any violations of good legal practice.
I ask here, if you agree with what the 5 members of the board of attorneys have decided, I request that you sign each example, that you agree with, and as this has predicated effect, for future decisions with the same complaint.
predicate effect = praedicatum, from praedicare.
Neither Supreme Court Judge Kurt Rasmussen, nor Partner Martin Lavesen from DLA Pipper lawyers, have responded to my inquiries, with the desire that the legal community confirms, that the bar panel in future similar complaints will arrive at the same decision, as here in an example.
Danish lawyers who withhold and hide one or more pleadings from their clients, have not violated the rules of good legal practice, as it is the client’s lawyer alone, and always who decides what the client must have handed over, or have knowledge of in the client’s case.
I ask you all, since the Bar Council has refused to publish my complaints, and the Bar Council’s decision and rejection of all the original 27th complaints, the Bar Council, where Judge Kurt Rasmussen and Partner Martin Lavesen at DLA Pipper lawyers, have a decisive influence, and has decided neither to publish the complain, nor the board’s decision, since the board has adopted, it is not for the public to know, the council’s view of what they do not consider to be a breach of good legal practice.
Therefore the Bar Council has decided, that it is not in the public interest to now.
Which is why the bar association hides a decision, that undermines the legal security of all Danes.
That’s why I write that either the bar council works through corruption, to counteract the rights of the little Danes, to thereby cover up bribery and fraud, which involves not only Lundgren’s lawyers but also Jyske Bank, which is the bank that has bribed Lundgren’s lawyers to oppose justice and to keep the client out of the client’s fraud and false case against Jyske Bank.
If you do not agree, as I request in this letter to confirm that the conditions mentioned are not a violation of good legal practice, then you simply have to sign that you agree.
If you refuse to answer, or if you do answer, you do not agree with the members of the Bar Council
I want to accuse the Danish Bar Council of being governed by corruption, i.e. cronyism and that it is happening to cover up corruption between Lundgren’s lawyers and Jyske Bank, and that the Bar Council is governed by the state’s economic interests, which are more important than complying the law.
If the bar council’s decision in the aforementioned complaints, of which I am only sharing some examples, should prove to be valid only in my complaint.
A complaint that deals with Danish lawyers having helped with fraud, and in the complaint Denmark’s second largest bank Jyske Bank group is part of the complaint, and that Jyske Bank A/S has very likely bribed Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, with the help of partners in Lund Elmer Sandager lawyers, who are also employed by Denmarks Nationalbank.
So my accusations are that the Danish Bar Council works through corruption, when the state economic interests in one of the mentioned situations come into play, in a complaint case.
If the Danish Bar Association is not corrupt, my request to all members of the board is that they each separately sign that the 27 complaints from the complaint of 5 June 2020 and which the Bar Association has unanimously decided do not contain any violations of good practice, the rules for lawyers, after the decision and the board’s rejection of all 27 complaints, set a precedent for future similar complaints after 30 June 2021.
I am sharing the entire complaint of 5 July 2020. with the 27 complaints that are on 160 pages.
As well as the answer that Lundgren’s Partner Dan Terkildsen gives on 4 pages.
About my 26th requests that I subsequently made to Lundgren’s partner Dan Terkildsen, who chose not to attend, i.e. which Dan Terkildsen did not want to answer.
Just as I share that the Bar Council has flatly rejected all 27 complaints, and this despite the fact that Lundgren’s Partner Dan Terkildsen does not appear in 26 calls, without the Bar Council giving this some damaging effect.
I am sharing parts of the complaint that fit into the few matters I mention, which I request you and the company or organization and authority you are employed by to respond.
In your opinion, is it a violation of good legal practice when a lawyer company, their partners and several employees both.
Withholds court records.
Withholds several pleadings.
Do not respond to the client’s request for a copy of a pleading which the client has presented through his lawyers in the client’s case, but which the client does not know the content of, in which the client wishes to be involved.
