Online Book that gathers court materials as well as articles that are currently available for the ongoing 2010 Lawsuit Allegedly by Aga Khan:
Copyright Lawsuit 2010: Online Book of All available Materials
Cross examination Transcripts:
2010-08-09 CROSS-EXAMINATIONS for Summary Judgement Motions
News on cross-examinations:
Latest News Comments
Copyright Lawsuit: CROSS-EXAMINATIONS confirm that the case is not authentic - 2010-09-04
Heritage News has obtained the cross-examination transcripts, and they contain many revelations. First impression from Heritage News is that the three people who allegedly represent the Aga Khan in this case seem to confirm everything that the defendants have been saying! The defendant's position comes out even clearer and stronger! - But you be the judge once the transcripts are available.
Mr Gray's questions show his lack of knowledge of the Imamat, the Ismaili Faith and the Institutions. His questions instead, undermine the Imam!
Mr Sachedina's answers go against the main principle of Ismaili Faith and undermine the value of the Word of every hereditary Imam, a value which has been central to Ismaili Tariqah right from the beginning. Mr Sachedina's answers also confirm that all evidence in this case originates from him.
Mr Bhaloo has no input to give on the matters of importance in this case, and has appeared only at the request of Mr Sachedina. He refuses to answer simple questions and contradicts Mr. Sachedina.
Mr Tajdin's answers show that he has maintained a good relationship with Dr. Sachedina and Mr. Bhaloo, and that he has had many opportunites to approach the Imam, but that he has never crossed boundaries due to the code of conduct prescribed to Ismailis. He asks many of the same questions that the worldwide Jamat has about this Lawsuit, and pinpoints contradictions.
Mr Jiwa asks clear questions requiring precise answers that show the holes in the plaintiff's case as well as whether the witness is making up a story. Mr. Jiwa's answers show that he had nothing to do with the publication of thye Golden Edition KIZ and appears in this Lawsuit due to a confusion by Mr Sachedina between Mr Jiwa's private mailing list and Mr Tajdin's public website.
Both defendants reaffirmed under oath that they will stop all infringing activities if they have an authentic instruction from the Imam Himself to do so, no matter the legal recourses available to them.
Copyright Lawsuit: CROSS_EXAMINATIONS Table of Contents - 2010-09-04
Here is a detailed table of contents of the cross-examinations for the Motions for Summary Judgement in the Copyright Lawsuit allegedly filed by the Aga Khan. We tried to include everyone's burning questions.
Are Farmans to be followed?
Mr Sachedina says that Farmans that we hear in Didars are not actually Farmans and are not to be followed. He maintains throughout his testimony that only the written edited versions sent by ITREB are actually Farmans. Later, Mr Sachedina has to admit that Farmans come from the Noor, the Light of God. Mr Bhaloo says that Talikas containing blessings are not Farmans.
Are Ginans to be followed?
Mr. Sachedina maintains that Ginans are just devotional poetry and are not meant to be followed.
Are Previous Imams' Farmans to be Followed?
Mr Sachedina maintains that he does not follow Farmans of previous Imams.
Has an Official Farman Book Publication Been Approved?
LIF's announcement in January 16, 2010, informed the jamats as follows: <i>"The Jamat will be pleased to be informed that Mawlana Hazar Imam has already approved that the Jamati institutions should formally publish a volume containing the approved text of his farmans, including those made for the Golden Jubilee."</i>
Is this announcement accurate? Mr Sachedina cannot pinpoint whether or when the approval for this official Farman book was given, and does not indicate that any work is under way to produce an official Farman book.
Over 80% of ismailis have NO access to Farmans.
Mr Sachedina helps to establish that despite there being a few thousand Jamatkhanas, the circumstances of the worldwide ismaili Jamat are such that over 80% of ismailis do not have access to Jamatkhanas or to Farmans.
Does Imam Think in French and Speak in English?
Mr Sachedina admits twice to saying that the Imam thinks in French and speaks in English.
Health and Age of the Imam - Gray Keeps bringing this up.
Mr Gray tried to establish that the Imam is aging and in bad health. It was refuted by everyone.
Did Sachedina and Bhaloo discuss their Affidavits with the Imam?
Bhaloo and Sachedina did not discuss their Affidavits with the Imam.
Did the Imam ask Sachedina and Bhaloo to be His witnesses in this case?
Mr. Sachedina is the one who asked Mr Bhaloo to be a witness. No word on who decided that Mr Sachedina should be a witness.
Initiation of the Lawsuit
Sachedina says that only 2 people were involved in the issuing of the Statement Of Claim: Sachedina and Manji. Sachedina has a hard time pinpointing when the Imam gave the go-ahead to proceed with the Statement of Claim.
