injusticebusters logo

Abdulahi Mahamad

Victim of misplaced notions of feminism

Mahamad Abdulahi" . . . During the course of Constable WILLIAMS interview with the complainant, ADDOW apparently admitted that she falsely lodged-the 1997 sexual assault complaint against MAHAMAD in efforts to regain custody of her children. . . "

She was successful

9620-103A AVENUE
EDMONTON, ALBERTA
CANADA T5H GH7
PH: (780) 4213333

July 28, 2000

Mr. Abdulahi MAHAMAD
10517 - 129 Street
EDMONTON, AB T5N 1W9

Dear Mr. MAHAMAD:

I am authoring this correspondence to you, to officially inform you of the final decision regarding the set of facts and circumstances you and I have previously discussed.

I am certain you will recall our conversations resulted in my volunteering to complete an investigative brief for attention of the Crown Prosecutors in Alberta Justice. Further agreements detailed I was to telephone you when the investigative brief was completed and delivered to Alberta Justice. As you indicated, that would enable you to liaise directly with the Crown Prosecutor's office to clearly present your position.

The investigative brief was completed on July 02, 2000 and forwarded to Alberta Justice as per our agreement. I called you on July 07, 2000 to advise you of that fact. You informed me you had already been in touch with Alberta Justice and thanked me for my efforts.

Further agreements detailed that I telephone you the moment I receive notification from Alberta Justice regarding the decision from their office. I received notification from Alberta Justice on July 18, 2000. As you recall, I left two voice messages on your answering machine on July 19, 2000 at approximately 7:28 p.m. Notwithstanding the limited time available on your answering machine, I was able to inform you that Alberta Justice had determined there was "insufficient evidence to lay charges".

I have taken the specific text from the letter from Alberta Justice and have copied it as follows attention:

"Thank you for your investigative material with respect to the above.

Having reviewed this material, it is our opinion that there is insufficient evidence to lay a public mischief charge against Ms. Addow. Further, none of the potential charges against either of these two parties should be re-visited and laid."

Mr. MAHAMAD, from the numerous conversations you and I have shared, I can truly understand the frustration you face. However, based on the information presented to myself and other members of this organization, the Edmonton Police Service is not able to meet your expectations and lay charges against Ms. Addow.

Therefore I must state, the Edmonton Police Service will not conduct further investigations into your allegations of Parental Abduction and/or Public Mischief charges against your ex-wife. In addition to this statement, the Edmonton Police Service will conduct no further investigations into historical sexual assault allegations levied by your ex-wife against you.

Referencing our telephone call from July 26, 2000 I can further advise you in writing, my investigative brief was reviewed by Acting Chief Crown Prosecutor Mr. W.R. STEPHEN.

We also spoke briefly regarding the letter codes "S" and "T" that are allegedly associated to your name. You expressed concern should a routine traffic stop be conducted by an EPS member, you believed you may be treated in an alternative fashion should those letter codes would be available to the officer. I conducted computer checks utilizing your name and date of birth you provided. I am able to confirm there are no such letter codes associated to your name. The only entry displays a "no convictions" notation from an assault matter which occurred several years ago. We further discussed the possibility of placing a "flag" on your wife's name to preclude the possibility of further visits from investigating officers dealing with vexatious complaints levied by your ex-wife. I am able to inform you, our present computer system does not offer the feature to "flag" names. However, we are able to "flag" addresses and I have taken the liberty to have any and/or all investigators responding to your ex-wife's address, to review my investigative brief prior to conducting further investigations into your ex-wife's allegations. Naturally, should the allegations be levied outside of the material covered in my investigative brief, the investigators would then be compelled to contact you to ascertain your "side of the story".

Should you maintain your original position, insofar you believe your wife is harassing you and using the Edmonton Police Service as a medium to effect that harassment, I refer to my prior suggestion that a civil remedy be pursued to meet your objective.

