opdate 30-03-2020
It’s pretty funny. Here you only get 2 dates that show that Lundgrens is a rotten lawyer Corporation
January 8 and 9, 2019 September 1 and 2, 2019.
Lundgrens does not share the court’s information Lundgrens does not write the client’s witnesses on litigation 2,
nor does he share the litigation with the client
Remember that Lundgren’s lawyers must be corrupt
Since what we write and ask Lundgren to present here September 1, 2019.
And like Lundgrens, the day after September 2, 2019, is Lundgrens presented a chase as is 100% against the client’s instructions
01-09-2019
Remember this is only one of maybe 100 letters and mails to Lundgrens where we ask them to present our case against Jysk Bank A/S Silkeborg Denmark

02-09-2019 1/5 The client’s attorneys Dan Terkildsen. Lawyer and Partner Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistant. Mette-Marie Nielsen. Clerk / Student Emil Hald Winstrøm. Clerk / Student Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Attorney Director at Lundgren’s partner company cannot read and understand Danish, the question is whether Jyske Bank’s group management has really bribed Lundgrens attorneys to counter their client’s case was brought to court, and Jo Dan Terkildsen you say there are conspiracy theories! are you sure

02-09-2019 2/5

02-09-2019-S.4-5. Lundgrens fremlægger deres processkrift 2 stadig uden klientens påstande og uden at sende klienten en kopi.
02-09-2019 4/5

02-09-2019 5/5
See the letter and mail of September 1 and what Lundgrens presents to the court on September 2. and without wanting to share a copy with their client.
It must be Denmark’s biggest bribery case, where Denmark’s next largest bank Jyske Bank A/S has bribed Lundgren’s lawyers to counter their client in order to disappoint in legal matters.
Or do the Danish Bank Jyske Bank A/S and Lundgrens have another explanation, then we would like it so that we can share it.
We do not want to accuse Lundgren’s lawyers of being a corrupt law firm.
We either want or accuse Jyske Bank A/S of being a criminal.
And we will not at all accuse Jyske Bank A/S of using bribes to prevent Lundgrens from presenting our allegations against Jyske Bank for false and fraud.
Now remember that conversation promotes the understanding of Anders Christian Dam If Jyske Bank has not bribed Lundgren’s “hidden as Return Commission” for Lundgrens, not to present their client’s fraud allegations against Jyske bank.
Then this entry in the journal banking news should of course be corrected.
This is just one example of the many times Lundgrens since February 5, 2018 And until Lundgrens was fired on September 25, 2019.
Where Lundgrens has, at its most serious, opposed the law, and that which the Danish lawyer community must protect, namely the trust in the Danish lawyers.
When Lundgrens has cheated on their client, and instead worked for the defendant Jyske Bank A/S, in Denmark’s most serious case of exploitation and fraud carried out by a large Danish bank A/S, it weakens confidence in the large Danish lawyer’s houses.

Quality and professionalism are the least you can expect from Lundgrens We couldn’t get Lundgren’s lawyers to help us. But got bills for DKK 185,000 for Lundgrens Partner Company, did not submit some of our fraud claims to Jyske Bank A / S We have asked Lundgrens to pay back every penny we have transferred to their account.
Appendices and letters are inserted in a timeline, and a page is created for those who have helped not stop Jyske Bank’s fraud
We move the list below pages into the blog so that the page gets cluttered
Letters come a little below
And inserted continuously.
Before you consider using or working for Lundgren’s attorneys, you should read the page here to know if Lundgrens is a corrupt law firm it is bribed to harm some of their clients’ cases.
Here comes a LINK to the same page.
But in Danish
Here comes a LINK to all Appendix

