Read the ISR Contract Very Carefully
Background on ISR Lawsuit
Why did ISR Sue Former Instructors?
What the Courts Have Said About ISR
ISR's Threats and Lies
What Happened to Former ISR Instructors

Books and Websites About Teaching Infants to Swim

Final Order

What do ISR instructors and parents have to say about this:
Support Forum

Get Adobe Acrobat to read documents

Adobe Acrobat


Why did ISR sue former instructors?

It is apparent to former ISR instructors that Harvey Barnett and his companies are trying to create a monopoly in teaching infants and small children aquatic survival skills but have failed in their attempts to prevent former ISR instructors from teaching using techniques which are the same or similar to ISR techniques.

Harvey Barnett says that the reason he is doing this is to prevent injury to the children who receive this training.

This is the Court's responded to ISR Barnett:

"ISR argues that if instructors are trained improperly, children could die.  I am unpersuaded."

"ISR has provided no evidence that any instructor trained in Defendantís curriculum would pose any greater risk to children than does the average new ISR instructor.  I therefore conclude that ISR has failed to meet its burden to show that a preliminary injunction is in the publicís best interest." 

Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge, Federal Court for District of Colorado.  Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, April 16, 2001

As noted by Judge Lewis T. Babcock,  ISR cannot tolerate competition:

Court:   This may be a dumb question, but you begin, for example, with a number of your materials and your testimony here today with the expression of your concern to avoid infant drowning and infant brain damage.  Put it simply.  Wouldnít it be in the public interest to create a worldwide net of instructors who can accomplish this very worthy goal?

Barnett: Yes, sir, thatís what Iím attempting to do.

Court:    So long as there is money coming back to you.

Transcript of Hearing on Preliminary Injunction, February 1, 2001