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.
Call os at +45 2222 7713 if you not are agree, and want to now more.
11-03-2020 “Copies of the first letters.” Here is the draft as we put up the new front page.
Is constantly updated, you get copies of letters and attachments in high quality.
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, in bad faith 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.
MED LOV SKAL MAN LAND BYGGE
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, 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.
Jyske Bank har gratis kaffe og kage til alle, og der stikker ikke noget under Jyske Bank er Danmarks ærligste bank
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.
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 and +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.
“COPIES OF THE FIRST LETTERS.” HERE IS THE DRAFT AS WE PUT UP THE NEW FRONT PAGE, IS CONSTANTLY UPDATED, YOU GET COPIES OF LETTERS AND ATTACHMENTS IN HIGH QUALITY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE EEL CALL THE VICTIM OF JYSKE BANK’S FRAUD OPERATIONS ON +4522227713
As you can see here are a few letters to Lundgren’s lawyers about the fraud case against the Danish bank Jyske bank, try to look through letters and then ask yourself if there is corruption in Denmark’s largest law firms and and Danish banks.
Som du kan se er her er par brev 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 og danske banker.
During update
–
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
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 rette. det handler om din retssikkerhed, hvis der findes korrupte advokater i Danmark.
Here are the first letters that Lundgrens did not want to answer.
Appendix List
28-10-2019. S.1-4. Bilags liste til Bilag 1-98.
Vi frem til 27-08-2019 tror er Fremlagt.
Vi er ikke oplyst at Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt nogle Bilag i anden littering.
Læs det fra Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen 04-09-2019
28-10-2019. S.2-4. Bilags liste til Bilag 1-98.
Vi frem til 27-08-2019 tror er Fremlagt.
Vi er ikke oplyst at Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt nogle Bilag i anden littering.
Læs det fra Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen 04-09-2019
28-10-2019. S.3-4. Bilags liste til Bilag 1-98.
Vi frem til 27-08-2019 tror er Fremlagt.
Vi er ikke oplyst at Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt nogle Bilag i anden littering.
Læs det fra Kristian Ambjørn Buus-Nielsen 04-09-2019
28-10-2019. S.1-4. Sagsøger må selv lave Bilags listen her
Til de Bilag som Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt, uden bilagsliste, eller at at oplys klienten noget herom.
28-10-2019. S.2-4. Sagsøger må selv lave Bilags listen her
Til de Bilag som Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt, uden bilagsliste, eller at at oplys klienten noget herom.
28-10-2019. S.3-4. Sagsøger må selv lave Bilags listen her
Til de Bilag som Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt, uden bilagsliste, eller at at oplys klienten noget herom.
28-10-2019. S.4-4. Sagsøger må selv lave Bilags listen her
Til de Bilag som Lundgrens 09-06-2019 har fremlagt, uden bilagsliste, eller at at oplys klienten noget herom.
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.
15-03-2018.
15-03-2018.
30-08-2018.
30-08-2018
30-08-2018
30-08-2018.
28-09-2018.
Dan Terkildsen skriver han var nødsaget til at sende Processkrift 1. uden godkendelse
Grundet frister.
28-09-2018, dette er lavet af Mette Marie Nielsen den 28-09-2018.
28-09-2018,
28-09-2018,
28-09-2018,
28-09-2018, dette er lavet af Mette Marie Nielsen den 28-09-2018.
Fremlagt som Bilag 18. 18-10-2016 hvilket alleræde findes i littering.
Dan indkaldte os til et møde i Lundgrens et par dage før, nok 11-09-2018
Vi viste ikke hvad det handlede om, men kom til mødet
Her sad der 2. elever Mette Marie og Emil Hald da vi kom.
Vi ventede ca. 15 minutter før Dan Terkildsen kom for sent.
Dan må være kommet i Taxa, for den er er også skrevet på regningen.
Og hvorfor skulle vi kører til Hellerup ?
Jo vi skulle bekræfte at Bilag 19. er det lån der ikke er optaget.
Det skulle der deltage 5 i et møde for.
På trods af det alleræde er skrevet, og på 1 minut over telefonen kunne være bekraftet
(kan ik kontrolere hverken tid eller priser da de er udeladt. så det har været et tag selv bord.)
Dette her processkrift og 2 tilsvarende, er hvad Lundgrens har fremlagt, uden at lade klienten deltage.
Pris 200.000 kr. / 3 = 65.000 kr. pr. 1 sides fremlæggelse
28-09-2018,
Bilag 19. er genfremlagt som Bilag 30. 18-10-2016 der findes intet lån 4.328.000 dkk
28-09-2018,
28-09-2018.
