The High Court Judge Brink’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.

Where was the presumption of innocence? It appears in every human rights treaty and in Rule 21 of the Hague Tribunal and as Article 66 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Judge Reisz 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, which appeared to be against the decision before the case started at the High Court.


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 at the time.

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 considerable 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.

In light of the Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights later, and the resulting changes in Denmark, it is blatantly clear that Judge Brink and in fact the other judges should not have taken part in the High Court proceedings. Specific as it was not a really a proper appeal trial, but a rubber-stamp of the lower court’s decision. How could they be objective and seen to be fair, after making so many decision against me?

Most judges in Denmark, at the time, did not have the backbone to stand up to governments and power-wielders in the society. It was clear in my case that all the prior decision in the case from which bias as to it outcome might reasonably be apprehended. There was simply, in Denmark, at the time no safeguard as to the judges’ independence and impartiality. 

At the time, 34 High Court judges had made decisions and judgement against me and my defence, how could any of these judges be objective and impartial, when they already had shown their sympathy and prejudice against me. They had already applied preconceived biases about my person and the case.

Danish Judges Corrupt with Illegal Behavior


Danish Judges was in 1983 corrupt with a tight improper behaviour with nepotism and partisanism. After all, they had a loyalty to their Master, the Ministry of Justice, the police and prosecution.

The irony of seeing Erik Ninn-Hansen (former Minister of Justice, longest-serving member of the Danish Parliament and a criminal defence lawyer) complaining to the European Court of Human Rights as to Article 6., (exactly the same Article that I had won my case against Denmark on) that the Danish judges were not independent and impartial, made me smile at the time.  After all, he should know, having worked with the courts all his life as a defence attorney and later as the Minister of Justice.

Judges Independence and Impartiality

Judges Impartiality is the ability of a judge to render an equitable and just decision based upon the law and/or equitable principles. An impartial judge is unbiased and does not have a prejudice against or give sympathy to either side of legal action.

Further, judicial independence is the concept that the judiciary should be independent of the other branches of government. That is, courts should not be subject to improper influence from the other branches of government or from private or partisan interests. Judicial independence is important to the idea of separation of powers.

There was no judicial independence in Denmark, as the Ministry of Justices controlled the Police, Prosecution, the appointment of judges and the Prison Service. All the judges appointed to the High Court had worked all their lives to put people behind bars and make guilty judgments. They had loyalty and an obligation as a colleague to follow the line.

It is well settled that impartiality is determined according to two tests, subjective and objective. The European Court of Human Rights held that,

“…the existence of impartiality for the purpose of Article 6-1 must be determined according to a subjective test, that is on the basis of the personal conviction of the judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect”.10

On the objective test, the European Court of Human Rights observed,

“Under the objective test, it must be determined whether, quite apart from the judge’s personal conduct, there are ascertainable facts which may raise doubts as to his impartiality. In this respect even appearances may be of a certain importance. What is at stake is the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public.”

Impartiality and the appointment of Judges

One of the key components of impartiality and independence in the manner of the appointment of Judges. Reference is made to a pronouncement of the European Court of Human Rights on its interpretation of Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6.1 was drafted in almost similar terms as Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“In determining whether a body can be considered independent the Court has had regard to the manner of appointment of its members and the duration of their term of office and the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence”

It was impossible to consider the independence of judges at the time in Denmark. The Ministry of Justice operated a “protected and cosy little shop” and practically no one could fall out of line.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our system of government in a democratic society and a safeguard of the freedom and rights of the citizen under the rule of law. The Justices must take care that their conduct, official or private, does not undermine their institutional or individual independence or the public appearance of independence. No such qualm in Denmark at the time. 

Judge Brink’s Death in the High Court

At mid-day on the 7th December 1983, Judge Brink certainly stood up, from his chair, 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 not being fair and unbiased. They had strongly criticised the proceedings in general, as well as the made-up transcripts from the Court, entirely based on the manufactured and biased dictation by transcripts by judge Claus Larsen in the Lower 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 relatively young 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 utter to my two defence lawyers (Folmer Reindel and John Korsø-Jensen) – I am sure he is dead, even said, 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 at the time.

