When your life and property is at stake due to a crime, what do you do? You normally contact the police.
Crimes – where to go with your complaints
When your life and property is at stake due to a crime, what do you do? You normally contact the police. So, what do you expect from the police, then? Instead of answering this for you, I refer you to the
“The purpose of the police service is to uphold the law fairly and firmly; to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen’s peace; to protect, help and reassure the community; and to be seen to do this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement.”
To a certain extent this might be true, but when the crimes reach a certain level, or are committed in the interest of the state, this definition turns into a fantasy with the sole purpose to protect the perpetrators and mislead the masses.
To better understand the police and its conduct, including activities which by any objective bystander would be regarded as corruptive, you have to bear in mind that the police is actually nothing more (or less) than a muscle, helplessly in the arms of the one who controls this force of which actually – if wrongly used – embodies unlimited power.
As you might have observed from reading previous articles about the excessive corruption throughout the Government of Luxembourg and all its administrative units and institutions, the police and its protection of financial crimes – and the perpetrators – surfaces as one of the main reasons why Danske Bank (and most likely many other Luxembourg based banks) has been able to deceive and defraud thousands of clients and investors around the world, without the slightest risk of facing any criminal charges.
Cardoso & Fils – caught with the smoking gun
I will now guide you through a serious incident which was discovered late August 2010, involving illegal covert surveillance carried out by one of the largest constructing companies in Luxembourg; Cardoso & Fils.
The story of which our documentation tells, confirms beyond any doubt that the Luxembourg police force is corrupt, and that this force – practically at free will – can be used and obviously is used to protect and cover up ongoing criminal activity for as long as it serves the purpose of protecting governmental interests. This should really concern every single investor who has deposited his/her savings in a bank in
Police – the cover up
A few days later an officer from the local police force called us. The officer’s sole purpose of this conversation was to mislead and deceive us and subsequently have us to withdraw the criminal complaint. You will find a transcript of the whole conversation here. After reading this you should have more than enough information to review your opinion on the police as a force for your protection.
As you will see from the transcript, the officer promised, after much struggle, to come back to us. He never did.
For us, as for any family, the security and safety of our lives and wellbeing is a main objective to preserve. The police officer’s statements meant that our security and our living situation in general had deteriorated considerably, that our lives were at risk, and that we obviously had to react. We hence approached the EU Parliamentary committee on Civil liberties, Justice and Home affairs and presented our case in our letter of September 8 2010.
In this letter we informed the EU about our findings; 1) of an unlawful protective structure within the Government which had deprived us of all our rights and savings; 2) that none of the Luxembourg authorities had been willing to investigate our allegations; 3) that the public prosecutor had stated that a) banks doesn’t commit crimes, b) if you nevertheless should become a victim of any criminal actions from a bank, then you should go and talk to a lawyer (i.e. not the police); and c) Danske bank is a big bank and not an insignificant fraudster with a small office, hence this bank can’t commit crimes and there will thus be no investigation; 4) that the public prosecuting authority is obstructing investigations of crimes committed by high profile persons and companies.
Basically we petitioned the Parliamentary committee to arrange a meeting were we would be allowed to present our case. The EU Commission responded a few weeks later, in its letter of September 29 2010, stating that this was not an EU problem (which it obviously is), and that it is the law enforcement authority in
Mr. Jacub Boratynski’s letter is nothing less than a wilful deception, an attempt to manoeuvre us away from our rights and into the arms of the corrupt police force so that this problem would drown with us in
Mr. Jacub Boratynski was obviously aware that we would not jump into his ruse wilfully, and felt thus the urge of calming us down (making the road to hell as pleasant as possible, so to speak), stating that we could rest assure that the EU Commission would continue …”fighting fraud at all levels in all Member States…with the legal possibilities it has at its disposal”, legal possibilities which Mr. Boratynsky himself – by his letter – has confirmed are nonexistent. We are consequently left with a Commission which has never actually operated according to its intentions.
Remember the police officer’s last words in the conversation that took place on
“I have to talk with my chef, and then we will see together how we gonna start and push it (the investigation of illegal covert surveillance) to the button.”
As we didn’t hear from the police officer at all, and as we were well aware of how the public prosecutor covers up investigations that could tamper governmental interests, regardless of their legitimacy, we assumed that the police had shelved or shredded our criminal complaint. Consequently we approached the police, in our letter of September 13 2010, and petitioned the force to provide us with the complete case file, including seized photos and reports. As indicated above, we never heard from the police in this matter.
During the course of the following days we experienced a significant increase of covert surveillance against us. Among the “agents” scanning our whereabouts was a skinhead. We obviously felt this situation as threatening, even life threatening, and since this skinhead entered our property – most likely to check and calibrate covert cameras installed on number 671 up the road, we filed another criminal complaint on September 17 2010.
This document was not only a criminal complaint, it was also a petition to appoint a lawyer for us, and not at least; a cry for help and protection against whatever crime this escalating activity against us was planned to lead up to. As usual, the police refused to even reply, and yet again we were left with handling the perpetrators and the police, alone, and do whatever possible to secure the family and stay alive.
Back to the letter from the Commission and Mr. Boratynsky. Mr. Boratynsky had advised us to introduce our case to the Luxembourg Ombudsman, and so we did. In our letter of October 4 2010 we basically introduced the case in the same light and manner as it was introduced to the EU Commission, asking for a meeting. The Ombudsman did – as expected – nothing, and it wasn’t before this spring, after the Government and its henchmen had deployed an army of five fully armed policemen against us that the Ombudsman allowed us a meeting. The officer with the Ombudsman’s office heard us out, and the following was his only and final solution and conclusion:
“You need a miracle.”