We have of course sent a jersey similar to CEO Anders Christian Dam, who has not even called and said thank you.
🙂
And why is Jyske bank so indifferent, and Lundgren’s lawyers who say it is damn well done with this advertising car, which since 2016 November has been seen in the Copenhagen street picture.
What we need is dialogue.
Which Jyske Bank’s management refuses.
Then we need a lawyer, that’s what you read in the shared letters below.
But it is incredibly difficult of leading cases against criminal organs.
When plaintiff’s attorneys can be bought by defendants
When yes Jyske bank has then tried to get Thomas Schioldan Sørensen rodstenen.dk to lure us, to a meeting with Jyske Bank’s lawyer Philip Baruch,.
Which has clearly been to entice us to, accept a Swap for the loan we took home on 03-07-2009, but as nothing to do with Appendix 1.
–
Appendix 1.
Which Jyske Bank board member also has lied to the court about.
You can also read in the letters we sent to the court
The court has not ruled on any of the inquiries
Letters come a little below
And inserted continuously.
–
You need to keep up as, we insert more and more letters, to help you understand how big this case has become.
–
Small for Jyske bank A/S
But big for us, who have had, to present our claims to the court
by ourself.
–
On this page, you should be able to see many of the letters we have sent on a regular basis, for the most part that Lundgrens has not answered.
Read and see how we have been begging
Lundgren’s lawyer partner company to help us, and present our claims to the court.
Which Lundgrens did not live up to. 🙁
So you can understand, that this case ranks very high, in the political system, where no government will help the victim, which is exposed to the Danish bank Jyske bank’s crimes against the small company.
The company therefore only fights 1 man against Denmark’s second largest bank Jysk bank, to get the bank’s fraud against the customer stopped.
🙂
The client who has found one lawyer.
Who is alone.
And who is honest.
And would like to help the client bring their case against Jyske Bank A/S for fraud and false in danish court.
Now at least these 5 lawyers.
at Lundgren’s partner company
Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director
All these in Lundgren’s partner company, has had with our case to do, should so many lawyers at Lundgrens be able to misunderstand, what we have continuously written.
!
Hardly.
Or have Lundgrens, received a million payments from Jyske Bank A/S
In the form of return commission. just to misunderstand, and ignore everything, which we have constantly written, should be presented in court.
🙁
As Thomas Schioldan Sørensen has sent our case and many letters, and emails to Lundgren’s many attorneys, as so also has been able, to see and read the letters which we since February 2016, have been sent to Thomas Schioldan Sørensen rodstenen, about changing the client’s allegations against Jyske Bank A/S for fraud and false.
That Thomas Schioldan Sørensen from Rödstenen has ignored, our new allegations is on thing, but that Lundgrens can be bought by the defendant, to work for the defendant is abhorrent.
And so Lundgrens has even boasted about it on their own website. “by Niels Gram-Hanssen partner”
Although Partner Dan Terkildsen of Lundergren’s lawyers, after they were fired, has written
It is conspiracy theories.
And that Lundgrens has done a great job for us. Then we thought this is similar to more and more damaging business, and it seemed to happen by bribery between some of Denmark’s largest companies.
But here Goliath is up against little David, who does not intend to give up just because Jyske Bank has found political contacts.

When a bookkeeper in Lundgrens can’t even figure out, how to post a payment on the right client
Then there is probably also a mess in the accounts and in the cases of Lundgren’s lawyers.
OR WHAT APPEAL WOULD LUNDGRENS
LAW PARTY COMPANY ELLERS
COME WITH.
?
Should these 5 attorneys at Lundgrens not be able, to read what we write that they have to present in court.
And in terms of the law, and the legal ethics rules, one learns from Lundgren’s scars are reputable lawyers who have to counteract their clients’ cases.
THE QUESTION IS FOR THESE MEMBERS OF LUNDGREN’S LAWYERS.
Can sleep well at night.
After all, you are actually helping the Jyske bank group to make fraud, in that way you have countered our case.
You should be ashamed
Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director
Because there is also no mention of, in some places, that the case against Jyske Bank is about Fraud, right?
Lundgren’s lawyers must be saddely corrupt.
Since Lundgrens chose to pursue a different case against Jyske Bank A/S
NOT one assertion than we have written continuously, was presented in court
We make a page in Danish / and one in English texts
for all Lundgren’s letters, and the other contributors

where the fraud against the bank’s customer began back in 2008/2009
Anette Kirkeby helped to send the customer for settlement in Silkeborg. has become department director
And with the help of
Jyske Bank’s branch at Vesterbrogade 9. in Copenhagen
It was the employees Søren Woergaard, Nicolai Hansen and Casper Dam Olsen here who helped everyone to do so much shit, for the customer in Jyske bank, to be slaughtered.
Today the Management has taken over responsibility for what is really fraud.
At Jyske Bank, everyone is against the customers the bank is exposing to fraud.
As we the plaintiff has written several times to management. Then we just want dialogue, not to be exposed to continued fraud.
Again, we ask everyone involved to call +4522227713
If there is anything here on the page that is wrong, so it can be fixed right away, but this is not the first time we are writing this.

