Not a Fair Trial

Seven months before my indictment after spending 6 months in solitary confinement, I wrote a declaration that I would not be getting a fair trial. The European Court of Human Right agreed that I did not get a fair trial, the foundation of all justice, unfortunately, that took another near 9 years.

The political background for my case and the fact the authorities had been so successful in lying to the Danish public made me already then realised that it would be impossible for me to get a fair trial, the authorities could simply not allow this, however, I had at least thought that they would not have been so blatantly obvious about their abuse of power.

Looking back the Special Prosecution had got away with everything, keeping me locked up in solitary confinement, closing the companies, hiding documentation from the commercial and supreme court, moreover creating a very negative image of me with lies and innuendoes in the public mind, no doubt they believe the could even walk on water.

The Danish authorities ignored even my very experienced defence lawyer Jørgen Jacobsen’s warning, that Denmark would have to account one day to the European Court of Human Rights for their actions against me. He gave that warning after I had been in solitary confinement for seven months. Neither my defence nor I at the time was aware that the Danish authorities had just contempt for the European Convention of Human Rights, even going so far as keeping correspondence from the Council of Europe away from me and my defence for several years. 

The Copenhagen Municipal Court (Lower Court)

There simply was no way that I could get a fair trial and the judge who was going to judge me had already made close to seventy decisions against me.

I had believed from the first day of my trial that it was impossible for me to have a fair trial in the City Court (Lower Court) specifically with that judge to Claus Larsen, who appeared feeble and insubstantial and just a tool of the ministry of justice.

Apart from the fact that the Danish media had been full of lies, malicious stories and innuendoes for twenty months, Claus Larsen, had already “committed” himself by making more than seventy decisions against the defence and I since April 1980 – he was acting as a henchman for the authorities.

“The Danish National Bank, the Ministry of Trade, the Company Register and Copenhagen tax authorities all conspired against Hauschildt and the companies whilst using the involvement of the Ministry of Justice, the Special Prosecution and court as henchmen”

– Advocate Folmer Reindel to the City Court and 8 years later to the full Court with 17 Judges at the European Court of Human Rights

These decisions by Claus Larsen had collectively caused considerable losses for my clients and me and had helped the Special Prosecution to make a case where no crime had been committed, only the unlawful acts by Bagmandspolitiet.

For example, Bagmandspolitiet (Special Prosecution) had asked the judge for permission to go to Paris to investigate the accusation that I had been selling fake gold and silver bars.

They said that they had received information from a known criminal that SCE and I had been selling fake precious metal bars. The judge gladly granted Bagmandspolitiet permission and consequently, the newspapers were full of false allegations and lies about me selling fake bars, going as far as labelling me as the major client for a Paris company which manufactured such fake bars.

Despite the fact that the Special Prosecution did not find anything to confirm this malicious lie, neither the press nor the court was told and nothing was written in the press that this accusation had been untrue. Nevertheless, Claus Larsen had committed the taxpayers’ money for the Special Prosecution to travel to Paris many times, thereby wasting the tax payer’s money and fooling their colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

This should be seen in the context that the same judge did not permit my defence lawyers to go abroad to speak to my working colleagues, partners and potential witnesses for the defence in England and Switzerland.

Moreover, the fact that Judge Claus Larsen issued decisions, again and again, to keep me in solitary confinement (not even giving me access to an outside doctor), was even more committal to his biased objectivity, especially considering that month after month he had witnessed the deterioration of my mental and physical condition where I had lost more than fifty-seven kilograms in weight.

My defence and I had asked Claus Larsen many times for permission for me to consult a respected psychologist as I needed help to be treated from the effect of my long horrendous solitary confinement. 

Everyone who knew me could see that I was unfit to stand trial – the effect from my long solitary confinement and the fifty-five-day hunger strike had made me unable to defend myself. Despite suffering from severe migraines and lack of sleep, at times I was still forcefully taken to the court (sometimes in handcuffs after being dressed by the prison staff). This was ordered by Judge Claus Larsen.

I told the court that I am psychically and physical ill and wanted to consult a psychiatrist I had confidence in. This I was refused for 1492 days.

Regardless of my mental state, I was still refused access to a psychiatrist and had to live with the headlines (even editorials), in the tabloid press with regards to all of this – being dressed and forcefully brought to court in handcuffs regardless of my mental state.

On the first day of the trial my defence lawyer, Folmer Reindel asked the court to allow the defence assistance by appointing an additional lawyer John Korsø Jensen, to assist in the defence.

Judge Claus Larsen immediately dismissed this as ridiculous and the prosecution also agreed with him that this was totally unnecessary. They both knew that it did not matter how many defence lawyers I had, nothing could stop them in their pursuit of injustice.

What Folmer Reindel had told Berlingske Tidende at the start of the so-called trial – that he feared a miscarriage of justice – was to become a reality.

The Danish Law Society (Advokatsamfundet) Intervened

Folmer Reindel fought on and appealed to the High Court with regards to the decision by Claus Larsen as to another defence attorney. In the meantime, the Danish Law Society had intervened and supported Folmer Reindel’s application to the High Court. This, no doubt, made the High Court overrule Judge Claus Larsen’s decision.

Therefore when the High Court decided in favour of the defence and against the Bagmandspolitiet, (the prosecution and Claus Larsen’s decision), Claus Larsen showed his disapproval immediately during the next court hearing. This was the first time he had been overruled in my case – now with a score of seventy-plus to one. To make matters worse, his many subjective expressions against the defence became very pre-judicial for the two lay-judges to witness during the many months and it became the most negative when the defence examined the witnesses.

My defence attorney Advocate Folmer Reindel, said to the City Court after 110 court hearings:

“I feel that I have been reduced to a defence counsel in a Russian Military Court.”

Advocate Jørgen Jacobsen, said to the court three years earlier:

”That the prosecution could as well hold their Court hearings at their own offices without the judge, the defence and the accused – the result would be the same.”

Judge Claus Larsen had, as mentioned, not only made decisions as to my solitary confinement and keeping me incarcerated in pre-trial detention, but he had made many decisions with regards to the seizure of private documents as well as the decision of letting the Special Prosecution go to U.S.A., France, Holland, Switzerland and other countries.

Judge Claus Larsen made even more serious decisions such as the decisions on restricting the defence access to investigating the case, restriction on their fees, not allowing the defence to go abroad, restrictions to access the documents and calling witnesses in my defence.

Each decision on detention or solitary confinement involved taking a position on the question of guilt and on the principles of proportionality to a “possible” sentence. Since guilt is an integral part of the justification for pre-trial detention, it became unavoidable that decisions on detention would contain prejudice. However, after making thirty-nine such decisions prior to pronouncing judgement in the trial, these decisions became prejudiced and therefore an important liability to Judge Claus Larsen.

It was impossible for Judge Claus Larsen to forget his previous thirty-nine decisions on detention and nine on solitary confinement when preparing for this Judgement. Furthermore, these decisions, as well as the more than thirty others against me, did influence the lay-judges who did not participate in those previous decisions.

If the proceedings only lasted one or two days – which is normal, the use of the same judge both before and during the trial might not affect the partiality of the court. However, in my case, it became quite clear to the authorities ahead of the trial that the proceedings would go on over a much longer period, possibly years. Therefore it was apparent that another presiding judge should take over the case from the start of the trial.

