MOTION

Text of Motion for Judgment by 'plaintiff' 2011-02-11

On February 8, 2011, After refusing to discuss any of the terms of the proposed Order, The 'Plaintiff' filed a Motion for Judgment. This means that the parties will not agree to a draft of an order, and want the Judge to draft the Order.

REPLY by Defendants

Text of Defendants' Reply to the Motion for Judgment 2011-02-16

Even though they intend to appeal the order, the defendants replied to the Motion for Judgment suggesting modifications to the Order because the draft presented by the 'Plaintiff' does not correspond to the Judgment given by Justice Harrington.

Counter- REPLY by Plaintiff

Text of Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Representations 2011-02-22

On February 11, 2011, Counsel for Plaintiff replied by reiterating that

- He wants to keep the order broad and prevent the defendants from keeping Any copies of Any Farmans in Any format. (Is this plausibly coming from the Imam who has recommended that Ismailis Read and share Farmans at every occasion?)

- He wants accounting of Damages, Profits, and of all sales of books, and wants to conduct a discovery to investigate these. (Is this plausibly coming from the Imam who said 4 times during discovery that "those who have them can keep them", and who saids he did not want any costs?)

Final ORDER issued for Summary Judgment

Text of the Final Order for Summary Judgment 2011-03-04

On March 14, 2011, Judge Harrington issued the Final Order:

- He started by stating that the Order sought by the Plaintiff was indeed too Broad. He was asking for more than was awarded. (Would the Imam do this?)

- He removed some items from the Plaintiff's draft, but still made a very broad order that prevents defendants from having any copy of any Farman from any source, and that allows the "plaintiff' to ask for who the books were sold to. It will require the defendants to further modify their Notice of Appeal.

If left unchanged, Gray's draft order paves the path to prolonged additional discoveries and witch-hunts of any person, who, like the Defendant Jiwa, had only given a few copies of the Golden Edition to some family or friends, and it allows SS to continue suing Murids of the Imam in Imam's name for "loss of profits" and "damages", which is obviously against Imam's wish.

As a result,Tajdin and Jiwa both filed Notices of Appeal on Monday February 7, 2011.
Notice of Appeal by Alnaz Jiwa 2011-02-07
Notice of Appeal by Nagib Tajdin 2011-02-07

About the Appeal Process:
Dignified Consent Judgment refused to Defendants - Appeal filed! - Aga Khan Copyright Lawsuit -2011-02-08
What Happened Leading up to the Appeal?
What Points does the Appeal rely on?

On Feb 14, 2011, Plaintiff's Lawyers filed a Motion to dismiss the appeals.

Follow the appeal process on the Court Docket here:
Link to Court Docket Appeal A-60-11
Link to Court Docket Appeal A-59-11

On January 7, 2011, The Judge filed an injunction and reasons for Judgment.

View the pdf below to read the Judgment and the Reasons for Judgment.
The Final Order was to be drafted separately.

See subsequent pages in this online book to read how:

- On January 21, 2011, There was a suspect "Talika" in select JK's that sounded more like a pressure tactic to get defendants to sign a very broad order drafted by the "Plaintiff"'s Lawyer. It referred to this judgment as the basis for the future policies of the Imamat.

- On February 7, 2011, The Defendants filed an appeal on the last possible date because noone was willing to discuss anything with them.

- On February 8, 2011, The "Plaintiff" motioned to get a Final Judgment according to their broad draft.

- On February 14, 2011, The "Plaintiff" motioned to get the Appeal dismissed for being premature because no final order was signed. (Funny that the "Talika", sent out by Sachedina's office, and referring to this judgment, was not considered premature? At that time, there was no final order yet and discussions on the contents of the order remained to be undertaken?)

- On March 4, 2011, A final order was issued that was still very broad

- On March 14, 2011, The "Plaintiff's" motion to dismiss the appeal was itself dismissed.

Subsequently,

- The Counsel for Plaintiff started procedures and sending letters to expedite the fulfilling of the order before the appeal, namely, he demanded the $30,000 and he demanded a discovery with Names of the recipients of books.

- The defendants motioned to amend the Notice of appeal and to consolidate both the appeals of Tajdin and Jiwa, in order to save time and resources.

.....

All Comments on the case