I share the entire bar council’s decision of 30 June 2021, which emphasizes that the lawyer decides arbitrarily about the case and what the lawyer wants to inform the client in the clinic’s case.
Your answer, and therefore the answer of the bar association, including all members of the board, must be used to find out whether the members of the bar association are thoroughly corrupt, in complaints where the state’s financial interests with an organization that is mentioned, and are part of a complaint-related.
Direction Kromann Reumert lawyers
Manager Kromann Reumert lawyers
Partner Kromann Reumert Jens Steen Jensen.
Direction at Horten lawyers
Manager Horten lawyers
Partner Birgitte Frølund
Supreme Court Judge Kurt Rasmussen, permanent employee of the Western High Court.
Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård, former lawyer in the Consumer Complaints Board.
Danish Business Deputy Director Henrik Hyltoft
The organization Dansk Erhverv managementen
Advokatrådet att: Martin Lavesen
Som valgt til ny formand for Advokatrådet. Med et kodeks som er Retfærdighed og ordentlighed.
Direction DLA Piper lawyers
Manager DLA Piper lawyers
Partner DLA Piper Martin Lavesen
Advokatnævnet att.: højesteretsdommer Ole Hasselgaard.
Højesteretsdommer Kurt Rasmussen.
Jeg spørger også Højesteret da korruptionen / Kammerateri har tråde helt til Højesteret. post@hoejesteret.dk
Domstolsstyrelsen og Direktør Kristian Hertz.
Finanstilsynet ledelsen og Carsten Holdum.
Danmarks Nationalbank Direktionen. Christian Kettel Thomsen
Signe Krogstrup, tidligere direktør Lars Rohde, Per Callesen, Denmark’s National Bank.
Forbrugerklagenævnet, ledelsen.
Direction Lund Elmer Sandager lawyers
Manager Lund Elmer Sandager lawyers
Partner Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen
Direction Lundgrens lawyers
Manager Lundgrens lawyers
Partner Dan Terkildsen.
Mette Marie Nielsen tidligere ansat i Lundgrens advokater, i dag ansat i Danske Bank A/S.
Emil Hald Vendelbo Winstrøm. tidligere ansat i Lundgrens advokater, i dag ansat i Rambøll Danmark A/S
Finans Danmark.
Statsminister Mette Frederiksen
Statsministeriet
Justitsminister Peter Hummelgaard
Justitsministeriet
Folketinget og retsudvalget.
Mail / letter will be corrected to English, updated and sent to all persons, companies and authorities mentioned below in the posting.
I do this to find out whether the members of the bar association are thoroughly corrupt.
Which must be the case if the Bar Council knows Jens Steen Jensen from Kromann Reumert lawyers, Birgitte Frølund from Horten lawyers, Kurt Rasmussen from the Supreme Court, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård from the consumer complaints board and Henrik Hyltoft from the Organization Dansk Erhverv, a decision that Martin Lavesen from DLA Pipper lawyers
Overfor mig, har vedtaget at
eller om de 27. klage forhold som jeg 5. juni 2020 indklagede Lundgrens advokat partner selskab for, og som også var en klage over den konservative partner Dan Terkildsen.
Dear all of you who will receive or see this mail, “letter”
I am writing in connection with the corruption and the Chamber of Commerce as well as the abuse of power practiced by the Danish state, including the courts, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of State, who are aware that Denmark’s second largest bank, the Jyske Bank group, is behind organized crime against the bank’s customer.
But since the Danish state and authorities have strong financial interests in Jyske Bank, the state and several authorities, who would otherwise be responsible for the Danes’ legal security, have chosen to work against and oppose justice towards those who are subjected to gross abuse by large Danish banks fraud.
Which is the reason why I write that several employees of the Danish Courts Agency and the Bar Association seem corrupt, or even corrupt.
When I use words such as corrupt, it is because, I mean that camaraderie means that powerful friends cover up, their friends who may work against justice, and that these friends cover up any criminal acts of their friends.