The 7th of December have through my life meant a lot to me, firstly, it was my dear grandmother’s birthday, she had died already in 1950, later the date becomes a kind of celebration as it was Pearl Harbour Remembrance Day and the date I chose for our annual Christmas party in Mayfair, the venue held on rotation at the various hotels (The Claridges, The Dorchester, The Four Season, The Mayfair, Grosvenor House and the InterContinental.)

We know today how Stasi worked in DDR, just spying on ordinary citizens' movements, making files on everyone and everything.

Bagmandspolitiet had in my case more than five years, during which they could act as an agent provocateur, intercept telephone calls, communication and spy on me, our staff and the companies; “leak” disinformation, lies and rumours.

Criminal Commissioner Mogens Kanding from Bagmandspolitiet (Special Prosecution) told Jyllands-Posten, Friday the 1st February 1980 :

“We have been investigating the company since it started (1974) just to see what is happening. Approximately three weeks ago our investigation became more intensive on our own initiative. We have not received any complaints“.

Mogens Kanding, criminal commissioner from Bagmandspolitiet tells Børsen (the main financial newspaper) on the day after my arrest:

“Through channels which we control we have found out that possible serious tax evasion has taken place, according to the criminal code paragraph 289 tells Mogens Kanding Børsen”.

“We will go through all the material and especially concentrate on the companies order confirmations and dealings with its clients since we wish to double control on these client’s tax returns. At the same time we want to concentrate to see if there has been any wrongdoing by the company, as an example if we suspect any fraud against the clients, we will contact these clients and ask for their version.”

Bagmandspolitiet has been investigating the company for more than five years just to see what? Just like Stasi or KGB. As Stalin said, “Show me a person and I will always find a reason against him” (to kill him or send him to the Gulag).

No complaint had been made to the police and the Special Prosecution (Bagmandspolitiet). The Special Prosecution decided themselves to take the action.

Further, that black money was invested in precious metals and the profits were tax free outside the reach of the fiscal authorities. This could NOT BE TOLERATED, despite that the current law allowed this at the time.

My British barristers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Kier Starmer were shocked to find out the powers of the Special Prosecution (Bagmandspolitiet) and that they themselves could select their target, act as agent provocateurs, intercept communication and create disinformation and lies. They compared rightly Bagmandspolitiet, in the European Court of Human Rights, to Stasi and KGB.

I was a victim of the Danish state: it was the state that took me hostage, traumatised me; and despite the judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, Denmark never recognised that in any shape or form.

At the outset of the trial in the lower court (Copenhagen City Court) my defence attorney Folmer Reindel said to a leading newspaper, Berlingske Tidende:

"With the collaboration between the judge (Claus Larsen), the prosecution and the prison service, which consequence seriously affects and prevent the defence - I fear a miscarriage of justice"

It was obvious to everyone except the tabloid media.
"Med det samarbejde, der I sagen foregår mellem dommeren, fængselsvæsenet og anklagemyndigheden, og hvis konsekvens er en væsentlig hindring af forsvarets mulighed, frygter jeg et justitsmord"

I was a victim of the Danish State; it was the state that took me, hostage, in pre-trial detention for more than 4 years. Kept me for more than 300 days in solitary confinement and traumatised me for life.
Denmark has never recognised that in any shape or form.

Police Commissioner Mogens Kanding (from Bagmandspolitiet) told the main newspaper Politiken, on the day of my arrest for alleged tax evasion. (31st January 1980) –  ALL  LIES

"A major part of the profit from the Danish company, which had a turnover of half a billion Kroner, apparently has been transferred to post-box companies in Switzerland" 

Next day Police Commissioner Mogens Kanding (from Bagmandspolitiet) told the newspaper Politiken:

“That a major part of the profit from the Danish company, which had a turnover of half a billion Kroner (500 million) apparently has been transferred to post-box companies in Switzerland. After the carrying out of the search, we have been able to confirm that large amounts have been sent to companies in Switzerland and there is often only a lawyer’s office there where the money is then hidden from the police”

After the police, tax authorities and the customs and excise office’s investigation, it does look like the company in Denmark have earned large amounts on the Swiss addresses.