For incompatibility.
For having received a return commission.
For countering their client’s claims against Jyske Bank A/S was not presented in court.
And for not responding at their client’s request,
Letters are inserted in date and texts follow.
Copi om
www.tyv.dk
www.tyve..dk
www.nyadvokat.dk
www.ny-bank.dk
Will be shared and feel free to ask if anything you think seems completely misconstrued
with more.
We joust try to get Jyske Bank to speak, but they just laugh at us, while they greedily continue to fraud against us.
You can contact us at phone +45 22227713 this is the most thought of defendant Jyske Bank and their manager CEO Anders Christian Dam.
As you can see here are a few letters
“but more and more are coming” to Lundgren’s lawyers about the fraud case against the Danish bank Jyske bank A/S, try to look through letters and then ask yourself if there is corruption in Denmark’s largest law firms and the Danish banks.
Som du kan se, er her er par breve til Lundgrens advokat partner selskab, omkring svig sagen i mod den danske bank Jyske bank A/S, prøv at se breve igennem og spørg så dig selv, om der findes korruption i Danmarks største advokatvirksomheder og nogle af de danske banker.
See appendix we believe supports that Jyske bank in Denmark has paid return commission – bribe to Lundgren’s lawyers for not presenting some of our claims against Jyske Bank, English texts appear on all pictures that come much more, since it no longer only is a case of fraud as it is written in all emails and written to Lundgren’s lawyer partner company.
–
We have of course written to our talented lawyer Thomas Schioldan Sørensen from Rödstenen’s attorneys, as we want free trial.
Thomas has applied but not explained why, as explaining that the case has the public interest, why we ourselves are forced to seek free trial in the fraud case against Jyske bank.
We want the police to investigate Jyske Bank’s continued crimes against the bank’s customer.
And get it stopped. But, in response to the Easter 2016 notification, Police write Case No. 0100-83966-00085-16 just briefly.
There is no need for investigation
Jyske bank A/S or the board.
Will not be convicted.
🙁
The State Attorney recommends that the client himself get a lawyer to present the case in civil court.
For which there is a need for legal assistance. the client “plaintiff” then hires a lawyer on February 5, 2018.
Unfortunately, the client in Jyske Bank A/S chooses Lundgren’s lawyers, who have been highly recommended, by a former bank director.
Lundgren’s lawyer partner company which turned out to be for sale to the highest bidder.
Shortly thereafter, Lundgrens will be purchased by the Danish bank Jyske Bank A/S, the same bank that exposes the customer to fraud.
You may also think it is perfectly fine as several large shareholders in Jyske Bank who all know the case here. BS-402/2015-VIB
But we found this here, similar to more and more damaging business.
We are probably not as smart as Jyske Bank’s powerful board.
And it then appeared that bribery between some of Denmark’s largest companies is, in the applicant’s belief, fraudulent, if not malicious, business.
But as Lundgrens partner Dan Terkildsen says it is nothing, but conspiracy theories.
There are no others who would comment on our case officially.
Would you like to comment on the case, and the evidence of the case
Be free to call 004522227713

04-11-2015. S.1-3. To Jyske Bank Morten Ulrik Gade
We do not want to bring a case against Jyske Bank
But here we know today that Jyske Bank lives by lying and cheating our customers by Fraud and False

04-11-2015. S.2-3. To Jyske Bank Morten Ulrik Gade
We do not want to bring a case against Jyske Bank
But here we know today that Jyske Bank lives by lying and cheating our customers by Fraud and False

19-12-2015. S.3-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group
—

19-12-2015. S.1-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group

19-12-2015. S.2-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group

19-12-2015. S.3-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group

19-12-2015. S.4-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group

19-12-2015. S.5-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group

19-12-2015. S.6-6. On claims of sale of land and denial, Jyske Bank refuses to receive the proceeds.
.
Is placed in a timeline that takes 3 and a half years from sales until we get money.
–
Thanks to Jyske Bank’s group

11-01-2016. S.1-4. to Nykredit would like to gain insight and explanation.
,
Would like to know if the 4,328,000 dkk that Jyske bank claims is the underlying loan for an interest rate swap with Jyske Bank exists.
.
Or whether Jyske Bank is lying, that Nykredit must sued before we 18-10-2016 will be informed.
Appendix 30
.
That the underlying loan alleged by Jyske Bank does not exist at all.
.
Is the foundation of Jyske Bank’s business methods.

