Opfordring 1. i klagen over Partner Dan Terkildsen i Lundgrens advokater. Sags nr. 2020-1932.
–
DET VIL VÆRE NEMT FOR LUNDGRENS ADVOKATER AT FJERNE MISTANKEN OM AT JYSKE BANKS LEDELSE STÅR BAG BESTIKKELSE AF LUNDGRENS ADVOKATER, LUNDGRENS PARTNER SKAL BARE BESVARE OPFORDRING 1-26. START MED DENNE HER. Opfordring 1. Dan Terkildsen opfordres til at dokumentere at Lundgrens inden fremlæggelsen af processkrift 2. den 2 september 2019. kl. 22.00 til domstolen. Har fået Klientens godkendelse. Det er i øvrigt det som Carsten Storbjerg her i mail 5 september 2019. BILAG 138. Skriver til Dan Terkildsen, og spørger om Carsten må få en kopi af Processkrift 2, DAN TERKILDSEN svare ikke, og har heller ikke efterfølgende udleveret klienten en kopi af Processkrift 2. HVORFOR MON.
At klienten i denne OPFORDRING 1. opfordrer Lundgrens advokater ved Dan Terkildsen til at fremlægge dokumentation for. : At  Dan og eller øvrige ansatte i Lundgrens, har sikret sig at få klientens godkendelse, på det af Lundgrens fremlagte Processkrift 2. er klagers anbringer og påstande, samt vidner.
–
Med henvisning til klagers henvendelser som eks. Med henvisning til klagers henvendelser som eks. Bilag 38. 40. ”41”. 69. 70. 106. 107. 104. 114. 115. 117.
129. 130. Særligt i Bilag 114. og Bilag 115. skriver klager meget klart at Lundgrens ikke måtte fremlægge noget til retten uden klagers godkendelse
–
Til Lundgrens “Emil Hald Vendelbo Winstrøm. måtte måtte fremlægge noget til retten, uden klagers godkendelse.
Derfor Opfordres Dan Terkildsen til at dokumentere at klager har godkendt det Processkrift 2. Lundgrens 02-09-2019 har fremlagt domstolen, forud for fremlæggelsen.
Kan eller vil Dan Terkildsen ikke dokumentere dette, må det ligges til grund at Lundgrens advokater, ved partner Dan Terkildsen direkte, og helt bevidst har modarbejdet klager.

Call 1. in the complaint against Partner in Lundgren’s lawyers. Case No. 2020-1932.
–
Invitation 1. Dan Terkildsen is encouraged to document that Lundgren’s before the presentation of pleadings 2. on 2 September 2019. at. 22.00 to the court.

That Dan Terkildsen and / or other employees in Lundgren’s, “perhaps think the students more like the disciples in Lundgren’s lawyers who believe that Dan Terkildsen is a kind of GOD. Appendix 93. point. 68.” has secured the client’s approval, on what Lundgren’s presented are the complainant’s pleaders and allegations, as well as witnesses.
–
With reference to the complainant’s inquiries such as Appendix 38. 40. “41”. 69. 70. 106. 107. 104. 114. 115. 117. 129. 130.
–
In particular in Annex 114 and Annex 115.
Writes complaints very clearly that Lundgren’s “Emil Hald Vendelbo Winstrøm. Was not allowed to present anything to the court, without the complainant’s approval.

Therefore, Dan Terkildsen is encouraged to document that the complainants have approved what Lundgren’s 02-09-2019 has presented to the court, prior to the presentation.

If Dan Terkildsen can or will not document this, it must be assumed that Lundgren’s lawyers, through partner Dan Terkildsen directly and deliberately, have counteracted complaints.

Recommends that Lundgren answer the full complaint, which is with points 1-27. and now 25.09-2020. with the new submissions 1-26. to Lundgren’s partner company, with the lawyer who has acted as JUDGE and teaches other lawyers how lawyers should behave.

Complainants believe that Dan Terkildsen and Lundgrens are otherwise a blemish on the Danish lawyers, whose lawyer society will allow lawyers to oppose their clients, no one can trust Danish lawyers anymore