Deres Majestæt!

Your Holiness Pope Francis

Dear Mosaisk Troessamfund

Dear Muslimsk Trossamfund

Dear STATSMINISTER, Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen

Dear Secretary of Justice Søren Pape Poulsen

Dear Secretary of Culture and Church Mette Bock

Dear Bishops, deans and pastors

Dear President of USA Donald Trump

Dear Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May

Dear Bundeskanzlerin of Germany Angela Merkel

Dear Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu

Dear Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea Peter Charles Paire O'Neill

Dear Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key

Dear Prime Minister of Australia Hon Malcolm Turnbull

Midt- og Vestjyllands Politi Journalnr.: 4100-00170-00079-15

Juridisk Afdeling Dato: 7. februar 2017

Stationsvej 74, 7500 Holstebro Sagsbehandler: 08162

Tlf. 96141448 - Fax 96101489 Id-nr:

Lars Krøgholt

Knud Hansens Vej 12, 2. tv

6000 Kolding

Vedr. mail af 19. januar 2017

Jeg har modtaget din mail af 19. januar 2017, hvor du blandt andet skriver, at du vil klage over, at politiet ignorerer senioranklager Margrethe Sannings brev. Jeg har forstået det således, at det drejer sig om statsadvokatens brev af 7. juli 2015, hvor statsadvokaten sendte din mail af 4. juli 2015 vedrørende klage over manglende partshøring i forbindelse med en tilholdssag til Midt- og Vestjyllands Politi til videre foranstaltning.

Jeg kan se på sagen, at Midt- og Vestjyllands Politi ved brev af 11. august 2015 overfor dig oplyste, at man ikke fandt det muligt at behandle klagen, da der allerede var taget stilling til klagepunktet i forbindelse med afgørelsen om genoptagelse af tilholdssagen. Det fremgår således, at Midt- og Vestjyllands Politi den 14. oktober 2013 traf afgørelse om, at der ikke var grundlag for at genoptage den sag, hvor du er meddelt tilhold mod at kontakte Jonas Serner-Pedersen. En afgørelse, der den 23. januar 2014 blev stadfæstet af statsadvokaten.

Jeg kan endvidere se på sagen, at juridisk konsulent Katrine Stie Andreasen – efter modtagelsen af brevet fra Margrethe Sanning – kontaktede denne telefonisk, idet Katrine Stie Andreasen var af den opfattelse, at hun ikke kunne behandle spørgsmålet vedrørende partshøring på ny, når der var taget stilling hertil i forbindelse med tilholdssagen. Det fremgår endvidere, at Margrethe Sanning var enig heri. Kopi af brevet af

11. august 2015 til dig blev sendt til statsadvokaten til orientering.

Jeg kan således henholde mig til besvarelsen til dig i brevet af 11. august 2015, og foretager derfor ikke yderligere.

Kopi af brevet af 11. august 2015 vedlægges.

Med venlig hilsen

​ ​Camilla Berg​ ​Juridisk konsulent

MAILEN, DER REFERERES TIL OVENFOR:

Midt- og Vestjyllands Politi

Holstebro

Kolding, den 19. januar 2017

Sendes CC Justitsministeriet.

Dette vedrører Daniela Skov og Lars Skov Krøgholt, jnr. 4100-00170-00079-15.

Daniela Skov blev den 19. september 2012 ringet op af en politibetjent fra Midt- og Vestjyllands politi, som på en grov måde sigtede hende for at forstyrre sognepræst i Hjerm, Jonas Serner-Pedersens fred ved at sende mails, sms’er og indtale beskeder på hans telefonsvarer. Herudfra fik hun senere et polititilhold mod Jonas Serner-Pedersen.