Whether Gray has spoken to the Imam
Gray tried to show that he has spoken to the Aga Khan by producing a group photograph including him and The Aga Khan Taken at the Aga Khan Museum Foundation Ceremony.
Are defendants insisting to meet the Imam?
Defendant Nagib Tajdin is often in close proximity but never addresses the Imam. The defendants are not insisting to meet the Imam, they are insisting on getting any authentic direct instruction from the Imam so that they know whether to continue or not.
Meeting the Imam: Defendant's Alternatives
Defendants present some alternatives that the Imam had to make them stop their activities without needing to meet them.
Meeting the Imam: Gray's Alternatives
Gray knows that the Lawsuit will end if the Imam says in person "Nagib Stop.", yet he tried many times to find alternatives to producing the Imam. None of his alternatives seem to show that he has access to the Imam.
Contradiction: April 2010 Announcement - No Consultation?
Brian Gray tries to establish with Nagib that the April Announcement was written in consultation with all the LIF. Sachedina later contradicts this point of view and establishes that in fact the draft of the second announcement was not circulated to anyone in the leadership before it was read out in Jamatkhanas as being from the LIF, Councils, ITREB etc on the same evening that it was written by a couple of persons including Sachedina.
Contradiction: Did Nagib Tajdin's letter really reach Aiglemont on Jan 20?
Sachedina, in his affidavit, says that Nagib's letter to the Imam Reached Aiglemont on January 20, 2010. Sachedina's email to Nagib on January 10 said that Aiglemont had no trace of Nagib's letter. Nagib produced a letter from the Kenya Council, as well as a confirmation from DHL that the letter actually reached Aiglemont on January 8th.
Contradiction: Drafting of the February 18th letter purportedly by the Imam
Mr Sachedina told Mr Jiwa that the Imam showed Mr Sachedina a draft of the second letter before signing it. Mr Sachedina told Mr. Tajdin that the Imam was away travelling when he drafted the second letter.
Did Sachedina convey to Imam that some of the points in the forged letter needed clarification?
Mr Sachedina did not convey to the Imam that Mr Tajdin had responded to the first letter with a request for clarifications.
Has Imam spoken to LIF, or is there a huge conspiracy against the defendants?
Gray tried to show that if the defendants are to be believed, then it would mean that there is a huge conspiracy of dozens of corrupt leaders, staff, and that this is unbelievable.
Sachedina's cross-examination showed that the misinformation can be pinpointed to very few individuals. Even the LIF Chairman, Lakhani, has not been contacted by the Imam about this issue, the LIF was briefed by Sachedina, and the announcements were written by only a couple of people, not by the whole ismaili leadership as they seem to imply or as Mr Gray seems to think by looking at his questions to Tajdin and Jiwa.
This confirms that all evidence in this case originates from Mr Sachedina.
Where the Farman Dissemination Policy of March 2010 Comes From
The Farman Dissemination Policy document of March 2010, submitted to court by the Plaintiff party, does not come from the Imam or from Aiglemont, it comes from Mohamed Manji.
Can anyone else sign for the Imam?
Mr. Sachedina dispels the rumours that someone else is allowed to sign for the Imam.
Can Imam's Farman supercede the Constitution?
This is a simple question, but Mr. Bhaloo, although he has been swearing to protect the constitution for decades, refused to answer the question on the grounds that he is not a constitutional expert.
Is there a breach of the Ismaili constitution?
Obviously, if there was a clear breach of the ismaili constitution, then this case would have been in the Arbitration board.
Discussions about the constitution have revolved around the specific clauses about Farmans that were included in previous constitutions but that have been removed from the newer constitution since 1986. Older constitutions distinguished between religious publications and Farmans. The clauses about Farmans were removed by the Imam, but the clauses about the other religious publications remained intact.
Sachedina maintains that the constitution has been breached and that in the case of Farmans, only the Imam can Publish or authorize publication, Not Itreb, not the Council. However, if the current constitution is to be relied on to prove the breach, then article 14.1c lets the Ismaili Council authorize publications (and this is how Mr Gray seems to understand it), and Article 8.4d gives the ITREB's the responsibility to publish. Neither article reserves the right for the Imam. This leaves us with Farmans to follow which say that Imam makes Farmans FOR Jamats.
Who Can Print Farmans
It is the Imam's prerogative to decide who can print Farmans, and it can be anyone.
How long did Defendants know about the Forgery before making it public?
It turns out that in order to protect the trust that Jamati institutions have with the Jamat, the defendants had not publicized their knowledge of forgery until after the Lawsuit was filed when they no longer had the choice.
What is Mr Sachedina's actual role at Aiglemont
Mr Sachedina's role a head of the department of jamati institutions is not a constitutional position, and the department of Jamati institutions cannot give new directions to institutions. Ismaili Institutions do not report to Mr. Sachedina. He coordinates their work, but ultimately, the institutions are answerable to the Imam.