I expressed my total contempt for Judge Claus Larsen on many occasions, normally sitting with my back to him reading my daily Financial Times. I called him a shit face; he just smiled as he did not understand English. It did not matter what I called him as he could just abuse his official power and impose another thirty days in solitary confinement with a smile. Luckily for Denmark, he did not get promoted to a higher court. Nevertheless, after my trial, he did get various extra jobs as a reward from the Ministry.

“The prosecution could as well hold their “court hearings” at their own offices without the judges, the defence and the accused – the result would be the same.”

– Advocate Jørgen Jacobsen’s statement to the  Court

After recently seeing the judge in Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s trial in Moscow, I was reminded about how similar the judge, Victor Danilkin, was to Judge Claus Larsen – they could have come out of the same school. Judge Claus Larsen would be at home as a judge in today’s China with the thousands of dissidents either disappearing or sentenced to many years in hell or executed. Perhaps he should come out from retirement and give his colleagues in China a helping hand.

Judge Claus Larsen was a disgrace to his profession. Judges have a duty to act independently and to be unbiased; they are the guarantor for justice – not the henchmen of the prosecution or the authorities.

A respected human rights lawyer recently said to me:

“You were judged by a Kangaroo court. That this happened in Denmark is hard to believe, but it is also hard to believe what happened in DDR at that time, the genocide in the Balkan or the many injustices in Russia today, a member of the European Court of Human Rights.”

The Two Lay Judges – Housewives

Time was the prime factor in relation to the influence of the two lay-judges (housewives) and the use of the same judge before and during the trial. Judge Claus Larsen had to get “approval” from the lay-judges as to all his previous decisions – which became an easy job for him.

As to the two lay-judges who took part in the trial at the Lower Court, after fourteen months of proceedings one of the lay-judges, a male bookkeeper, left the case. A housewife that had acted as a lay-judge substitute/alternate replaced the bookkeeper. The other lay-judge was also a housewife.

According to my defence lawyer Folmer Reindel, the lay-judge bookkeeper which left immigrated to France apparently in disgust for Danish justice. I would like to know this person today. During the more than one hundred court hearings, these lay-judges and indeed the judiciary judge were in close contact with members of the Special Prosecution.

With the view that these lay-judges were not professional people but housewives, such fraternisation must be considered as a serious violation of justice. In the very pursuit of justice, the exemplary conduct of the judges must be so that they do not appear to favour one side or the other – this was not the conduct with which the judges in this proceeding at the Lower Court pursued – thus them not being independent and impartial.

The Lay-judges Fraternization with the Prosecution

One of the most serious complaints from me with regards to the impartiality of the court during the trial in the City Court/Lower Court must be the question of the judges fraternizing with the prosecutor.

The lay-judges, together with Judge Claus Larsen, often fraternized with the Special Prosecutor and his assistant. The judges and the prosecutor frequently had coffee together during the one hundred days of proceedings without once being joined by the counsel for the defence.

In most civilized countries, jury and lay-judges are not allowed to come into contact with any of the parties in a case outside of the courtroom. It is not difficult to understand what happens when people work together month after month and in fact year after year as the lay-judges did with the same prosecutor and members of Bagmandspolitiet.

In addition to these regular coffee meetings, it is known to my defence attorneys as well as to me that on one occasion (6th April 1982) during a visit to the Danish National Television head office by the court, the judges had lunch with the Special Prosecutor and his assistant.

Even worse, the Chief Prosecutor, Finn Meilby from Bagmandspolitiet who initially started my case, was at this lunch with the two lay-judges, Judge Claus Larsen and a lay-judge substitute. This lunch was also not attended by my defence lawyers.

Impartiality must be questioned when it was clear to me, my defence and others present in the courtroom that during intermissions the judges and the court secretary frequently and openly went into a room together with the Special Prosecutor and his assistant to drink coffee. Impartiality did not appear to be evident since my defence lawyers were never invited to join them.

I also maintain that the lay-judges either due to ignorance, incompetence, bias or even malice did not provide me with a fair hearing at the City Court (Lower Court).

No Proper Recording of the Proceedings

Possibly the most important decision that Judge Claus Larsen ever made was to not allow an electronic recording of the proceedings – not even verbatim dictation. He was, therefore, more or less able to fabricate his own version as to what witnesses had said and what took place in the courtroom.

The transcript used by the City Court (Lower Court) was faulty, inadequate and reflected a subjective dictation by the judge. During the trial at the City Court, my defence used most of its time to object to what was recorded in the transcripts of the court.

Judge Claus Larsen made deliberate incorrect dictations to the transcripts of the court. He did this working on his own after the court hearings and sometimes for weeks after the hearings.

The City Court (judge Claus Larsen) ignored all complaints about the falsehood in the transcripts. It was my defence and my contention that the transcripts from the City Court were distorted and non-representational as to what really took place.

I wrote a letter to the judges in the City Court dated 1st June 1982 and complained about the disinclination of the judge to record factual statements by witnesses etc. during the trial.

Even though witnesses had told the court that they did not believe that they had been defrauded in any way – this information was left out of the transcripts.

Unfortunately, this highly subjective transcript from the City Court became the “truth” in the High Court/Court of Appeal.

As a blatant example of the recordings of the City Court (in the judgment dated 1st November 1982), a reference to a witness, Piet Boeck (who worked for my company International Resources in Holland and who with passive assistance from Bagmandspolitiet, stole more than US$600,000 from me and the estate) was made and indeed quoted despite the fact that he was never heard by the Court. Only a testimony that was made sixteen months before the trial was used as testimony which was then subjected to objections made by my defence lawyers at the time. Nevertheless, it appeared in the court transcripts that he had been a witness during the trial in the court.

Possibly the most important decision that Judge Claus Larsen ever made was to not allow electronic recording of the proceedings, not even verbatim dictation. Therefore he was more or less able to fabricate his own version as to what witnesses said and what took place in the courtroom.

First, many weeks after witnesses were heard and testimony made in the court, Judge Claus Larsen gave the “court transcripts” to the defence and me.

My lawyers and I had always thought that Claus Larsen had to clear the transcripts with the Special Prosecution “so everything would look good on paper”.

Already at the beginning of the trial in the lower court, I said that I was subject to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Human Right agreed, but nearly 9 years later.

Both the Prosecution and Claus Larsen knew that these fabricated transcripts would later be taken “as the truth” of what took place in the lower court.

Despite the fact that the defence immediately asked for changes and wholesale corrections to be made to these transcripts as well as regularly pointing out the many omissions and faults in the transcript, Judge Claus Larsen ignored this for the most part – he sometimes appeared dim-witted like making such changes in the transcripts was unimportant. 

On reflection, Judge Claus Larsen already knew that the transcripts did not really matter – there was simply no way out for me and any defence was a total waste of time. Later on, when the High Court did not grant an appeal hearing, these transcripts became legitimised as they were read out as a factual reporting on the Lower Court trial and what the witnesses had said.

As an editorial leader in Information newspaper reported later (Information Editorial-Leader 3rd November 1982)

“That it did not appear that Judge Claus Larsen was ever present when the defence argued their case and during the summing up.”

No reference was made to the defence argumentation in the final Judgement and neither to the fact that many clients had told the court that they did not believe that they had been defrauded in any way. 