Hun blev spurgt, om hun ville komme til forhør hos politiet om sagen. Det ville hun gerne, men hun ville have sin læge med. Daniela blev overhovedet ikke indkaldt til nogen form for samtale eller partshøring af den pågældende betjent. Betjenten tog blot præstens ord for pålydende ukritisk, og det er imod den danske grundlov. Betjenten har aldrig villet oplyse sit navn. Det til trods fik han lov til at starte en nu årelang sag. Vi forventer, at en politimand har notatpligt? Hans navn må da stå i politiets journal på den pågældende sag? Vi er overbevist om, at den manglende partshøring, vi har ret til ifølge grundloven, skyldes, at den betjent har fået frihed af politimesteren i Midt- og Vestjylland til ikke at opgive sin identitet siden 2012? Vi har dermed mistet vores retssikkerhed i Danmark på grund af ham. Politimesteren har dermed også et stort problem, hvis De skal give os partshøring som statsadvokat, senioranklager Margrethe Sanning har åbnet op for, som er vores lovmæssige ret, idet De så må erkende og rette denne fejl, og afsløre betjentens fulde identitet. Gøre tingene efter bogen. I stedet for kører sagen på 5. år, og de penge, det koster samfundet, skyldes ikke mindst den LØGN om en politimand hos Dem, hr politimester, hvis identitet De holder skjult. Det bremser al lov og orden.

Vi ved 100% sikkert, at sognepræst Jonas Serner-Pedersen i Hjerm blot skulle have talt med os i 15 til 20 minutter, som vi alle i Danmark kan forvente af en voksen mand i et præsteembede, som dermed har påtaget sig et administrativt papirarbejde.

Jeg, Lars Skov Krøgholt blev senere også givet et polititilhold, og jeg blev end ikke spurgt, om jeg ville møde op hos politiet til forhør. Jeg fik aldrig nogen begrundelse for, hvorfor jeg pludselig fik et polititilhold! Hvordan kan en præst uden nogen som helst problemer få et polititilhold, når voldsramte kvinder i Danmark skal kæmpe for at få den samme ret, og de er virkelig truet på livet?? Vi har aldrig truet nogen.

Vi har klaget over det manglende forhør hos Sydøstjyllands Politi og Den uafhængige politiklagemyndighed, samt Statsadvokaten. Vi fik i brev fra Statsadvokaten Senioranklager Margrethe Sanning den 7. juli 2015 at vide, at klagen skulle gå til Midt- og Vestjyllands Politi, hvortil hun videresendte vores e-mail af 4. juli 2015 ”til videre foranstaltning”, så vi kunne få vores retmæssige partshøring.

Dette blev fulgt op af en skrivelse af 15. august 2015 fra Midt- og Vestjyllands politi, fra ”ledelsesjura” Om en for os så helbredsmæssig og på alle måder belastende sag slår skrivelsen fast, at der allerede er taget stilling til klagepunktet i Statsadvokatens afgørelse af 23. januar 2014 om, at der ikke var grundlag for at genoptage tilholdssagen. Dette brev kan ses her:

https://sites.google.com/site/ytrings/2017/januar/09-01-2017/Lars%20Kr%C3%B8gholt%20fra%20politi-page-001.jpg

Vi kan ikke acceptere denne udgang af sagen, og vil stadig stå fast på, at vi har brug for at blive hørt i spørgsmålet om grundlaget for tilholdet. Vi mener, vi har ret i henhold til Grundloven til partshøring.

Vi er nu igen blevet anklaget af Jonas Serner-Pedersen for brud på tilholdet. Vi er blevet pålagt bøder på hver 2000 Kr for noget, vi ikke har gjort. Vi har INGEN tillid til Jonas Serner-Pedersen overhovedet, så derfor kunne vi ikke drømme om at kontakte ham! Hvis vi havde fået partshøring omkring tilholdet i stedet for bødestraffe uden forudgående forhør, så behøvede vi ikke endnu en gang stå i en for samfundet bekostelig retssag, hvor politiet bruger kostbare, tidskrævende mandskabsstimer helt uden lovmæssig ret, og for os har det betydet ødelagt helbred og arbejdsmulighed. Det må da være ulovligt, at sognepræst Jonas Serner-Pedersen nedbryder menneskers helbred på den måde.

Vi klager her konkret til jer Midt- og Vestjyllands politi, Ledelsesjura, over at De ignorer Senioranklager MargretheSannings brev til jer om at følge Grundloven/legalitetsprincippet og nægter os partshøring. Det er det signal, Danmark sender ud i nationerne, at De ignorerer legalitetsprincippet, der gør os til en retsstat.

