Ismaili.NET - Heritage F.I.E.L.D.Copyright Lawsuit: Defenses Glorifying the Aga Khan filed in federal Court - 2010-04-29
In a surprisingly rapid twist of events, both Mr Tajdin and Mr Jiwa have filed their respective statements of Defense this 29th of April 2010. They affirm to being devoted followers who will unconditionally abide by the wishes of the Aga Khan, whom they glorify in their defense.
Mr Tajdin declares that:
He has not been served yet but the ethics imposed upon him by his faith demands that he should not keep in ignorance the public by being silent on the issue and should clarify all of the facts, pertaining to this lawsuit, of which he is aware.
He reaffirms his allegiance to the Aga Khan, is willing to submit to any of his wishes, and is ready to surrender himself and all his possessions to the Imam.
He has been printing Farman books since 1992 with approval and instructions from the Imam received on August 15, 1992 in Montreal.
He has not received any communication from the Imam from 1992 to 2009 instructing him to stop publication.
He cannot stop publication without instruction from the Imam as this would be a breach of his oath of allegiance to the Imam.
All Farman publications were financial deficit projects done as a volunteer service and large numbers of books were distributed free of charge.
Farman sharing is a historic Ismaili tradition which still continues today.
The current Ismaili Constitution does not restrict the right to publish Farmans
Mr Tajdin concludes that:
He has no choice but to await further direct instructions from the Imam.
He reaffirms his allegiance to the Aga Khan, is willing to submit to any of His wishes, and is ready to surrender himself and all his possessions to the Imam.
Mr Jiwa states that:
"This action does not appear to have been authorized personally by the Aga Khan .."
"In distributing Farman books obtained from Tajdin to other Ismailis, he has not violated either the Ismaili Constitution or any Farmans"
He has not violated the copyright act as "Tajdin was given express authority by the Imam" and regardless of the fact that "the limitations period provided for by the Copyright Act also bars this action as the books containing the Farmans were commenced publication in the year 1992", he will still do whatever the Imam tells him to do.
Mr Jiwa clarifies finances:
He "obtains these books for C$50.00 and sells them for C$50.00 or gives them free, without any profit.
"All monies received by him from the sale of (other) books after 2005 were delivered to the Jamatkhanas"
Mr Jiwa further states that:
"If the Imam edited the Farman before releasing to the Jamats, in effect he is superceding the Farman he made orally previously."
He "unconditionally reconfirms his oath of allegiance to his Imam" and "if the Imam does not desire his Farman books to be distributed to the Jamats (...) this defendant will submit to the instructions of His Imam without reservation whatsoever"
Replies From the Plaintiff are due within 10 days, and Affidavits of Documents are due 30 days later.
[Update from May 6: Ogilvy Renault, the law firm which launched the case has asked for an extension of 15 days to reply to the Defense. They claim delays due to breakdown of email servers, blackberry communication, travel of senior lawyer, time difference with Paris etc...The more delays in this file, the more damage it creates to the reputation of the Ismaili community, the Imam and the defendants. It is to the advantage of all parties that this case be withdrawn from the courts.]
[Update from June 22: Defendants have filed a Motion for summary Judgement to have the case dismissed.]
[Update from September 5:
Online Book that gathers court materials as well as articles that are currently available for the ongoing 2010 Lawsuit:
Copyright Lawsuit 2010: Online Book of All available Materials
News on cross-examinations:
Copyright Lawsuit: CROSS_EXAMINATIONS Table of Contents - 2010-09-04
Latest Development
Copyright Lawsuit: Imam Appears for Discovery and Ends the Case - 2010-10-15
As users are asking to read the letters from Nagib and Alnaz on the court docket, the latest have been attached on the following link:
A. Various Court Filings
Revised Factums have been posted Here:
2010-11-29 Summary Judgment : Plaintiffs Revised Combined Factums of Reply and of Motion
2010-11-29 Summary Judgment: Defendants' Revised Factums of Motion and of Reply
There has been proven fraud in the recent past in the Aga Khan's domain by the Aga Khan's agents:
Aga Khan Lawsuit: Fraud at Aga Khan Studs - 2000-02-22
2011-05-25: A Jamati Member who has never met the Defendants volunteered as his brotherly duty to pay the $30,000 that was demanded in the Plaintiff''s submissions and that was accordingly ordered by the judge.