Bagmandspolitiet used “Zersetzung”

Zersetzung, is a special German word for a scientific term borrowed from chemistry, in English it translates into “disintegration, corrosion and undermining”. Under Eric Honecker, Zersetzung was used extensively and as applied by the Stasi it was a technique to subvert and undermine an opponent. Interesting it was in the 1970ties that Honecker’s secret police began employing the perfidious methods. Stasi started using this technique at the same time that Bagmandspolitiet was established in Denmark.

My solitary confinement was psychological torture (which some people rightly recognise as mental torture), however, Bagmandspolitiet used many more refined “techniques” learned no doubt from the Stasi Hochschule in Potsdam-Eiche near Berlin, less than 200 kilometres from Denmark.

Bagmandspolitiet use so many “settled methods on me and against me and my family” which for many would sound unbelievable – this is the objective of using Zersetzung, since the offer is not believed – “all these things do not happen, it is all in his head.” – They ridicule everything and make out that the offer is crazy or telling lies and stories. I still recall the laughing prosecutor in the court telling the court after one of my many outbursts “it is all in Hauschildt’s mind and not true”.

As I previously have mentioned Bagmandspolitiet effectively used the media to drum-up a real media lynching long before I was charged and during my long solitary confinement. From the day of my arrest for alleged tax evasion, they painted a terrible picture of me and my companies with lies and innuendos, made up stories and indeed even articles (written by members of the prosecution/police) all months before I was charged, this was school book procedures by Stasi and the KGB, totalitarian regimes and the like.

How calculated and wretched Bagmandspolitiet gave me very early in my solitary confinement permission to get a typewriter into my cell. Not that I had access to any documents or papers in my case, nor had any sense to write. Nevertheless, I could write and they knew that everything I wrote they could read from the typewriter ribbon since it was an IBM “golf ball” typewriter.

Bagmandspolitiet came many times unannounced off course to my solitary confinement cell and took the typewriter ribbon away.

Since my mind had been gravely influenced by the events and the solitary confinement, what I wrote on the blank sheet of paper god know, however ultimately, I wrote some instruction to my lawyers, staff and business contacts abroad.

What I wrote in my state of desperation and agony was later used to charge me with 4 different “crimes”. How ridiculous as my defence lawyers later said since these so-called crimes had been committed against me and my estates outside Denmark, which after all was solvent and mine. Nevertheless, I was sentenced for these so-called crimes in Denmark.

What is interesting when I wanted to prove something which was important that I had written and really showed my “good intentions” and that I was innocent, Bagmandspolitiet lost this specific typewriter ribbon in their laboratory? The prosecution could just say that what I had written on this ribbon: “It is all in Hauschildt’s mind and not true”.

The Appeal Court – The High Court Proceedings (a rubberstamping process)

When the defence lawyers and I decided to appeal the judgment from the Lower Court, we did expect that the authorities would put pressure on me to not proceed with my appeal and restriction on the defence. They did indeed. When I, through my defence, rejected their offer to me, the Danish authorities, through their henchmen, kept me in restrictive pre-trial incarceration during the almost ten months prior to the High Court trial.

As I was innocent, this did not matter to me; I wanted a re-trial, which of course I didn’t get. Instead, I just got a rubber-stamping process of the lower court’s trial. But we did not know this at the time since the law had given me the right to a new trial. (See: Folmer Reindel 24 March 1983 to the High Court)

If I had accepted the lower court’s sentence I would have been a free man prior to the commencement of the High Court hearing; however, in no way could I accept such injustice.

The Danish authorities did not want me to have any real appeal trial; they just wanted to rubberstamp the lower court’s verdict. Later Judge Ove Brink referred to the scale of economy of the trial that saving money for the Danish taxpayers’ was important. The High Court did not want to question or interview the hundreds of investors who Bagmandspolitiet knew would tell the court that “they had not been defrauded and that I had done nothing wrong”.

The High Court/the so-called Court of Appeal just rubberstamped the lower court’s verdict, only by a minor change, making me not guilty of a few ridiculous charges and reducing the sentencing to five years. The judges knew that I could ask for compensation for anything less than five years.

My defence wanted to have all the clients included in the indictment testifying, not just a few selected by the Special Prosecution; but this was not allowed and the High Court did not grant us a proper appeal trial in any meaning of the word.

It was my defence contention that if I was accused of defrauding someone, the accuser should be called as a witness in the court and should face my defence and me for questioning.

The Danish authorities did not wish for this to happen under any circumstances since they knew that hundreds of the investors would tell the court the opposite to what the judges wanted to hear. The High Court only went through the same miserable injustices as the lower court.

Upon looking back I see that it was a total waste of time and money to take the case to the High Court/Court of Appeal; I was reduced to a convict in a Moscow Court (at the time) asking for a fair hearing – what a laugh.

The Restrictions on the Defence and Me

Since the Special Prosecution knew that I had developed severe claustrophobia during my many years of pretrial incarceration and the many months in solitary confinement, they again used this in the High Court as a tool of pressure on me.

Prior to the commencement of the High Court trial, I asked my lawyers to point out to the authorities that I had had improper facilities as to working with the defence since I could not have documentation at the High Court. The conditions under which I was incarcerated in the High Court in the cellar box did not permit me to work with the defence and my headache (severe migraines) and the bad lighting effectively prevented this too.

My papers and files in connection with the defence remained at the lower court in the so-called “prison cell 27”. In other words, I could not work with my defence under conditions which should be considered humane as to the principle of equality of the law. Both defence lawyers had already told me before the appeal to the High Court that they could not work outside the court with the case because they did not get paid enough for the defence. The defence could therefore not make preparation work prior to the individual court hearings.

When the High Court case commenced, the cost of each court hearing had been estimated to be in excess of D.Kr. 30.000, – with six judges and two substitutes, two court officials and the people from the prosecution etcetera. My defence lawyer, Folmer Reindel, was later refused payment by the Supreme Court in June (see court hearing no. 201) for a relatively small amount of a few thousand kroner. These fee restrictions influenced the quality of the defence adversely, although it may appear to the public that I had had a proper defence.

According to an estimated cost of the Bagmandspolitiet case against me of more than D.Kr. 40 million, my defence attorney’s received less than 2% in fees – that truly reflected that my resources of defending the case were 98 to 2. One should ask what kind of equality of justice is this.

No Re-Trial – Just a Rubberstamp

For more than six months prior to the trial, the High Court had tried to get my defence lawyers to accept an “economic trial at the High Court”. Considerable pressures were put upon my defence lawyers to accept this as I had the right to a new trial.

I appealed only because I believe that I would get a re-trial as the law prescribed. Professor of Law, Gammeltoft-Hansen, had told my defence lawyers that the High Court had an obligation to give me a new trial as I had asked for a re-trial when I appealed against the lower court judgement.

Considering I was innocent it was important for me to believe in Gammeltoft-Hansen’s statement as a highly regarded law professor and my right to a new trial, with a new court examination of witnesses.

I could not believe that Professor Gammeltoft-Hansen’s legal opinion was totally ignored by the court and that I in effect spend another 14 months looked up in restrictive pre-trial detention for nothing and indeed in total vane.

As the newspaper article state, I had to pay for making an appeal with being locked up in pre-trial detention for another year – just to appeal the lower court sentence – a trial which the European Court later found – NOT TO BE FAIR.

Looking back I could have walked free in the spring of 1983, but instead was subjected to more anguish, misery and pointlessness by the Danish authorities.