A.
So what I am writing is that cronyism and corruption are the same.
I have written several inquiries to both the Parliament and the Government as well as several others, and asked them questions about this understanding, A is correctly perceived, but no politicians or authorities will answer me to this question either.
Statsministeriet • stm@stm.dk
CC.
fm@fm.dk
Justitsministeriet • jm@jm.dk
REU@ft.dk
Jura og Forretning • jur@domstolsstyrelsen.dk
SAK@ankl.dk
saoek@ankl.dk
24 januar 2023.
Statsministeriet.
Folketinget og Regeringen
Prins Jørgens Gård 1.
1218 København.
Denmark.
Kære Statsminister Mette Frederiksen.
Som du og regeringen er bekendt med, har jeg skrevet kontinuerligt til Statsministeren’s kontor siden april 2019, startende med henvendelser til Lars Løkke Rasmussen, og så den efterfølgende statsminister som er dig.
Jeg har selvfølgelig noteret at hverken du, eller din forgænger VENSTRE og Lars Løkke Rasmussen har villet svaret mig på barer en eneste af mine mange henvendelse.
Må jeg spørge hvad grunden er til at regeringen og statsministeren stadig ikke har svaret på en eneste af de henvendelser jeg har skrevet siden april 2019. ?
Inden længe hvis ikke Jyske Bank selv finder en løsning, vil du personligt som regeringschef i Danmark, modtage samme anmodning som mange andre.
Så når jeg skriver og beder alle modtagere af dette brev, inklusive regeringen og Statsministeren om at i bekræfter at i er enige med.
Jens Steen Jensen fra Kromann Reumert, Birgitte Frølund fra Horten, Kurt Rasmussen fra Domstolene, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård og Henrik Hyltoft fra Dansk Erhverv. i at
1.
Det er ikke en overtrædelse af god advokatskik når.
En advokat skjuler og tilbageholder egne processkrifter over for advokatens egen klient.
——————————
2.
Det er ikke en overtrædelse af god advokatskik når.
En advokat heller ikke på anmodning udleverer klienten kopi af advokatens egne processkrift.
——————————
3.
Det er ikke en overtrædelse af god advokatskik når.
En advokat skjuler og tilbageholder modpartens processkrifter over for advokatens egen klient.
——————————
4.
Det er ikke en overtrædelse af god advokatskik når.
Når en advokat tilbageholder dele af retsbogen over for advokatens egen klient.
——————————
5.
Det er ikke en overtrædelse af god advokatskik når.
Når en advokat ikke fremlægger klientens anbringer i klientens sag, og samtidig ikke svare på klientens henvendelser omkring det klienten siger er vigtigt, og skal fremlægges.
——————————
6.
Det er ikke en overtrædelse af god advokatskik når.
Når et advokatfirma arbejder for både sagsøger og sagsøgte samtidig, bare det ikke sker i samme sag. Hvorfor en advokatvirksomhed A. der har fået til opgave at fremlægge en svig og falsk sag mod sagsøgte B. Efterfølgende og samtidig kan samme advokatfirma A. godt give B. rådgivning i en handel på omkring 600.000.000 dkk. uden at det er en overtrædelse god advokatskik.
——————————
OG DER KOMMER MERE, MEN VI SKAL JO STARTE ET STED.
Dette er blot et par af de spørgsmål jeg stiller, og hvis i alle underskriver, at sådan må advokater arbejde, og altså, at intet af det ovenfor nævnte, er overtrædelser af god advokatskik, vil det have en indvirkning på en klage til den europæiske domstol, altså en formæl klager over den Danske Stat, for at fratage den enkelte Dansker til selv at bestemme, ”Umyndiggørelse” hvis de vælger en dansk advokat.
