Jeg gør det lige klart, at jeg ikke ved om alle ansatte i Hjorten advokater vil optræde på sammme måde som Lundgrens advokater og Dan Terkildsen har optrådt i mod mig som klient, men kan blot konstater at en Partner Birgitte Frølund i Hjorten har været med til at fortolke hvad der ikke er en overtrædelse af god advokat skik.

 

Read here the rules of legal ethics, which they are followed by Kromann Reumert’s lawyers, DLA Piper lawyers, Hjorten lawyers, Danske erhverv, Forbrugerkagenævnet, Højsterets dommer domstolstolstyrelsen, and which advokatnævnet the Bar Council interprets what is not a violation of good legal practice.

 

 

Which persons judges and lawyers have chosen to cover over corruption and bribery of the Danish lawyer partner company Lundgren’s lawyers, which Denmark’s second largest bank Jyske Bank has been behind.

 

 

As it seems that the Danish authorities, which the police and the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority together support, hold the hand over the crime that Danish banks here as Jyske Bank are behind, and even though the evidence is watertight, and would lead to a verdict, the police have a ban on to investigate Jyske Bank for criminal law violations.

Here a LINK, with evidence that Jyske Bank has violated the Power of Attorney Act, in connection with Jyske Bank employees without a power of attorney committing a violation of the Land Registry Act, and subjecting customers to disqualification by violating section 11 of the Land Registry Act. LINK PDF.

Here in this case which is shared on banking news 12-12-2020, is the decision where the members of the Bar Council cover the corrupt Lundgren’s lawyers, a decision that the Board does not want to be shared with you.

 

Here in the LINK, the case is THE EXTRACT on the 1,303 pages that it’s all about.

LINK CHASE BS-402/2015-VIB. See fil

 

 

And here in LINKET you can read the verdict in the City Court Viborg 21-11-2021. which is appealed by either the plaintiff or the defendant Jyske Bank.

 

Below you can read in Danish what lawyers and partners in large law firms, such as Hjorten lawyers, DLA Piper lawyers and Kromann Reumert lawyers, as well as from the National Board of Justice where also a Danish Supreme Court judge Kurt Rasmussen as chairman of the lawyer interprets what is not. a violation of good lawyer practice.

 

Read here the latest email from 18-12-2021. LINK. to Lundgren’s lawyers and the management of Jyske Bank. and this mail from 17-12-2021. LINK. and here mail from 10-12-2021. LINK.

Here are a few notices on banknyt denmark, about how the lawyer board writes good practice rules should be interpreted, and what is not a violation of good lawyer practice.

 

14-05-2021. Banknyt.dk

Guidelines for lawyers.

and

08-09-2021. Banknyt.dk

The case / decision that has a large precedent or precedent effect on future complaints about lawyers, and therefore it is important that this is shared.

and

14-09-2021. Banknyt.dk

When corruption and camaraderie happen at Denmark’s largest law firms, it is a problem for the rule of law.

 

30-06-2021. 2020-1932. kendelse.

.

THIS MUST BE DENMARK’S BIGGEST SCANDAL, IN RECENT TIME. IT’S ABOUT THE TRUST OF DANISH LAWYERS.

 

The case / decision 2020-1932. 05-06-2020. has a great precedent or precedent effect on future complaints about lawyers, and therefore it is important this is shared.

 

---

 

We take as our starting point the complaint about Lundgren’s lawyers as bribed by the Danish bank, Jyske Bank to change a client’s case against Jyske Bank. Lundgren’s lawyers were simply paid, or bribed by Jyske Bank, not to present that Jyske Bank has committed forgery and fraud. This is the opinion of members of Hjorten lawyers, DLA Piper lawyers and Kromann Reumert lawyers, Danish business and the Consumer Complaints Board and the Bar Council is not a violation of good legal practice.

 

Kindest correct me, if I have misunderstood the lawyer, the board has decided this below, is not one is a violation of good lawyer practice.

 

It is not a violation of good legal practice: that it is only the lawyers who decide what a client may be presented with allegations and places.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: that it is only the lawyers who decide what evidence a client may have presented to the client’s claims and affidavits.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That the lawyer changes the client’s claim, if a client claims something is untrue, false, or invalid, then the lawyer may want to change the client’s claim to the opposite.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not respond to the client’s inquiries.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not share plaintiff’s pleadings with the client.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not share defendant’s pleadings with the client.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not share court records with the client.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not provide the client with a copy of all court records, even if the client requests the lawyer to do so.

