Swedish Mother Anna battles same Prosecutor as A$AP Rocky. Pedo agencies give her son to pedo father and jail Mother.
Please join Anna’s Go Fund Me campaign to overturn pedocriminal Sweden agencies.
Join Anna’s Go Fund Me
WATCH PANEL WITH ANNA, LAWYER JAN BJÖRKLUND, Fil. lic. & ALFRED LAMBREMONT WEBRE
ACCESS FULL NEWSINSIDEOUT REPORTS & LINKS
Stockholm, Sweden – Appearing with her lawyer Jan Björklund, Fil.lic, Anna details the Luciferian ordeal and nightmare she and her 7-year old son have suffered since she reported her son’s father to Swedish Child Protection Services [CPS] for systematically sexually abusing her son and beating him, in a case where the apparently pedo-criminally infiltrated CPS reported Anna as mentally unstable, had her jailed by Swedish police, equally pedocriminally infiltrated and confirmed by Swedish courts, despite psychologist written reports confirming systematic sexual assault by the father of Anna’s son and systematic bruising by the father of Anna’s son on his back, torso, and genitals after staying with his pedocriminal father.
Anna is now facing a crucial legal battle in August 2019 with Prosecutor Daniel Suneson, the same Prosecutor who is prosecuting American rapper A$AP Rocky, a mega star who has deep pockets of the music industry behind him as well as the bully pulpit of the US President Donald J. Trump and top US government officials.
Please join Anna’s Go Fund Me campaign to overturn pedocriminal Sweden agencies. She is a single mother, a Swedish citizen battling the Pedo-Megastate.
Join Anna’s Go Fund Me
ARTICLES BY ANNA’S LAWYER JAN BJÖRKLUND, Fil. lic
Jan Björklund, Fil. Lic.
WHEN THE SWEDISH POLICE TURN DEAF AND BLIND LIKE IN A DICTATORSHIP
THE OTHER CASE HANDLED BY THE ASAP ROCKY PROSECUTOR
In a dictatorship, people learn to turn deaf and blind when necessary. You have heard nothing contrary to your leaders’ wishes. If the legal system is charged with the prosecution of an undesirable person, evidence is found that supports the case. When necessary, the Security Service adds its competence.
Sweden is not a dictatorship, but why then am I faced with a thoroughly manipulated police investigation? Police investigators have turned deaf and blind, and the Security Service have a share in the case. The ASAP Rocky Prosecutor, Mr Daniel Suneson, was in charge of the investigation. In my previous article, “Soviet Vibes in the Swedish Legal System”, I have described how my client was subject to pressure when she was in custody. Mr Suneson tried three times to make her replace her as her legal counsel, although, formally, I had nothing to do with his investigation. I was not her defence attorney in the criminal case, but as her legal counsel on custody matters I followed the matter. Obviously, he had been disturbed by my reports to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Prosecutor General and the Chancellor of Justice, as well as my demands on him to take responsibility for a derailed investigation. And at that time, I did not have access to the disturbing information that is now on my desk.
What was it then that disturbed him? First, I had found that the case had been mismanaged by the investigators at the Stockholm Police District, ever since my client, the mother of a boy born in 2011, in July 2016 had filed a report against the father for suspected abuse and sexual assault against the child. For two years, the suspect was not even interrogated. By contrast, the Child Protection branch of the Social Services of the City of Uppsala, and their colleagues, the CPS of the posh Östermalm District of Stockholm, were allowed to guide the case. In practice, the CPS were allowed to do police work, in a way that sidesteps the Royal Decree on Preliminary Investigations of 1947.
Second, I had found that a police investigator had carried out an interrogation as a service to their close associates at the CPS Östermalm in Stockholm. Consider the following: an interrogation was carried out in October 2018 in order to find out the origin of information sent to their superiors – the board of politicians responsible for their activities. That information had not been shared with the CPS workers in its entirety. Therefore, the police tried to assist the social workers in finding out where the information came from! Thus, this had NOTHING to do with any criminal investigation.