When the first witness was examined in the High Court/Court of Appeal on 25th August 1983, it became blatantly clear that the Court had absolutely no intention of giving me a re-trial. The judiciary judges at the High Court acted contemptuously against the Danish law.

I strongly protested to the procedure of using the testimony from the City Court. The protest was not recorded in the transcripts of the trial. However, my lawyer, Korsø-Jensen, confirmed to the Court on 9th November 1983 that I did not agree with this procedure and had objected strongly against it many times.

I regularly made strong protests as to the way all of the witnesses were examined. However, it was a question which the defence wanted expert legal advice on – which the court refused. Furthermore, only semi-professional witnesses were heard during the initial two months of the trial. In the first four days of trial proceedings, no witnesses were called upon and during the following five days of the trial, only lawyers and government officials testified. The next eight days of the trial were devoted to the testimony of staff from my companies and businesses as well as professional advisors. Most of these witnesses were clearly very involved in the case and had prepared themselves well for the trial.

Until 17th October 1983, only one “outside” witness testified at the trial. However, on 17th October investors were heard and it became quite clear that the judges accepted the very special method of examination of the witnesses adopted previously by the court.

On the 3rd October 1983, I forwarded a memo to the counsel for the defence, setting out various points related to the examination of witnesses. As clearly stated in my letter to the Court of Appeal dated 9th November 1983, my defence lawyers had objected to the methods used by the court in examining witnesses. It was very evident to the court that the counsel for the defence did not agree with the decision by the court to examine witnesses in this way.

The High Court Judge’s Clear Misconduct

On the 2nd August 1983, I wrote a letter to the President of the High Court making references to the letter from Judge Brink to me (dated the 26th May 1983), as to various complaints I had made including the alleged misconduct by Judge Ove Brink, the head of my trial.

The President of the High Court replied to me on the 10th August, setting out the statement by Judge Brink, who reserved his right to not answer the charges.

At the opening of the trial in the High Court on the 15th August, my defence and I stated the objections with regards to Judge Brink’s clear misconduct as well as to Judge Reisz who had already made one of the most important decisions against me in the lower court.

Judge Reisz made four days after my arrest and solitary confinement an order to seize all my assets – at that time neither myself nor the companies were made bankrupt. Moreover, there was no evidence as to my alleged tax evasion or fraud. Nevertheless, his decision caused the “excuse” for the bankruptcies and at the very least justified that the authorities could, despite the true solvent position of the companies and me, go and make the companies and I bankrupt.

The other judiciary, Judge Brydensholt, had also made ten decisions through the years of my pre-trial incarceration against me dating back to 1981. I had, however, somewhat greater respect for him – although, it perhaps would have been right and correct to claim that all three judges were clearly biased as they all had all made decisions against me and kept me in pre-trial incarceration as well as solitary confinement. Nevertheless, I did not object to Judge Brydensholt serving at the time as one of the judicial judges.

After some discussion, my defence and I agreed to let Judge Reisz remain as a judge but not to let Judge Brink remain since there were many witnesses to his misconduct and prejudicial behaviour towards me. After all, thirty-five judges in the High Court had, through the years, decided against me and so there were very few judges left who had not been involved before with me and my case and had consequently somewhat committed themselves.

After nearly forty minutes of voting, the three judiciary judges, with Judge Brink residing as head, decided that he should remain in charge of the trial. Interesting – this voting did not include the lay-judges.

When judge Brink told the court of the decision made, he said that I could appeal directly to the Supreme Court without the Ministry of Justices’ permission. That was a direct lie and he knew it, but the defence and I did not.

The way that this whole question has been handled by the authorities – where Judge Brink himself is responsible for the appeal that never goes to the Supreme Court and where Judge Brink never answers to the alleged charges of misconduct – can only be viewed with scepticism.

Judge Brink, as the head of the Court, conducted the examination of witnesses and did on many occasions show considerable bias and even nearly adorned the robe of the prosecutor. Furthermore, judge Brink did make some very curious and controversial decisions which also must have been a violation of the principle of a fair trial.

At mid-day on the 7th December 1983 (my dearest departed grandmother’s birthday), Judge Brink certainly stood up during the proceedings and collapsed from a heart attack and consequently died. Just prior to this, my defence had made some serious argumentation with regards to the trial and strongly criticised the proceedings in general and the fabricated transcripts from the Court.

There is no doubt that there was a lot of pressure on Judge Brink; perhaps he had some moral doubts – who know. But he died at the age of sixty-three whilst carrying out his duty as a henchman of injustice for the Danish authorities in my case.

A little note to this, when judge Brink fell over, I did say to my two defence lawyers – I am sure he is dead or that I hoped he died. I did get an immediate negative reaction to this statement from Korsø-Jensen, but Korsø did not carry my scars or hate, nor had been in solitary confinement for 309 days.

No Proper Appeal Process for the Defence

It was, in reality, impossible for my defence lawyers to appeal against an interlocutory order taken during the proceedings as to the above questions. The Danish Administration of Justice Act, section 968 and 969, clearly set out this limitation.

Furthermore, if the defence had tried to take such a decision further, an application would have had to be made to the Ministry of Justice which automatically would have refused such permission. Moreover, all decisions taken cannot – as a rule – be postponed without the court agreeing to this.

To have any decision stayed requires the impossible by the defence since the same judge who decides on a question also makes this decision. Therefore, it is normal if a decision on a procedural question has gone against the defence; the proceedings still go on and could take weeks or even months before the Court of Appeal will hear this appeal.

Despite the considerable effort from my lawyers, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court by the Ministry of Justice was – in practice – always refused.

The difficulty to obtain this permission was expressed openly by the presiding Judge Brink on 26th September 1983. He said, “That it was a waste of time to seek permission to appeal from the Ministry of Justice.For once he spoke honestly and truthfully; it was indeed a waste of time to seek an appeal from the Ministry of Justice.

The High Court Transcripts and Proceedings

Again at the High Court, the defence lawyers and I had daily fights with regards to the court transcripts handed out by the court because the court had decided not to allow electronic recording or verbatim dictation of what really took place during the trial.

The court transcript from the High Court did in no way reflect what took place in court; to make matters worse they legitimised the lower court’s fabricated transcripts’ by Judge Claus Larsen.

Just to mention that I, together with the defence, received the final transcript from the lawyers with corrections from the High Court trial many months after the case was finished. By that time I was in Switzerland. What sort of kangaroo court is this? Everything in a US or UK courtroom is written verbatim or electronically recorded and can immediately be made available to everyone.

It is important to be aware that the defence told the court many times that several important statements and conclusions, both orally and in writing by witnesses, had not been recorded. Very important statements (which differ even from those dictated at the lower court by Judge Larsen) had been ignored by the High Court since they have not been included in the transcript.

My defence lawyers and I regularly made objections and protests as to the recordings in the transcripts of the High Court which did not, for the most part, reflect what took place. There were several versions of “what had been said at the trial” at the High Court.

In the memorandum to my defence on 3rd October 1983, I clearly confirmed the observations about the highly subjective recordings in the transcript.

My defence and I practically always received these transcripts with considerable delays. Many were received up to four weeks after the actual day of the trial. Therefore, when my defence lawyers and I made objections to the court the events recorded were “old” to the judges and there was always an argument as to what had been said.

On 11th October 1983, my lawyers wrote to the High Court/Court of Appeal and asked for several corrections to be made to the transcript of the proceedings. On 29th November 1983, my lawyers again asked the Court of Appeal to “correct” the wording of decisions because the counsel had claimed that what was alleged to have been said (by the counsel for the defence) bore no relation to what was actually said.

