United States of America v. Danielson et al.

United States of America v. Danielson et al.

The court found the ROC evidence admissible under the Extradition Act and, on a meaningful judicial review required by Ferras, concluded the certified personal identification data matched the person before the court on the balance of probabilities and that the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence disclosed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2006 BCSC 1378
Parties
Requesting State/applicant: United States of America; Person Sought/respondent: Natty Asiegbu (a.k.a. Osemwengie a.k.a. Jeff Daniels a.k.a. Don Miller); Person Sought/respondent: Robert Smith (a.k.a. Williams a.k.a. Steve Austin); Person Sought/respondent: Joshua Danielson (a.k.a. Norman McLeod)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Committal Hearing Under the Extradition Act
Outcome
Committed for extradition on fraud charge; not committed on mail fraud charge
Legal Topics
Identification of Person Sought, Admissibility of Certified Record of the Case, Sufficiency for Committal (ferras Standard), Mens Rea, Use of Mail Element
Source Language
english
Extradition Criminal Law Fraud Mail Fraud Evidence Identification of Person Sought Admissibility of Certified Record of the Case Sufficiency for Committal (ferras Standard) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United States of America

Requesting State/applicant

Natty Asiegbu (a.k.a. Osemwengie a.k.a. Jeff Daniels a.k.a. Don Miller)

Person Sought/respondent

Robert Smith (a.k.a. Williams a.k.a. Steve Austin)

Person Sought/respondent

Joshua Danielson (a.k.a. Norman McLeod)

Person Sought/respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Committal Hearing Under the Extradition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the person before the court is the person sought by the requesting state
  2. 2 Whether the certified Record(s) of the Case are admissible
  3. 3 Whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to justify committal under Ferras

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the ROC evidence admissible under the Extradition Act and, on a meaningful judicial review required by Ferras, concluded the certified personal identification data matched the person before the court on the balance of probabilities and that the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence disclosed a plausible case of fraud such that committal for extradition on the fraud charge is justified; the evidence was insufficient to prove the essential mail-use element for mail fraud, so committal on that charge was refused.

Court Disposition

Committed for extradition on fraud charge; not committed on mail fraud charge

Orders

  • Commit Mr. Joshua Danielson for extradition on the charge of fraud (Criminal Code s.380).
  • Decline to commit Mr. Joshua Danielson for extradition on the charge of mail fraud (Criminal Code s.381).