Suaad Hagi Mohamud

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: However, if there was some kind of fraud involved, Canada doesn't owe her a thing. I think, under the circumstances, she has a lot of guts suing the government.

It will be up to the government to give evidence of that.

The accusation appears to be that a family member might have impersonated her.

One sure would question whether or not it was really her. It will be interesting to see how she explains how she couldn’t name her son’s birthday or place of birth, couldn’t say what she did at work, and why she was shorter than what appears on her documents.

All of the questions she couldn't answer, all of the discrepancies, could easily be given as 'just cause' for detaining her.

I am not sure what protocols that the government goes through to ensure this does not happen ....

Perhaps detaining her was the protocol that the government went through to ensure this doesn't happen because if it were a family member using her passport, the detainment did prevent it from happening.

.... but the interview that they released thus far seems not enough to make a charge of fraud.

There may not be enough evidence to prove fraud, but seems to me there only has to be enough evidence to prove that there just cause for suspecting possible fraud, and that should be enough to prove they had the right to detain her. If they can prove that they were in the right to detain her, they would owe her nothing.

I'd be curious to hear what the process is and how they ensure that they haven't made a mistake one way or the other.

It'll definitely be interesting to see how this alll turns out. If the government settles, then likely nothing more will ever be known and she'll walk away with some big bucks.

Edited October 6, 2009 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

We will need to see the facts, however, an innocent person kept in jail prior to trial is not entitled to compensation provided the crown had a reasonable basis for pressing charges. She will need to demonstrate that the inaction rises to the level of 'malicious procecution'.

My understanding of malicious prosecution is that it must have four points: 1 that it was initiated by one party. 2 That the process was ended in favour of the other party. 3 That there as not enough evidence of probably cause. 4 That there was malice on the part of the first party in not ensuring the law was followed.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I don't know if this case is even covered by this. I do know that if the government pursues this that they had better have stronger evidence of fraud.

As I said, I do believe fraud takes place but the government needs to be clear how they determine this and how they follow up on ensuring they are correct or in placing charges against those trying to commit a crime.

Edited October 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I don't know if this case is even covered by this. I do know that if the government pursues this that they had better have stronger evidence of fraud.

What I am saying is this case is equavalent to a malicious prosecution case and they do not need to provide any proof of fraud - all they need to do is show that they had a reasonable basis for believing that fraud was at work.

[Guest American Woman]

What I am saying is this case is equavalent to a malicious prosecution case and they do not need to provide any proof of fraud - all they need to do is show that they had a reasonable basis for believing that fraud was at work.

I agree. They don't have to prove fraud, they just have to prove that they were within their rights to detain her. It seems to me it will be pretty difficult to prove that they didn't have 'probable cause' to detain her, all things considered.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps detaining her was the protocol that the government went through to ensure this doesn't happen because if it were a family member using her passport, the detainment did prevent it from happening.

Then we should have some evidence that the person detained was someone other than who was on the passport, right?

[jdobbin]

What I am saying is this case is equavalent to a malicious prosecution case and they do not need to provide any proof of fraud - all they need to do is show that they had a reasonable basis for believing that fraud was at work.

That may not get them off the hook for compensation.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: Perhaps detaining her was the protocol that the government went through to ensure this doesn't happen because if it were a family member using her passport, the detainment did prevent it from happening.

Then we should have some evidence that the person detained was someone other than who was on the passport, right?

No, that's not necessary in proving 'just cause' to detain her; that would only be necessary to prove fraud. So what I was saying is: if there is a reason to suspect fraud, a reason to suspect it's not the person on the passport, perhaps detaining the person in question is the protocol that the government uses to prevent fraud.

[Riverwind]

That may not get them off the hook for compensation.

Why not? Because you expect a judge to be swayed by public opinion which does not understand the facts of the case? If you really believe this case is different from a case where an innocent person is held in jail until they are acquitted at trial then you need to provide some argument to support your position.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=Riverwind: What I am saying is this case is equavalent to a malicious prosecution case and they do not need to provide any proof of fraud - all they need to do is show that they had a reasonable basis for believing that fraud was at work.

That may not get them off the hook for compensation.

It certainly should. If they were justified in detaining her, if they were within their rights to detain her, then why would they owe her anything for detaining her?

[wyly]

What I am saying is this case is equavalent to a malicious prosecution case and they do not need to provide any proof of fraud - all they need to do is show that they had a reasonable basis for believing that fraud was at work.

but how hard did they try to confirm her identity? didn't a kid in TO with no mother not ring any alarm bells? someone appears not have been doing their job with due diligence...did race and religious profiling bias play any part in the delay? these are legitimate concern for all Canadians, next time it could be one of us...if anyone of us had this issue we would want it it expedited would we not?...

I trust a judge to make fair decision and settlement if any...

[jdobbin]

It certainly should. If they were justified in detaining her, if they were within their rights to detain her, then why would they owe her anything for detaining her?

Because they don't seem to have done anything after she was detained to ensure she was who she said she was.

[Riverwind]

but how hard did they try to confirm her identity? didn't a kid in TO with no mother not ring any alarm bells?

Maybe. We will have to wait till the complete story comes out. We only have her side of the story at this time.

I trust a judge to make fair decision and settlement if any...

And that is what the court process is for. I am prepared to wait and see without prejudging the outcome.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE =American Woman: It certainly should. If they were justified in detaining her, if they were within their rights to detain her, then why would they owe her anything for detaining her?

Because they don't seem to have done anything after she was detained to ensure she was who she said she was.

