Trove
Sign In Sign Up

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg

1.38 MB
← Back to List View Original

Extraction Summary

5
People
9
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document (table of contents / table of authorities)
File Size: 1.38 MB
Summary

This document is a page from a Table of Contents and Table of Authorities for a legal filing related to the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It outlines legal arguments regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Torture Victim Protection Act, and negligence claims against defendants alleged to have materially supported al-Qaeda, specifically mentioning 'NCB' (National Commercial Bank) and 'Sovereign Defendants.' The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production, likely related to investigations into financial networks supporting terrorism.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Doe Plaintiff (Case Law)
Cited in case Doe v. Bin Laden
Bin Laden Defendant (Case Law)
Cited in case Doe v. Bin Laden
Abdullahi Plaintiff (Case Law)
Cited in case Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc.
Abecassis Plaintiff (Case Law)
Cited in case Abecassis v. Wyatt
Wyatt Defendant (Case Law)
Cited in case Abecassis v. Wyatt

Organizations (9)

Name Type Context
United Nations Security Council
Resolutions cited as authority regarding International Terrorism
Congress
US Congress cited regarding domestic laws
al-Qaeda
Terrorist organization mentioned in claims regarding material support
NCB
Defendant mentioned in Section V regarding dismissals (likely National Commercial Bank)
Sovereign Defendants
Group of defendants mentioned in Section V regarding dismissals
Pfizer, Inc.
Party in cited case law
Thomson Reuters
Copyright holder of the Westlaw document
Westlaw
Legal research service platform
House Oversight Committee
Implied by Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'

Timeline (2 events)

2012
Legal Filing/Opinion
Court
Plaintiffs Defendants
View
September 11, 2001
Terrorist Attacks
USA
View

Locations (2)

Location Context
S.D. Tex.
Southern District of Texas (Court jurisdiction mentioned in citations)
2d Cir.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Court jurisdiction mentioned in citations)

Relationships (2)

Defendants → Material Support → al-Qaeda
Header: 'Plaintiffs Pleaded That Defendants Materially Supported al-Qaeda'
NCB → Co-Defendants → Sovereign Defendants
Grouped together in Section V: 'Dismissals Of NCB and the Sovereign Defendants'

Key Quotes (6)

"Plaintiffs Alleged That Defendants Violated the ATS By Intentionally Facilitating International Terrorism"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
Quote #1
"Acts of International Terrorism are a Violation of Customary International Law"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
Quote #2
"The District Court Improperly Dismissed the Torture Victim Protection Act Claims"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
Quote #3
"Plaintiffs Pleaded That Defendants Materially Supported al-Qaeda"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
Quote #4
"Defendants Who Supported al-Qaeda Through Its Network Are Liable"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
Quote #5
"The Court Should Reverse The Dismissals Of NCB and the Sovereign Defendants Based Upon Doe v. Bin Laden"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365.jpg
Quote #6

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,609 characters)

In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012)
*iii A. 0Plaintiffs Alleged That Defendants Violated the ATS By Intentionally Facilitating
International Terrorism ....................................................................................................................................
123
B. Acts of International Terrorism are a Violation of Customary International Law ........................................
123
1. United Nations Security Council resolutions ...............................................................................................
125
2. International conventions ............................................................................................................................
126
3. Domestic laws of nations .............................................................................................................................
128
4. Congress and federal courts ........................................................................................................................
129
C. International Terrorism Is Sufficiently Definite and of Mutual Concern to States ......................................
132
III. The District Court Improperly Dismissed the Torture Victim Protection Act Claims ...............................
135
IV. The District Court Improperly Dismissed the Negligence And Intentional Tort Claims ..........................
139
A. The District Court Wrongly Dismissed the Negligence Claims ...................................................................
140
B. The District Court Wrongly Dismissed the Intentional Tort Claims ...........................................................
145
1. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not Time-Barred ......................................................................................................
145
1. Plaintiffs Pleaded That Defendants Materially Supported al-Qaeda ...........................................................
148
2. Defendants Who Supported al-Qaeda Through Its Network Are Liable ......................................................
149
V. The Court Should Reverse The Dismissals Of NCB and the Sovereign Defendants Based Upon Doe
v. Bin Laden ....................................................................................................................................................
151
A. The Sovereign Defendants And NCB Were Dismissed Under Terrorist Attacks III ....................................
152
B. Doe Overruled Terrorist Attacks III ............................................................................................................
154
*iv C. The Court Should Reverse the Dismissals of the Sovereign Defendants and NCB and Remand
For Jurisdictional Discovery .............................................................................................................................
155
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................
156
Certificate Of Compliance Pursuant to FRAP 32(a)(7)(A) .............................................................................
160
*v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 130 S. Ct. 3541 (2010) .....................................
124
Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) ...............
124, 136, 137
Abecassis v. Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d 614 (S.D. Tex. 2011) ......
68, 71, 118
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023365
View Original PDF

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document