✍️
Så er det naturligvis blot for at det skal bruges til den kommende klage over den Danske Stat, da jeg kan koncentrere at staten, selv er medvirkende til en umyndiggørelse af de personer som opsøger danske advokater, med mindre at statsministeren er uenig i de ovennævnte 6. ovenstående punkter.
Hvilket efter min opfattelse er en overtrædelse af konventioner for et menneskes ret til selvbestemmelse over egne meninger og hvad med et menneske måtte have et ønske om at få fremlagt for de danske domstole.
Hvis Statsministeren og Statsministeriet er enige i det som advokat rådet har vedtaget ikke er nogen overtrædelser af god advokatskik.
Så anmoder jeg allerede i dag 24 januar 2023. Statsminister Mette Frederiksen om at underskrive og dermed godkende, at ingen af de de ovenfor nævnte 6 punkter, er nogle overtrædelser af god advokatskik.
Og sender det Underskrevne dokument til min mail, banknyt@gmail.com
Hvis Statsminister Mette Frederiksen er uenige med Jens Steen Jensen Kromann Reumert, Birgitte Frølund Horten, Kurt Rasmussen Højesteret, Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgård og Henrik Hyltoft Dansk Erhverv, i at sådan skal god skik reglerne fortolkes, anmoder jeg om at Statsministeren tager dette op i Folketinget, og giver mig en meddelelse herom.
Efter som det er undergravende for danskernes retssikkerhed, at en klient der opsøge en dansk advokat, ingen rettigheder har i sin sag, og at advokater efter på godt befindende, kan holde klienterne ude af sagerne, hvorfor korruption blandt danske advokater får frit spil, og at alle advokater i så fald, uden risiko kan tage mod bestikkelse for ikke at fremlægge deres klienteres påstande for domstolene.
Jeg anmoder at Statsministeren Mette Frederiksen tager mine første 6. punkter om med Statsministeriets ansatte og departementschef, og at Statsministeren sikre sig at Socialdemokratiet som parti er indraget i statsministerens beslutning, således Socialdemokratiets medlemmer har mulighed for at tilkendegive deres mening over for Statsministeren Mette Frederiksen inden en eventuel underskrift på at de 6. punkter ikke er nogle overtrædelser af god advokatskik.
Jeg vil senere fremsende et dokument tilsvarende det allerede først sendte, og som her er vedhæftet.
Jeg har oplyst og oplyser igen til Statsministeriet og Statsministerens kontor at jeg kontinuerligt har søgt at komme i dialog med Jyske Bank og deres ledere, hvilket banken ikke har ønsket at kommentere eller svare på.
🫱🫲
Min opfordring som skrevet 19-10-2022. til Jyske Bank A/S.
Er stadig hvis Jyske Bank gerne vil lave en aftale, det lukker min mund og gerne min bog, så bør det ske inden jeg har skrevet til alle dem som er medvirkende i mine bøger, hvilken i ved jeg er gået i gang med.
Jeg har før tilladt mig at forslår Jyske Banks advokat Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen om at kunne mødes, Jyske bank ville ikke lave nogle aftaler med selskabet som Jyske Bank har udsat for svig og falsk, men nu er det jo også mig der skriver.
Hvis Jyske Bank har et fornuftigt forslag, kan lukker alle kapiteler i bogen, og aldrig tale mere om det skete.
Jeg kender ikke Jyske Banks holdninger, men i gør vel hvad i alene mener er bedst for Jyske Bank A/S.
JEG ARBEJDER FOR ☮️ OG FRED.
Det må Statsministeren gerne viderebringe oplysninger om til Jyske Bank koncernens ledelse og Anders Dam.
Har Statsministeren eller Statsministeriet nogle spørgsmål omkring det jeg skriver, står jeg til rådighed.
Og hvis Statsminister Mette Frederiksen mener som Jyske Bank ved Philip Baruch Lund Elmer Sandager skrev 1 februar 2019. til deres ven Dan Terkildsen Lundgrens advokater, at det er strafbar handling at skrive som gør, om Jyske Banks aktiviteter, så anmoder jeg også her at statsministeren svare, således jeg kan rette op.