What is the relationship between Defendants and Sachedina and Bhaloo?
Both Sachedina and Bhaloo agree that they are in good terms with the defendants. In the Case of Alnaz Jiwa, they don't recall ever interacting with him. In the case of Nagib Tajdin, they claim cordial, even warm relations with him, admit that he has never acted unrespectfully against either of them, and that his family was well-respected until the Announcements and the Lawsuit.
Why is Alnaz Jiwa included in the Lawsuit?
It turns out that Alnaz has no role in the publication and a minimal role in the distribution of the KIZ Farman book series. The reason he was included in the lawsuit seems to be due to a confusion on Mr Sachedina's part.
Are Farmans made Available to Non-Ismailis?
ITREB is manned 100% by ismailis who have taken the ismaili oath of office. The IIS is manned at all levels by many non-ismailis who are not bound by the constitution. Why then, are Farmans asked to be sent to IIS and not ITREB?
Contradiction: Did Sachedina give Nagib's address to Michelle Parkes?
Sachedina started saying that he had nothing to do with Miss Parkes' correspondance with Mr Tajdin. However, he was not able to stick to that story.
Contradiction: Imam's criticism of Leaders in London
Mr Sachedina maintains that the Imam's comment about Leaders in London during Golden Jubilee was incomplete. This statement is shown to be false.
Contradiction: Recall all books or just the Golden Edition?
Would the Imam ask Mr Tajdin to undertake an impossible task?
Contradiction: Who mentioned Nagib Tajdin's Name?
Sachedina's Affidavit says that the Imam mentioned Nagib Tajdin's activities to Sachedina. His earlier testimony says he knew nothing of Nagib's actions before he started working at Aiglemont. Now, Sachedina says that he is the one who mentioned Nagib's name to the Imam.
In 1998 Did sachedina and Bhaloo take the Farman Book Draft to the Imam?
The Draft that Nagib Gave for the Imam in 1998 is still in Bhaloo's house.
Is the Imam concerned about the website?
Mr Sachedina states that there is a general concern about the contents of ismaili websites, and a review is pending, however, Mr. Sachedina also says that Mr. Tajdin himself has been part of the solution.
Significance of Mehmani
A murid is quite entitled to speak to his Imam during Mehmani. Imam does listen, interact with and guide Murids during Mehmanis. Although reluctant, even Mr Bhaloo came around to this conclusion.
Significance of Talika
Talikas and Farmans are not regular speeches, they are treated with the greatest respect and special ceremonies as Divine words for the Ismaili community.
[/url]
Aga Khan Copyright Lawsuit: News & Cross-Examinations
Cross-Examination of Expert Ospreay
Cross-Examination of Expert Shows Main Weakness of Lawsuit Allegedly by Aga Khan - 2010-09-12
So far, the cross-examinations have shown that the whole case is orchestrated by a couple of people. The Plaintiff's case has not shown any access to, nor any evidence from the Imam. The Plaintiff party is therefore now trying to undermine the firm forgery evidence that the defendants have got.
If Mr Gray is to be believed on the authenticity of the January letter and the May Affirmation, then ismailis would also have to believe that the Aga Khan is aging and in bad health and can no longer do a signature that has remained consistent over many decades. We would also have to believe that Imam's signature changed for the January letter and for the May Affirmation, but not for the February letter [which we know is lifted from another document]. And many other completely unbelievable assumptions would have to be admitted by Ismailis if the Letters are believed to be true!
========
Short History of the Forgeries
Since the infamous phonecall by Mr Shafik Sachedina in January threatening to ruin Mr Nagib Tajdin's reputation, the Defendants have received 3 communications in 2010 that appeared to be signed by the Aga Khan:
[Letter from January 24 Purportedly by Aga Khan]
[Letter from February 18 Purportedly Signed by Aga Khan]
[Affirmation from May 12 Purportedly by Aga Khan]
A closer look at the above communications revealed large discrepancies in content, format and in signature compared to all known communications of the Aga Khan. When defendants asked questions, no direct contact was allowed with the Aga Khan, no Farman or relevant constitutional clause was shown, and no clarification was given to the defendants, which prompted the defendants to contact 3 different experts and to get 5 different expert reports all of which concurred that the Aga Khan did not sign these communications. None of the experts contacted by the defendants showed any doubt that these are forgeries.
