|
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 Defendant’s
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 public’s 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. Wouldn’t it be in the public interest to create a
worldwide net of instructors who can accomplish this very
worthy goal?
Barnett: Yes, sir, that’s what I’m attempting to
do.
Court: So long as there is money coming back
to you.
Transcript of Hearing on Preliminary
Injunction, February 1, 2001
|