It'll be up to her to prove that, since she's the one who brought the lawsuit. But that's a good point. If that's the case, if it can be proven that the government didn't act in a timely matter, then I guess the government would have to prove fraud in order to get off the hook, and I don't think that would be easy to do even if it were true.

[wyly]

It'll be up to her to prove that, since she's the one who brought the lawsuit. But that's a good point. If that's the case, if it can be proven that the government didn't act in a timely matter, then I guess the government would have to prove fraud in order to get off the hook, and I don't think that would be easy to do even if it were true.

where is the fraud??? she is who she claimed to be...

was it timely and did one or more officials unfairly profile her...those are the question to be addressed...

[Guest American Woman]

Because they don't seem to have done anything after she was detained to ensure she was who she said she was.

I've looked into this a bit more since my first response to your post, and it seems DNA testing was carried out. In looking into how long it takes to get results from genetic testing, even a best-case scenario seems to take several weeks.

From the date that a sample is taken, it may take a few weeks to several months to receive the test results. link

So three months detainment doesn't necessarily sound excessive taking that into account; if they were waiting for the test results.

[M.Dancer]

where is the fraud??? she is who she claimed to be...

The testimony leads one to consioder that there were more than one person showing up to interviews at the embassy. There is where the fraud is.

[jdobbin]

It'll be up to her to prove that, since she's the one who brought the lawsuit. But that's a good point. If that's the case, if it can be proven that the government didn't act in a timely matter, then I guess the government would have to prove fraud in order to get off the hook, and I don't think that would be easy to do even if it were true.

This is where I think it is not clear at all. It could go against the government if they don't have evidence to support their claim.

[Guest American Woman]

This is where I think it is not clear at all. It could go against the government if they don't have evidence to support their claim.

Like I said in a subsequent post, if they were waiting for DNA results, that could explain the length of time she was detained. If the tests were administered in a timely fashion, and they were simply waiting for results, the three months time frame would be justifiable if the government showed 'just cause' for the detainment.

Edited October 7, 2009 by American Woman

[jdobbin]

I've looked into this a bit more since my first response to your post, and it seems DNA testing was carried out. In looking into how long it takes to get results from genetic testing, even a best-case scenario seems to take several weeks.

My understanding was that the DNA was something that the government didn't pursue. Essentially, she had to provide it when no other identification was accepted.

[jdobbin]

Like I said in a subsequent post, if they were waiting for DNA results, that could explain the length of time she was detained. If the tests were administered in a timely fashion, and they were simply waiting for results, the three months time frame would be justifiable if the government showed 'just cause' for the detainment.

Then the government will have to show they requested DNA testing in court and that is what the hold up was.

[capricorn]

Maybe. We will have to wait till the complete story comes out. We only have her side of the story at this time.

And that is what the court process is for. I am prepared to wait and see without prejudging the outcome.

The Liberals are really milking this for all it's worth. Before even knowing all the evidence, they conclude the Conservatives and the bureaucracy bungled this case.

Rae said that instead of fighting Mohamud in court, the government would be better off saying it is sorry and making sure something like this never happens again.

"The government of Canada should recognize it has made a mistake. Make an apology to Mme. Mohamud. Take measures to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen again — and the rights of Canadian citizens are protected when they're travelling abroad — and make a fulsome apology to Mme. Mohamud, and settle with her. Settle the case."

Rae said "to continue to drag this through the courts when the information is so clear is nothing short of disgraceful."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/...#socialcomments

Judging by the comments section at the above linked article, there is not too much appreciation or support for the Liberal party's position. This comes across as grandstanding and an attempt to uncover a gotcha moment in the wake of their declining popularity with the electorate. Coupled with Harper's successful musical interlude on Saturday, this should serve to shave a couple of more points to their dwindling poll numbers.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals are really milking this for all it's worth. Before even knowing all the evidence, they conclude the Conservatives and the bureaucracy bungled this case.

The Tories just wish this would go away but if they end up losing the case, they might have wished they heeded the apology and settlement route.

[wyly]

I've looked into this a bit more since my first response to your post, and it seems DNA testing was carried out. In looking into how long it takes to get results from genetic testing, even a best-case scenario seems to take several weeks.

From the date that a sample is taken, it may take a few weeks to several months to receive the test results. link

So three months detainment doesn't necessarily sound excessive taking that into account; if they were waiting for the test results.

from what i recall that was not the case, they were slow in giving the test and the results were quick coming back...

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: three months detainment doesn't necessarily sound excessive taking that into account; if they were waiting for the test results.

from what i recall that was not the case, they were slow in giving the test and the results were quick coming back...

From further reading, it seems you are correct.

[Keepitsimple]

The Tories just wish this would go away but if they end up losing the case, they might have wished they heeded the apology and settlement route.

I don't think that they necessarily want it to go away. We already know there is much more to this story than meets the eye....and she didn't just go to visit her ailing mother. I'm sure there are other things that may come out. The point that Canadians will appreciate is that the Canadian government will not simply pay a huge sum to everyone who gets in some sort of trouble. It's an unfortunate situation but as posters have said, it seems reasonable that the consular found grounds to think she was an imposter. There does not appear to be any malice and certainly no racism as Editorials in The Star claimed. If the court describes the facts, determines that the government acted with reasonable cause, awards a minor settlement of say $10,000 (if anything), then Canadians will be comforted that the consular system worked - and that Canada was acting on principle not to be held hostage by a gullible woman and her greedy lawyer.