Med Venlig Hilsen
Carsten Storbjerg Skaarup
Søvej 5
3100 Hornbæk
+4522227713
✍️✍️✍️✍️🗣️🗣️
Would you like to share this email with Lundgren’s lawyers, who are tenants in Regus management aps. since your tenant in the Property Tuborg Blvd. 12, 2900 Hellerup has blocked my mail
RETTET Fwd: Kære alle sammen i Jyske Bank Juridisk og koncernlergruppe, og jer alle der forholder jer passivet, til den vidne i har fået om Jyske Banks forretningsmetoder.
DETTE HER KAN LØSES MED DIALOG I SKAL BLOT TALE MED MIG, HVEM TØR SVARE
Anders Dam dette her er en mulighed få nu talt med mig, så løser vi dette her og du kan gå af.
Forwarded message
Fra: Carsten Storbjerg <carsten.storbjerg@gmail.com>
Fra: Carsten Storbjerg <carsten.storbjerg@gmail.com>
Date: man. 23. jan. 2023 22.20
Subject: Would you like to share this email with Lundgren’s lawyers, who are tenants in Regus management aps. since your tenant in the Property Tuborg Blvd. 12, 2900 Hellerup has blocked my mail.
Fwd: RETTET. Fwd: Kære alle sammen i Jyske Bank Juridisk og koncernlergruppe, og jer alle der forholder jer passivet, til den vidne i har fået om Jyske Banks forretningsmetoder.
DETTE HER KAN LØSES MED DIALOG I SKAL BLOT TALE MED MIG,
HVEM TØR SVARE, Anders Dam dette her er en mulighed få nu talt med mig, så løser vi dette her og du kan gå af.
Cc: Statsministeriet <stm@stm.dk>, Justitsministeriet <jm@jm.dk>, <direktion@jyskebank.dk>, <juridisk@jyskebank.dk>, <martin.nielsen@jyskebank.dk>, Morten Ulrik Gade <MUG@jyskebank.dk>, <REU@ft.dk>, <saoek@ankl.dk>, <SAK@ankl.dk>
We have repeatedly written to Lundgren’s lawyers about a bribery case in which Lundgren’s lawyers have been bribed by Denmark’s second largest bank to undermine a client’s legal certainty.
We want to give Lundgren’s lawyers and the management the opportunity to explain themselves, but since the law office and the partners in Lundgrens have blocked my email address, I imagine asking the landlord Regus to pass on a copy of this email, which will be translated for use by a possible complaint to the European Court of Justice against the Danish State.
This is before I started contacting some of Lundgren’s clients, as this might be necessary to draw attention to the fact that the Jyske Bank group has used bribes, which the Danish State then covers up.
Would you like to inform us that we will share with the landlord to Horten lawyers in the same way, since an employed partner has helped to cover up the corrupt Lundgren’s lawyers, Lundgren’s lawyers already know them.
Since Lundgren’s lawyers have blocked us, I am sharing this here with Jyske Bank, which is a major client of Lundgren’s.
Then Jyske Bank can decide whether they want to share my experiences between Jyske Bank and Lundgren’s lawyer Partner company.
Since Lundgrens together with Jyske Bank has a central role, in a corruption case the Danish state knows everything about, but does not want to talk about, therefore I do a little extra to be heard.
As you can see, the entire Danish state and authorities are informed that Lundgren’s lawyers have been bribed by the Jyske Bank group, not to present the small client’s case against Jyske Bank.
There is simply no one who wants this to be investigated in Denmark.
Since no one in the Kingdom of Denmark has wanted to respond to some of my many inquiries, and no authorities want to help me with either the investigation or the unraveling of the financial crime I write about was carried out by Jyske Bank.
So I know the reason why I had to do my own little investigation.
