The case against the Danish bank Jyske Bank for gross fraud.

Has evolved to act on bribery too, as has plaintiff’s lawyer Lundgrens.

Which is a large Danish lawyer’s house, have received return commission, in the form of million assignments by the defendant Jyske Bank.

So it looks bad for the confidence of the big Danish lawyer’s houses as Lundgrens.

/

The question is now.

Has Lundgren’s lawyer partner company, in which the applicant’s lawyer Dan Terkildsen is a partner, received a return commission lion from Jyske Bank.

Have Lundgren’s lawyers been given assignments by the defendant Jyske Bank.

Against it as the Lundgren’s lawyers, was hired to present to the court.

/

Lundgrens who is also the plaintiff’s lawyer, so does not submit the plaintiff’s fraud allegations against Jyske Bank.

Jyske Bank who has now also hired the same lawyer to advise, Denmark’s second largest bank Jyske bank, in a property sale for over half a billion Danish kroner.

/

That is a fact

That after Lundgren’s lawyers were employed by Jyske Bank.

Have Lundgren’s lawyers objected to the plaintiff’s claims

Jyske Bank for millions fraud, as a direct link between Jyske Bank paying Lundgren’s lawyers millions in fees, for advice.

/

The case against the Danish fraud bank Jyske Bank is only growing.

The plaintiff has yesterday, October 28, 2019.

Even had to submit their fraud allegations against Jyske bank.

/

The plaintiff is now considering whether Lundgrens must testify.

To confirm that their client has requested Lundgren’s lawyers at least 30 times.

About presenting the serious allegations against Jyske Bank for million fraud.

And allegations against Jyske Bank Group Management

With the bank’s executive chairman
CEO Anders Christian Dam

/

Then Lundgren’s lawyers in court may have the opportunity to explain why Lundgrens has not presented the client’s allegations against Jyske bank for fraudulent conduct.

And why Lundgrens directly opposed the client’s instructions has counteracted the client.

/

When the applicant’s claims are not presented against Jyske bank.

This can only be because Lundgren’s lawyers have made an agreement with the defendant Jyske Bank, to counteract the case before the court.

/
/

A CASE WHERE THE LITTLE WOULDN’T LIKE TO BE FIGHT AGAINST A CRIMINAL BANK

BUT ALSO AGAINST PROVIDING CORRUPT LAWYERS

/

The client thinks back to Dan Terkildsen from Lundgren’s office

August 13th. 2019 at Lundgren’s office together with 2 of their students.

The one student who otherwise “around” March 23, 2019 and there verbally confirms, which 9 witnesses the client will have called.

When Lundgren’s lawyers saw the purchase of August 18, 2019, confirmed that they had control over which witnesses to call.

But very smart, without disclosing their names.

Witnesses who are repetitively informed and repeatedly written should be summoned since spring 2018.

Then stick to the very clear instructions of the client.

Just 4 weeks before the main hearing was due September 30, 2019

Again, the client opposes and September 2 has chosen to exclude the 7 of the witnesses as Lundgrens submits a petition.

Incidentally a litigation Lundgrens does not share with the client.

Lundgrens also did not share the defendant Jyske Bank’s litigation B and C
B. which is otherwise from March 20.

/

No matter what

It is a FACT

1. Lundgren’s lawyers were brought, fraud case against Jyske bank on February 5, 2018.

2. Shortly after, between March and June 2018, Lungren’s law partner company made an agreement and a million tasks to advise Jyske Bank

3. Following the conclusion of the agreement with Jyske Bank, Lundgren’s lawyers have not submitted any of the applicant’s claims against Jyske Bank for fraud.

4. Lundgren’s lawyers have not disclosed to their client, in the case against Jyske Bank, that Lundgren’s lawyers have taken on million tasks for Jyske Bank

5. Lundgren’s lawyers do not answer the client’s question on September 19, 2019, whether Lundgren’s lawyers have worked for Jyske Bank.

