English translation containing a correction of the translation from the previously (today) sent mail - see below.
Deres Majestæt!
Kære Justitsminister Søren Pind
Kære Kultur- og Kirkeminister Bertel Haarder
Kære Biskop Henrik Stubkjær
Kære Provst Carsten Hoffmann
Statsadvokaten i Viborg har afvist vores klage over politiets dispositioner. Vi har hertil skrevet dette svar.
Til Statsadvokaten i Viborg
Under henvisning til Deres skrivelse af 3. juli 2015, jnr SAV-2015-42-0601 ønsker vi at påpege, at ikke hele vores klage er blevet behandlet.
Vores klage over politiets dispositioner var den disposition at undlade at tage os i forhør i forbindelse med vores anmeldelse af Jonas Serner-Pedersens misbrug af vore persondata. Dette skrev vi i mail af 18. april 2015, og dette forhold har De behandlet i Deres skrivelse i dag.
Men der var endnu en klage, som ikke er blevet behandlet, og som har været den mest fremtrædende - et forhold, som har stået på siden 2012. Det er en klage over den disposition at undlade at tage os i forhør i forbindelse med, at vi blev udsat for polititilhold fra Jonas Serner-Pedersen. Dette skriver vi i mail til SAV af 8. maj 2015, og vi har klaget over det gentagne gange siden 2012. Vi forstår ikke, hvordan det kan blive ignoreret så grundigt af politiet. Med hvilken lovhjemmel kan dansk politi undlade at tage os i forhør, men blot sigte os, og vi ender med tilhold og bødestraf? Hvad med legalitetsprincippet? Det mangler vi stadig en forklaring på. Politiet kan ikke tale sig udenom, at vi har klaget på skrift over det manglende forhør helt tilbage til september 2012. De har tilladt en betjent, som ikke vil give sin identitet til kende, starte sagen, som førte til sigtelse af os og polititilhold mod os. Vi ved stadig ikke hvem den mand er. Med hvilken lovhjemmel kan politiet tillade en politimand at starte en sag op mod os med sigtelse, polititilhold og bødestraf, samtidig med at han unddrager sig sin notatpligt og at give sig til kende med navn og identitet. Dette mangler vi stadig svar på siden september 2012. Vi er blevet ignoreret når vi klager.
Jeg citerer fra mailen fra 8. maj:
"Idet vi henholder os til Midt- og Vestjyllands Politis svar på vores klage over politiets dispositioner ved mail den 18. april, nemlig ikke at tage os i forhør i forbindelse med at vi blev udsat for polititilhold fra Jonas Serner-Pedersen, journalnummer 4100-00170-00030-15, vil vi hermed klage over denne afgørelse.
Vi har med polititilholdet imod os oplevet, at politiet favoriserer en præst og undlader at tage os i forhør. Det er ikke til at leve med, at præst og biskop agerer præstestyre og sætter demokratiet ud af spil og står over loven. At vi almindelige borgere igen og igen har skullet bede om at komme i forhør, men er blevet det nægtet og blevet ignoreret. Vi har endog været kaldt i retten i Holstebro, hvor de blev virkelig bestyrtede over, at der ikke var noget i anklagen mod os om, at vi ganske enkelt havde bedt om papirer fra daværende Valgmenighedspræst i Kolding i 2012. Der var kun påstande fra Jonas Serner-Pedersen mod os, og en politibetjents løgn om, at Daniela Skov ”lider af ADHD og mange andre sygdomme”."
Vi vil således fortsat klage over, at politiet har valgt ikke at tage os i forhør i forbindelse med at vi blev præsenteret for en advarsel om ikke at kontakte Jonas Serner-Pedersen.
Med venlig hilsen Daniela Skov og Lars Skov Krøgholt
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
To the public prosecutor in Viborg
With reference to your letter of 3. July 2015, jnr SAV-2015-42-0601, we wish to point out that not all our complaint have been processed.