[Quebec Expert report that signature on January letter is not of the Aga Khan]
[US Expert report that signature on January letter is not of the Aga Khan]
[ Ontario Expert Affidavit]
[Ontario Expert report on January letter]
[Ontario Expert report on February latter]
[Ontario Expert report on May Affirmation]
As the lawsuit advanced, it became obvious that the Plaintiff party has no access to the Imam, and is using their immense resources and influence to make many legal manoeuvres to avoid presenting any direct evidence from the Aga Khan. In fact, the forged letter was used as a tool to ruin the Defendants' reputation in public, but it was not put in court as evidence. The forged letter was actually first presented to the court by the defendants.
During the cross-examinations for summary Judgement, it became amply obvious, from Mr. Gray's Questions as well as from Mr Sachedina and Mr. Bhaloo's answers that they did not represent the Aga Khan, the beloved Imam of the Ismailis.
And therefore, in the absence of any genuine new instruction from the Imam, Defendants are bound by their allegiance to follow the Imam's Farmans, the Ismaili Constitution, as well as the Imam's direct instruction in Mehmani which are known to be authentically from the Imam and in no way support the Plaintiff Party's stance.
==========
Expert's Cross Examination
To counter the damage done to the Plaintiff's case by the above-mentioned cross-examinations, Mr Gray chose to examine, two weeks later, the Defendant's forensic expert Mr Ospreay. This examination clearly highlights that Mr Gray has no access to the Aga Khan, that Mr Gray shows very little respect towards the Aga Khan, and that Mr. Gray does not know the Aga Khan very well.
The Aga Khan is alive and well. Why waste time on a counter-expertise?
Mr Gray asked his own expert, not to show that the signatures are authentic, not to render any conclusion, but rather just to cast some doubt on the defendants' expertise. If Mr Gray had access to the Aga Khan, would he need to cast doubt on the expertise? He could instead destroy it by having the Aga Khan say in person that he signed the letters. And both defendants would immediately fold.
Mr Gray did not provide any authentic documents for his own expert to examine.
If Mr Gray actually represented the Aga Khan, he would have had access to many original signed documents from the Aga Khan. He could have gotten a real counter-expertise to actually conclude on the authenticity of the signatures. He could have had access to undisputed treaties signed by the Aga Khan in front of large audiences. Instead, he only got an expert to cast some doubt.
Defendants will not provide originals to Mr Gray
The Defendants refuse to give the originals of the forged letters to Mr Gray, as they cannot allow anyone to tamper with the original evidence of forgery. Forgery is a criminal offense in most of the countries. Why would the Plaintiff party ask for originals from the defendants, other than to get the forged documents out of the hands of the Defendants?
Similarities or Dissimilarities?
When a signature has remained consistent over many decades, it is very concerning when obvious dissimilarities are observed in a questioned signature. Obviously, fraud can only be discovered by analyzing dissimilarities, not similarities which are bound to happen since the forger is imitating the signature to the best of his ability. Furthermore, the dissimilarities in this case include a less fluid, more hesitant signature with the pen being lifted up many times, whereas the Aga Khan's known signatures are always fluid.
January and May signatures are similar
Mr Ospreay says that the dissimilarities found in the May signature are also present in the January signature. This leads Mr Gray to forward the conclusion that the same person probably wrote both signatures. The defendants agree, that it is highly possible that the same forger forged both signatures, they have never denied this.
Mr Gray admits 2 of the signatures are different from Aga Khan's Known Signatures
By asking a line of questions about why a signature could have changed, even Mr Gray admits that the signature on the January letter as well as on the May Affirmation are different from the Aga Khan's known signatures. Now, Mr Gray has to try to find an explanation for the differences in these signatures.
Mr Gray insists on Imam's Old Age and Bad health.
Mr Gray has been trying to advance the hypothesis that the Aga Khan's signature has changed because of old age and a 2-year old shoulder accident. But his own witness Mr Sachedina does not support Mr. Gray on this conclusion! Mr Gray has not shown any evidence that the Aga Khan is suffering from any ailment that prevents him from signing as usual, he is just making disrespectful assumptions that everyone denies!
In a short phone interview, one defendant said that he has had the opportunity to take close photos and videos of the Imam in 3 or 4 different countries after the shoulder injury happened and has seen that Imam is in perfect control of his hand and fingers.
Aga Khan has a consistent signature.
Mr Gray also tried to show that signatures naturally evolve and that the Aga Khan's signature could have evolved since the sample signatures were written. However, the expert Mr Ospreay pointed out in his affidavit that although it is normal for some people's signatures to vary, in the case of the Aga Khan, his signature has had very little variance over many decades.
Betrayed by the Second letter
The second forged letter, dated February, was shown to be a print on unusual paper and not an actual handwritten sample. Now, a quick comparison even by a layman of this second signature with the two others shows that this February signature is consistent with all the other known authentic signatures of the Aga Khan.
Now, even if one is to assume for a moment that the three letters are not forged, how is it then possible that the January and the May Signatures are affected by ailments and dissimilarities but the February signature is not affected by these?
