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
- 1333033 reads
Comments
Order/s of NCAB UK in complaints - by and against ....!
Dear All - Ya Ali Madad , .....this is information from e mails ,
ORDER
On 4 August 2012, Mr. Mahebub Chatur submitted a complaint to both His Highness Prince Aga Khan Shia Imami Ismaili International Conciliation and Arbitration Board (“ICAB”) and His Highness Prince Aga Khan Shia Imami Ismaili National Conciliation and Arbitration Board (“NCAB”) under Articles 13 and 14 of the Constitution of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims (“the Constitution”) against Dr. Shafik Sachedina and Abdulla Dharamsey and others whom Mr Chatur has not specifically named. Subsequently Mr Chatur has submitted various other complaints to NCAB UK in several follow up e mails
NCAB (UK) Jurisdiction
Article 13 of The Constitution of The Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims (“the Constitution”) deals with the constitutional structure of NCAB and its general powers.
Article 14 of the Constitution deals specifically with disciplinary action including the remit of NCAB in such circumstances.
NCAB UK sets out the complaints against the named individuals separately as follows:
Complaints against Mr Dharamsey
In this complaint, Mr. Chatur alleges that:
i. On or about 24 November 2009 Mr Dharamsey by email correspondence addressed to Dr. Sachedina in his role as the Head of the Department of Jamati Institutions revoked his bayah and post the date of Mr Dharamsey’s email revocation of his bayah, Mr Dharamsey has continued to attend jamatkhana;
ii. Mr Dharamsey is the Chairman of the Global Ismaili Muslim Forum which Mr Dharamsey alleges has over 40,000 members; and
iii Mr Dharamsey has individually and or jointly; and or with others, inter alia:
a. Subjected to contempt and or ridicule, the AL-al-Bayt, and or Mawlana Hazar Imam, and or the Constitution, and or any Rules and Regulations, and or Farman, and or Ismaili religious literature and or our rites or practices; and/or,
b. Conducted themselves in a manner likely to offend the religious sentiments of the jamat, and or to cause disaffection in the jamat, and or to create disturbance and or nuisance in any jamatkhana or any assembly of the jamat, and or acts in any other manner prejudicial to the dignity or prestige of the jamat; and or,
c. Committed a breach of our Constitution and or any Rules and Regulations and or aided and or abetted others to contravene provisions of the Constitution and or any Rules and Regulations.
Complaint against Dr Sachedina
In this complaint, Mr Chatur alleges that:
Dr Sachedina has individually and or jointly; and or with others, inter alia:
a. Subjected to contempt and or ridicule, the AL-al-Bayt, and or Mawlana Hazar Imam, and or the Constitution, and or any Rules and Regulations, and or Farman, and or Ismaili religious literature and or our rites or practices; and/or,
b. Conducted themselves in a manner likely to offend the religious sentiments of the jamat, and or to cause disaffection in the jamat, and or to create disturbance and or nuisance in any jamatkhana or any assembly of the jamat, and or acts in any other manner prejudicial to the dignity or prestige of the jamat; and or,
c. Committed a breach of the Constitution and or any Rules and Regulations and or aided and or abetted others to contravene provisions of the Constitution and or any Rules and Regulations.
Furthermore,Mr Chatur has requested in respect of his complaints against the two individuals aforementioned that evidence is sought from each individual
Response to complaints against Mr Dharamsey
With respect to the complaints against Mr Dharamsey, NCAB responds as follows:
The Constitution states that the bayah by the murid to the Imam is an acceptance by the murid of the permanent spiritual bond between the Imam and the murid. Consequently, NCAB is of the view that while any murid is free to revoke his bayah, the issue of whether or not a murid has revoked his bayah is a personal matter between the murid and the Imam and is not an appropriate issue for disciplinary action.
Further if the allegation is correct, the CAB system would have no jurisdiction over Mr Dharamsey as he would not be an Ismaili and no disciplinary order could be validly issued against him.
NCAB UK has had sight of email correspondence in which Mr Dharamsey has unequivocally stated that he has not revoked the Bayah. If this statement made by Mr Dharamsey is accepted by Mr Chatur, then the other complaints may be considered separately. NCAB invites Mr Chatur to make fresh application regarding the other allegations set out above in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) and NCAB will on this basis consider the complaints further.
In order for NCAB UK to effectively consider the complaints Mr Chatur has put forward, Mr Chatur is therefore requested to resubmit such complaints set out above in paragraphs (ii) and (iii) setting each out clearly against the named individual and providing as much detail and evidence in Mr Chatur’s possession to substantiate the claims made. It is requested that Mr. Chatur gather and submit all supporting evidence together with the related complaints so that NCAB UK may consider such complaints by reference to the supporting evidence presented by Mr. Chatur.
Response to complaints against Dr Sachedina
NCAB takes note of the following sections of the Constitution:
Preamble
(H) By virtue of his office and in accordance with the faith and belief of the Ismaili Muslims, the Imam enjoys full authority of governance over and in respect of all religious and Jamati matters of the Ismaili Muslims.
Article One – Power and Authority of Mawlana Hazar Imam
1.1 Mawlana Hazar Imam has inherent right and absolute and unfettered power and authority over and in respect of all religious and Jamati matters of the Ismailis.
NCAB notes that there is no limitation in the Constitution to the manner in which the Imam organizes his administration and his Secretariat.
Dr. Sachedina, as the Head of the DJI, reports to Mawlana Hazar Imam. He is accountable to Mawlana Hazar Imam in the performance of his duties.
It is within Mawlana Hazar Imam’s exclusive prerogative to supervise his personnel and his institutions, including office bearers of these institutions in the performance of their duties.
Having considered the complaint submitted by Mr. Chatur against Dr Sachedina, and having carefully reviewed the Constitution, NCAB has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since the substance of this complaint relates to matters which are within Mawlana Hazar Imam’s sole authority. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
24th December 2012
CHAIRMAN