Mette Marie Nielsen has not responded to any inquiries regarding her complicity in the organized fraud, which Denmark’s second largest Bank Jyske Bank A/S is behind.
It is beyond any doubt that Mette Marie Nielsen has undermined the legal certainty of her former client, after Jyske bank A/S bribed Lundgren’s lawyers, not to take a certain action, instead of helping the client to present Jyske Bank’s use of fraud before the court, Mette Marie chose together with Dan Terkildsen to oppose the client, in order to cover up Jyske Bank.
Mette Marie has therefore had a central role in Lundgren’s involvement in organized crime, by opposing the presentation of the client’s case against Jyske Bank A/S.
Mette Marie Nielsen chose instead to help Jyske Bank with continued fraud against her client for Lundgrens, by simply not presenting anything, and thus thwarting justice for her client.
Today, Mette Marie is employed as a lawyer at Danske Bank A/S, where it is stated that Mette has had a central role in depriving the client of the right to self-determination, and ensures that the client does not get a fair trial, and thus Mette Marie herself is been complicit in the organized crime that Mette Marie Nielsen had to help the client present to the court, Impractical, by knowingly and in bad faith opposing the presentation of the client’s case and pleadings against Jyske Bank.
UN Convention against Corruption.
Bribery in the private sector. Article 21.
When Jyske Bank bribed Lundgren’s lawyers not to take certain actions, in order to cover up Jyske Bank’s organized financial crime against a customer of the bank who was also a client of Lundgren’s lawyers, which Mette Marie Nielsen has contributed to.
Copy of this notice, sent to Mette Marie Nielsen, and the employer there 2022 / 2023 Danish Bank A/S, for a comment, or if Mette has objections or corrections to any of what I have written or am writing here.
This is shared, CC with Jyske Bank’s legal director Martin Skovsted-Nielsen. and Lundgren’s Tobias Vieth for their comments, corrections or objections.
14-12-2018. LISTEN TO THE RECORDING HERE. DK. /
14-12-2018. Appendix AH. Transcript of the interview DK.
Conversations are used in complaint about Lundgrens, to have been a client deeply disloyal, misled and opposed the client in order to disappoint in legal relations with Jyske Bank A/S, by not presenting the client’s claims and views, despite the fact that this is made clear in conversation.
05-06-2020. Annex 87 and Annex 91 of the complaint have been cleaned of comments and presented as Annex AH. and AI.
18-12-2018. LISTEN TO THE RECORDING HERE. DK. / conversation.
18-12-2018. Bilag AI. Transcript of the interview.
The client asks for the first time, 30-01-2018. Dan Terkildsen from Lundgrens, to present a case with several frauds and false relationships against Jyske Bank.
The client repeats this continuously, as here it, 16-02-2018. 16-02-2018. 04-05-2018. 07-07-2018.
01-10-2018. get a copy of the proceedings 1.
The client continues to provide information and asks Lundgrens to present the client’s claim against Jyske Bank.
It is very clear in the documents shared here what the client wants presented. 15-10-2018. 10-12-2018. conversation 14-12-2018. 16-12-2018. conversation. 18-12-2018.
18-12-2018. Mette Marie Nielsen submits Final Proceedings. and sends a copy.
The client again writes what the client wants presented to the court. 22-12-2018. 28-12-2018 del 1. 28-12-2018 del 2. 03-01-2019. 21-01-2019 .01-03-2019 conversation 22-03-2019 .09-05-2019. 17-06-2019.conversation 08-07-2019 .26-07-2019 .30-07-2019 .02-08-2019. 11-08-2019 .12-08-2019 .18-08-2019 .23-08-2019. 27-08-2019.
Dan Terkildsen answer the first time, 28-08-2019 and in an email and write, we must not use Fraud words in court.
02-09-2019 Emil Hald Vendelbo Winstrøm present Annex 164, with the client’s claims, without however writing them into the pleadings 2.
02-09-2019. Emil Hald Wendelbo presents pleadings 2. uden godkendelse, and without sharing a copy with the client.
The client who wants a copy therefore asks 05-09-2019 Dan Terkildsen, whether he can get a copy of Prosecskrift 2.
Which Lundgren’s lawyers do not want to hand over to the client.
