The site under update

If there are corrupt lawyers in Lundgrens, Or is the whole of Lundgrens corrupt?. And whether Jyske Bank A/S has used bribery, to disappoint in legal matters. you can evaluate it yourself, we thought it looked like this

 

5/3 20. Has Jyske Bank’s management bribed Lundgren’s lawyers for not presenting their clients’ claims against Jyske Bank ?. It can be seen here in just 2 consecutive dates

---

We ask you as a reader with, Jyske Bank’s million work together with Lundgren’s lawyers, some food that Lundgrens has done just the opposite of what the client has presented and said that Lundgrens must present. Is Lundgrens running a country’s harmful business with Jyske Banks?

Or should Danish bank customers just be exposed to fraud.

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  4/5

 

 

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.

 

 

---

Here is the story of one of Denmark’s probably biggest fraud cases, where both banks and several lawyers companies, and many more are involved, a case that could be solved with dialogue, but Jyske Bank’s board does not want this.

Fraud and False case against Denmark’s second largest Danske Bank, is also about corruption, stabbing, abuse of power, exploitation and political friends.

Dear Jyske Bank and your Board of Directors, Lund Elmer Sandager Attorneys, Rödstenen Attorneys, Lundgren’s Attorneys, and your many powerful friends, what have we done to you since you expose us to this here. Why does no one on Jyske Bank’s board want to talk to the customer who says the bank exposes the customer to fraud, why do not some people think it seems a little strange that a bank like Jyske Bank does not want the bank investigated for fraud.

Or read our diary from the start. banknyt.dk

See the few appendices and ask Lundgrens and Jyske Bank if a return commission has been used.

Se de få bilag og spørg gerne Lundgrens Partner Selskab og Jyske Bank koncernen, om der er brugt returkommission.

Has Jyske Bank’s board of directors bribed Lundgren’s Advocate Partner Company, for failing to submit some of the client’s fraud allegations against Jyske Bank A/S

Har Jyske Bank’s bestyrelse bestukket Lundgrens Advokat Partner Selskab, for ikke at fremlægge nogle af klientens svig påstande mod Jyske Bank A/S

 

It is Lundgren’s lawyer at Emil Hald Winstrøm 02-09-2019 at. 22:00 has presented the court.

Det som Lundgrens advokat ved Emil Hald Winstrøm 02-09-2019 kl. 22.00 har fremlagt retten.

Lundgren’s lawyers never share Prosecution 2. From September 2, 2019, with the client.

Lundgrens advokater deler aldrig Processkrift 2. Fra 2. september 2019 med klienten.

Even if the Client asks Dan Terkildsen for a copy, Dan Terkildsen does not choose to respond to the client’s request regarding what was presented to the court on September 2, 2019, or sends a Client a copy.

Selv om Klienten spørger Dan Terkildsen om en kopi, vælger Dan Terkildsen hverken svare på klientens henvendelse omkring det til retten 2. September 2019 fremlagte eller sender en Klienten en kopi.

Please note this happens 2 hours before the 4 week deadline for scheduled main negotiation 30 September 2019.

Bemærk det sker 2 timer inden 4 ugers fristen for planlagt hovedforhandling 30 september 2019.

Here, Lundgren’s Lawyer Partner Company, can read more about Jyske Bank’s corresponding bribery of Lundgren’s lawyers.

Her kan Lundgrens Advokat Partner Selskab læse mere omkring Jyske Banks tilsvarende bestikkelse af Lundgrens advokater.

The client believes that the whole of Lundgren’s Board of Directors, is behind this, because Jyske Bank’s fraud has not been stopped.

Klienten mener hele Lundgrens Bestyrelse står bag dette her, af Jyske Banks svig ikke er blevet stoppet.

Is it corruption that is why Lundgren’s Partner Company has not presented their client’s fraud allegations against Jyske Bank A / S or what?

Er det korruption, som er grunden til at Lundgrens Partner Selskab ikke har fremlagt deres klients svig påstande mod Jyske Bank A/S eller hvad ?