Weakened Position
Heritage News therefore finds that the cross-examination of Mr Ospreay only shows more clearly that Mr Gray has no new credible evidence to present, and that he has no direct access to the Aga Khan to clear up the forgery issue. This gives more credibility to the Defendants' claim that the whole case is initiated by a usurper and not by the Aga Khan Himself.
==========
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
Cross examination Transcripts:
2010-08-09 CROSS-EXAMINATIONS for Summary Judgement Motions
All Comments
Attachment
2010-08-23-OSPREAY-CROSS .pdf 1.06 MB
So far, the cross-examinations have shown that the whole case is orchestrated by a couple of people. The Plaintiff's case has not shown any access to, nor any evidence from the Imam. The Plaintiff party is therefore now trying to undermine the firm forgery evidence that the defendants have got.
If Mr Gray is to be believed on the authenticity of the January letter and the May Affirmation, then ismailis would also have to believe that the Aga Khan is aging and in bad health and can no longer do a signature that has remained consistent over many decades. We would also have to believe that Imam's signature changed for the January letter and for the May Affirmation, but not for the February letter [which we know is lifted from another document]. And many other completely unbelievable assumptions would have to be admitted by Ismailis if the Letters are believed to be true!
========
Short History of the Forgeries
Since the infamous phonecall by Mr Shafik Sachedina in January threatening to ruin Mr Nagib Tajdin's reputation, the Defendants have received 3 communications in 2010 that appeared to be signed by the Aga Khan:
[Letter from January 24 Purportedly by Aga Khan]
[Letter from February 18 Purportedly Signed by Aga Khan]
[Affirmation from May 12 Purportedly by Aga Khan]
A closer look at the above communications revealed large discrepancies in content, format and in signature compared to all known communications of the Aga Khan. When defendants asked questions, no direct contact was allowed with the Aga Khan, no Farman or relevant constitutional clause was shown, and no clarification was given to the defendants, which prompted the defendants to contact 3 different experts and to get 5 different expert reports all of which concurred that the Aga Khan did not sign these communications. None of the experts contacted by the defendants showed any doubt that these are forgeries.
[Quebec Expert report that signature on January letter is not of the Aga Khan]
[US Expert report that signature on January letter is not of the Aga Khan]
[ Ontario Expert Affidavit]
[Ontario Expert report on January letter]
[Ontario Expert report on February latter]
[Ontario Expert report on May Affirmation]
As the lawsuit advanced, it became obvious that the Plaintiff party has no access to the Imam, and is using their immense resources and influence to make many legal manoeuvres to avoid presenting any direct evidence from the Aga Khan. In fact, the forged letter was used as a tool to ruin the Defendants' reputation in public, but it was not put in court as evidence. The forged letter was actually first presented to the court by the defendants.
During the cross-examinations for summary Judgement, it became amply obvious, from Mr. Gray's Questions as well as from Mr Sachedina and Mr. Bhaloo's answers that they did not represent the Aga Khan, the beloved Imam of the Ismailis.
And therefore, in the absence of any genuine new instruction from the Imam, Defendants are bound by their allegiance to follow the Imam's Farmans, the Ismaili Constitution, as well as the Imam's direct instruction in Mehmani which are known to be authentically from the Imam and in no way support the Plaintiff Party's stance.
==========
Expert's Cross Examination
To counter the damage done to the Plaintiff's case by the above-mentioned cross-examinations, Mr Gray chose to examine, two weeks later, the Defendant's forensic expert Mr Ospreay. This examination clearly highlights that Mr Gray has no access to the Aga Khan, that Mr Gray shows very little respect towards the Aga Khan, and that Mr. Gray does not know the Aga Khan very well.
The Aga Khan is alive and well. Why waste time on a counter-expertise?
Mr Gray asked his own expert, not to show that the signatures are authentic, not to render any conclusion, but rather just to cast some doubt on the defendants' expertise. If Mr Gray had access to the Aga Khan, would he need to cast doubt on the expertise? He could instead destroy it by having the Aga Khan say in person that he signed the letters. And both defendants would immediately fold.
Mr Gray did not provide any authentic documents for his own expert to examine.
If Mr Gray actually represented the Aga Khan, he would have had access to many original signed documents from the Aga Khan. He could have gotten a real counter-expertise to actually conclude on the authenticity of the signatures. He could have had access to undisputed treaties signed by the Aga Khan in front of large audiences. Instead, he only got an expert to cast some doubt.
Defendants will not provide originals to Mr Gray
The Defendants refuse to give the originals of the forged letters to Mr Gray, as they cannot allow anyone to tamper with the original evidence of forgery. Forgery is a criminal offense in most of the countries. Why would the Plaintiff party ask for originals from the defendants, other than to get the forged documents out of the hands of the Defendants?