In facing the future of what appears to be a lengthy child custody matter, I wish you the best. Keeping in mind the foregoing, should you have any questions outside of our previously discussed matters, please feel free to contact me at 426-8126.

Sincerely,

R.A. SCHREINER, Sergeant
North Division, Platoon A, Position 3


HENDRICKSON GOWER MASSING OLIVIER]
Attention: Mr. Barry J. MASSING
Barristers and Solicitors
#2250 Scotia I, 10060 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, AB TSJ 3R8

Dear Sir:

This is to confirm the Edmonton ,Police Service received your correspondence addressed to the Chief of Police dated November 15, 2000. Your complaint letter, along with the correspondence authored by your client Mr. MAHAMAD, was forwarded to North Division for review. As I have familiarity with Mr. MAHAMAD, the file was forwarded to me for further investigations in efforts to meet your concerns.

Upon reading through your, and Mr. MAHAMAD's correspondence I would first like to inform you of the status of Mr. MAHAMAD's ongoing concerns with the Edmonton Police Service. I first met Mr. MAHAMAD in the fall of 1999. I had assumed supervisory responsibility of the patrol squad Constable MANDRUSIAK had been assigned to. As Constable MANDRUSIAK was elsewhere assigned, he left his file for further investigations. I reviewed Constable MANDRUSIAK's file. I personally met with Mr. MAHAMAD. It was evident the file involved indepth investigations of a variety of historical and ongoing issues of concern. I believed the concerns expressed by Mr. MAHAMAD and/or Ms. ADDOW, would be best addressed by a member of our North Division Criminal Investigation Section. Therefore, the investigative file was forwarded to Detective J. GLENA for continued investigations. That under Edmonton Police Service file number 99-68906. I will express further information pertaining to that file in subsequent paragraphs.

In the summer of 2000, Mr. MAHAMAD contacted me to express his disapproval with the attendance o" Constable (.'. WILLIAMS at his residence. Ms. ADDOW had lodged a complaint with the Edmonton Police Service. The complaint required, at the very least, preliminary investigations. Mr. MAHAMAD had denied the allegations which concluded that matter. That investigation was recorded under Edmonton Police Service file number 00-46471. I will also deal further with that file in subsequent paragraphs.

As noted, Mr. MAHAMAD was very displeased with the actions of our police service. We had lengthy discussions regarding both investigations. Mr. MAHAMAD and I reached an agreement that I would review all investigations undertaken by the E.P.S., all court orders, and any other information that had been presented to our police service. We further agreed I would compile an investigative report covering all aspects of my review, and forward that report to the office of Alberta Justice Crown Prosecutors' office for review and recommendation of charges. Mr. MAHAMAD was, as noted, in agreement with this proposal. My investigative review was completed and recorded under Edmonton Police Service tile number 00-67720.

In summary, my investigative review contained the following information. The relationship between Mr. MAHAMAD (hereinafter referred to as MAHAMAD) and Ms. ADDOW (hereinafter referred to as ADDOW) produced one child named Miriam Susie MAHAMAD (1990 March 15). At that time, the family had settled in eastern Canada. After the birth of Miriam MAHAMAD, the family moved to Alberta. After a period of time, it was apparent the relationship was suffering. The personal relationship between ADDOW and MAHAMAD terminated, with MAHAMAD moving and maintaining a residence in Edmonton. ADDOW moved to Calgary with the child Miriam MAHAMAD.

In 1997, a custody dispute began between the parents of Miriam. At that time, Calgary Social Services entered into investigations of allegations of assault perpetrated against Miriam, at the hands of her mother. During the same period, ADDOW contacted the Calgary Police Service and levied historical sexual assault allegations against her ex-husband MAHAMAD, while they were cohabiting in Edmonton.

I believe the result of the Calgary Social Services investigation is known to MAHAMAD, and he may feel comfortable in relaying the outcome. Due to a breach of confidentiality, I am reluctant to release the findings. However, as a result of that investigation, MAHAMAD now became the primary caregiver of the daughter Miriam.