After hearing about that strange interrogation, my client realized that the CPS and the police were locked in a cooperation, which couldn’t allow for an unbiased investigation. They had set their minds on the conclusion that her police report was a false accusation – despite several testimonies and recordings. She therefore filed another report with the police at Arlanda Airport, on 22 October 2018. There, the police took the report seriously and drove her home to pack a suitcase, whereafter she could leave for a safe house.
Despite overwhelming evidence, the CPS Östermalm, however, refused to accept the move to the safe house. Due to the CPS decision, my client found herself in limbo. The prosecutor was formally investigating the accusations against the father, the Arlanda police had made a decision to help her get to the safe house, but the CPS had the power to veto the mother’s protection of her child. The CPS Östermalm previously had manipulated the case in order to support the father’s getting full custody. Why should they turn against themselves now? My client then left the safe house and went into hiding.
When my client was hidden, an acquaintance of hers, an actor and former doorman at posh restaurants in Stockholm, was contacted by the Security Service. He was told that she was mentally unstable and that the boy needed “reprogramming”. He contacted her and tried to talk her into giving herself in. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he reported that she had tried to make him arrange the murder of the boy’s father. In a subsequent interrogation, the allegation of conspiracy to commit murder was formally mentioned, but in such a way that it obviously was not taken seriously by the police, and the charge was dropped.
After the arrest of my client together with her son in March 2019, the boy, despite the father’s still being formally suspect of abusing him, was brought directly to his father in the early morning, after a long journey by car. When the boy was interrogated two weeks later, he therefore could have been subject to pressure from a perpetrator. Still, he said that things were bad at his father’s place. The interrogation was paused when the boy was getting close to telling his story. When he was asked if someone had harmed his body, there was a long silence. Then he answered “I don’t know”. That sequence was excluded from the transcript. Transcripts of recordings, where the boy talked to his mother, were made in the same way: some words were listed as “inaudible”. His story was distorted and the reader gets the impression that he has been persuaded by his mother to accuse his father.
The medical examiner, who examined the boy at the same time, found a number of scars in unusual places, together with bruises. In his certificate, the examiner wrote that the bruises could have occurred two or three weeks earlier. Why did the examiner lose his numeracy? Any parent knows that bruises disappear after two weeks. Well, by extending the time period, the examiner made it plausible that the bruising could have taken place while the boy still was in his mother’s care!
There are numerous photos of hundreds of bruises – some of them little round bruises on the boy’s back. Nobody ever has asked him how the bruises and the scars occurred. Children tend to remember such things.
Five members of the police searched the mother’s home. Still, there is no mention of their having seized her computer. Strangely, when she returned to her home, for several weeks she believed that the computer had disappeared. It had been placed in a drawer underneath the boy’s bed, wrapped in a blanket. Finally, she found it, wrapped in the blanket, but in a chest of drawers in the hallway. How is that to be interpreted? Did five policemen search a two-room flat for several hours, without finding a computer in a drawer? Or could we conclude that they realized that the computer just contained evidence that corroborated the mother’s story, whereupon they put it back, but in the wrong drawer?
When my client was in custody, a witness, a psychotherapist, was apprehended in his home early in the morning and taken to the police, where he was informed that he was suspected of being an accessory to her. Sms messages, exchanged between the therapist and my client were included into the final report of the investigation – many of them being private messages. The therapist got a clear acquittal in the district court. Still, the prosecutor has appealed his verdict. This appeal, above all, looks like an attempt to compromise my client, by keeping the suspicion of a love affair between them alive. Without any evidence, some alternative media have put forward malicious and insulting fantasies about their relationship.
Another witness is a rather influential actor and author. She received special treatment. The police told her not to believe everything that her friend tells her. Her reply was “I have seen a bruised child, whose exuberance has been extinguished – that’s the only thing I care about”.
My client was indicted and sentenced for abducting the child and for libel – the latter because of an account for the case which had been sent to friends of hers. During the interrogation, she stated that this account should be considered as a reply to an inquiry with photographs, distributed by a so-called “assistance group”, to thousands of addressees. The police maintained that they had not been able to find out who was behind this group. Police documentation, however, contains an account for an interrogation of a well-known female employee of the Swedish State TV, who had had a relationship with a famous Swedish gangster, who was murdered in 1998. She stated that she was connected to the “search group”, controlled by the boy’s father. Evidently, it was too difficult for the police to connect the “Search Group” to the “Assistance Group”.