Similarities or Dissimilarities?
When a signature has remained consistent over many decades, it is very concerning when obvious dissimilarities are observed in a questioned signature. Obviously, fraud can only be discovered by analyzing dissimilarities, not similarities which are bound to happen since the forger is imitating the signature to the best of his ability. Furthermore, the dissimilarities in this case include a less fluid, more hesitant signature with the pen being lifted up many times, whereas the Aga Khan's known signatures are always fluid.
January and May signatures are similar
Mr Ospreay says that the dissimilarities found in the May signature are also present in the January signature. This leads Mr Gray to forward the conclusion that the same person probably wrote both signatures. The defendants agree, that it is highly possible that the same forger forged both signatures, they have never denied this.
Mr Gray admits 2 of the signatures are different from Aga Khan's Known Signatures
By asking a line of questions about why a signature could have changed, even Mr Gray admits that the signature on the January letter as well as on the May Affirmation are different from the Aga Khan's known signatures. Now, Mr Gray has to try to find an explanation for the differences in these signatures.
Mr Gray insists on Imam's Old Age and Bad health.
Mr Gray has been trying to advance the hypothesis that the Aga Khan's signature has changed because of old age and a 2-year old shoulder accident. But his own witness Mr Sachedina does not support Mr. Gray on this conclusion! Mr Gray has not shown any evidence that the Aga Khan is suffering from any ailment that prevents him from signing as usual, he is just making disrespectful assumptions that everyone denies!
In a short phone interview, one defendant said that he has had the opportunity to take close photos and videos of the Imam in 3 or 4 different countries after the shoulder injury happened and has seen that Imam is in perfect control of his hand and fingers.
Aga Khan has a consistent signature.
Mr Gray also tried to show that signatures naturally evolve and that the Aga Khan's signature could have evolved since the sample signatures were written. However, the expert Mr Ospreay pointed out in his affidavit that although it is normal for some people's signatures to vary, in the case of the Aga Khan, his signature has had very little variance over many decades.
Betrayed by the Second letter
The second forged letter, dated February, was shown to be a print on unusual paper and not an actual handwritten sample. Now, a quick comparison even by a layman of this second signature with the two others shows that this February signature is consistent with all the other known authentic signatures of the Aga Khan.
Now, even if one is to assume for a moment that the three letters are not forged, how is it then possible that the January and the May Signatures are affected by ailments and dissimilarities but the February signature is not affected by these?
Weakened Position
Heritage News therefore finds that the cross-examination of Mr Ospreay only shows more clearly that Mr Gray has no new credible evidence to present, and that he has no direct access to the Aga Khan to clear up the forgery issue. This gives more credibility to the Defendants' claim that the whole case is initiated by a usurper and not by the Aga Khan Himself.
==========
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
Cross examination Transcripts:
2010-08-09 CROSS-EXAMINATIONS for Summary Judgement Motions
All Comments
Attachment
2010-08-23-OSPREAY-CROSS .pdf 1.06 MB
After an unprecedented legal examination of the Ismaili Muslim spiritual leader, Najib Tajdin finally got what he wanted Friday — proof that the Aga Khan really doesn’t want him to print and circulate a book of his religious teachings.
As a result, Tajdin has agreed to stop distributing the 1,500-page unauthorized book and settle a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against him and another man by the Aga Khan.
Before to the meeting, Tajdin had insisted that letters from the Aga Khan asking him to stop publishing the book were forgeries, and a sworn affidavit from the Ismaili leader was the work of an imposter.
But Friday’s examination finally convinced him the Aga Khan truly did object to the book.
“For us, whatever the Aga Khan says, that’s final,” Tajdin said. “It’s good that it is finished. It brings peace again to the community.”
The Aga Khan, who lives in France, was in Toronto to deliver a speech Friday night.
The examination came after Federal Court Prothonotary Mireille Tabib ordered the Aga Khan’s lawyer, Brian Gray, to produce his client for a 15-minute “examination for discovery.”
Gray declined all comment Friday.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/15102010/71/ ... aring.html
As a result, Tajdin has agreed to stop distributing the 1,500-page unauthorized book and settle a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against him and another man by the Aga Khan.
Before to the meeting, Tajdin had insisted that letters from the Aga Khan asking him to stop publishing the book were forgeries, and a sworn affidavit from the Ismaili leader was the work of an imposter.
But Friday’s examination finally convinced him the Aga Khan truly did object to the book.
“For us, whatever the Aga Khan says, that’s final,” Tajdin said. “It’s good that it is finished. It brings peace again to the community.”
The Aga Khan, who lives in France, was in Toronto to deliver a speech Friday night.
