About | ACP | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Home » Industry WatchThe Technological » Hall of Monkeys » Heroes Banquet)

Claes Borgström - Defence Attorney?

Sweden's #1 legal clown puts foot in mouth again for WaPo.


Buy It

Try It

STOCKHOLM/WASHINGTON (Rixstep) — Disgraced Thomas Quick solicitor Claes Borgström: he's repeatedly told the media he doesn't want to talk about the Assange case and then goes live with outrageous claims - he's done it again. And this time he's worse (better) than ever before and may possibly have ended his clients' case against Julian Assange once and for all.

Speaking without thinking - his strong suit - Borgström inadvertently admitted Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén had not contacted him to try to reopen the Assange case - they hadn't known such a thing was possible.

And that leaves only one remaining explanation: they retained him as a defence attorney, afraid they'd be charged with bringing false accusations, a very serious crime in Sweden.


It's not every day plaintiffs privately retain counsel in criminal cases in Sweden - in fact it's unheard of. Something that's made students of the ongoing legal circus scratch their heads again and again.

But now there's finally an explanation.

Defence Attorney?

It's been tiring to see Borgström cite client confidentiality every time it's suited him but blurt out anything at all when that's suited him. And now the inept politician did it again for the Washington Post.

'Asked whose initiative it was to appeal - his or the women's - Borgström demurred, citing client confidentiality. However, he said the women didn't even know it was possible to appeal a prosecutor's decision until he told them.'

But:

  1. Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén filed charges and went to Expressen on 20 August;
  2. Chief Stockholm prosecutor Eva Finné dismissed the charges 21 August (the following day);
  3. Anna Ardin contacted her crony Borgström 22 August, the day after that - on a Sunday.

Anna Ardin must have been in a bit of a panic.

The presumption - and it's never been a good fit - was that Ardin in her well known hysteria simply wanted to see her '7 steps of revenge' didn't fail. But Borgström's admission to WaPo makes it clear this couldn't have been the case.

Anna Ardin didn't retain Claes Borgström to resuscitate her failed plan of revenge - she didn't even know such as thing was possible. Anna Ardin hired Claes Borgström as a defence attorney - she was afraid the truth would get out. She was afraid of being prosecuted for bringing false accusations.

Swedish law is quite unequivocal in matters such as these.

Penal Code Chapter 15, 7 § A person who, otherwise than in 6 §, with prosecutors, police or other authority falsely testifies of a criminal act, provides compromising circumstances, or denies acquitting or mitigating circumstances, shall be found guilty, if authority review such a case, of false accusation to imprisonment not exceeding two years or, if the crime is petty, to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding six months.

Claes Borgström is a horrendous defence attorney, as the Thomas Quick affair proved and as his handling of the current case proves time and again, now most recently in another 'show trial' appearance in the media.

Obsession

WaPo can't be called unfair in their treatment of Borgström: they do disclose a number of rather unsettling things about him that the world at large will be appreciative to know - things that challenge good people of normal healthy mind everywhere, as the DC rag of 'Woodstein' fame undoubtedly understood.

Even in gender-conscious Sweden, Borgström has raised eyebrows for speaking out so strongly against the male norms he says still pervade Swedish society.

He has said all men bear a collective responsibility for the fact that some men abuse women. In 2006, he even proposed that Sweden withdraw from soccer's World Cup because of an expected surge in the sex trade in host nation Germany, where prostitution is legal.

'What happens during the World Cup is that women are imported - in the full sense of the word - to meet the demands from the men going there to buy sex', Borgström told Swedish TV at the time.

His proposal was rejected by the Swedish soccer federation and Sweden took part in the tournament as planned.

Borgström has previously described his passion for women's rights and equality as bordering on an obsession.

'Now that I really have put on my 'gender goggles' I see everything through them', he was quoted as saying in 2004 by the tabloid Aftonbladet.

What's not explained is those 'gender goggles' are constructed from the bottoms of empty bottles of Doctors' Special.

Spoliation

Wikipedia has the following to say about 'spoliation'.

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Spoliation has two consequences: the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; also, case law has established that proceedings that might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.



The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a finder of fact can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: the finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favour of the opposing party.



The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had 'consciousness of guilt' or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavourable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognised a spoliation tort action which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.

Things are hotting up for prosecution defence attorney Claes Borgström and his clients. It's high time Björn Hurtig filed criminal charges against them all.

If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade. If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.
 - Björn Hurtig

See Also
Red Hat Diaries: Borgström & Quick
Industry Watch: Julian Assange & Anders Perklev
Red Hat Diaries: Julian Assange & Claes Borgström
Red Hat Diaries: How to Rape Julian Assange Twice

WikiLeaks: Support WikiLeaks
Rixstep: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed
Radsoft: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed

About | ACP | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Copyright © Rixstep. All rights reserved.