The reason why the prosecutor managed to get my client convicted in the district court was that the district court referred to a precedent set by the Supreme Court, stating that her action to protect the boy should be considered in view of the previous verdict in the custody case. Is that clear? I will explain.
In the criminal case, there was overwhelming evidence of assault and abuse, perpetrated by the father, supported by testimonies from several doctors, photographs and recorded statements from the boy. The court disregarded that evidence, because those matters already had been considered in the custody case. The custody case, in its turn, was based on the CPS investigations, which in their turn all were based on the first CPS investigation from Uppsala, where the key element is an account for a meeting with the boy, where he blames his mother for making him accuse his father. That account, most likely, is false.
But how is this possible? In Swedish custody cases, the evidentiary requirements are lower than in criminal cases. Is it possible that a case with lower evidentiary requirements shall take precedent over a case with higher evidentiary requirements? Yes, that is how it is in today’s Sweden. The testimonies of several doctors have been disregarded by CPS workers, whose qualifications are significantly lower. But the court listens to the CPS. And the Supreme Court precedent states that in a criminal case, where a parent refers to the duty to protect a child from abuse by the other parent, the court should follow the custody verdict. If that verdict has “acquitted” the other parent, that “acquittal” should guide the verdict in the criminal case. It is a clear Catch-22 situation, where the main point is not what really has occurred – what matters is that the case follows a certain path in a legal maze.
Mr Suneson, the public prosecutor, has had two different cases on his desk: the allegations against the father of sexual and physical abuse of the boy, and the investigation of the mother’s attempts to protect him. The prosecutor’s reasoning was that – in case there had been abuse – the abuse had stopped when the mother stepped in to protect her son. Therefore, the investigation was focused on the mother’s action. The father, suspected of abuse of the boy, was allowed to take an active part in the investigation concerning the mother. It is not surprising then that the investigation of the accusations against the father was closed.
That is how things are done in the Swedish legal system. The same public prosecutor and the same team of police investigators are in charge of conflicting accusations. They are free to choose their direction and decide on which side they are going to put their main efforts.
The ASAP Rocky case follows the same logic. Against the background of the story above, does anyone think that we can trust Mr Suneson?
Obviously, he has disregarded his duty to ensure that the investigation includes evidence in favour of the suspect. On the contrary, such evidence has been suppressed, and too many investigators involved have turned blind and deaf and lost their numeracy.
Did the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Prosecutor General and the Chancellor of Justice show any interest in my reports? You only have one guess.
Stockholm, 31 July 2019
Jan Björklund, Fil. lic.
SOVIET VIBES IN THE SWEDISH LEGAL SYSTEM
It is time to speak up about a very disturbing case. I am legal counsel for custody matters in a well-known Swedish case, which also has led to criminal proceedings against my client. The case is getting increasingly foul-smelling, to such an extent that one is reminded of the Soviet legal system.
In July 2016, my client – the mother of a boy born in 2011, reported the father of her son for abuse of their son. The police investigation, led by a public prosecutor, was influenced by the Child Welfare branch of the social services, CPS, of the City of Uppsala, in such a way that the police and the prosecutor never did a thorough investigation. Despite several reports and complaints to the police and the CPS, detailed medical notes, qualified testimonies and a large amount of sound and video recordings, as well as photographs of strange contusions on the child’s back and in other places, the father had not been heard by the police as late as October 2018.
Another report was filed with the police in September 2018 by a person with good contacts at the higher levels of the legal system. Soon, it was evident that this investigation, just like the previous, was manipulated through contacts between the CPS and the police. In October 2018, my client therefore filed another report with the police. The inspector on duty found the matter so serious that the mother and her child were driven home to pack a suitcase and then delivered to the care of a safe house.
The CPS and the police investigation team, however, still did not perceive a need to protect the child. Instead, they concentrated on the mother’s action of moving to a safe house. In March 2019, the mother finally was arrested and the child immediately was taken directly to the father – the father, who according to the boy’s words, had threatened to kill his mother with a chainsaw if he were to reveal the father’s sexual abuse. The mother was detained and later sentenced in the Stockholm District Court for abducting the child, as well as for libel, for going public with her story. The sentence now is awaiting consideration by the Court of Appeal. That was a very short version. But now I am going to outline facts, which are very disturbing, regardless of one’s personal stance on the case.