04-11-2018 påstande medsendt
04-11-2018
Letter to Lundgren’s Dan Terkildsen, regarding Philip Baruch meeting 02-11. It is maintained that there are 3 cases of mandated fraud and 2 cases of serious fraud.
03-11-2018
Afleveret til Lundgrens at Dant Terkildsen til 03-11-2018
Bilag i tidslinje bedes fremlagt i sagen, kort forklaret
03-11-2018 påstende
03-11-2018. S.1-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.2-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.3-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.4-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.5-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.6-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.7-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.8-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.9-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.10-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.11-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018. S.12-12.
For Lundgren’s claims, annex
In the timeline and our comments on our claims against Jyske bank.
.
This should not be misunderstood, except if Lundgrens was bribed for not being able to read Danish
03-11-2018 påstande
23-11-2018 vidner
23-11-2018.
23-11-2018.
23-11-2018.
23-11-2018
11-12-2018
11-12-2018. S.5 -7.
LETTERS 1-3. to Lundgrens sent the mail 22-12 at. 23.58. Appendix No. TV is those 28-101 that we present ourselves. 28-12-2018
11-12-2018. S.6 -7.
LETTERS 2-3. to Lundgrens sent the mail 22-12 at. 23.58. Appendix No. TV is those 28-101 that we present ourselves. 28-12-2018
11-12-2018. S.5 -7.
LETTERS 3-3. to Lundgrens sent the mail 22-12 at. 23.58. Appendix No. TV is those 28-101 that we present ourselves. 28-12-2018
22-12-2018. TIDLIGERE BILAG 98
And 11-12-2018. S.3 -7. Appendix list 1-2. To Lundgren’s Appendix No. TV are those 28-101 that we present ourselves. 28-12-2018
22-12-2018. TIDLIGERE BILAG 98
And 11-12-2018. S.4 -7. Appendix list 2-2. To Lundgren’s Appendix No. TV are those 28-101 that we present ourselves. 28-12-2018
11-12-2018
15-12-2018
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
15-12-2018
16-12-2018
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.
16-12-2018
17-12-2018
17-12-2018. S.1-2. 16.00
Lundgrens writes they are working on a petition for delivery tomorrow. there is no opportunity to get something fixed and we will get a copy simultaneously with the court.
17-12-2018. S.2-2.
continued 18-12-2018 03.49 to Lundgrens. hope you have recovered. it is very important you get all my mentioned facts and evidence with.
17-12-2018
18-12-2018
18-12-2018
18-12-2018
18-12-2018
Appendix 28. A as you can see here, the swap W015776 is closed. 30-12-2008 which we approved 15-07-2008 for the loan of 4,328,000 dkk which we have not taken up.
18-12-2018. bilag 18 og 19. som allerede er brugt i litrering, Dan Terkildsen tidliger Bilag 18 også
18-12-2018
18-12-2018
18-12-2018
22-12-2018
22-12-2018. S.1-2. 23.58
Mail to Lundgrens about our allegations against Jyske Bank and the submission of documents, to the transferred case file, Lundgren did not think our claims were important 18 Dec.
22-12-2018. S.1-2. 23.58
Mail to Lundgrens about our allegations against Jyske Bank and the submission of documents, to the transferred case file, Lundgren did not think our claims were important 18 Dec.
22-12-2018. and 11-12-2018. S.1-7. LETTER 1-2. to Lundgrens sent the mail 22-12 at. 23.58. We write that a verdict will judge by the evidence presented, Lundgrens acted 18-12 as if they were a judge in the case.
22-12-2018. and 11-12-2018. S.2-7. LETTER 2-2. to Lundgrens sent the mail 22-12 at. 23.58. We write that a verdict will judge by the evidence presented, Lundgrens acted 18-12 as if they were a judge in the case.
22-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018 sent 29-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
28-12-2018
09-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
09-01-2019 vedhæftet mail 03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
03-01-2019
08-01-2019
08-01-2019 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.
08-01-2019
16-01-2019
16-01-2019. 17.28
Mail to Lundgren’s explanation of testimony Appendix 28-101 Jyske Bank makes fraud.
16-01-2019
20-02-2019
20-02-2019.
20-02-2019.
20-02-2019.
20-02-2019
28-02-2019
28-02-2019.
28-02-2019
28-02-2019
10-03-2019
10-03-2019.
10-03-2019
01-03-2019
01-03-2019.