11-01-2016. S.2-4. to Nykredit would like to gain insight and explanation.
,
Would like to know if the 4,328,000 dkk that Jyske bank claims is the underlying loan for an interest rate swap with Jyske Bank exists.
.
Or whether Jyske Bank is lying, that Nykredit must sued before we 18-10-2016 will be informed.
Appendix 30
.
That the underlying loan alleged by Jyske Bank does not exist at all.
.
Is the foundation of Jyske Bank’s business methods.

11-01-2016. S.3-4. to Nykredit would like to gain insight and explanation.
,
Would like to know if the 4,328,000 dkk that Jyske bank claims is the underlying loan for an interest rate swap with Jyske Bank exists.
.
Or whether Jyske Bank is lying, that Nykredit must sued before we 18-10-2016 will be informed.
Appendix 30
.
That the underlying loan alleged by Jyske Bank does not exist at all.
.
Is the foundation of Jyske Bank’s business methods.

11-01-2016. S.4-4. to Nykredit would like to gain insight and explanation.
,
Would like to know if the 4,328,000 dkk that Jyske bank claims is the underlying loan for an interest rate swap with Jyske Bank exists.
.
Or whether Jyske Bank is lying, that Nykredit must sued before we 18-10-2016 will be informed.
Appendix 30
.
That the underlying loan alleged by Jyske Bank does not exist at all.
.
Is the foundation of Jyske Bank’s business methods.

12-01-2016. S.1-2. pm. 16.03 part of conversation with Nykredit which says that Swappen in Jyske Bank. is the reason for the contribution is at 3% which Nykredit afterwards denies having said.
–
But you can not trust the Danish banks like Jyske Bank therefore record all your conversations.

12-01-2016. S.2-2. pm. 16.03 part of conversation with Nykredit which says that Swappen in Jyske Bank. is the reason for the contribution is at 3% which Nykredit afterwards denies having said.
–
But you can not trust the Danish banks like Jyske Bank therefore record all your conversations.

13-01-2016. S.1-2. After Nykredit phoned about receiving the proceeds from the sale of land,
Nykredit denies the contribution of 3% has to do with swap

13-01-2016. S.2-2. After Nykredit phoned about receiving the proceeds from the sale of land,
Nykredit denies the contribution of 3% has to do with swap

12-02-2016. S.1-4. letter to Rødsten’s lawyers, could again explain the case and timeline, about the access we do not get, it is about the facts we want presented.
–
The client asks Thomas Schioldan Sørensen the rodstenen to contact Jyske Bank A/S to request access. –
–
Rødstenen does not answer their client.

12-02-2016. S.2-4. letter to Rødsten’s lawyers, could again explain the case and timeline, about the access we do not get, it is about the facts we want presented.
–
The client asks Thomas Schioldan Sørensen the rodstenen to contact Jyske Bank A/S to request access. –
–
Rødstenen does not answer their client.

12-02-2016. S.2-4. letter to Rødsten’s lawyers, could again explain the case and timeline, about the access we do not get, it is about the facts we want presented.
–
The client asks Thomas Schioldan Sørensen the rodstenen to contact Jyske Bank A/S to request access. –
–
Rødstenen does not answer their client.

12-02-2016. S.4-4. letter to Rødsten’s lawyers, could again explain the case and timeline, about the access we do not get, it is about the facts we want presented.
–
The client asks Thomas Schioldan Sørensen the rodstenen to contact Jyske Bank A/S to request access. –
–
Rødstenden does not answer their client.