 

Should none of them in Lundgrens be able to know what the case is about then you may well get a course in being a reasonable

Skulle ingen af dem i Lundgrens kunne vide hvad sagen her handler om så kan i godt få et kursus i at være et redeligt

LAWYER PARTNER COMPANY

ADVOKATPARTNERSELSKAB

If all of the above in Lundgren’s lawyers have not understood that the case against Jyske Bank’s group for fraud should be presented as fraud.

Hvis alle de ovennævnte i Lundgrens advokater ikke har forstået at sagen mod Jyske Banks koncern for svig, skulle fremlægges som svig.

SO TELL US ABOUT IT

SÅ FORTÆL OS OM DET

LUNDGREN’s lawyers with offices in Tuborg.

LUNDGRENS advokater med kontor i Tuborg.

Lundgren’s lawyer partner company must certainly be corrupt and have been bribed by the Jyske Bank Group.

Lundgrens advokat partner selskab må bestemt være korupte, og være blevet bestukket af Jyske Banks Koncernen.

Otherwise, it does not make sense that Lundgren’s attorneys knowingly in the period February 2018 to September 2019.

Ellers giver det ikke mening, at Lundgrens advokater bevidst i perioden februar 2018 til september 2019.

Directly and completely deliberately counteracted their client.

Direkte og helt bevidst har modarbejdet deres klient.

When Lundgren’s direct action against Instructions has not written and provided the Danish courts, the information for which the Client has employed Lundgren’s lawyers to

Når Lundgrens dirækte imod Instrukser, ikke har skrevet og fremlagt de danske domstole, de oplysninger som Klienten har ansat Lundgrens advokater til.

As Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, does not Present the client’s witnesses, and the fraud charges against Jyske Bank for fraud, which the Client has continuously presented to several of Lundgren’s lawyers.

Da Lundgrens advokat partner selskab, ikke Fremlægger klientens vidner, og de svig anklager mod Jyske Bank for svig, som Klienten kontinuerligt har fremlagt for flere af Lundgrens advokater.

When Lundgrens ensures that the client’s witnesses and claims are not presented to the courts, it can only be because Lundgrens is corrupt.

Når Lundgrens sørger for at klientens vidner og påstande ikke bliver fremlagt for domstolene, kan det kun skyldes at Lundgrens er korrupte.

At the first meeting at Lundgrens in spring 2018.

På det første møde hos Lundgrens i foråret 2018.

with Dan Terkildsen

med Dan Terkildsen.

Dan asks which witnesses to call.

Spørger Dan hvilken vidner der skal indkaldes.

Dan Terkildsen is informed of the provisional witnesses that the client will have called in the case

Dan Terkildsen bliver oplyst de forløbige vidner, som klienten vil have indkaldt i sagen.

Dan Terkildsen writes the witnesses down on a small block.

Dan Terkildsen skriver vidnerne ned på en lille blok.

Klienten oplyser vidner der skal inkaldes Anders Christian Dam, Morten Ulrik Gade, Philip Baruch, Birgit Buch Thuesen, Nicolai Hansen, Casper Dam Olsen, for at nævne et par stykker, og lover at lave en vidne liste.

Klienten oplyser vidner der skal inkaldes
Anders Christian Dam, Morten Ulrik Gade, Philip Baruch, Birgit Buch Thuesen, Nicolai Hansen, Casper Dam Olsen, for at nævne et par stykker, og lover at lave en vidne liste.

Lundgren’s client has many times since repeated the witnesses Lundgrens must contain.

–

Lundgrens klient har mange gange siden gentaget de vidner Lundgrens skal indeholde.

In the email of November 23, 2018. The client writes to 3 lawyers in Lundgrens which witnesses to be called

I mailen fra 23. november 2018. skriver Klienten til 3 advokater i Lundgrens hvilke vidner der skal indkaldes

Attorney Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen.

Advokat Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen.

Attorney Pernille Hellesøe.