The examination came after Federal Court Prothonotary Mireille Tabib ordered the Aga Khan’s lawyer, Brian Gray, to produce his client for a 15-minute “examination for discovery.”
Gray declined all comment Friday.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/15102010/71/ ... aring.html
Toronto lawyer, Aga Khan call truce
A Toronto lawyer who settled a copyright dispute with the Aga Khan says he has no regrets about how the high-profile case played out.
Alnaz Jiwa had previously refused to believe the Aga Khan was the man behind the action requesting he halt distribution of unauthorized copies of the imam’s teachings but at a face-to-face meeting in Toronto on Oct. 15, he got the message straight from the source.
“If he doesn’t want us to do something, there is no way I am going to do it,” Jiwa tells Law Times.
According to Jiwa, the parties agreed that he and his co-defendant Nagib Tajdin, a Canadian businessman based in Kenya, would stop selling their book of collected Farmans, a type of religious teaching delivered by the Aga Khan to his Ismaili followers.
Jiwa says the defendants won’t be forced to recall the 5,000 books they had already sold and that further meetings would flesh out the terms of the settlement.
“It was a positive outcome that we’re all satisfied with, and I think we’ll all be able to move forward quite well.”
The meeting came after a court ordered the Aga Khan to appear for a 15-minute examination for discovery during a brief stop in the city to deliver the keynote address at the Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s annual LaFontaine-Baldwin Symposium.
Although Jiwa had earlier waived his right to examine his leader, Tajdin persisted. Eventually, Federal Court prothonotary Mireille Tabib ordered the Aga Khan to appear on Sept. 24.
Brian Gray, the senior partner at Ogilvy Renault LLP who represented the Aga Khan in the case, says he’s unable to comment on the meeting.
He had fought the appearance right down to the wire. Two days before his client’s arrival in Toronto, Federal Court Justice Richard Boivin dismissed his motion to set aside Tabib’s order. A day later, Gray said the meeting shouldn’t proceed because Jiwa had yet to file an affidavit of documents in the case.
In a letter submitted to the Federal Court, Tajdin asked for Gray to be found in contempt of court if the discovery didn’t happen. He also wanted Gray to foot the bill for his flight from Nairobi.
“We’re not going to have the Aga Khan show up unless the court orders him to do so,” Gray told the Ottawa Citizen.
That’s exactly what Tabib did by reaffirming her original decision and noting Jiwa’s failure to file was “not material” to her order given the waiver of his own rights of discovery.
Despite all of the fuss, Jiwa says the Aga Khan seemed happy to be there and describes the tone of the 25-minute meeting as “cordial and respectful.”
“When he came here, there was nothing in his facial expression or any comments he made that indicated he was at all reluctant,” Jiwa says.
“I think Mr. Gray either did not want to impose on him to come or thought we may be able to settle it ourselves, but this was an issue where the imam’s input was absolutely essential.”
Jiwa is also confident the Aga Khan holds no grudges, despite the defendants’ assertions that other senior Ismailis were actually leading the action and that letters purporting to come from the imam were forgeries.
In Tajdin’s statement of defence, he railed against the “usurper plaintiff” and claimed the Aga Khan had given his blessing to publishing the materials during a ceremony in Montreal in 1992.
At the meeting in Toronto, Tajdin veered from the typical format of examinations for discovery by simply asking for the Aga Khan’s guidance.
“We would never fight the imam,” Jiwa says. “It’s just not possible. You cannot be a believer and then fight your own spiritual leader. I firmly believe in the imam and I would lay my life for him any time.”
He adds that their assertions came from a desire to protect the Aga Khan. “It’s not unheard of that imams in the past have been misled, and there have been splits in the community.
My understanding was that the imam appreciated that. He could have voiced his displeasure, but I did not read that at all. He left a very positive sense.”
But in the Ismaili community, Jiwa and Tajdin may still have some convincing to do. In the wake of the lawsuit, some people have turned against the pair.
“There are some people who looked at me with an evil eye,” Jiwa says.
“Some people in the community did not understand what we have been saying. They work on the assumption that we were fighting the imam or the community when in fact we are completely not.”
In Jiwa’s opinion, distribution of the Farmans would be good for the entire community because followers have been unable to get copies of the Aga Khan’s teachings in recent years.
But a recent announcement to the worldwide Ismaili congregation, he says, has indicated that officials in the Aga Khan’s office are considering a proposal to compile their own authorized collection of Farmans.
“That was our whole intent — that the Farmans should be available to the followers. That’s exactly why we were doing it, so if it happens, I think the whole community will benefit.”
Despite the upheaval the case has brought him, Jiwa has no regrets about the way it has panned out. “I would have preferred we had the meeting without the court order,” he says.