16-02-2016. S.1-4. email to Nykredit Important that we get access to documents now that we ourselves are reviewing the facts of the case against Jyske Bank.
.
To gathering evidence against the Jyske bank’s fraud and for document forgery,
which even the board refuses to stop

16-02-2016. S.2-4. email to Nykredit Important that we get access to documents now that we ourselves are reviewing the facts of the case against Jyske Bank.
.
To gathering evidence against the Jyske bank’s fraud and for document forgery,
which even the board refuses to stop

16-02-2016. S.3-4. email to Nykredit Important that we get access to documents now that we ourselves are reviewing the facts of the case against Jyske Bank.
.
To gathering evidence against the Jyske bank’s fraud and for document forgery,
which even the board refuses to stop

16-02-2016. S.4-4. email to Nykredit Important that we get access to documents now that we ourselves are reviewing the facts of the case against Jyske Bank.
.
To gathering evidence against the Jyske bank’s fraud and for document forgery,
which even the board refuses to stop

29-02-2016. S.1-2. letter to Nykredit better about explanation. asks for access to documents, and for the contribution of 3%, explain that we must use the evidence against Jyske bank.
.
But Nykredit seemed to want to cover Jyske Bank’s fraud crimes

29-02-2016. S.2-2. letter to Nykredit better about explanation. asks for access to documents, and for the contribution of 3%, explain that we must use the evidence against Jyske bank.
.
But Nykredit seemed to want to cover Jyske Bank’s fraud crimes

01-03-2016. S.1-2. to the Red Stone Schioldan and Mads Legaard. is reviewing case,
–
Jyske Bank refuses to grant access to documents, has moved Nykredit for access to documents, Both have otherwise refused to give us the access to documents

01-03-2016. S.2-2. to the Red Stone Schioldan and Mads Legaard. is reviewing case,
–
Jyske Bank refuses to grant access to documents, has moved Nykredit for access to documents, Both have otherwise refused to give us the access to documents

27-04-2016. Morten Ulrik street does not want to answer the customer or to prove that the customer borrowed 4,328,000 dkk in Nykredit, and then rescheduled this loan, etc.

31-05-2016. Lund Elmer Sandager will not speak to customer asking for proof of having taken out a loan 4,328,000 dkk
–
Philip Baruch does not respond to what the customer asks Jyske Bank to answer, namely to prove that the customer has taken out a loan in Nykredit of 4,328,000 tire and when it may need to be rescheduled

02-09-2016. S.1-3. pm. 11.07 to Nykredit subpoena against Nykredit, meeting in NK. that takes 3% in contributions.

02-09-2016. S.2-3. pm. 11.07 to Nykredit subpoena against Nykredit, meeting in NK. that takes 3% in contributions.

02-09-2016. S.3-3. pm. 11.07 to Nykredit subpoena against Nykredit, meeting in NK. that takes 3% in contributions.

12-09-2016- 10.22. email to Rødstenen Rasmus Lindhardt Jensen. tells again about Jyske Bank’s confusion of several companies’ accounts, and that Jyske Bank is responsible for large losses,
–
says that Casper Dam Olsen has called my Lawyer friend and swindled him that money was running outside Jyske Bank

12-09-2016. S.1-3. Mail to Rødstene Rasmus Lindhardt. loss statement, the fact is that Jyske bank is lying, Jyske Bank is reported to the police for fraud, Morten Ulrik Gade. Philip Baruch document false

12-09-2016. S.2-3. Mail to Rødstene Rasmus Lindhardt. loss statement, the fact is that Jyske bank is lying, Jyske Bank is reported to the police for fraud, Morten Ulrik Gade. Philip Baruch document false

12-09-2016. S.3-3. Mail to Rødstene Rasmus Lindhardt. loss statement, the fact is that Jyske bank is lying, Jyske Bank is reported to the police for fraud, Morten Ulrik Gade. Philip Baruch document false

15-09-2016. S.1-4. 11.06 mail to Rødstenen Rasmus Lindhardt Jensen must be direct to Jyske Bank about our claims, which will never be presented

15-09-2016. S.2-4. 11.06 mail to Rødstenen Rasmus Lindhardt Jensen must be direct to Jyske Bank about our claims, which will never be presented

15-09-2016. S.3-4. 11.06 mail to Rødstenen Rasmus Lindhardt Jensen must be direct to Jyske Bank about our claims, which will never be presented

15-09-2016. S.4-4. 11.06 mail to Rødstenen Rasmus Lindhardt Jensen must be direct to Jyske Bank about our claims, which will never be presented

Letter to Thomas Schioldan Sørensen rodstenen Attorneys
Wants Nykredit to sign for there should be no misunderstandings.
The Rödstenen does not respond.
We only have the e-mail of 18-10-2016
But a witness summons Nykredits lawyer Mette Egholm Nielsen.
20-09-2017. S.1-2.
Brev til Rödstenen advokater Thomas Schioldan Sørensen.
Vi ønsker at Nykredit underskriver for der ikke skal være misforståelser.
Rödstenen reagerer ikke.
Vi har kun mailen af 18-10-2016 Bilag 30. / 28.
men vidne indkalder Nykredits advokat Mette Egholm Nielsen.