01-03-2019
10-03-2019
10-03-2019.
10-03-2019.
10-03-2019
10-03-2019
10-03-2019.
10-03-2019
15-03-2019
15-03-2019,
15-03-2019
18-03-2019
18-03-2019.
18-03-2019.
18-03-2019
02-08-2019
02-08-2019. S.1-2.
e-mail to the court lundgrens, Lunf Elmer Sandager’s claim is still fraud, wants a careful copy of the court book.
02-08-2019. S.2-2
e-mail to the court lundgrens, Lunf Elmer Sandager’s claim is still fraud, wants a careful copy of the court book.
02-08-2019
11-08-2019
Med mindre Lundgrens ikke har modarbejdet deres klients sag i at blive fremlagt for retten, mener vi der er om bestikkelse. Det store Spørgsmål er nu snarere. Hvor meget har Jyske Bank A/S Betalt Lundgrens advokater. For ikke at fremlægge en eneste af vores påstande mod Jyske Bank A/S. Har vi her med en bestikkelse sag at gøre ? – Den mest almindelige definition er:“en betaling, der har til formål at få nogen til at gøre noget, der er uærligt, ulovligt eller i strid med vedkommendes pligter med det formål at opnå en uberettiget fordel“. – Hvis ikke der er tale om for Jyske Bank A/S aktiv bestikkelse, når banken har tilbudt, Lundgrens advokat partnerselskab at lave et million arbejde for Jyske Bank A/S – Og hvis der ikke tale om passiv bestikkelse for Lundgrens Advokat partner selskab, tage imod en million opgave fra Jyske bank A/S, hvis formålet er at tilsidesætte at vores påstande imod Jyske Bank A/S aldrig bliver fremlagt. – HVAD ER DET HER SÅ FOR NOGET ?
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019.
11-08-2019
12-08-2019
12-08-2019.
12-08-2019.
12-08-2019
03-08-2019
03-08-2019.
03-08-2019.
03-08-2019.
21-08-2019
21-08-2019.
21-08-2019.
21-08-2019
21-08-2019
21-08-2019.
21-08-2019
Lundgrens udleverer kopi 23-08-2019 af rettens berv 08-01-2019
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.
23-08-2019
27-08-2019
27-08-2019
27-08-2019
27-08-2019
27-08-2019. S.1-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.2-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.3-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.4-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.5-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.6-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.7-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.8-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019. S.9-9. Brev til Lundgrens.
Igen forklarer klienten deres påstande, og oplyser hvor Jyske Bank og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater har løjet i retsforhold.
OVERORDNET PÅSTAND ER BILAG 1. ER FALSK.
27-08-2019
28-08-2019
28-08-2019.
28-08-2019
28-08-2019
30-08-2019
30-08-2019. S.1-2. 15.42
mail to Lundgrens explain that Annex 100. 101. is part of testimony, Lundgrens has not stated that the court on January 8, disregarded Annexes 28-101
30-08-2019. S.2-2. 15.42
mail to Lundgrens explain that Annex 100. 101. is part of testimony, Lundgrens has not stated that the court on January 8, disregarded Annexes 28-101
30-08-2019
01-09-2019
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
01-09-2019
02-09-2019
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 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 3/5 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 4/5 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
05-09-2019
05-09-2019.
05-09-2019
05-09-2019.
05-09-2019.
05-09-2019.
05-09-2019
20-09-2019
20-09-2019.
20-09-2019.
24-09-2019
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019
24-09-2019
24-09-2019. S.4-8.
mail. Lundgrens fired due to inability. with. rationale attached. Lundgrens is believed to have done a great job, for 200,000 dkk for not presenting the client’s claims.
25-09-2019
27-09-2019
24-09-2019. S.5-8.
mail. Lundgrens fired due to inability. with. rationale attached. Lundgrens is believed to have done a great job, for 200,000 dkk for not presenting the client’s claims.
27-09-2019. i mail 24-09-2019
24-09-2019. S.6-8.
mail. Lundgrens fired due to inability. with. rationale attached. Lundgrens is believed to have done a great job, for 200,000 dkk for not presenting the client’s claims.
24-09-2019. S.7-8.
mail. Lundgrens fired due to inability. with. rationale attached. Lundgrens is believed to have done a great job, for 200,000 dkk for not presenting the client’s claims.
24-09-2019. S.8-8.
mail. Lundgrens fired due to inability. with. rationale attached. Lundgrens is believed to have done a great job, for 200,000 dkk for not presenting the client’s claims.