Read the full details of the $30,000 payment directly to H.H. The Aga Khan.
2011-06-16: The Appeal Memorandum of Fact and Law against the Summary Judgment has been filed in court by the defendants on June 16th, 2011.
Read the Full Appeal Memorandum of Fact and Law
Link to Court Docket Case T-514-10
Link to Court Docket Appeal A-60-11
Link to Court Docket Appeal A-59-11
Link to Court Docket Appeal A-156-13
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Tajdin Defence Apr 29.10.pdf | 491.02 KB |
| Jiwa AK Defence Apr 29.10.pdf | 543.82 KB |
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
- 1333154 reads
Comments
MHI's response on Affirmation on Oct 15.
Gray says that MHI signed 3 copies of the affirmation before a prominent Boston attorney (a friend of Gray for about 20 to 30 years, forget exact words of Gray) and a Boston Notary public. (Gray told us that he had three original signatures. Yet he refused to give us an original, and never gave a copy to Nagib, but agreed to give me an original copy for ten days so long as I signed an undertaking that I would return the original in 10 days. I immediately retained an expert and returned it to Gray within 10 days.
We believed that it was not signed by MHI and our expert gave an expert opinion that it was NOT signed by MHI. Gray obtained an expert only to critique our expert BUT not to give an opinion (which the expert admitted if he was retained to do so he could) that the signature was MHI's. Also Gray's expert on cross examinations (where his credibilty was seriously eroded) said that he asked Gray to give him original signatures of MHI so he could review then, but Gray never gave him any original signatures.
(Gray's expert said in his affidavit that he could not give an opinion because the copies we gave were photocopies and were of poor copy, but on cross examination he confirmed that in a survey, he had previously done, confirmed that experts' opinion on photocopies was right 95 % of time and only 3 to 5 % did not get all right (though none failed). He also admitted that Gray did not show the original Affirmation to him and had he reviewed it he could have given opinion.
Affirmation was purportedly signed on May 12, 2010. (I think.) Our mulakat was on Oct 15 - just 5 months after.
I will describe the room. From entrance you face into the room, (a small room) it had a conf. table with 4 chairs on one side and four chairs on the other facing each other. Just enough room at right and left sides, the far right side for the Court Reporter (CR) and the left side enough room to walk by to go to the other side. Nagib was at the 1st chair 1st chair on right facing the wall (back to the door (left side of the room) and to the left of the CR.
When MHI entered the room, Gray introduced us to MHI, and then introduced the court reporter, and told MHI to take his seat near the court reporter. MHi walked from the left side to the other side and was walking to the chair (1st chair on right opp. Nagib and right of the CR.) [Next to MHI Gray sat (opp. me), then MM then SS.]
Just as MHI turned right at the corner to go to his chair, Gray said: YH the CR will affirm you - just as he was opposite me - and MHI immediately responded: Oh so what do I have to say. CR: No, YH, you do not have to say anything - I will ask you a question and you just have to answer my question (Q she later asked was: Do you affirm to tell the truth...).
When he said, Oh so what do I have to say, I immediately knew he was giving a message and knew we were right when we were saying that MHI did not sign the Affirmation. How? IF MHI had signed the Affirmation 5 months before, he would have been asked the same question on Affirmation then that CR would ask and he would have known what to say.
YET, here he asks: oh so what do I have to say. This was revealing. Now MHI has testified in court before and would have in any event known what affirmation is. Why ask: oh so what do I have to say other than giving us a message that he did not know how affirmations were given or taken.
The affirmation was not signed by MHI. And MHI's response convinced me that our belief was right on.