– 

It is not a violation of good legal practice: that although lawyers have confirmed orally, “or with admission” to their clients, that these lawyers do not present anything to the court, without the client completely agreeing with the lawyer, lawyers may subsequently make claims, which is not comparable to the client’s claims.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers change the client’s position, even if the client has written to the lawyer, you may not present anything to the court without my “client” having approved it.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers change the client’s position, even without informing the client about it. that is, lawyers do not have to share any of what the lawyer presents.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers call witnesses other than those the client has told, even without informing the client anything about it.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: For lawyers to remove the client’s witnesses, even without informing the client anything about it.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers make the litigation root, by submitting appendices.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers mislead the client.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers write services on a client, such as taxi bills on a client, even if it does not concern the client.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not answer the client’s questions concerning whether other lawyers from the same law firm may have worked for the same company against which the client’s lawyer is employed to present a fraud and false case.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers do not answer their clients’ questions, and that the lawyer subsequently takes a fee / payment for not answering what their clients ask.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That lawyers hide from their clients that the court has written to the lawyer, the court will disregard the client’s own submitted written testimony, with the client’s claims and appendices supporting the client’s explanation, which the client himself sent to court , after the lawyer himself forgot to present the client’s allegations.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That a lawyer encourages a client to continue to perform acts that the other party’s lawyer in a case has written to the client’s lawyer is a criminal act.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: That a lawyer withholds letters from the client in which the client is accused of committing a criminal act, since lawyers do not have to inform the client that the client is accused of violating the penal code.

–

It is not a violation of good legal practice: To breach the duty of confidentiality by in legal matters, not to hide email addresses that have been sent Bcc. and which the client wants hidden.

 

 

 

En klage som er velbegrundet og dokumenteret, men som advokat nævnet ved afvisning af samtlige 27 forhold, har dannet Præcedens eller præjudikat virkning for andre klager med samme klage forhold.

Hvad der ikke er en overtrædelse af god advokat skik, kan du læse lige her under, og nederst på siden.

 

Når stat og myndighederne giver fanden i danskernes retssikkerhed, for at dække over en kriminel organisation som Jyske Bank A/S, så er det en skandale.

Nok Danmarks farligste mand Anders Christian Dam, særligt for danskernes retssikkerhed, der samme med de magtfulde venner, blandt store advokat virksomheder og organisationer, kæmper sammen med Jyske Banks ledelse, for at slippe af sted med Jyske Banks mange svig forbrydelser.

Men Anders Dam risikerer istedet at lukke Jyske Bank A/S grundet måden han som hersker har fået Jyske Banks fundament til at rådne, sammen med Niels Erik Jakobsen, Per Skovhus og Peter Schleidt.

Som man siger tag en chance.

Anders Christian Dam Ordførende direktør

Telefon: 89 89 20 01

E-mail: direktion@jyskebank.dk

Da Philip Baruch for Anders Christian Dam og Jyske Bank A/S. 31 maj 2016, skrev at Jyske Bank tog en politianmeldelse mod Jyske Bank med sindsro, var det nok grundet at ledelsen vidste, at også tidligere er alle straffesager mod Jyske Bank blevet afvist uden efterforskning.

Derfor var svaret 31. Maj også en bevidst vildledning, i besvarelsen på den fremsendte mail 25 maj 2016. Som Philip Baruch 31 maj. 2016. Ikke ville besvare men istedet for gav det vildledende svar.Først 18 oktober 2016. Lykkedes det at få besvaret det spørgsmål i brevet 25 maj 2016. til Jyske Banks direktion og Lund Elmer Sandager advokater, dog måtte kunden dog lige stævne Nykredit A/S. før det overhovedet blev muligt at få oplyst, at lånet som Jyske Bank har påstået hjemtaget og omlagt, aldrig har eksisteret.