Advokat Pernille Hellesøe.

Lawyer and partner Dan Terkildsen

Advokat og partner Dan Terkildsen

Their mail addresses are posted in the mail of 23-11-2018.

Deres mail adrasser står øvers i mailen af 23-11-2018.

In addition to these 3 Attorneys, they have 2 attorneys / students at Lundgrens who were to get the client’s claims down in a statement of claim

Udover disse 3 Advokater har de 2 fuldmætige / elever hos Lundgrens, der skulle få klientens påstande ned i et påstands dokument

Mette Marie Nielsen And
Emil Hald Winstrøm

Mette Marie Nielsen og
Emil Hald Winstrøm

Learn from Dan Terkildsen how to behave as one of Lundgren’s lawyers

Lære af Dan Terkildsen hvordan man skal opføre sig som en af Lundgrens advokater

Lundgrens has continuously been informed of the case as it must be presented in court.

Lundgrens har kontinuerligt fået sagen oplyst som den skal fremlægges i retten.

WHEN YOU GET EMPLOYED IN LUNDGRENS Lundgrens well teaches their students to become good lawyers

NÅ DU BLIVER ANSAT I LUNDGRENS
Lærer Lundgrens vel deres elever at blive til gode advokater
🙂

Or, teach students from the beginning to counteract their clients, and do the opposite and not answer, or confirm what the Client writes.

Eller lærer eleverne fra starten at modarbejde deres klienter, og gører det modsatte, og at man ikke skal svare, eller bekrafte det som Klienten skriver.

We just mention the meeting 13-08-2019 Where Dan Terkildsen says to the Client

Vi nævner lige mødet 13-08-2019
Hvor Dan Terkildsen siger til Klienten
/

Emil Hald Winstrøm is in control of the witnesses, whereupon Emil nods and confirms with a yes.

Emil Hald Winstrøm har styr på vidnerne, hvorpå Emil nikker og bekræfter med et ja.

That Lundgren’s Partner Dan Terkildsen can be so speculated and probably also instructed Emil Hald Winstrøm that at the meeting 13-08-2019, he just had to confirm Dan.

At Lundgrens Partner Dan Terkildsen, kan være så udspekulleret og sikkert også har instrueret Emil Hald Winstrøm, at han på mødet 13-08-2019, bare skulle bekræfte Dan.

And if Emil did not have to say the names of the witnesses, then Dan would probably speak the word

Og Emil ikke måtte sige navne på vidnerne, så skulle Dan nok fører ordet

Dan said at this meeting that we should hold several more meetings where we would go through the questions that Dan Terkildsen would ask Lundgren’s client in court, and what the Client should answer.

Dan sagde på dette møde at vi skulle holde nogle flere møder, hvor vi skulle genngå de spørgsmål som Dan Terkildsen ville spørge Lundgrens klient om i retten, og det som Klienten skulle svare.

Lawyers Dan Terkildsen has previously said that we should not make it difficult for the Donmer, so the case against Jysk Bank should be presented very easily, otherwise the judge would not be able to understand the case.

Advokat Dan Terkildsen har før sagt, at vi ikke måtte gøre der svært for Donmmeren, så sagen mod Jysk Bank skulle fremlægges meget enkelt, ellers ville dommeren ikke kunne forstå sagen.

But even though Lundgren’s Partner would not submit one of the client’s allegations of fraud, the Client could not understand

Men ligefrem at Lundgrens Partner ikke ville Fremlægge en enste af klientens påstande for svig, kunne Klienten ikke forstå.

A judge must judge impartially, and according to the allegations and evidence presented, here Lundgren’s lawyers would pursue a case without the client’s claims and evidence.

En dommer skal dømme upartisk, og efter de fremlagte påstande og beviser, her ville Lundgrens advokater føre en sag uden kliendtens påstande og beviser.

You cannot win a case, at least not if you have a good case against an organization like Jyske Bank for fraud, by failing to claim the client.