Letter to Thomas Schioldan Sørensen rodstenen Attorneys
Wants Nykredit to sign for there should be no misunderstandings.
–

Vi får afslag da Civilstyrelsen Domstolsstyrelsen ikke finder at sagen er principiel eller har den offentlige intersse.


Vi får afslag da Civilstyrelsen Domstolsstyrelsen ikke finder at sagen er principiel eller har den offentlige intersse.

Vi får afslag da Civilstyrelsen Domstolsstyrelsen ikke finder at sagen er principiel eller har den offentlige intersse.

Vi får afslag da Civilstyrelsen Domstolsstyrelsen ikke finder at sagen er principiel eller har den offentlige intersse.

Vi får afslag da Civilstyrelsen Domstolsstyrelsen ikke finder at sagen er principiel eller har den offentlige intersse.

Vi får afslag da Civilstyrelsen Domstolsstyrelsen ikke finder at sagen er principiel eller har den offentlige intersse.
–
During update
Banking News
In the case BS-402/2015-VIB Where, among others, Thomas Schioldan Sørensen of Rödstenen lawyers, and lawyer and partner Dan Terkildsen of Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, is in bad faith, and have countered their client’s claims against Jyske Bank A/S
For deliberate and continued gross fraud was never filed by the client’s attorneys.
The client believes that both Rödstenen and Lundgrens have worked for Jyske bank in order to disappoint in legal matters.
By not presenting the client’s claims to the court.
The period during which Rödstenen and Lundgrens have countered their client’s case and claims, have been presented to the court, is during the period between February 2016 and until September 2019
Where the client is forced to fire Lundgren’s lawyers after discovering that Lundgrens, has worked for Jyske bank A/S in a 3 digit million trade.
And therefore have been incompetent, and corrupt.
The client is compelled to present the final litigation, which is 28/10/2019
If you cannot understand Lundgrens or Rödstenen’s attorneys have not submitted the client’s claims, so you can ask.
Rödstenen +45 86 12 19 99
Lundgrens +45 35 25 25 35

Why the client should act as a lawyer himself, and make his final defense 28-10-2019, as both Rödstenen Thomas Schioldan Sørensen and Lundgren’s Dan Terkildsen should be the client’s lawyer.
The client is personally obliged to present the closing litigation 28-10-2019 according to which their lawyers have taken care of Jyske bank’s interests.
And probably to disappoint in legal matters neither Rödstenen nor Lundgrens, submit any of the client’s claims against Jyske Bank A/S.
If you cannot understand Lundgrens and Rödstenen’s attorneys, and why these law firms, directly against the client’s continuous instructions, have not presented any of the client’s claims against Jyske bank A/S.
Then you can ask them yourself
Rödstenen +45 86 12 19 99 and Lundgrens +45 35 25 25 35

Just ask why the client himself should act as a lawyer, and even had to make the closing defense.
Since neither Rödstenen by Thomas Schioldan Sørensen and Lundgrens by Dan Terkildsen would be the client’s lawyer.
You can find the draft for the new front page that comes on the bank here.
When we look at all the inquiries to our attorneys, we look at the mails and letters, we have written since February 2016 to Rödstenen’s attorneys Thomas Schioldan Sørensen.
And to Lundgren’s attorneys Dan Terkildsen, until we fired them in September 2019.
It is clear that both law firms has had an financial interests with Jyske Bank A/S certainly with Board member Philip Baruch from Lund Elmer Sandager as between man.
But Dan Terkildsen believes, that everything are conspiracy theories, at the same time Philip Baruch strongly take distances from the fact that bribery between Jyske Bank A/S and Lundgrens took place.
The question is just what the hell did Jyske Bank’s group have to hire Lundgrens for.
When Jyske bank’s lawyer Philip Baruch Lund Elmer Sandager, knew that Lundgrens had come on as our lawyer.