I told the court on 24th November 1983 of another mistake in a judgement made by the court. Since the presiding Judge Brink ignored many requests for changes in the transcript – to conform to what was really said by the witnesses – the counsel for the defence had to re-examine witnesses. Despite all of this, these objections were never mentioned in the transcripts.

It was only possible to change the various faults and corrections in the transcript with regards to my own testimony to the court.

On 15th February 1984, the court recorded thirty-four different faults in the written transcript. These corrections were not changed in the transcripts that were handed out to the public and the media on the 2nd March 1984. In fact, I hadn’t received written confirmation of these changes before six months later.

Time after time my lawyers and I had made the court aware of these mistakes and faults but in the correction of the transcripts, it became apparent that in reality, it was a waste of time to complain. The transcripts did not record what actually took place in the Court of Appeal.

Nevertheless, they were used for the public and the media. 

Just a Rubberstamp – No Re-trial

Professor Hans Gammeltoft- Hansen (later the Danish Parliamentary Ombudsman for more than 25 years) advised my defence and clearly told them that when I had asked for a re-trial I was entitled to have “A new trial”. This was very important for my defence and me. Moreover in my decision to appeal to the High Court.

If I had known then that the High Court would totally ignore Professor Gammeltoft-Hansen’s legal opinion and the law, I certainly would not have appealed since I could have walked out more than a year before my pre-trial detention ended. I made my appeal on the 15th of November 1982. (See: Ankemeddelelse – 15 november 1982)

After Folmer Reindel told me about Professor Gammeltoft-Hansen views I looked forward to a new trial with having new witness statements and not using the manufactured statement by Judge Claus Larsen from the City Court. I wrote to my defence in January 1983 setting out various points. (See: Notat to Forsvarer 25 January 1983)

It never turned out this way and to the so-called “re-trial” in the High Court and how the witnesses were heard:

 “The Danish National Bank, the Ministry of Trade, the Company Register and Copenhagen tax authorities all conspired against Hauschildt and the companies whilst using the involvement of the Ministry of Justice, the Special Prosecution and court as henchmen”

Advocate Folmer Reindel to the City Court

Normally a witness is a little nervous when entering a courtroom where the press may be present and all the attention is focused on the witness.

It was therefore of some comfort to the witnesses to be greeted by the Special Prosecutor’s assistant prior to entering the courtroom and to be handed a copy of a statement which contained the witnesses’ testimony of several years before.

It was never pointed out to the witnesses that the statements of what he supposedly had said in the City Court were not a true verbatim recording but the work of Judge Claus Larsen’s imagination and recollection; statements/ transcripts which the defence and I had objected to so many times and had wanted to be changed.

The case at the High Court was conducted in a very small courtroom and the witness sat only a few meters away from the six judges. Therefore after hearing many pages read out from a statement to the City Court, it was hardly likely that the witness would object to this statement’s correctness.

In the event of a witness objecting or making any major suggestions for correcting this statement, the judges would question his integrity or truthfulness – the possibility of which could not be ignored. The prosecutor would automatically attack any witnesses who questioned the statement readout, which did happen a few times.

When a witness was asked whether he would stand by his/her statement from the City Court or not, he/she would verify this as a matter of course. Thus, although the witness did have access to correcting his statement, such access was, in reality, only theoretical under the very special circumstances that prevailed.

After a witness had verified the statement from the City Court it became impossible for my defence lawyers to refer to any other understanding of what was actually said in the City Court or to get the witness to change any such statement. If my lawyers questioned the witness too much on this point, the witness became uncooperative.

The Authorities’ Vested Interest in My Case and Guilty Judgement

The fact that the Danish Authorities wanted to cover up all of their actions against me, the companies and the clients of the companies was clear and somewhat understandable from their position. The Judgement was already signed, sealed and delivered!

The Authorities spent millions in their pursuit to cover up the truth – millions from the Danish taxpayers.

Despite this, some facts came “out” from time to time; it was difficult to completely cover up everything despite that the Internet did not even exist then. The internal memorandum from the National bank and Copenhagen Tax authorities came to light during the trial and it clearly showed the aim and intended actions by the authorities against the companies and indirectly against me.

An interesting point was made when the liquidators (the vultures) of the companies and my estate told the High Court that the Customs and Excise (Toldvæsenet) should, according to the agreement with my companies, refund the purchase tax (Moms) to the estate. This sales tax had already been paid by the companies on goods which had not been delivered due to the action taken by the Danish authorities.

The interesting point, which clearly showed the authorities interest in having me convicted, was that Customs and Excise would only refund the millions of Kroner paid by the companies if I was not convicted for fraud. In other words, the authorities had a substantial interest in getting a conviction for fraud. Even this most important statement made in the Court was not recorded in the transcript of the High Court.

A New Interpretation of the Law

Until my case, it had been the practice of the courts to interpret the Danish Code of Criminal Procedure (Retsplejeloven) in such a way that it was only the judiciary judges who considered the question of accused incarceration during pre-trial (on remand). This was also the practice with my incarceration during the more than three years in which I was incarcerated; Judge Claus Larsen in the Lower Court never permitted the two lay-judges to take part in this decision.

On the first day of the proceedings at the High Court, Judge Brink had already told the Court that his interpretation of the law was one all members of the court should consider if I should remain incarcerated in pre-trial custody. Since this must have either meant that Judge Claus Larsen at the lower court had been wrong for nearly three years – when every four weeks he “rubberstamped” the Special Prosecutions wish to keep me locked-up – or Judge Brink may have been wrong in his rather special interpretation of something which ought to be quiet clear for the courts.

Professor Hans Gammeltoft-Hansen told my defence that Judge Brink was wrong in his decision – but never mind a respected law professor’s opinion, even a law professor who later became the ombudsman for Parliament for 25 years.

Considering that this new historic procedure was used regularly every four weeks where the three lay-judges at the High Court also showed their views – and indeed judgement – as to me being kept in restrictive pre-trial incarceration. These lay-judges indirectly gave an indication as to their views and inclinations with regards to any final judgment since they (at least two of the lay-judges), permitted and agreed to my continued incarceration during the trial – this must have been prejudicial since they became committed.

This monthly decision committed the individual members of the court and interfered with a fair trial. That such argumentation was valid can be illustrated from the headlines of the newspapers.

On the 26th August 1983, the BT wrote the headlines, “For the 55th time! No, you do not get permission to get out, Hauschildt”.

In the article, it concluded that the decision by the High Court to keep me incarcerated reflected that the judges had already (on the first day of the proceedings), given an indication with regards to their final judgment. As to the final judgment, the newspaper stated that I would get at least a sentence of seven years and possibly more since the Special Prosecution was asking for a twelve-year sentence.

The other controversial decision made by Judge Brink was to permit witnesses to read their “alleged statements” from the Lower Court prior to them testifying to the High Court. In addition to this, the Special Prosecution started the examination with the reading of these alleged statements (the transcript from the lower court).

This transcript was, as previously mentioned, a fabrication by Judge Claus Larsen and did in no way reflect what really took place during the trial. Despite that this transcript did not reflect the truth; such a statement nevertheless became the truth since only a very few witnesses at the High Court would start their testimony with a denial of something written down two years earlier.