The Calgary Police Service forwarded the sexual assault allegations levied by ADDOW against MAHAMAD, to the Sex Crimes Unit of the Edmonton Police Service. Reg. No. 520 Detective R. W. KITTLE of the Edmonton Police Service, traveled to Calgary and conducted a videotaped interview with ADDOW. At the completion of the interview, a brief was prepared and forwarded to Alberta Justice for review and recommendation of charges. On 1998 March 20, Detective KITTLE received correspondence from Alberta Justice which detailed insufficient evidence precluded the reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Accordingly, no charges were laid against MAHAMAD. (Edmonton Police Service file 97-23583 refers)

The custody dispute continued in Family Court. On 1999 May 07, the custody arguments were heard before Madam Justice SMITH. At that time, Madam Justice SMITH ordered joint custody of Miriam MAHAMAD. Several court orders formed part of the court ordered custody agreement, one order being that "neither party may remove the child from the Province of Alberta without the written consent of the other party."

On 1999 June 27, the above order took effect. Miriam MAHAMAD was delivered back to Calgary to live with her mother, ADDOW.

On 1999 July 08, MAHAMAD attempted to telephone his daughter Miriam at the Calgary residence of ADDOW. MAHAMAD was informed via recorded message; the telephone number was no longer in service. MAHAMAD contacted the Calgary Police Service, whom dispatched investigators to the residence of ADDOW. The residence was found abandoned. MAHAMAD became fearful that ADDOW would flee Canada with his daughter Miriam MAHAMAD

At that time, MAHAMAD lodged a complaint with the Edmonton Police Service, levying allegations of Parental Abduction against ADDOW. On 1999 July 08, Constable MANDRUSIAK of the Edmonton Police Service began investigations into the allegations levied by MAHAMAD.

Through unnamed sources, MAHAMAD learned that ADDOW and the daughter Miriam were in Vancouver, British Columbia. When confronted with a breach of the court order, ADDOW indicated that she in fact was in adherence to the custody agreement, as she had written permission from MAHAMAD to remove the daughter Miriam from Alberta. Based on the statement provided by ADDOW, MAHAMAD was interviewed by Constable MANDRUSIAK and confronted as to Public Mischief charges regarding the false complaint of Parental Abduction he lodged against ADDOW.

MAHAMAD adamantly denied providing any such consent letter to ADDOW. Constable MANDRUSIAK continued his investigations to obtain the alleged original letter from ADDOW. Difficulties with the cooperation of ADDOW led MAHAMAD to obtain a court order dated 1999 July 23, which compelled ADDOW to produce the original consent letter.

Upon producing the alleged original consent letter, Constable MANDRUSIAK submitted the consent letter for forensic examination. The forensic examination revealed two fingerprints, however neither fingerprint belonged to MAHAMAD. This eliminated MAHAMAD from any knowledge and/or provable involvement in authoring the alleged original consent letter.

Due to Constable MANDRUSIAK's departure from patrol, the file was re-assigned to Detective J. GLENA of the Edmonton Police Service - North Division Criminal Investigation Section in the September 1999. Detective GLENA, in the course of his continuing investigations, met with Madam Justice Smith to review in detail, the original consent letter. It was agreed, the letter was fraudulently manufactured, i.e.: signatures forged and/or copied and pasted using computer technology. Notwithstanding the views and observations of Justice SMITH and Detective GLENA, it was further deemed unlikely to identify the author of the original consent letter, and therefore a reasonable likelihood of prosecution was not achievable. No charges were laid against ADDOW relative to producing the purported false document.

Detective GLENA advised MAHAMAD of the final disposition of the investigation. According to Detective GLENA's notes, MAHAMAD was not pleased with the outcome.