Unfortunately, it seems that Jyske Bank has paid Lundgrens lawyers to ensure that Appendices 100 and 101 from 28-12-2018 never had to be presented to the court.
Therefore, we have again made an Appendix 164. 02-09-2019
which replaces Appendices 100 and 101
Which has been presented to the court, initially without explanation,
this we ourselves provided for 28-10-2019.
See what Jyske bank would pay for the client’s lawyer not to submit to the court
Now remember that it is the Group Management of Jyske bank A/S that is behind this here fraud against the bank’s customer is still going on
🙂
Appendix 164. Letter to the court 2. September 2019.
We do not hide anything, and would like to talk about this here, therefore we play with open cards.
The question is whether there are some, who can trust the Danish banks as we here provide evidence of operating fraudulent bank, and deliberately lying, and conceal the truth.
Yes even to the seat, Jyske Bank board member Philip Baruch is lying at the same time that Lund Elmer Sandager is presenting manipulated evidence to disappoint in legal matters.
If we are wrong why no one will talk to us at all.
Don’t you see we actually want to have a dialogue with Jyske bank’s board of directors.
Call +4522227713
And let’s meet as adults.
And you just have to go through the case with us.
If we are wrong then there is nothing we would rather do, than bring the case against Jyske bank for fraud and false.
And bring the chase out of court again
because we don’t think this is hilarious.

Unless Lundgrens has not countered their client’s case in being presented to court, we believe there is bribery.
The big question now is rather.
How much does Jyske Bank A/S have
Paid Lundgren’s lawyers.
Do we have a bribery case here?
The most common definition is: “a payment intended to cause someone to do something dishonest, illegal or contrary to his or her duties for the purpose of obtaining an unjustified benefit”.
If this is not the case for Jyske Bank A/S active bribery, when the bank has offered, Lundgren’s lawyer partner company to do a million work for Jyske Bank A/S
And if there is no passive bribery for Lundgrens Advokat partner company, accept a million assignment from Jyske bank A/S if the purpose is to override that our claims against Jyske Bank A/S are never presented.
WHAT IS THIS HERE
Pligt-forsømmelse,en. (jf. -forsømmende samt -forglemmelse; især emb.) undladelse af at gøre sin pligt; forsømmelse af ens pligter, navnlig: ens embedspligter

Duty-neglect, one. (cf. neglecting and forgetting; especially emb.) failure to do his duty; neglect of one’s duties, in particular: one’s official duties

Vidste Bestyrelsen i Lundgrens, ikke at Jyske bank A/S udsatte deres klient for bedrageri, da Lundgrens valgte at arbejde for Jyske Bank A/S. kunne Lundgrens på nogen måde misforstå det klienten, bad Lundgrens advokater om at fremlægge for retten. det handler om din retssikkerhed, hvis der findes korrupte advokater i Danmark Findes de så kun i Lundgrens, eller er Lund Elmer Sandager også med.


We now share letters to, and from Lundgren’s attorneys here in the case.
Lundgrens has consistently avoided responding to anything concerning the Client’s allegations against Jyske Bank A/S.
See the many letters where we repeatedly ask Lundgren’s attorneys, to present our case, with the fraud allegations and evidence against Jyske Bank A/S that we wish to present in court.
The same applies to witnesses to whom Lundgren’s lawyers are instructed to call.
Lundgren’s attorneys Do not submit any of the client’s claims, only write down those statements that Jyske Bank’s Board of Directors Philip Baruch will have called.
You can see them here, and read the few times where Lundgrens answers, and read how Lundgrens has answered without any reply.
Yes Lundgren’s attorneys have stated directly against the Client’s Instructions, the exact opposite of what the Client has clearly written for Lundgrens.
Can so many lawyers, at the largest Danish law firms such as Lundgrens, be so stupid.
And disappoint in legal matters as it looks like this.
Follow the case in Denmark’s probably biggest fraud case, where the Danish bank Jyske Bank and their board, with a large political network are behind.
The customer himself has had to present, the deliberate and obvious fraud against the bank’s customer to the Danish courts on 28-10-2019.
And then just ask to you self, why the authorities will not intervene against Jyske Bank’s board of directors, or at least give the police permission to conduct an investigation into the banks fraud.
Remember you can very easily become the next “victim” one as Jyske Bank A/S, Lund Elmer Sandager, wants to expose fraud.
While Rödstenen and Lundgren’s lawyers want to help Jyske Bank A/S.
Even if we just asked Anders Christian Dam to stop, for Jyske bank A/S to not do fraud, then corporate management does not intend to quit.
The lawyers.
Rödstenen Thomas Schioldan Sørensen, Lundgrens by Dan Terkildsen, Lund Elmer Sandager by Philip Baruch has shown that they are fighting against all laws and regulations, to help Jyske Bank disappoint in legal matters.
REMEMBER WE WISH JUST A DIALOGUE.
+4522227713
Soevej 5.
3100
Denmark
So we encourage everyone involved in this fraud case to dialogue.
Remember conversation promotes understanding, and then we avoid misunderstandings.
CEO Anders Christian Dam call 004522227713
And let’s meet then, because there is something wrong with Jyske Bank’s fairness.

