HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840.jpg
2.23 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document (court opinion/headnotes)
File Size:
2.23 MB
Summary
This document is page 775 from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765), containing legal headnotes from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text outlines legal standards regarding jurisdiction, the Antiterrorism Act, conspiracy, international law regarding hijacking, and RICO liability for defendants accused of funding or supporting the 9/11 attacks. It contains a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks | Plaintiffs |
Bringing action under Antiterrorism Act and RICO.
|
| Bank Chairman | Defendant |
Subject of personal jurisdiction inquiry; alleged Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabian construction company |
Defendant; court determining if they purposefully directed activities at US.
|
|
| al Qaeda |
Terrorist organization allegedly receiving money transfers.
|
|
| Department of Treasury |
Designated the bank chairman as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
|
|
| Charitable network's entities |
Subject of discovery regarding presence in Virginia and money transfers.
|
|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Southern District of New York, the court issuing the opinion.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdictional location.
|
|
|
State law jurisdiction mentioned.
|
|
|
Location investigated for presence of charitable network entities.
|
Relationships (2)
Department of Treasury designated him as Specially Designated Global Terrorist
Court determining if company purposefully directed activities at United States
Key Quotes (3)
"To prove that defendants provided material support to terrorists... plaintiffs were required to present sufficient causal connection between that support and injuries suffered by plaintiffs"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840.jpg
Quote #1
"Aircraft hijacking is generally recognized as violation of international law"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840.jpg
Quote #2
"A defendant must have had some part in directing the operation or management of the enterprise itself to be liable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,438 characters)
IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 775
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
cient to establish personal jurisdiction in
Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action over indi-
viduals allegedly affiliated with Saudi Ara-
bian construction company, inasmuch as
complaint did not contain any factual alle-
gations from which district court could in-
fer that they purposefully directed their
activities at United States, that they were
members of conspiracy pursuant to New
York long-arm statute, or that they had
any general business contacts with United
States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.;
N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 302(a)(2).
Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action over indi-
viduals allegedly affiliated with Saudi Ara-
bian construction company, inasmuch as
complaint did not contain any factual alle-
gations from which district court could in-
fer that they purposefully directed their
activities at United States, that they were
members of conspiracy pursuant to New
York long-arm statute, or that they had
any general business contacts with United
States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.;
N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 302(a)(2).
68. Federal Courts 97
Jurisdictional discovery was warrant-
ed, at dismissal stage of Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action by survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks, to determine
if Saudi Arabian construction company
purposefully directed its activities at Unit-
ed States for purposes of personal jurisdic-
tion. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28
U.S.C.A.
Jurisdictional discovery was warrant-
ed, at dismissal stage of Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action by survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks, to determine
if Saudi Arabian construction company
purposefully directed its activities at Unit-
ed States for purposes of personal jurisdic-
tion. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28
U.S.C.A.
69. Federal Courts 97
Discovery would be permitted, at dis-
missal stage of Antiterrorism Act (ATA)
action by survivors of victims of Septem-
ber 11, 2001 attacks, to determine which of
charitable network's entities had presence
in Virginia, and which entities transferred
money to alleged al Qaeda operatives, for
purposes of determining whether personal
jurisdiction existed over network. Fed.
Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
Discovery would be permitted, at dis-
missal stage of Antiterrorism Act (ATA)
action by survivors of victims of Septem-
ber 11, 2001 attacks, to determine which of
charitable network's entities had presence
in Virginia, and which entities transferred
money to alleged al Qaeda operatives, for
purposes of determining whether personal
jurisdiction existed over network. Fed.
Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
70. Federal Courts 96
Survivors of victims of September 11,
2001 attacks made prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction over bank chairman
in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action, by al-
leging, inter alia, that Department of
Treasury designated him as Specially Des-
ignated Global Terrorist, and that he was
involved in United States operations of
designated terrorist organization. 18
U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Survivors of victims of September 11,
2001 attacks made prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction over bank chairman
in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action, by al-
leging, inter alia, that Department of
Treasury designated him as Specially Des-
ignated Global Terrorist, and that he was
involved in United States operations of
designated terrorist organization. 18
U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
71. War and National Emergency 50
To prove that defendants provided
material support to terrorists, in violation
of Antiterrorism Act (ATA), plaintiffs were
required to present sufficient causal con-
nection between that support and injuries
suffered by plaintiffs; proximate cause
would support such connection. 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 2339A(b), 2339B(g).
To prove that defendants provided
material support to terrorists, in violation
of Antiterrorism Act (ATA), plaintiffs were
required to present sufficient causal con-
nection between that support and injuries
suffered by plaintiffs; proximate cause
would support such connection. 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 2339A(b), 2339B(g).
72. Conspiracy 1.1
Torts 21
To be liable for conspiracy or aiding
and abetting under New York law, a de-
fendant must know the wrongful nature of
the primary actor's conduct, and the con-
duct must be tied to a substantive cause of
action.
Torts 21
To be liable for conspiracy or aiding
and abetting under New York law, a de-
fendant must know the wrongful nature of
the primary actor's conduct, and the con-
duct must be tied to a substantive cause of
action.
73. International Law 10.11
Aircraft hijacking is generally recog-
nized as violation of international law, for
purposes of the requirement that an act be
committed in violation of international law
in order to be subject to the Alien Tort
Claims Act (ATCA). 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350.
Aircraft hijacking is generally recog-
nized as violation of international law, for
purposes of the requirement that an act be
committed in violation of international law
in order to be subject to the Alien Tort
Claims Act (ATCA). 28 U.S.C.A. § 1350.
74. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations 75
Survivors of victims of September 11,
2001 attacks failed to allege injury from
defendants' alleged investment of racke-
teering income, and thus failed to state
cause of action in complaint for violations
of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or-
ganizations Act (RICO) provision prohibit-
ing receipt of income derived from pattern
of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1962(a).
Organizations 75
Survivors of victims of September 11,
2001 attacks failed to allege injury from
defendants' alleged investment of racke-
teering income, and thus failed to state
cause of action in complaint for violations
of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or-
ganizations Act (RICO) provision prohibit-
ing receipt of income derived from pattern
of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1962(a).
75. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations 50
A defendant must have had some part
in directing the operation or management
of the enterprise itself to be liable under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or-
ganizations Act (RICO) provision prohibit-
Organizations 50
A defendant must have had some part
in directing the operation or management
of the enterprise itself to be liable under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or-
ganizations Act (RICO) provision prohibit-
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017840
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document