Et lån som Jyske Bank ved Nicolai Hansen 19 februar. 2010. Ellers skrev til kunden fandtes. Og som Jyske Bank ved Casper Dam Olsen har skrevet 9 Januar. 2012. var omlagt.Med hensyn til spørgsmål i brevet 25 maj 2016. om indgåelse af swappen 16 juli 2008. til det enslydende bagvedliggende lån, som Nicolai Hansen 19. Februar. 2010. skrev fandtes. Men som kunden ikke mente fandtes, hvilket Jyske Banks ledelse og Anders Dam undlod at svare, på trods af at bankens ansatte vidste, at Jyske Bank 16 juli. og 24 Juli. samt igen 30 Juli. 2008.altså hele 3 gange, havde forsøgt at få kunden til at indgå swappen W015785. Med Jyske Bank A/S.

Uden at kunden på noget tidspunkt har underskrevet og mundtlig indgået aftalen.Alt dette vidste Philip Baruch, men tilbageholdte denne oplysning for domstolen, og fremlægde istedet falske oplysninger overfor retten, altsammen for at skuffe i retsforhold, Jyske Banks medhjælpere troede nok det var en smal sag at bedrage bankens kunde, der ikke kunne huske noget efter en større hjerneblødning, men mon ikke de er blevet klogere idag, hvor Jyske Bank A/S kan miste retten til at drive bank virksomhed i Danmark.Efterfølgende kunden febuar 2016. opdager svindlen og efter Rødstenen advokater, bad kunden Lundgrens advokater om at fremlægge dette bedrageri for retten, hvilket Jyske Bank vil hindre, og kommer i forkøbet med, ved at Jyske Bank A/S i 2018 betalte Lundgrens advokater Bestikkelse, skjult ved returkommission i handel for 600 millioner dkk, der var for at Lundgrens advokater ikke måtte fremlægge nogle af klientens påstande mod Jyske Bank koncernen.Derudover skulle Lundgrens ændre klientens påstande mod Jyske Bank A/S, hvorfor Lundgrens så bag om ryggen på klienten, den 2 september 2019. I Processkrift 2.Skrev at kunden har indgået swappen W015775. af 16 juli 2008, på trods af at kunden, som skrevet i klagen, siden 30 januar 2018. til 2 september 2019.Og kontinuerligt har skrevet og påstået det modsatte, hvilket du også kan høre i samtalerne der alle ligger her, men hør bare denne samtale med Lundgrens 22 marts 2019. med henvisning til min vidne forklaring fra 28 december 2018. Siger Bilag 100. og Bilag 101.Vidneforklaring blev dog først fremlagt den 2 september 2019, med Processkrift 2.Hvilket først skete efter trusler om fyring.Vidneforklaring er fremlagt som Bilag 164. Hvilket sker uden at forklare noget om vidneforklaring i Processkrift 2. hvorfor den ikke ville kunne bruges, en bevidst strategi af de korrupte Lundgrens advokater, med Dan Terkildsen som en af bagmændene fra Lundgrens advokater.Hør også samtale fra 8 juli 2019. del 1. og 8 juli 2019. del 2.Kan du hører at Emil Hald Vendelbo Bekræfter ikke at fremlægge noget uden vi er fuldstændig enig, lyt til de samlede delte 4 samtaler, og læs Processkrift 2. som Lundgrens advokater Dan Terkildsen ikke engang efterfølgende ville udlevere en kopi af, hvilket højesteretsdommer Kurt Rasmussen har bestemt at klienten heller ikke har krav på.Og så spørg hvorfor politiet ikke må efterforske Lundgrens advokater, for at være blevet bestukket af Jyske Bank koncernen, til at ændre klientens påstande mod Jyske Bank A/S, igen for at Jyske Bank koncernen ikke må straffes for det bedrageri og dokumentfalsk Jyske Bank A/S bevisligt har udført.DETTE ER UDEN TVIVL DANMARKS STØRSTE SKANDALE I NYERE TID.

Du kan her i linket hører de samlede 4 samtaler med Lundgrens, 14. December 2018. og 18 december 2018. Samt 22 marts 2019. og 8 Juli 2019.

Men når kammeraterne i advokat nævnet, så kollektivt vælger at dække over de tydeligvis korrupte Lundgrens advokater, så er det svært at opnå retfærdighed i Danmark, og særligt når der står top advokater og en højestes dommer bag, og er bevidst om at dækker de over det korupte Lundgrens advokater, er det sandsynligt, for at dække over Jyske Banks forbrydelser.

 

---

 

Her finder du de dygtige advokater og ansatte i Horten 20-12-2021. Partnere