Now there have been at least these 5 lawyers on our case.
Have they all been able to misunderstand what we have written.
Or have Lundgrens been paid to misunderstand what we have written, and been asked not to answer us.
Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director
If Lundgrens has taken on our case, which they are not professionally competent to handle, or just do not have time to handle the case, and have therefore forgotten to answer and present our case to the court, Dan Terkildsen said that Lundgrens was not missing tasks, so we had to be grateful

Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director

Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director

Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director

Dan Terkildsen. Advokat og Partner
Pernille Hellesøe. Team Assistent.
Mette-Marie Nielsen. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Emil Hald Winstrøm. Fuldmægtig / Elev
Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen. Advokat Director


3.1 Lundgrens acts on the basis of and in accordance with the client’s instructions, and the client and Lundgrens regularly agree on the legal assistance and scope of the assignment as well as the client’s and others’ involvement.
First Lundgren’s attorneys have not written anything that some of their clients’ fraud allegations against Jyske Bank are directly illegal, that is, in accordance with the provisions of the law to present to the court. 🙂 Lundgrens writes they are entitled to refuse to comply with an instruction if this would violate legislation or other rules, e.g. rules of good practice.
2nd If it is against good practice for Lundgren’s lawyers to stop Jyske Bank’s fraud cases against Lundgren’s former client, then Lundgren’s lawyers have not written anything about it. Lundgrens it is for fun laughs Didn’t you like that Dan Terkildsen 🙂

Here are the first letters that Lundgrens did not want to answer.
Trying to put them in date order so you can follow, around allegations to be made and witnesses to be summoned, Lundgrens 100% counteracts their client here in the case in order to disappoint in legal matters.



–


–

–



–


–




02-03-2018 attached
–


–





–



–



–

–

15-12-2018 In a text message to Mette Marie Nielsen at Lundgrens, we write that annex 19-113 must be submitted.
It is also to be able to go after the board of directors for the fraud and false case in connection with the mandate fraud.
Mette reply just 16-12-2018 thank you for your messages I will return tomorrow

16-12-2018 In a text message to Mette Marie Nielsen at Lundgrens, informs that Jyske Bank has all supporting documents and everything is openly forward,
Mette reply just 16-12-2018 thank you for your messages I will return tomorrow
But as you can see in the Lundgrens Presenter 18-12-2018, Mette has proven to have omitted the client’s claims and documents.
This is how they work in Lundgren’s lawyers, if only some will pay for it.
–


–






–


–




–


–






–


–



–

It’s pretty funny.
Lundgrens receives a letter from the court 08-01-2019 Where the Court writes that they will disregard, from the annexes 28-101. which the client presented in court 28-12-2018.
Just as Lundgrens forgot to present the client’s claims and evidence of their claims 18-12-2018
Lundgren also forgot 09-01-2019 to inform the client whether the court wrote the day before, 08-01-2019 about their submitted Appendix 28-101, that the court would disregard these attachments against Jyske Bank for fraud and fraud.
So until 27-08-2019 we do not know that Lundgrens has hidden this information from us in the case and we only get it because we have requested the court access to the file twice.
Why did we present Appendix 28-101 Well it happened when Lundgrens forgot to present the client’s claims 18-12-2018 against Jyske Bank for fraud.
But we will share letters to Lundgren’s attorneys, so you should see how dirty this law firm is.
–