Alle i Danmark hører gang på gang, at politiet er overbelastet og har alvorlig mangel på mandskab. De har ikke mulighed for fx at tage borgeres cykeltyverier alvorligt på grund af mangel på mandskab. Alligevel bruger man mange penge og timer og Statsadvokaten og retsmøder og andre udgifter til at give Jonas Serner-Pedersen frihed til at løbe fra sit administrative arbejde, som kunne have taget 15-20 minutter. Det krænker rigtig mange mennesker retsbevidsthed. Ligeså at en politimand kan starte en langvarig alvorlig sag, men konsekvent har ret til at holde sin identitet hemmelig.

Det kan ikke passe, at en sognepræst, Jonas Serner-Pedersen skal have lov til at bruge politiets knappe ressourcer på at give os et tilhold, når han kunne have klaret hele miseren med at bruge et kvarter af sin administrative tid i præsteembedet på at ordne de forhold, som var grundlaget for vores henvendelser til ham i august- september 2012. Det er hovedpointen i det vi gerne ville sige i en partshøring. Vi har også erfaret gennem aktindsigt, at Jonas Serner-Pedersen har fortalt løgne om os og vores motiver til politiet i forbindelse med etablering af tilholdet. Også disse ting ville vi gerne have anledning til at kommentere.

Med venlig hilsen

Daniela Skov og Lars Skov Krøgholt.

​ENGLISH

The English text is machine translated by Microsoft Translation

mid and Western Jutland Police Register.: 4100-00170-00079-15

Legal Department Date: 7. February 2017

74, 7500 Holstebro stationsvej Caseworker: 08162

Tel. 96141448-Fax 96101489 Id-nr:

Lars Krøgholt

Knud Hansen's Vej 12, 2. tv

6000 Kolding

Adj. mail of 19. January 2017

I have received your mail by 19. January 2017, where you among others, write that you will complain that police are ignoring senior prosecutor Margaret Sanning

​'​s letter. I understand it so that it comes to the State Attorney's letter of 7. July 2015, where Attorney General sent your mail by 4. July 2015 relating to complaint about the lack of consultation of interested parties in connection with a ​case of police restraint to mid and Western Jutland Police for further action.

I can look into the matter, to mid and Western Jutland Police by letter of 11. August 2015 opposite you indicated that

​they did not find it possible to deal with the complaint as there was already taken a position on the complaint in connection with the decision on the resumption of hang-out case. It is apparent that the mid and Western Jutland Police on 14. October 2013 in deciding that there was no basis for resuming the case in which you have​ gotten a restraining order against contacting Jonas Serner-Pedersen. A decision that the 23. January 2014 was confirmed by the public prosecutor.

I can also look at the case, the legal adviser, Katrine Stie Andreasen – after receipt of the letter from Margrethe Sanning – contacted this telephonic, with Katrine Stie Andreasen was of the view that she could not deal with the issue regarding the consultation of interested parties on new, when there

​had been taken a position in relation to hang-out case. It also shows that Margrethe Sanning agreed herein. Copy of the letter of

11. august 2015 for you was sent to the public prosecutor for information.

I can therefore refer me to reply to you in the letter of 11. August 2015, and therefore did not carry out further.

Copy of the letter of 11. August 2015.

With best regards

Camilla Berg

Legal consultant

​T​he MAIL referenced ABOVE:

Mid and Western Jutland Police

Holstebro

Kolding, the 19. January 2017

Be Sent CC Ministry.

This relates to Daniela

​Skov and ​Lars Skov Krøgholt, jnr. 4100-00170-00079-15.

Daniela

​Skov was on 19. September 2012 phoned up by a police officer from mid and Western Jutland police, ​who in a gross way accused her of interfering with the vicar in Hjerm, Jonas Serner-Pedersen's peace by sending e-mails, SMS messages and leave messages on his answering machine. On that basis, she was later ​given ​a police restraining order against Jonas Serner-Pedersen.