“It would have been better if it had come earlier without conditions, but things, I guess, had to happen as they did and we are all satisfied.”
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20101025776 ... call-truce
A Toronto lawyer who settled a copyright dispute with the Aga Khan says he has no regrets about how the high-profile case played out.
Alnaz Jiwa had previously refused to believe the Aga Khan was the man behind the action requesting he halt distribution of unauthorized copies of the imam’s teachings but at a face-to-face meeting in Toronto on Oct. 15, he got the message straight from the source.
“If he doesn’t want us to do something, there is no way I am going to do it,” Jiwa tells Law Times.
According to Jiwa, the parties agreed that he and his co-defendant Nagib Tajdin, a Canadian businessman based in Kenya, would stop selling their book of collected Farmans, a type of religious teaching delivered by the Aga Khan to his Ismaili followers.
Jiwa says the defendants won’t be forced to recall the 5,000 books they had already sold and that further meetings would flesh out the terms of the settlement.
“It was a positive outcome that we’re all satisfied with, and I think we’ll all be able to move forward quite well.”
The meeting came after a court ordered the Aga Khan to appear for a 15-minute examination for discovery during a brief stop in the city to deliver the keynote address at the Institute for Canadian Citizenship’s annual LaFontaine-Baldwin Symposium.
Although Jiwa had earlier waived his right to examine his leader, Tajdin persisted. Eventually, Federal Court prothonotary Mireille Tabib ordered the Aga Khan to appear on Sept. 24.
Brian Gray, the senior partner at Ogilvy Renault LLP who represented the Aga Khan in the case, says he’s unable to comment on the meeting.
He had fought the appearance right down to the wire. Two days before his client’s arrival in Toronto, Federal Court Justice Richard Boivin dismissed his motion to set aside Tabib’s order. A day later, Gray said the meeting shouldn’t proceed because Jiwa had yet to file an affidavit of documents in the case.
In a letter submitted to the Federal Court, Tajdin asked for Gray to be found in contempt of court if the discovery didn’t happen. He also wanted Gray to foot the bill for his flight from Nairobi.
“We’re not going to have the Aga Khan show up unless the court orders him to do so,” Gray told the Ottawa Citizen.
That’s exactly what Tabib did by reaffirming her original decision and noting Jiwa’s failure to file was “not material” to her order given the waiver of his own rights of discovery.
Despite all of the fuss, Jiwa says the Aga Khan seemed happy to be there and describes the tone of the 25-minute meeting as “cordial and respectful.”
“When he came here, there was nothing in his facial expression or any comments he made that indicated he was at all reluctant,” Jiwa says.
“I think Mr. Gray either did not want to impose on him to come or thought we may be able to settle it ourselves, but this was an issue where the imam’s input was absolutely essential.”
Jiwa is also confident the Aga Khan holds no grudges, despite the defendants’ assertions that other senior Ismailis were actually leading the action and that letters purporting to come from the imam were forgeries.
In Tajdin’s statement of defence, he railed against the “usurper plaintiff” and claimed the Aga Khan had given his blessing to publishing the materials during a ceremony in Montreal in 1992.
At the meeting in Toronto, Tajdin veered from the typical format of examinations for discovery by simply asking for the Aga Khan’s guidance.
“We would never fight the imam,” Jiwa says. “It’s just not possible. You cannot be a believer and then fight your own spiritual leader. I firmly believe in the imam and I would lay my life for him any time.”
He adds that their assertions came from a desire to protect the Aga Khan. “It’s not unheard of that imams in the past have been misled, and there have been splits in the community.
My understanding was that the imam appreciated that. He could have voiced his displeasure, but I did not read that at all. He left a very positive sense.”
But in the Ismaili community, Jiwa and Tajdin may still have some convincing to do. In the wake of the lawsuit, some people have turned against the pair.
“There are some people who looked at me with an evil eye,” Jiwa says.
“Some people in the community did not understand what we have been saying. They work on the assumption that we were fighting the imam or the community when in fact we are completely not.”
In Jiwa’s opinion, distribution of the Farmans would be good for the entire community because followers have been unable to get copies of the Aga Khan’s teachings in recent years.
But a recent announcement to the worldwide Ismaili congregation, he says, has indicated that officials in the Aga Khan’s office are considering a proposal to compile their own authorized collection of Farmans.
“That was our whole intent — that the Farmans should be available to the followers. That’s exactly why we were doing it, so if it happens, I think the whole community will benefit.”
Despite the upheaval the case has brought him, Jiwa has no regrets about the way it has panned out. “I would have preferred we had the meeting without the court order,” he says.
“It would have been better if it had come earlier without conditions, but things, I guess, had to happen as they did and we are all satisfied.”
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20101025776 ... call-truce