Talk:Elisabeth Massi Fritz

Sofia Wilen seeking restitution for alleged rape by Julian Assange in 2010.
Comment:I'm not at all sure how "restitution" works in Sweden or that matter what it is.

The term restitution for wrongs, or any direct translation of it into Swedish, is not commonly used nor known in Swedish law. The categories often dealt with under this heading belong in general to the vague and vastly criticised area of unjust enrichment law within the Swedish legal system, but also this term is to a substantial degree unknown to most Swedish lawyers. The first question for a survey of restitution for wrongs in Sweden is then: What, exactly is a wrong and what kinds of legal problems are dealt with under this heading in other legal orders?

Comment: In Australia there are Victims of Crime Acts some time referred to payment for perjury acts due to it extensive use by criminals to obtain the compensation they provides. These Acts do not rely on any criminal being convicted but can provide compensation for being the victim of a crime but also contain provisions for suing convicted persons that encourage false testimony. Ms Fritz has represented Wilen for many years. I presume she still does. The investigation into Julian Assange has been dropped for the third time and the statute of limitation has expired. Here are some references:

The day that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London by police after a seven-year sojourn, the lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz requested an appeal that she hoped would finally bring him to justice in Sweden.

For five years Fritz, 52, has represented a Swedish woman who claims that Assange raped her in 2010 during a visit to Stockholm.

Elisabeth Massi Fritz, lawyer for the accuser said that Assange's decision the publish details of their relationship in the statement was "unfortunate". She later accused Assange of "violating" her client in the media. 

1 of 2 Vice chief prosecutor Eva-Britt speaks at a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Monday May 13, 2019. Swedish prosecutors plan to say Monday whether they will reopen a rape case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a month after he was removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. (Anders Wiklund/TT News Agency via AP)

STOCKHOLM (AP) — The Latest on Swedish prosecutors’ decision whether to reopen a rape case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (all times local):

2 p.m.

The lawyer for a Swedish woman who reported being raped by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2010 says “today we got great news.”

Elisabeth Massi Fritz says the decision by Swedish authorities to open the rape case against Assange “signals that no one stands above the law,” and that “the legal system in Sweden doesn’t give a special treatment to anyone.”

Massi Fritz told reporters Monday she spoke with her client, who is not named, by phone. She said her client “feels great gratitude.”

Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer for the alleged victim — a Swedish woman who was never identified — told Swedish broadcaster SVT that “the plaintiff’s information is supported by heavy written evidence plus verbal evidence in the form of doctors who examined the plaintiff.”

“To me that would be sufficient,” she said.

Commentary: 12 Witness Statements (protocols) were leaked to the Swedish press in 2010. These remain on public record. Sofia Wilen was 26 years old at the time. Protocols

A lawyer representing the Swedish victim in a rape investigation involving WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange has urged Swedish prosecutors to move quickly with their inquiries, with a statute of limitations looming next year.

"She is going to be forced to take steps quickly to ensure that we have time to get a potential criminal charge in this case," lawyer Elisabeth Massi Fritz told a news conference on Monday.

"My client feels great gratitude and she is very hopeful about getting restitution and we both hope that justice will win."

Elisabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer for the rape victim — a Swedish woman who was never identified — told Swedish broadcaster SVT that “the plaintiff's information is supported by heavy written evidence plus verbal evidence in the form of doctors who examined the plaintiff."

“To me that would be sufficient,” she said.

Comment:Seems and important case related to this: Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, said in a tweet that the focus should now move to the “threat” that Assange has been “warning about for years: the belligerent prosecution of the United States and the threat it poses to the First Amendment.”

Comment: It seems that Fritz & Wilen have maintained support for a 9 year investigation where no charges were laid. Looking at the protocols it seems that there was enough evidence to determine the matter in 2010 when the investigation was dropped the first time. In 2010, Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny could have easily interrogated Assange in London in the same way that 44 other people were interrogated during the nine year investigation but stubbornly refused Assange's offer before eventually agreeing to an interrogation in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. After the interview, no technicality prevented charges being laid. This is just preliminary research for a proposed entry. Thanks for reading.Nnoddy (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC) OK since there is overwhelming "consensus" here I'll start editing :)

In 2019 Elisabeth Massi Fritz was representing Sophia Wilen in an 9 year old preliminary investigation involving WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange. While referring to the third prosecutor to take up the investigation (Eva-Marie Persson), Massi Fritz said;

"She is going to be forced to take steps quickly to ensure that we have time to get a potential criminal charge in this case,"

The 12 witness interviews (protocols)recorded in the 2010 police investigation including one with Assange were leaked to the Swedish press within days and remain on public record. Assange was vilified in the media for over nine years as Swedish prosecutors opened and closed the preliminary investigation without filing charges. The statute of limitation was passed in 2020 and may have finally ended the investigation. In 2019, the USA State Department filed extradition proceedings relying on a Virginia based grand jury indictment. The trial dubbed by some as the "Trial of the Century", began in February 2020 and the decision will not be handed down until after the upcoming USA presidential election. Nnoddy (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)