She was asked whether she would come to interrogation with police about the case. She would like it, but she would have his medical with Daniela was not summoned at all. for any type of conversation or consultation of interested parties by the concerned officer. The policeman took the priest's words at face value just uncritically, and it is against the Danish Constitution. The COP has never refused to disclose his name. This despite the fact he was allowed to start a now year-long case. We expect that a police officer has the duty of note? His name must surely stand in police journal on the case in question? We are convinced that the lack of consultation of interested parties, we have the right to according to the basic law, due to the fact that the officer has been given freedom by the police chief in the mid and Western Jutland for not abandoning

​his identity since 2012? We have lost our legal certainty in Denmark because of him. The police chief has also a big problem, if they have to give us consultation of interested parties as public prosecutor, senior prosecutor, Margrethe Sanning have opened up, which is our legal right, since they must recognize and correct this error, and reveal the policeman's full identity. Doing things by the book. Instead of running the case at 5. years, and the money it costs society, is due not least to the lie about a policeman with the police Chief, whose identity they keep hidden. It brakes all law and order.

We know 100% sure that the parish priest Jonas Serner-Pedersen in Hjerm simply should have spoken to us in 15 to 20 minutes, which we all in Denmark can expect of a grown man of a priesthood, which thus assumed an administrative paper work.

I,

​Lars Skov Krøgholt was later given a police restraining order, and I was not even asked if I would meet up with the police for questioning. I never got any reasons why I suddenly got a police restraining order! How can a priest without any problems get a police restraining order when battered women in Denmark have to fight to get the same right, and they are really under threat on life?? We have never threatened anyone.

We have complained about the lack of interviews with South East Jutland Police and the independent police klagemyndighed, as well as the Attorney General. We got in the mail from the Attorney General Senior Prosecutor Margrethe Sanning on 7. July 2015 to know that the complaint should go to mid-and West Jutland Police, which she forwarded our e-mail of 4. July 2015 "for further action", so we could get our legitimate party consultation.

This was followed by a letter of 15. August 2015 from mid and Western Jutland police, from the "governing law" About one for us as medical and in every way burdensome case turns the letter that has already taken a position on the complaint in the State Attorney's decision of 23. January 2014 on, that there was no basis for resuming hang-out case. This letter can be found here:

https://sites.google.com/site/freedom of speech/2017/January/09-01-2017/Lars% 20Kr% C3% B8gholt%UR20fra%20politi-page-001.jpg

We can not accept this output of the case, and will still insist that we need to be heard on the question of the basis for the estrangement measures. We believe we have the right under the basic law for consultation of interested parties.

We are now once again been accused by Jonas Serner-Pedersen for breach of the estrangement measures. We have been subject to fines on each 2000 Kr for something we have not done. We have NO trust in Jonas Serner-Pedersen whatsoever, so therefore, we could not dream about to contact him! If we had received the consultation of interested parties about the estrangement measures rather than financial penalties without prior interrogation so that we do not once again stand in a costly lawsuit for society, where the police are using costly, time-consuming crew shoals completely without legal right, and for us it meant have destroyed the health and working ability. It's gotta be illegal that vicar Jonas Serner-Pedersen degrades human health on the way.

We complain here specifically to you mid and Western Jutland police, management law, the fact that They ignore the Senior Prosecutor Margaret

​ ​Sanning​'​s letter for you to follow the basic law/legality and denies us​ ​party consultation. It is the signal that Denmark sends out of the Nations, that they are ignoring the principle of legality, which makes us a rule of law.

All in Denmark hear time and time again, that the police are overstretched and have serious shortage of manpower. They do not have the opportunity to take citizens' bike theft seriously, e.g. due to lack of manpower. Nevertheless, we have a lot of money and hours and the public prosecutor's Office and court hearings and other expenses to give Jonas Serner-Pedersen freedom to shirk its administrative work, which might have taken 15-20 minutes. It violates the very many people sense of Justice. The same to a police officer can initiate a long-term serious matter, but consistently has the right to keep his identity secret.

It may not fit, that a parish priest, Jonas Serner-Pedersen should be allowed to use the scarce resources of the police to provide us with a restraining order when he could have done the whole mess with using a quarter of

​his administrative time in the priest's Office to fix the relationship, which was the basis for our requests to him in august-september 2012. This is the main point of what we wanted to say in a consultation of interested parties. We have also learned through public access, to Jonas Serner-Pedersen has told lies about us and our motives to police in connection with the establishment of the estrangement measures. Also these things we would like to have an opportunity to comment.

With best regards

Daniela

​Skov and ​Lars Skov Krøgholt

--

Lars Skov Krøgholt

Knud Hansens Vej 12,2.tv.

6000 Kolding

Denmark

Chat

Skype: lars.krogholt

Contact Me