Our complaint over police operations was the predisposition not to take us for interrogation in connection with our report of Jonas Serner-Pedersen's abuse of our personal data. This we wrote in the mail of 18. April 2015, and this issue you have dealt with in your letter today.
But there was another complaint, which has not been dealt with, and which has been the most prominent — a thing that has been going on since 2012. It is a complaint about the disposition not to take us for interrogation in connection with us being exposed to police restraining order from Jonas Serner-Pedersen. On this we write in email to SAV of 8. May 2015, and we have complained about it repeatedly since 2012. We do not understand how it can be so thoroughly ignored by the police. On what legal basis can Danish police fail to take us in interrogation, but just charge us, and we end up with the restraining order and fines? What about the principle of legality? We still lack an explanation of it. The police cannot speak it around that we have been complained in writing about the lack of interrogation all the way back to September 2012. They have allowed a policeman, who will not make his identity known, start the proceedings, which led to the indictment of us and police restraining order against us. We still do not know who the man is. With what grounds can the police allow a police officer to start a case against us with criminal charges, summonses and fines, while he evades his memo duty and to make himself known with name and identity. This we still miss an answer to since September 2012. We have been ignored when we complain.
I quote from the mail from 8. May:
"As we refer ourselves to the mid and Western Jutland Police response to our complaint over police operations by mail on 18. April, namely not to take us in interrogation in connection with that we were exposed to police restraining order from Jonas Serner-Pedersen, journal number 4100-00170-00030-15, we hereby appeal against this decision.
With the police restraining order against us seen that police favors a pastor and fails to take us into interrogation. It is not to live with that pastor and Bishop are acting theocracy and puts democracy out of games and stands above the law. That we ordinary citizens again and again had to ask to get in interrogation, but have been denied and ignored. We have even been called in court in Holstebro, where they were really alarmed that there was nothing in the charge against us on the fact that we simply had asked for the papers of then-Valgmenigheds pastor in Kolding in 2012. There were only allegations from Jonas Serner-Pedersen against us, and a police man’s lie about Daniela Skov that she "suffers from ADHD and many other diseases." "
We will thus continue to complain that the police has chosen not to take us for interrogation in connection with that we were presented with a warning not to contact Jonas Serner-Pedersen.
Corrected translation of part of previously sent out mail:
We have previously written to the Church minister Marianne Jelved, because the church is value-bearing. In what way can you, Minister of Culture and Church Affairs Bertel Haarder reconcile religious practice with roots in Hinduism with the Church's value basis and influence on Danish culture and the Danish society?
We have posted the following to the Danish Retreat pastors and leaders.
Dear pastors and leaders in the Dansk Oase. It is very disturbing that you now introduce a new way to God (teachings of how to know Jesus better and rest in his love) through yoga. Hinduism has many deities, so of course can Hinduism tolerate and bear that Jesus is one of the gods and thus can Yoga Alliance, which you may not have researched into what it is, recognize Yogafaith, http://www.yogafaith.dk. What for you perhaps is an exciting activity at Dansk Oase Summer Conference, it will be because of your influence as leaders, not least in young people's lives, a seal of approval to proceed into Yoga, in the long term. It is a slippery slope, as so obviously starts at Dansk Oase's Summer Conference. You sent Rhonda Hughey home when she preached God's Word. It provoked people that she spoke of the glory of God. We have also posted on the website of Freedom of speech in the beginning. Glory-the glory of God is so richly described in Scripture (the Bible). Rhonda Hughey was misjudged by you. Before she came in, of course, you should have been aware of if you would have her in on the rally. We ask for supervision from the Bishops of you Oase pastors, since you in the Dansk Oase theologically should rely on and require the Bible and recognized confessional writings. Which scriptural basis do you have to take up Yoga Alliance's teaching? And the goal is to bring it in as a renewal basis in the people's Church. Hinduism is not renewal into the people's church nor in the form of Yoga. That Yoga Alliance recognizes Yogafaith says clearly and evidently that Yogafaith teaching is recognised among Hindus.