On 2000 May 04,. ADDOW contacted the Edmonton Police Service to lodge an Utter Threats allegation against MAHAMAD. Reg. No. 2171 Constable C. WILLIAMS from West Division attended the residence of ADDOW. During the course of Constable WILLIAMS interview with the complainant, ADDOW apparently admitted that she falsely lodged-the 1997 sexual assault complaint 'against MAHAMAD in efforts to regain custody of her children. ADDOW further explained on 1999 November 03, MAHAMAD threatened to "kill her". ADDOW did not report that alleged "threat" to police. ADDOW further reported that she received a telephone call from MAHAMAD on 2000 April 30 at 0335 hours, at which time MAHAMAD stated "he will do to her what he promised to her before". The two reported "threats" were the subject matter of Constable WILLIAM'S' investigation.

Constable WILLIAMS determined the alleged "threats" spoken by MAHAMAD were historical in nature and/or very veiled threats and therefore, believed insufficient evidence was available to lay any criminal charges against him. (EPS report 00-46471 refers)

Shortly after Constable WILLIAMS' investigation, I received a telephone call from MAHAMAD. Mr. MAHAMAD was furious that police attended his residence on the basis of a complaint lodged by his ex-wife ADDOW. I explained that police were required to make at least preliminary inquiries, regarding any and/or all allegations, otherwise face possible disciplinary sanctions. MAHAMAD adamantly demanded that ADDOW be charged with Public Mischief. I

explained my belief that a Public Mischief charge would not reach success in court. I offered the "civil" remedy for MAHAMAD to pursue, however MAHAMAD responded that would require a lawyer and he had no money for a one. MAHAMAD maintained his position that his ex-wife was using the police to harass him. MAHAMAD demanded that the police no longer entertain any allegations made by his wife. He requested a "flag" be placed on her name, so other police members whom do not know the history of the relationship., would simply disregard any allegations lodged by ADDOW.

I then volunteered to prepare a brief for the Crown Prosecutors office, include all information available, and have them review the entire matter. The Crown Prosecutors office from Alberta Justice would respond in written form and then Mr. MAHAMAD would have a definitive answer to his issues with his ex-wife. Mr. MAHAMAD was responsive to my suggestion and agreed to give me a week to prepare the brief. Mr. MAHAMAD further requested I advise him when I had completed the brief, to enable him the opportunity to contact the Crown Prosecutors, Office and consult with them staff in consideration of criminal charges.

My completed investigative review was forwarded to the Crown Prosecutors' office for review and recommendations. As per our prior conversations, I notified Mr. MA14AMAD of when that occurred. This enabled Mr. MAHAMAD to converse directly with the Crown Prosecutors to fully express his concerns. On July 17, 2000 I received correspondence from Alberta Justice regarding their review and recommendations. Acting Chief Crown Prosecutor Mr. W. R. STEPHEN stated: "Having reviewed this material, it is our opinion that there is insufficient evidence to lay a public mischief charge against Ms. Addow. Further, none of the potential charges against either of these two parties should be re-visited and laid."

Again, in keeping with our agreement, I called Mr. MAHAMAD and informed him of the final disposition. I further authored correspondence to Mr. MAHAMAD clearly identifying the author of the letter from Alberta Justice, the final disposition reached by Alberta Justice, and that the Edmonton Police Service would not be conducting further investigations into these matters.

Upon reviewing Mr. MAHAMAD's correspondence attached to your letter, I have not identified any new issues of concern. Both referenced file numbers, 99-68906 and 00-46471, were thoroughly reviewed and formed an integral part of my investigative review which was forwarded to Alberta Justice.

However, your correspondence clearly indicates Mr. MAHAMAD has further evidence in support of his concerns that he would like to present to your investigator. " Should Mr. MAHAMAD in fact have some evidence that has not been expressed to police, I would request he provide such information to me.

Therefore, in efforts to fully address any outstanding issues, I am requesting Mr. MAHAMAD provide the further evidence to me in the written text before December 31, 2000. Should no further information be presented, my concluding report containing all aforementioned information, will be presented to the Chief of Police for review and final disposition. You would then be appraised of the final disposition by way of correspondence, and your avenue of appeal.

Sincerely,

Sgt-. R.A. (Randy) SCHREINER

Back to story