6. Lundgren’s client, the plaintiff discovers September 20, 2019

The fact that Lundgren’s lawyers have performed counseling for Jyske bank, around a trade of around 600 million. Danish kroner.

7. Since Lundgren’s attorneys still have not answered their question on September 24, the question

Has Lundgrens worked for Jyske Bank.

And if YES

How long have Lundgren’s lawyers worked for Jyske Bank

8. September 25, 2019 Lundgrens Client sends a guy’s note

And justify the decision that Lundgren’s lawyers are incompetent.

And that Lundgren’s lawyers have done massively over billing.

Which the client suspects was part of the strategy to run the plaintiff’s money box empty, and then could not stop Denmark’s second largest bank from continuing the bank’s fraud business against the customer.

/
/

Partner of Lundgren’s lawyers Dan Terkildsen believes that the client is wrong

And writing like that
You cannot find a lawyer who does not work for Jyske Bank

/

Dan Terkildsen writes that there are conspiracy theories.

Considering that Lundgrens’ collaboration with Jyske Bank affects the way Lundgren’s lawyers have worked for the Client against Jyske Bank.

While the client thinks that Lundgren’s lawyers must surely be called as witnesses.

/

Has the client / plaintiff themselves had to present their claims against Jyske Bank on 28 October 2019?

Partly to lie to the court, through their board member Philip Baruch, who is a Partner of Lund Elmer Sandager Attorneys.

And, moreover, charges against Jyske Bank’s director and management for contributing since May 2016

/

The fact that Jyske Bank has not stopped and investigated whether Jyske bank is actually outspoken exposes the customer to gross SWIG.

And accusing the management of having a direct contributory cause for Jyske Bank to continue to be charged with continued fraud.

–

The customer of Jyske Bank has since May 2016 called on Jyske Bank’s management at CEO Anders Dam.

To meet

To date, no one in the Jyske Bank Group or Lund Elme Sandager

Has expressed the wish that Jyske Bank would like to be a fair banking company and meet with us

The customer says that if
We are wrong

We are the first to say sorry.

/
/

Dan Terkildsen Lundgrens said for 1 year since

That Jyske Bank would complain hahaha.

That can not be used for anything.

But will Jyske Bank’s group management still complain.

So Jyske Bank stop i exposein its customers, to continued fraud

SO LET IT BE

/
/

dear everyone at Jyske Bank

You have been exposed to the case BS 402/2015-VIB

Due to approx. 145 documents saw Lundgren’s lawyers being threatened with firing if they did not submit them.

That Lundgren’s attorneys forgot to present the client’s claims and did not make an attachment explanation.

/

We apologize for that, and with the final written petition presented on October 28, 2019, have hopefully explained what annex is for

Of course, a new allegation must also be made, which one would think Jyske Bank’s Director has paid Lundgren’s lawyers for not presenting.

But we cannot prove that.

Being exposed to fraud by one’s own bank is not something fun.

Besides, the management is indifferent and probably still sleeps well at night.

/

CEO Anders Christian Dam
if you have not paid Lundgren’s attorneys for failing to present our claims to the court.

Then we say sorry.

However, Jyske Bank’s Attorneys and the Executive Board will also apologize

If we customers are just right.

/

Our allegations are now proceeding October 28, 2019 presented by ourselves

Since our then lawyers

Thomas Schioldan Sørensen of Redstone Attorneys

and

Dan Terkildsen from Lundgren’s law firm

Mystically, not having would help us.

Or maybe our poor Danish is so poor that they couldn’t understand what we were writing.

Just kidding

🙂

But remember

The reason we repeat the same thing over and over again.

It is only for contact.

We have contact difficulties.
But also a fun way to tell the board of Jyske Bank

/

Talk to us, we’re actually pretty good here.

And then we just try with humor

You can find us here

Soevej 5.
3100. Hornbaek

22227713

Best regards from a tiny, angry customer.