27-09-2019. i mail 24-09-2019
24-09-2019
24-09-2019. page 1-6 Lundgren’s lawyers, 19 September 2019 were asked to answer a simple question: Lundgrens works for Jyske bank A / S. – Lundgrens does not answer their client. – Lundgrens also decided that they would not share the allegation document 2 made by Lundgrens and presented the court on September 2, 2019. – Lundgrens, due to suspicion of carrying, has been bribed. then fired September 25, 2019. – Then the client himself 28-10-2019. had to present their claims against Jyske Bank A/S to the court.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019. page 6-6 Lundgren’s lawyers, 19 September 2019 were asked to answer a simple question: Lundgrens works for Jyske bank A / S. – Lundgrens does not answer their client. – Lundgrens also decided that they would not share the allegation document 2 made by Lundgrens and presented the court on September 2, 2019. – Lundgrens, due to suspicion of carrying, has been bribed. then fired September 25, 2019. – Then the client himself 28-10-2019. had to present their claims against Jyske Bank A/S to the court.
24-09-2019
vedhæftet
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019.
24-09-2019 vedhæftet
27-09-2019
27-09-2019 / 24-09-2019. S.5-8.
mail. Lundgrens fired due to inability. with. rationale attached. Lundgrens is believed to have done a great job, for 200,000 dkk for not presenting the client’s claims.
WE MUST REQUEST
Lundgren’s lawyers partner company that their board of directors investigate whether Dan Terkildsen works alone or together with the lawyer’s stand in Lundgrens to create our case.
The Board is requested to prove that Dan Terkildsen does not lie when he writes in Mail 27-09-2019.
To present documentation on the repeated occasions of your partner Dan Terkildsen.
Having said that we can not find just a little habitable lawyer’s office that has no relationship with such a large bank, such as Jyske Bank. ?
And we ask your partner what letters and emails Dan Terkildsen refers to, when he refers to the repetitive times when Dan has said we cannot find a lawyer is nothing to do with Jyske bank. ?
We must also ask Lundgren’s Board of Directors to explain to us a little about the lawyer’s ethical rules.
Thus, where it is prohibited to submit fraud allegations as this is of significance to the case and has an effect on the limitation period of the third year. by bad advice like Jyske Bank as always claims in court.
When Jyske Bank makes fraud, the deadline is increased to 10 years.
Will Lundgrens explain how, it can hurt the client to provide proof of a bank’s fraudulent conduct.
Remember Lundgren’s lawyers are not a judge here in the case, although Mette Marie next appeared like that on 18-12-2018 when she called at approx. 17. and explained that we could not drop the case and we did not have to present our claims.
We should like to share some of the footage, if in doubt. Lundgrens got the case brought on February 5, 2018, so when to answer and write Lundgren’s attorneys, the first time that allegations of fraud are not allowed.
Your pupil Emil Hald Winstrøm has confirmed by telephone that he was aware that the case was a fraud case, Emil has telephonically reviewed allegations and witnesses, March 2019, but in September he has forgotten everything.
Lundgrens thought it was a good lawyer.
Lundgrens thought it was good lawyer practice that money from the client account has disappeared Did Lundgren think it is good practice not to answer their client?
Lundgren seemed to be a good lawyer to change the client’s claims.
Did Lundgren think there is a good lawyer to withhold court documents against the client.
What the hell is going on for you.
27-09-2019
23-10-2019
23-10-2019. Lundgren’s Dan Terkildsen writes that it has hurt our case to present our evidence of fraud, and we had a good case, NOW IT IS BAD, and Dan is unaware of habilitation.
23-10-2019
30-03-2020
30-03-2020. S.1-4.
Letter to Lundgren’s bookkeeping, which is again being objected to the excavation, etc. We would like Lundgren to repay the 100,000 dkk. although they cannot find money in their bookkeeping.
30-03-2020. S.3-4.
Letter to Lundgren’s bookkeeping, which is again being objected to the excavation, etc. We would like Lundgren to repay the 100,000 dkk. although they cannot find money in their bookkeeping.
30-03-2020. S.2-4.
Letter to Lundgren’s bookkeeping, which is again being objected to the excavation, etc. We would like Lundgren to repay the 100,000 dkk. although they cannot find money in their bookkeeping.
30-03-2020. S.4-4.
Letter to Lundgren’s bookkeeping, which is again being objected to the excavation, etc. We would like Lundgren to repay the 100,000 dkk. although they cannot find money in their bookkeeping.
30-03-2020