Professor Hans Gammeltoft-Hansen, told my defence lawyer, Folmer Reindel that this procedure by the High Court was not in accordance with the law since my defence and I had asked for a completely new trial at the High Court as well as that the witnesses should be questioned again.

It is my contention that these procedural irregularities violated my rights to a fair trial at the High Court and Judge Brink showed bias towards the Special Prosecution (Bagmandspolitiet). One may ask the question why? Why did the High Court make such different interpretations of the law and indeed make such a historic decision in this case?

A Lay-Judge Visual Protest

After a court hearing in mid-October 1983, one of the lay-judges came up to my defence, Folmer Reindel, and I. This lay-judge said, to our surprise, “I have had enough of this injustice and will go right away to my member of parliament to ask for his help”. Although such an action and the statement must be considered highly irregular from a member of the panel of judges in the case, it was very positive for me and Folmer Reindel to witness at the time because it showed that the Danish authorities had some difficulty in covering up the truth. In fact, today I would like this lay-judge to step forward and contact me.

As to their rubberstamping Judge Claus Larsen’s verdict, the High Court had little choice. First, they had to throw out two of the ridiculous charges which the lay-judges would not go along with.

Secondly, they somehow had an obligation to discharge the Danish authorities which had kept me locked up in restrictive pre-trial confinement for more than four years.

This allowed the judges to give me an eight-year sentence, as I had served that and would immediately be released anyway. Further, the Special Prosecution had argued for 12 years prison sentence.

As the newspaper headlines say “Bagmandspolitiet wanted to give me a sentence of 12 years prison”. In the end, it became just an issue to justify my more than 4 years of incarceration in pre-trial detention.

The fact that the judges agreed on five years must show that there were some problems with the lay-judges; the jurist judges could not really get their way of serving their masters.

Anyone who knows how the courts worked in Denmark at the time would have known that there must have been a compromise among the judges as well as pressure on the three lay-judges since the final judgment was a “lesser” justification than they could have made.

What Impartiality?

Over the years the decisions by Judge Claus Larsen in the lower court and the juridical judges in the High Court/Court of Appeal greatly influenced their later decisions, they had already committed themselves.

Furthermore, the same judges had to consider their own previous decisions as well as the justification of these decisions years afterwards. For example, the presiding judge in the High Court/Appeal Court, Judge H. H. Brydensholt, who pronounced the final judgment in March 1984, had already (nearly three years before in July 1981) confirmed that I should remain in solitary confinement, a pre-trial punishment and that the Special Prosecution had a strong case against me.

Judge Brydensholt was taking part in the defence appeal decision from the lower court. Because he also had been the head of the prison service he knew what solitary confinement did to people, moreover that any pre-trial detention always had to be justified to the Ministry when sentencing.

The juridical judges taking part in the High Court/Court of Appeal proceedings made ten decisions on keeping me incarcerated prior to the trial during 1981 and 1983. After the commencement of the trial in the High Court, these judges made eight decisions along with the three lay judges on keeping me locked-up together. These decisions did indicate prejudice which was very clear to the Danish media. By incarcerating me and since I had already served a sentence longer than the judgments from the lower court (see newspaper article), the judges clearly showed that the High Court/ Court of Appeal found me guilty at the time.

In 2004 advocate Niels Forsby, who was the chairman of the Association of Danish Defence Lawyers, stated:

“That the long pre-trial incarceration of prisoners in Denmark always seemed to be justified by the courts in their final Judgement, in order to save the state from paying any compensation”.

This was 24 years after my terrible long solitary confinement in 1980

All of my defence attorneys and I knew this back in 1980 (twenty-four years earlier) because that is the true reality as to how the courts and judges acted. In fact, advocate Jørgen Jacobsen pointed this out to the lower court (Judge Claus Larsen) back in December 1980 when he tried to free me on bail after eleven months of pre-trial solitary confinement and punishment.

This at a time that I had not even been charged, but Jørgen Jacobsen knew well that Bagmandspolitiet and the courts would justify anything they did to me, never mind if I had committed any offences. Everything would be justified as he already told me after six months in solitary confinement.

Appeals to the Supreme Court – What Appeals?

On several occasions, including on the 15th August 1983, Judge Brink told the court, the defence and the accused that the permission of the Ministry of Justice was not required in order to appeal decisions by the court to the Supreme Court.

Judge Brink was very clear about this and it was also totally clear to the defence and me that such application to the Ministry was not required; otherwise, judge Brink would not state this in the court. Therefore, neither the defence nor I made such application to the Ministry of Justice with regards to the decisions made by the High Court on the 15th August and to Judge Brink’s pre-judicial behaviour and biased actions.

Judge Brink lied and this lie, in effect, resulted in that the Supreme Court simply later dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the Ministry of Justice had not granted permission for such appeals.

In other words, due to judge Brink as the head of the High Court trial and his statement to the defence and the accused (that no permission for appeal was required from the Ministry of Justice), the appeals were ignored by the Supreme Court and never heard.

The Ministry of JusticeThe Same Body with Many Arms and Hands – a large Octopus.

Advocate Ernest Hartwig wrote in 1978 in the Danish Weekly Transcript of Law, that the Ministry of Justice was totally and exclusively in control of all decisions of appeals to the supreme court. He provided some facts to show this over a 3-year period, the prosecution had applied 90 times and granted 89 appeals, where the defence had appealed 357 times and granted only 52 times (or 14%).

So interestingly, at the time there was less than a 15% chance that you would be granted an appeal to the Supreme Court, if the application came from the defence, whereas a near 100% chance if it came from the prosecution. The most ridiculous state of affairs, that the prosecution (the Ministry of Justice” had to ask the Ministry of Justice to grant them permission to appeal a case to the Supreme Court. One hand had to ask the other hand of the same body?

My Continued Pre-Trial Incarceration Effectively Used as Blackmail

Until late 1983, neither the Special Prosecution nor the High Court specified the grounds as to keeping me incarcerated in pre-trial detention month after month.

These offers put forward in the spring of 1983 with regards to me being released if I withdrew the appeal to the High Court. That such offers were made can be confirmed from the letter to the Ministry of Justice from advocate Folmer Reindel, dated 26th October 1983.

All of the judiciary judges at least knew that such an offer had been made to my defence (more than six months earlier) if I would refrain from appealing the Lower Court’s judgment. Moreover, I had shortly, prior to the High Court trial, served a sentence of more than seven years. Therefore keeping me in restrictive pre-trial incarceration during the High Court trial must be considered blackmail and indeed it impeded my ability and rights to defend myself.

 

The Prejudicial Publicity Continued

The above article has been taken from the “gutter” media, an editorial leader in BT, all reflecting the socialistic support for the Special Prosecution, constantly trying their best to blacken my person, as a capitalist pig.

This line of feeding shit to the public through the tabloid press continued even after 4 years in restrictive incarceration.

The headline continued in the tabloid media more than six months after I had received an offer to get free via my defence lawyers if I just dropped my appeal.

At the same time the Prosecution argued in the tabloid media that if I became free, I would run away from Denmark – not telling the media that they more than six months earlier had offered me to go free – if I dropped my appeal to the High Court.

The tabloid newspaper even argued that if five out of six judges had decided to keep me in pre-trial detention after nearly four years – they had given a good indication that I will receive a sentence beyond seven years.

To make matters even worse, to a certain extent my continued incarceration put pressure on the lay-judges with regards to finding me guilty and indeed, the sentencing, as I already had served more than an eight-year sentence by the end of the High Court trial.