The client, who has become unsure whether the Lundgrens might be corrupt, therefore asks, 20-09-2019. in mail 2.52. and 20-09-2019. in the attached letter, as well again ind mailen 20-09-2019. 04.10. The client here directly asks Lundgren’s Dan Terkildsen if Lundgren’s lawyers work for Jyske Bank.
Lundgrens Partner refuses to answer, and on the date 20-09-2019. bill Lundgren’s client for asking the question, see page 2 at the bottom..
The client found 21-09-2019. proof that Lundgrens has major financial interests with Jyske bank, Niels Gram-Hanssen has on 21-06-2018. advised Jyske Bank in a transaction for DKK 600,000,000. The client is waiting for Lundgrens to respond to the 2 emails on 20-09-2019. which does not happen.
The client cannot trust Lundgren’s lawyers, who are therefore fired. 24-09-2019. ind mail and with the attached letter, fired for being corrupt.
The client is required until 27-10-2019. himself to write and present the case procedurally before the court against Jyske Bank, and gets one on the same occasion copy of the pleadings from 02-09-2019, that does not contain a single one of the client’s placements.
The client now knows with 100% certainty that Jyske Bank bribed Lundgren’s lawyers not to present the client’s case against Jyske Bank A/S. but do not know how badly the corruption affects the authorities, including the Financial Supervisory Authority and the members of the Bar Council.
Og skriver derfor en seriøs og veldokumenteret klage, som her er delt med bilag i LINK.
05-06-2020. Klage med 27 klageforhold.
08-09-2020 Lundgrens besvarelse og afvisning.
28-09-2020. Klager svare Lundgrens og giver Dan Terkildsen 26 opfordringer.
08-12-2021. Dan Terkildsen er udeblevet, og har ikke svare på en eneste af de 26 opfordringer.
After this, regardless of the fact that Dan Terkildsen has not responded to the complaint’s 27 claims and the 26 requests.
Elects the Bar Council 30-06-2021. IN THE DECISION ON THE COMPLAINT 05-06-2020. by
Supreme Court Judge Kurt Rasmussen, from the court board and lawyers as Birgitte Frølund from Horten lawyers. Jens Steen Jensen from Kromann Reumert lawyers. lawyer Rikke Skadhauge Seerup Krogsgaard from the past. The Consumer Complaints Board, now Lægemiddelstyrelsen. and Henrik Hyltoft from Danish Business,”Dansk erhverv.” to reject all 27 objections.
Thus, the bar association shows that the board is ruled by nepotism / corruption and cronyism with their decision that the client does not have the right to see or obtain a copy of court records, pleadings, and otherwise may not decide anything in their own court case.
And that the Lundgrens, who have had large financial interests in Jyske Bank, have in no way disqualified Lundgren.
Regardless of the fact that it is documented that the Lundgrens have grossly worked against their client, have worked to undermine the client’s legal security, as well as worked to undermine the client’s finances, which is why Lundgren has taken DKK 232,000 for being corrupt and instead helped the counterparty Jyske Bank.
President of the Bar Association Martin Lavesen from DLA PIPER lawyers agrees. the bar council that the client does not decide anything, and has no right to anything, and then not to be presented with the client’s claims since it is the lawyer alone who decides, and the lawyer does not need to inform or involve the client in what the lawyer is doing.
Which is clearly undermining the legal certainty for the clients in Lundgrens, and depriving the Danish population of the right to self-determination, as well as depriving them of the right to be able to have a fair trial. Corruption in Denmark starts with the many mentioned persons, who together have manipulated the client who trusted Lundgrens. MP3. 14-12-2018. Mette Marie Nielsen says here you have to trust us.
At least these mentioned Dan Terkildsen, Mette Marie Nielsen, Emil Hald Vendelbo Winstrøm, Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen, Jens Grunnet-Nilsson, Karoline Stampe Eriksen and Pernille Hellesøe have all been involved in the case against Jyske Bank for Lundgren’s lawyers, and should none of these have knowledge that Jyske Bank bribed Lundgrens not to present some of the client’s claims in the trial against Jyske Bank A/S, it is unthinkable.
That’s why I’m writing it again.
LUNDGREN’S LAWYERS ARE CORRUPT.
Lundgrens teaches students to be both disloyal and misleading as well as manipulate their client, as well as to accept corruption.