I apologize for having to disturb you, and hope you will help and ensure that Lundgren’s management receives or forwards this copy.
Thank you for your inconvenience.
Greetings, a concerned citizen.
Subject: RETTET Fwd: Kære alle sammen i Jyske Bank Juridisk og koncernlergruppe, og jer alle der forholder jer passivet, til den vidne i har fået om Jyske Banks forretningsmetoder. DETTE HER KAN LØSES MED DIALOG I SKAL BLOT TALE MED MIG, HVEM TØR SVARE, Anders Dam dette her er en mulighed få nu talt med mig, så løser vi dette her og du kan gå af.
To: <direktion@jyskebank.dk>, <martin.nielsen@jyskebank.dk>, Morten Ulrik Gade <MUG@jyskebank.dk>, <lm@jyskebank.dk>, <juridisk@jyskebank.dk>
Cc: Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen <kbn@les.dk>, Statsministeriet <stm@stm.dk>, <fm@fm.dk>, Justitsministeriet <jm@jm.dk>, Kommunikation <kommunikation@nationalbanken.
Cc: Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen <kbn@les.dk>, Statsministeriet <stm@stm.dk>, <fm@fm.dk>, Justitsministeriet <jm@jm.dk>, Kommunikation <kommunikation@nationalbanken.
Kære alle sammen, har lige rettet et par skrive fej.
Til jeres orientering, og for at råbe jer op, jeg retter dokumentet.
For helvede Anders Dam, tag dig nu sammen, og løs dette her.
Ring til mig så jeg ikke skal indklage den danske stat og regering for at overtræde noget som helst.
+4522227713
Bedste hilsner
Jeres alle sammens mest ihærdige og måske mest irriterende og nu pr. 30 december 2022. tidligere kunde.
Forwarded message
Fra: Carsten Storbjerg <carsten.storbjerg@gmail.com>
Date: man. 23. jan. 2023 15.11
Date: man. 23. jan. 2023 15.11
Subject:
Kære alle sammen i Jyske Bank Juridisk og koncernlergruppe, og jer alle der forholder jer passivet, til den vidne i har fået om Jyske Banks forretningsmetoder.
DETTE HER KAN LØSES MED DIALOG I SKAL BLOT TALE MED MIG, HVEM TØR SVARE,
Anders Dam dette her er en mulighed få nu talt med mig, så løser vi dette her og du går af.
Bagefter holder jeg mund.
To: <juridisk@jyskebank.dk>, <direktion@jyskebank.dk>, <martin.nielsen@jyskebank.dk>, Morten Ulrik Gade <MUG@jyskebank.dk>, <lm@jyskebank.dk>
Cc: Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen <kbn@les.dk>, Statsministeriet <stm@stm.dk>, <fm@fm.dk>, Justitsministeriet <jm@jm.dk>, Kommunikation <kommunikation@nationalbanken.
Har danske statsborgere ret til at vide hvad deres advokater laver, eller har danskere ingen rettigheder efter de har anmodet et hvilket som helst advokatfirma om at hjælpe dem.
Dette er samtidig en anmodning til at Den Danske Stat, det vil sige at folketinget tager ansvar for at iværksætte en undersøgelse, for om jeg har ret i det jeg har skrevet.
I kan kan jo bare sige ja du har har ret.
Eller i kan sige du har ikke ret i det hele, men det er i store træk sandt det du skriver.
Dette er igen et forslag og tilbud om at lave en aftale om at jeg stoppe med at skrive, Anders Dam det er dig og dine medarbejder som er grunden til at jeg skriver.
Din og bankens grådighed og jagt penge gør at selv staten bør sætte spørgsmålstegn ved bankens troværdighed som en bank staten kan bruge og eller have et samarbejde med.
Jeg er indstillet på at glemme alt, og slette alt jeg kan hvor jeg kan, du og Jyske Bank skal bare have et ønske om det, og så hjælpe med at vi sammen rydder op.