Shortly after the High Court trial had commenced, my defence protested again to the Danish Press Council with regards to various newspaper articles by BT.

These articles were most prejudicial and played a major role in how the public viewed my case and ultimately had a considerable impact on many people including the lay-judges.

Advocate Folmer Reindel witnessed this very critical behaviour by some of the High Court judges himself as they were speaking to the journalist from the BT newspaper whilst sitting at the same table in the cafeteria of the High Court openly discussing my case.

This journalist was subject to the complaint to the Press Council from my defence lawyers since he had published articles which had contained many false and incorrect statements, lies, and innuendoes which all portrayed serious prejudice which could improperly influence the lay-judges and indeed the public. We always considered this journalist to be an instrument of the Special Prosecution.

The huge amount of adverse press and television publicity before and during the trial – with a one-sided influence from the Special Prosecution and the Authorities – should be seen in relation to the size of Denmark; no doubt the court was swayed by such an extensive press campaign.

Even the Danish reporters lied by inference and omission without any accountability in 1980. Even well-intentioned news publications go into a state of high dudgeon and defend their reporters’ dubious behaviour on the premise of newsroom morale and press independence

Danish publishers, like many others around the world, have power without responsibility. In my case, practically all journalists produced a one-sided traduced, misquoted, libelled report and held me up to unjustified ridicule.

The defence’s legitimate views were totally ignored by the media. To make matters worse, it was clear that the gutter press (with their large circulation) colluded with the Special Prosecution in fabricating lies and prejudicial acts.

Unfortunately, those with the monopolies as well as the few publishers who dominated the Danish media had no interest in correcting their mistake – which exposed their biases and the carelessness of their reporters at the time. Appeals to the Supreme Court – what appeals?

Even the more responsible media the financial media made “fun” of my defence lawyer’s complaint to the Ministry of Justice as to the Social Democratic owned newspaper Aktuelt outrageous lies and headlines, acting as the official propaganda ministry for the government.

The Falsification of the Bankruptcies

The Commercial Court (Sø- og Handelsretten)

What was most disgraceful was the incompetent way that the Maritime and Commercial Court (Sø-og Handelsretten) dealt with my companies and me.

The court totally ignored important facts and the law. Judge Mette Christensen acted with total contempt of facts and a blatant disregard of the law and justice, making fatal decisions without any documentation present.

I was brought straight from a solitary confined cell directly to the Commercial Court mostly without warnings – a confined cell where I had been alone for weeks without speaking to anyone – and now I had certainly found myself surrounded by many people in a courtroom filled with lawyers and civil servants.

I felt mentally ill from depression, despair, anxiety with psychical pain, hypertension and lack of sleep having just been taken from a solitary confinement cell to the Commercial Court full of people.

Worst I did not have any legal representation or any documentation; everything I said was ridiculed and laughed at mostly by members of the Special Prosecution (Bagmandspolitiet) who had seized all documentation from our offices.

Judge Mette Christensen was without any morale and far too incompetent when it came to seeing the facts in front of her. Later I heard that Bøje Nielsen was equally subjected to the injustices some years later by the same court and Judge Mette Christensen – he should not have been declared bankrupt either.

How was this possible?

The Special Prosecution (Bagmandspolitiet) had seized all documentation and I had no legal representation during the important meetings at the Commercial Court.

I had no access to any papers and could only speak out about facts and figures in my head, which later was confirmed to be correct by the Special Prosecutions auditors. Nevertheless, at the time of these important court hearings in January and February 1980, everything I said was ignored and scorned upon by the many members present from the Special prosecution. Bagmandspolitiet’s auditors had even made a “fast” set of balances, which was never presented to the courts, but which I commented on later in the spring of 1980. (See: Politiets revisorer og deres arbejde- March 1980). 

My comments and indeed the reports were all kept away from the courts including the Supreme Court. The court simply did not want to hear anything related to the facts and truth and just acted as a henchman for the Special Prosecution, like a court in Moscow at the time.

Although, that Børsen newspaper reported that the defence had received permission from the court to employ an auditor, such an auditor was never given access to the companies account at the time. Not even my defence had access to see the accounts as they all were with Bagmandspolitiet seized from the offices of the companies.

I am still confounded by the fact that Bagmandspolitiet could steal so many of my companies and my assets abroad whilst using entirely direct lies as well as false statements and facts. At the time of my arrest and the closing of my companies, our monthly interest income was more than twice our total operating costs and all other income ranging from fees, commission and dealing-spread was pure profit for the companies. I see no difference between the acts of the Special Prosecution and that of a bank robber – both acts are criminal. Conveniently I was locked up in solitary confinement.

The above should be seen in relation to the fact that the auditors several years later confirmed that I was indeed solvent at the time of my arrest and it was correct what I had told the Commercial Court at the time. All this documentation had been seized by Bagmandspolitiet and never shown to the Commercial Court or the Supreme Court.

I told the court in detail of all my assets including my deposit in London of US$1.85 million (Bank Julius Baer – Sept. 2. 1980 Call Money US$ 1.85 million). All statements and confirmations were sent to Copenhagen to my office (see Bank Statement – M.Hauschildt & Cie 1980 Bank Julius Bar earning interest income of US$47,894.44 in the period 28th January until 31st March, an another US 56,777 to the end of June 1980 from Bank Julius Baer.)

These statements were always being sent to me at my office in Denmark as I had nothing to hide as to such financial transactions. The National Bank had years earlier (when I moved to Denmark) accepted that I was both a foreign Dane and a Domestic Dane for Exchange Control purposes (Dansk valuta udlænding og dansk valutaindlænding).

The auditor also confirmed that one of my companies SCE A/S would be solvent with more than 60 million kroner less than two months after my arrest and the closing of the companies, something I pointed out to the Commercial Court at the time, but totally ignored, even by the Supreme Court two months later in May 1980.

The Falsification of the Bankruptcies

It was imperative for the Danish authorities and the Special Prosecution to get the Danish companies wound up and closed and then to declare me bankrupt. When I was able to get a typewriter into my solitary confinement, I wrote to the Commercial Court (See:Skifterettens behandling April 1980but such information from me was totally ignored by the Court. This action constituted a conspiracy by the Danish State and prejudice in that such irregularity took place:

– The formal registration of the new company (SCE A/S) was deliberately delayed by unnecessary actions, delaying the registration for more than five months according to reports by the Special Prosecution, therefore making me personally responsible.

– During the proceedings at the Commercial Court, I was directly prevented from proving the factual documentation and status of the companies by not having access to the seized material.

The very important auditing report produced by the Special Prosecution during February and March 1980, which clearly confirms my claims to the Court with regards to the company’s assets and liabilities, were never made available to me and the Commercial Court at the time. Neither was the Supreme Court given this data when the Court considered the appeal in May 1980.

Bagmandspolitiet deliberately kept all of this data away from the courts. (See: The Supreme Court – Letter by MH 31 March 1980). This resulted in the Supreme Court having insufficient and incorrect data at their disposal during the appeal hearing and therefore the judges just rubber-stamped the work of Judge Mette Christensen.

I was prevented from a fair representation at the Commercial Court by not having any civil defence during the first seven weeks and actively prevented from any contact with the company’s advisors – thereby causing considerable losses. Furthermore, I was prevented from participating in some hearings at the Commercial Court despite my right to attend; conveniently I was locked up in solitary confinement, not even knowing that such meetings took place in flagrant disrespect for the law and my right to attend.