Let me remind you about the Luxembourg Ombudsman’s role, using her own words:
“Do you have a problem with an administration? Do you have a problem with a public administration? Do you think that you are treated unfairly? That your questions receive no answers? That your efforts lead up to nothing?
In that case contact the Mediator! Her job is to help you: as a mediator between you and the administration she will listen to you and she is at your service. The solution is the Mediator! Having faced problems with public administration you’re no longer alone because now there’s the Mediator!”
And the only thing the Ombudsman in
This is how a nation functions when the laws have been replaced by nepotism and corruption. Mr. Boratynsky knows how it works, with miracles and all that, and must thus be held accountable for not immediately having reacted upon such maladministration.
As we didn’t hear from the police in regards to our criminal complaints, we reminded the authority about these complaints in our letters (I and II) of
The same day we filed another criminal complaint as we discovered that the
The only thing that happened was that the court of first instance, and its corrupt president, Nathalie Hilgert (see our criminal complaint against the perpetrator here), passed a secret decision stating that we owed Danske Bank some € 450.000. We had not been summoned to any hearings, and the decision was passed in secret. This corrupt president even kept here decision secret for 6 months, making sure that our chances of appealing was ruled out.
As a consequence of a steadily increasing governmental activity against us, of which this new decision was a demonstration of, and since we still hadn’t heard from the police, we filed, on January 18 2011, a complaint to the ECHR in which we documented the corruption within the Luxembourg law enforcement.
When a complaint is filed to this state-friendly institution, an officer from the state of which is under fire is appointed to assess the complaint. In 99% of the cases this officer will inform you that you have no case (regardless of its merits and the fact that you actually have a good case), which was the answer we received from the Luxembourger A. Wampach.
The increasing restraints and attempts of reducing the quality of our lives, depriving us of our rights and property, and the fact that the EU Commission seemed to be engaged in tampering our defence and all our requests for investigation, led us to file a complaint to Eurojust.
First some words about the role of Eurojust, written in its own words:
“Reinforcing the fight against serious crime.
To reinforce the fight against serious organised crime, the European Council, in its Conclusion 46, agreed that a unit (Eurojust) should be set up, composed of national prosecutors, magistrates, or police officers of equivalent competence, detached from each
The latest chapter in the development of Eurojust is contained in the
Our complaint was filed on January 24 2011, in which we informed Eurojust that Luxembourg has refused and failed to implement EU law and EU regulations, and that the police, the prosecuting authority, the financial supervisory authority (CSSF) as well as the courts have wilfully acted in direct violation with the EU policy, for the purpose of protecting serious international financial crimes, this in the interest of the Luxembourg Government and the EU itself. Not surprisingly Eurojust rejected our request.
On January 25 2011 we petitioned the President of the European Parliament to intervene as four of the so called democratically established institutions; CSSF, the public prosecutor, the police, and the courts had failed to function, and that these institutions jointly and on a continuous basis were engaged in protecting and covering up financial crimes and crimes committed by governmental institutions (themselves). Our request led to nothing.
I will in one of my next articles about corruption in
The steadily escalating governmental terror against us, and the police’ refusal of even responding to our well documented complaints, led us to file a complaint directly to the court of first instance, petitioning the President of this court, Pierre Gehlen, to investigate the crimes and prosecute the perpetrators, and take all necessary steps to protect us. You can read our complaint of
This story gives us to understand that we have no rights whatsoever in
Deloitte (Danske Bank’s auditor) occupies our identity
On March 4 2011 we filed another criminal complaint, this time to the state prosecutor, based on the fact that the public prosecutor had thwarted the investigation of the covert surveillance and that he even had concealed the sole existence of this complaint. Furthermore we complaint over the fact that the police had fabricated a cover-up story, this to protect the perpetrators and the ongoing covert surveillance; that the police had instructed the perpetrator to harass and terrorise us; that our mail is monitored, and that most of the letters had been opened for surveillance purposes; and finally that Danske Bank’s auditor, Deloitte, had stolen parts of our identity, our address. The state prosecutor refused to respond to our request for investigation.
In regards to Deloitte’s identity theft, we approached Prime Minister Jean-Claud Juncker with our letter of April 1 2011, requesting this person to react. Juncker failed to respond.
My advice to you
To all of you out there who consider depositing money in a Luxembourg based bank, who consider working in Luxembourg, who consider establishing a company in Luxembourg or who consider dealing with Luxembourg in any way, and to all of you who feel its in violation with your inner compass entering into anything that involves deception, cheating or stealing from other human beings; stay away from this country.
My advice is based upon our own experiences and the true story about
Herman J Berge
 THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POLICE (1996) – The Report (link to report at www.psi.org is broken) of an independent inquiry established by: POLICE FOUNDATION and POLICY STUDIES INSTITUTE,
 Mr. Jacub Boratynski, Head of Unit, Fight against Organized Crime DG JLS
 The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (former Treaty of Nice) is regarded as highest EU (union) law. When a Member state – as part of its policy – continuously violates e.g. Article 47 (right to an effective remedy and a fair trial) of this Charter, then this is clearly an EU Commission-problem, and should immediately be addressed.
 I scanned this area myself and found this camera, pointing directly at our front door.
 This spring we got the first explicit death threat from the government of
 The entire meeting has been taped, even the Ombudsman’s conclusion.