Man kan ikke vinde en sag, ihvertfald ikke hvis man har en god sag mod en organisation som Jyske Bank for svig, ved at undlade klientens påstande.

02-09-2019 Lundgren’s attorneys write to the court “petition 2.” which witnesses the plaintiff wishes to summon. Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, chooses not to share Process Letter 2 with plaintiff, even though plaintiff and Lundgren’s client ask Dan Terkildsen to send a copy.

02-09-2019 skriver Lundgrens advokater til retten “processkrift 2.” hvilken vidner sagsøger ønsker at indkalde.
Lundgrens advokat partner selskab, vælger ikke at dele Processkrift 2 med sagsøger, selv om sagsøger og Lundgrens klient beder Dan Terkildsen om at sende en kopi.

At english

LUNDGREN’s lawyers with offices in Tuborg.

–

Lundgren’s lawyer partner company must certainly be corrupt and have been bribed by the Jyske Bank Group.

–

Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense that Lundgren’s attorneys knowingly between February 2018 and September 2019.

–

Directly and completely deliberately counteracted their client.

–

When Lundgren’s direct action against Instructions has not written and provided the Danish courts, the information for which the Client has employed Lundgren’s lawyers.

–

As Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, does not Present the client’s witnesses, and the fraud charges against Jyske Bank for fraud, which the Client has continuously presented to several of Lundgren’s lawyers.

–

When Lundgrens ensures that the client’s witnesses and claims are not presented to the courts, it can only be because Lundgrens is corrupt.

–

At the first meeting at Lundgrens in spring 2018.

with Dan Terkildsen.

–

Dan asks which witnesses to call.

–

Dan Terkildsen is informed of the provisional witnesses that the client will have called in the case.

–

Dan Terkildsen writes the witnesses down on a small block.

–

The client informs witnesses to be called

Anders Christian Dam, Morten Ulrik Gade, Philip Baruch, Birgit Buch Thuesen, Nicolai Hansen, Casper Dam Olsen, to name a few, and promise to make a witness list.

–

Lundgren’s client has many times since repeated the witnesses Lundgrens must contain.

–

In the email of November 23, 2018. The client writes to 3 lawyers in Lundgrens which witnesses to call

–

Lawyer Pernille Hellesøe.

–

Attorney Sebastian Lysholm Nielsen.

–

Lawyer and partner Dan Terkildsen

–

Their mail addresses are posted in the mail of 23-11-2018.

–

In addition to these 3 Attorneys, they have 2 attorneys / students at Lundgrens who were to get the client’s claims down in a statement of claim

–

Mette Marie Nielsen and

Emil Hald Winstrøm

Learn from Dan Terkildsen how to behave as one of Lundgren’s lawyers

–

Lundgrens has continuously been informed of the case as it must be presented in court.

–

NOW YOU ARE EMPLOYED IN LUNDGRENS

Lundgrens teaches their students to become good lawyers

🙂

Or, teach students from the beginning to counteract their clients, and do the opposite and not answer, or confirm what the Client writes.

–

We just mentioned the meeting 13-08-2019

Where Dan Terkildsen says to the Client

/

Emil Hald Winstrøm is in control of the witnesses, whereupon Emil nods and confirms with a yes.

–

Lawyer Dan Terkildsen has previously said that we should not make it difficult for the Cort, so the case against Jyske Bank should be presented very simply, otherwise the judge would not be able to understand the case.

–

But even though Lundgren’s Partner would not present any of the client’s allegations of fraud, the Client could not understand.

–

A judge must judge impartially, and according to the allegations and evidence presented, here Lundgren’s lawyers would pursue a case without the client’s claims and evidence.

–

You cannot win a case, at least not if you have a good case against an organization like Jyske Bank for fraud, by failing to claim the client.

–

02-09-2019 Lundgren’s attorneys write to the court “petition 2.” which witnesses the plaintiff wishes to summon.

–

Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, chooses not to share Process Letter 2 with plaintiff, even though plaintiff and Lundgren’s client ask Dan Terkildsen to send a copy.