The dates selected by the liquidators and the henchmen of the Danish authorities for the various estates were the worst possible dates to cause maximum losses to the estate and support Bagmandspolitiet.

How could the court declare me bankrupt?

I did not even have any debtors in Denmark as nearly all of my assets were abroad! Moreover, as even Bagmandspolitiet had to confirm (seeing the auditor’s report), I was solvent considering my assets in M. Hauschildt et Cie in Zurich and what Bagmandspolitiet never found – my assets in UniCapital in Liechtenstein.

I offered the Commercial Court to bring all my assets to Denmark – they just laughed at me and the members from the Special Prosecution chook their heads as “there is no money” – they did not want me to do this. Nevertheless, it was reported next day in the financial newspaper Børsen on the 6th of February 1980. – Considering this was six days after my arrest, how could this be ignored?

How could the Commercial Court declare the “solvent” company Scandinavian Capital Exchange A/S bankrupt, when on the 6th March 1980, the date of the bankruptcy, the company was solvent? How was it possible to keep all the seized documentation away from the Commercial Court and later the Danish Supreme Court?

Such a statement is not a claim, but facts see the various auditors’ reports, even spending close to 5 million kroner on some auditor Bagmandspolitiet could not hide or change this fact. Moreover, the company than would have a surplus of D.Kr. 50 million or more.

Already in July 1980, I wrote about the huge losses created by Bagmandspolitiet’s action, without any documentation or access to the seized material from my offices, I wrote about the huge losses caused by the Danish authorities and Bagmandspolitiet. Considering that I had been subject to mental torture and solitary confinement for nearly six months at the time, I do set out everything correctly in my notes (see: Tab for selskabernes kunder, selskaberne og MH).

The Conspiracy of Holding Back the Company Registration for More than Three Months

The most devastating and worst action by the Danish authorities (apart from my three hundred and nine days of solitary confinement torture), in fact a non-action which made everything possible for the Danish authorities – was as mentioned previously – the delaying and holding back the registration of SCE A/S for nearly three months.

“The Danish National Bank, The Ministry of Trade and Copenhagen Inland Revenue all conspired against me and the companies whilst using the involvement of the Ministry of Justice, the Special Prosecution, the media and courts as henchmen”

– Advocate Folmer Reindel to the City Court and 8 years later to the full Court of 17 judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

In early November 1979, we asked the Danish National Bank to bring DKr 5 million to Denmark from my British company, Capital Associates Limited, for Scandinavian Capital Exchange A/S which we had just established in mid-November.

I wanted to fully pay up the capital of DKr 5 million right away in order to show my commitment to the company and its future.

This payment of capital was refused by the Danish National Bank which only allowed DKr 1 million (as they already had plans to take the action against us), but to make matters worse month after month the Company Registrar (Aktieselskabsregisteret), under the Ministry of Industry and Trade (Handelsministeriet), held back the registration of SCE A/S. At one point in mid-January 1980, they told us that they had lost or misplaced all of the documentation and asked us to submit new documentation to the Register. This is the kind of actions which the Danish authorities took against me, the clients and my companies.

Advocate Folmer Reindel told the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – 26th September 1988:

“It is clear that the Danish authorities had, for a long time, the objective to close down Hauschildt’s successful and profitable business, irrespective that the companies acted correctly and within the Danish law.

From the first day of the action against Hauschildt and his companies, it has been the objective of the Danish authorities to justify their illegal acts at any cost, including keeping Hauschildt in solitary confinement and pre-trial detention for more than four years as a hostage to justice.

The Danish authorities acted within total contempt for the Danish law and justice and the European Human Rights Convention.

Hauschildt and his companies became victims of the Danish State”

No doubt that the Company Register had been informed about my concern by Bagmandspolitiet (listening to our telephone conversations) where I expressed my considerable concern in conversations with the company’s lawyer and legal counsel.

This manipulated delay of holding back the registration for weeks and months by the Company Register ultimately played one of the most important parts in the authorities’ conspiracy since this justified my personal bankruptcy and the cancellation of legal contracts entered in to by the clients of the company. Moreover, the customers who purchased silver and gold during November, December 1979 and January 1980 at very high prices and all saw the price fall from mid-January on, did not have to take their losses, thereby depriving the company under incorporation millions in profit.

The Danish National Bank, The Ministry of Trade and Copenhagen Inland Revenue all conspired against me and the companies whilst using the involvement of the Ministry of Justice, the Special Prosecution and courts as henchmen.

When Inland Revenue asked Bagmandspolitiet to go to court and get a warrant issued for alleged tax evasion, they knew that there was no tax evasion but just a false fabricated claim; to this day I have not seen what alleged tax evasion I should have committed.

I was never prosecuted for tax evasion since there was no tax evasion taking place. What Inland Revenue wanted were the names of the companies’ customers, but what the Danish authorities wanted was to close the companies and stop investors from withdrawing money from their banks and buying gold and silver – all out of reach of the fiscal authorities.

From the first day, I became a prisoner of conscience. I always did consider myself as to “Systemfange” (a prisoner of conscience); the case against me my companies and some of our clients were entirely political. It “saved” Bagmandspolitiet and gave them a “positive” reputation among the public allowing them to continue misusing their power as police and prosecution.

The Conspiracy

My defence lawyer Folmer Reindel was contacted by a well placed senior servant who attended a Cabinet meeting at Christiansborg i late Autumn 1979, where the prime minister Anker Jørgensen proposed that Scandinavian Capital Exchange and I would be the solutions to all Bagmandspolitiet’s problems and bad publicity.

This is the Danish Prime minister who praised the dictator of North Korea in 1984 as a brilliant leader. “Kim il-Sung as a leader should be admired for his devotion and wonderful work for his country and for his people’s freedom and happiness. Moreover that North Korea was a wonderful country and the people should be proud of their country’s independent from the influence of the big countries.” Anker Jørgensen was even so stupid to draw parallels with Denmark fighting against the German occupation during the Second World War (which very few did when the truth is known).

How could anyone admire and glorify the totalitarian regime in North Korea – the Danish Prime minister Anker Jørgensen and the deputy chief of Copenhagen fiscal authority Christen Amby could! 

The companies were subject to many visits by the Copenhagen Tax office, including by the deputy chief of this office Christen Amby.

Christen Amby, the person who my companies and I was harassed by through several years was none other than “a red socialist” or should I say a left wing socialist and the founder of the Danish Friendship Association with North Korea.

One time leaving my office Christian Amby said: We will close this capitalist cave (Vi vil skal nok få lukket den kapitalist hule). Considering, that we operated according to the laws and everything was correct, I found such statement, as wishful thinking from his side. Little did I know about the socialist’s power and determination.

His real objective was for us to give him names of our client who traded “over the counter” all suspected to used “black money” undeclared to the fiscal authorities. Since there was no legal requirement for this at the time, I refused to corporate. Many times when leaving our offices, he mumbled “We will see about this”.

Interestingly Christen Amby was arrested back in 1969 together Otto Sand (an agent for DDR’s Stasi) as they were organising to send money to support North Vietnam fighting the American Imperialist.

 

 
 

HAUSCHILDT v. DENMARK

The European Commission and the Court of Human Rights Judgement, Comments and Reports  1982-89

Share This