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
- 1333239 reads
Comments
Mumbai_Lawsuit_REASONS_and_WHAT_ITREB_DJI_ SAY_!
A simplified summary and what ITREB have said in court. Mr Mansoorali can you please update us, after the hearing in 2 days.
REASON FOR FILING in Mumbai
This was because ITREB refused to give Farmans (and Ginans), to members of the jamat to even read in Jamat Khanna. ITREB also refused to respond or entertain any queries whatsoever from members of the Jamat. This murid was told (you can do what you like)
WHAT IS THE JAMAT SEEKING in court.
The Jamat is therefore asking the court to make an order against ITREB to comply with the wishes and Farmans of Mawlana Hazar Imam, and with our Constitution. “ To publish, provide and make available to the Jamats, all Farmans, and books of Farmans of Mawlana Hazar Imam, and of Mawlana Sultan Mohammed Shah (saw).
WHAT ARE ITREB India (DJI - Shafik Sachedina), SAYING IN COURT
ITREB passed a Board resolution, On 1 May 2011, to defend by agreement with DJI (Shafik Sachedina). (They yet to submit the additional AND requisite evidence in court - case no 728 of 2011)
The Chair of ITREB was fully authorized to defend the case, and appoint lawyers/Advocates ( M&M Legal Ventures - Advocates ). The following is a summary of the defense and what ITREB India said.
1 ITREB is under no obligation to members of the Jamat !
2 ITREB, as an Ismaili constitutional body functions in accordance with and is obliged to follow the Ismaili constitution.
3 ITREB say the Ismaili constitution which is governing the community is for internal discipline, and therefore any member of the community has no independent right of any nature whatsoever
4 The Shia Imami muslims are governed by their constitution, read with the guidance (Farmans) of Mawlana Hazar Imam and or successors, and or so designated by the predecessors. (so Farmans of all Imams)
5 ITREB says If the court grants this application then the court would be creating a new state of affairs and the court should not grant this order.
6 ITREB are denying is that books of Farmans have been withdrawn.
7 Members of the Jamat do not have any right against ITREB, and ITREB has no legal duty against the Jamat
8 It is not the policy of the Ismaili Jamat, or any of its institutions to proselytize;
9 The arguments and submissions are contrary to the Laws of India and fallacious
10 The entire and complete copyright in all Farmans is owned by and vested in a the Imam
11 Farmans are in fact made available to the Jamat from time to time.
12 The definition of a farman under the constitution is “any pronouncements, direction order or ruling made or given by Mawlana Hazar Imam”
13 There are a number of books of Farmans published by the defendant from time to time
14 The books of Farmans are also available in the library of the ITREB
15 Members are free obtain copies of Farmans on such terms as available to all members of the Jamat
16 At no point of time this member of the Jamat asked for any of the Farmans and or interpretation. (If he had they would have been given – Why then not give them now)
17 It is denied that we are not responding to requests from the member of the Jamat for Farmans etc
18 Since this member did not seek any assistance, or any other, or any interpretation, the question of providing these to him or otherwise does not arise
19 The Holy Qur’an is available in various languages (in JK/Library – Where)
20 In the event there is any specific difficulty to understand the language or contents of the Holy Qur’an, any person can always seek assistance to understand the meaning thereof ( and ITREB will give them to Tawil and the Talim of the Quran and therefore Farmans)
21 The application is not verified in accordance with the law
22 There is no cause of action against ITREB, and the application is malafide, vexatious and with ulterior motives. The application is vague and is based on conjectures and assumptions.
23 ITREB India, is not an entity and therefore can neither be sued in court nor can sue anyone, under the Laws of India
24 The Jamat does not have the legal or individual right to seek Farmans and books of Farmans.
Question to all Leaders based on what ITREB has confirmed in court (in numbers 2 to 20 above)
1 Should therefore all Farmans not be given to every Mukhi and Kamadia in every Jamat Khana around the world ?
2 Should therefore copies Farmans and or annotations not be given and explained to the Jamats ?
3 Should therefore Farmans and annotations not also be interpreted and given in different languages
4 Should therefore the Quran in different languages not be available for all the Jamats
5 Should therefore explanations and interpretations of Quran with Farmans not be available and given on request to every member of the Jamats ?
6 Should therefore ITREB not respond and not provide members with requisite information and access
7 Should therefore Shafik Sachedina, and, A Bhaloo not say the same in their affidavits and cross examinations in the Canadian Lawsuit ? Should they now given the correct the facts to the courts and the Jamat.