HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843.jpg
2.28 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
7
Organizations
5
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal case law / court reporter page (headnotes)
File Size:
2.28 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series) containing headnotes (summaries of legal points) 96 through 102. The text details legal rulings regarding the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) and civil lawsuits filed by survivors of the September 11, 2001, attacks against various financial institutions and companies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp (indicating it is part of a Congressional investigation, likely related to Deutsche Bank/Epstein financial probes), the text itself strictly concerns 9/11 litigation, sovereign immunity, and jurisdictional discovery regarding terrorist financing.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks | Plaintiffs |
Filed complaints against various banks and entities.
|
| Bank founder | Defendant |
Alleged to have provided material support to terrorism (Headnote 98).
|
| Bank chairman | Defendant |
Designated by Dept of Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorist (Headnote 102).
|
| Two hijackers | Terrorists |
Mentioned in relation to financial support from an entity's subsidiary employee.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| al Qaeda |
Terrorist organization mentioned as receiving material support.
|
|
| Department of Treasury |
Designated a bank chairman as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.
|
|
| Bank based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia |
Defendant in ATA suit.
|
|
| Bank headquartered in Egypt |
Defendant in ATA suit.
|
|
| Investment company based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia |
Defendant in ATA suit.
|
|
| Saudi Arabian construction company |
Defendant seeking dismissal of ATA suit.
|
|
| Charitable network |
Defendant seeking dismissal of ATA suit.
|
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of a defendant bank.
|
|
|
Headquarters of a defendant bank.
|
|
|
Location where wire transfers were processed.
|
|
|
Location of an investment company.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction where activities were purposefully directed.
|
Relationships (2)
Allegations that bank... provided material support to al Qaeda
allegation that employee... financially supported two hijackers
Key Quotes (3)
"Allegations in complaint by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks... failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA)"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843.jpg
Quote #1
"Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843.jpg
Quote #2
"designation by Department of Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorist"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,435 characters)
778
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
96. Banks and Banking 226
Allegations in complaint by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that bank based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia provided material support to al Qaeda, failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against bank, absent allegations that bank knew that anything relating to terrorism was occurring through services it provided. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Allegations in complaint by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that bank based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia provided material support to al Qaeda, failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against bank, absent allegations that bank knew that anything relating to terrorism was occurring through services it provided. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
97. Banks and Banking 226
Allegations in complaints by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that bank headquartered in Egypt provided financial services and other material support to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda, failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against bank, in that complaints did not include facts to support inference that bank knew or had to know that it was providing material support to terrorists by providing financial services to charities or by processing wire transfers in Spain. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Allegations in complaints by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, that bank headquartered in Egypt provided financial services and other material support to terrorist organizations including al Qaeda, failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against bank, in that complaints did not include facts to support inference that bank knew or had to know that it was providing material support to terrorists by providing financial services to charities or by processing wire transfers in Spain. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
98. Brokers 106
War and National Emergency 50
Allegations in complaints by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against investment company based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia or against Saudi Arabian bank founder, in that majority of allegations regarding investment company actually concerned another entity, survivors alleged that company supported charity but did not allege that company knew that charity was supporting terrorism, and allegation that employee of other entity's subsidiary financially supported two hijackers did not translate into allegation that bank founder provided material support to terrorism or aided and abetted those who provided material support. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
War and National Emergency 50
Allegations in complaints by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks failed to state cause of action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA) against investment company based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia or against Saudi Arabian bank founder, in that majority of allegations regarding investment company actually concerned another entity, survivors alleged that company supported charity but did not allege that company knew that charity was supporting terrorism, and allegation that employee of other entity's subsidiary financially supported two hijackers did not translate into allegation that bank founder provided material support to terrorism or aided and abetted those who provided material support. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
99. Federal Civil Procedure 1269.1
Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian bank's motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether bank was immune from suit as instrumentality of Saudi Arabia, and as to whether District Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over bank. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2, 6), 28 U.S.C.A.
Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian bank's motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether bank was immune from suit as instrumentality of Saudi Arabia, and as to whether District Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over bank. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2, 6), 28 U.S.C.A.
100. Federal Civil Procedure 1269.1
Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian construction company's motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether company purposefully directed its activities at United States, for purposes of personal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on Saudi Arabian construction company's motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether company purposefully directed its activities at United States, for purposes of personal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A.
101. Federal Civil Procedure 1269.1
Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on charitable network's motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to which entities were subject to District Court's personal jurisdiction and whether entities transferred money to terror fronts. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2, 6), 28 U.S.C.A.
Limited jurisdictional discovery was warranted, on charitable network's motion to dismiss Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to which entities were subject to District Court's personal jurisdiction and whether entities transferred money to terror fronts. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2, 6), 28 U.S.C.A.
102. War and National Emergency 50
Allegations of complaint filed by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks stated cause of action against bank chairman under Antiterrorism Act (ATA), in that allegations and his designation by Department of Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorist were sufficient to
Allegations of complaint filed by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks stated cause of action against bank chairman under Antiterrorism Act (ATA), in that allegations and his designation by Department of Treasury as Specially Designated Global Terrorist were sufficient to
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document