It is evident that the CPS have disregarded basic rules of due procedure. The father was informed by the CPS of the contents of the mother’s confidential medical records. The father’s allegations about the mother were transferred by the CPS to the police, in order to diminish their ambition. Clear, written evidence shows that the social worker, who was in charge of the CPS investigation, previously had cooperated with the police in order to cover up a case of child abuse. That case previously had been reported to the Prosecutor General, who had taken no action (a normal procedure in Sweden). She flatly exhorted the father to seek sole custody. Her study was presented one day before the preparatory hearing in the custody case, subsequently opened by the father. The mother’s then legal counsel (not me) neglected the self-evident action to ask for postponement of the preparatory hearing due to new evidence.
As a result, and due to the study being a thirty-seven-page plea for the father, the court decided to temporarily move the child’s residence to the father’s home. Thereafter, the CPS made “investigations” which included hearing the child together with the father before the main hearing, whereafter they could inform the Stockholm District Court that, so far, they had found no evidence that could corroborate allegations of abuse by the father. A hearing of the child together with his mother was scheduled to take place after the main hearing. Despite extensive proof of abuse, the court then decided to award sole custody to the father.
But things are even worse. The same public prosecutor and the same investigation team were in charge of allegations against the mother as well as against the father. The Parliamentary Ombudsman found no fault in that procedure, despite the obvious risk that such an investigation team could sidestep the court by deciding on its own on whom they should lay the blame.
Now it gets really interesting. As the mother’s legal counsel, I have filed a number of complaints with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Prosecutor General and other government agencies. That has not been appreciated by the legal authorities involved. The public prosecutor several times advised my client to choose another legal counsel. One of the members of the police investigation team did the same. The father gave her the same advice. An old acquaintance of hers, who contacted her while she was hiding with her son, also gave her that advice. His other actions show that his task rather was to assist the police, after having been contacted by the Security Service, in persuading her to give herself in. Of late, the well-connected person, who filed the last report against the father, has made further assistance with her case conditional on my client’s replacement of me as her legal counsel. It should be noted that his main contacts can be found within the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Security Service.
This is a campaign. Nobody explains what would improve – what my client would receive in return for doing away with me as her legal counsel. The prosecutor’s attempt at persuasion on this matter is a clear case of dereliction of duty. It should be noted that, according to a document from the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor even considered tapping my phone and computer communication. It is evident that there is an interest within the legal system in making my client choose a more “well-behaved” legal counsel, who cooperates with the system and agrees with the view expressed in the custody verdict, that it is a parent’s prime duty to trust the authorities. Thus, a parent who questions the authorities is a querulant, who presents fantasies and chimeras. A parent, who has more confidence in his or her child than in the authorities, most likely suffers from some kind of mental problems.
Can you feel the Soviet vibes? In the Soviet Union, dissidents were confined to mental institutions. There is an interesting detail in this context. The father handed over a long list of people he considered as suspects in the abduction to the prosecutor. That list included a former member of the Social Welfare Board of the City of Helsingborg, Mrs Carina Sällberg, who – after having expressed dissent with the system – has been subject to harsh measures by the legal system, which ardently is trying to have her declared mentally ill. It should be added that Mrs Sällberg has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The allegation of her complicity is solely the product of the suspect father’s imagination.
The boy still lives with his father.
Ole Dammegard with Tracker One Conny Andersson to Swedish Pedo-Orgs: “Do the Right Thing & Return Anna’s Child to her!”
WATCH TRUETUBE.CO PANEL WITH Ole Dammegard, Conny Andersson, Anna & Alfred Lambremont Webre https://youtu.be/9jVujxvrf-4
ACCESS FULL NEWSINSIDEOUT REPORT & LINKS:
Alfred Lambremont Webre Contact/News:
The views expressed by guests are their own.
Copyright 2019-20 NewsInsideOut.com All rights reserved. Please include a courtesy link back to this original article with any sharing of this article. Thank you.