                                                       All Lies!!!


Special Prosecutor Finn Meilby, the Chief of Bagmandspolitiet (Special Prosecution) told the largest tabloid newspaper BT on the 31st January 1980:

"It is our impression that the money has been taken out of the country"

"That the arrest of Mogens Hauschildt only concerns the alleged tax evasions"

I was never charged with tax evasion since this was a trumped-up charge - there truly was no tax evasion by me or the companies.

“Hauschildt you have been selected – and judged. You were selected because you are a “foreign Dane” with no political affiliation or power, you work in a business which daily deals with Swiss banks, New York and London – movement of money and in a financial market most people in Denmark do not know and can’t participate in, you controlled your business and do not employ many people, not like a factory owner.”-

                                 Advocate Jørgen Jacobsen (1980)

No one has been held accountable for the injustices in my case, my treatment, the solitary confinement, the unjust treatment of my family, the staff and many of Scandinavian Capital Exchange’s clients.

My customers' faith was sealed when at a cabinet meeting in the late autumn of 1979 at Christiansborg; Prime Minister Anker Jørgensen was confronted with a report showing all the failures of the Special Prosecution for Economic Crimes (Bagmandspolitiet), a creation by the Socialist.

The Danish High Court Judge Holger Kallehague said to Politiken newspaper (12th September 1982) that:

Hauschildt was subjected to the same treatment and "justice" as the suspected and alleged witches five hundred years earlier. They would bind the poor woman, put her into a sack and fill the sack with stones after which they throw her into the water.
If she drowned, she could not have been a witch; and was innocent, however, if she got free and came to the surface, she must have been a witch and therefore, was burned alive on the fire.

I told the courts many times that I was both physically and mentally ill and wanted to consult a psychiatrist and get outside medical attention. - I was refused this during the four years of pre-trial detention - therefore I was never treated for all my illnesses caused by the more than four years of pre-trial detention with the long total solitary confinement!

Bagmandspolitiet directly prevented me from having my complaint about my long solitary confinement and atrocious treatment dealt with by the European Commission of Human Rights. Bagmandspolitiet held back all correspondence with the Commission for more than 24 months. A serious breach of the Convention.

In pre-trial solitary confinement, I remained vulnerable against the unjustifiable parasitic strains of the Danish tabloid press.

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

Advocate Folmer Reindel told the Copenhagen City Court

Professor of Law, Ole Krarup, said that:

“I played chess blindfolded“

I did indeed - and there was nothing neither I nor my defence lawyers could do about this injustice.

My first defence attorney advocate Jørgen Jacobsen’s statement to the Court:

“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 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 with total contempt for the Danish law, justice and the European Human Rights Convention.

Hauschildt and his companies became a victim of the Danish State”

The European Court of Human Rights held an open court hearing on the 26th September 1988, in front of the full court of 17 judges from all the 17 member countries.

The German, French, Belgian and Dutch television were there, but not the Danish State Television which for years had been used by the Danish authorities to create a trial by the media.

The Danish public and many clients of Scandinavian Capital Exchange was fooled and lied to by Bagmandspolitiet and the Danish media. Fooled by the misinformation, malicious lies and innuendoes put out by the prosecution in the press.

I always considered myself as a "Systemfange", a prisoner of conscience; the case against me and my companies was entirely political.

                                                      - Mogens Hauschildt

The famous Danish TV host, author and priest Jørgen Thorgaard wrote in the tabloid BT referring to my case, which was finished at the time:

“It is my impression that the police, the courts and the prosecution in the best scenario have been acting very incompetently and in the worst scenario, created a miscarriage of justice”.


In an interview with Berlingske Tidende in 1981, Finn Meilby, the chief of Bagmandspolitiet said that some “observations” can go on for years, others go fast.

“In the current case of the gold and silver speculations, Bagmandspolitiet worked hectically for thirty days. The market was so overheated that they got our interest and quickly received information confirming our suspicion of lawbreaking activities. We foresaw that large and small savers were running a risk – and hit”

They raided the companies for “open television” without any complaint – only a trump-up charge of alleged tax evasion.



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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This