United States
LocationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Reformers/Democrats
|
Strategic alliance |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Canada
|
Strategic ally |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Saudi Arabia
|
Military supplier |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Europe
|
Military alliance strained |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jimenez
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Johns
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Johnson
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Josephberg
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kaplan
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kenny
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
King
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kozel
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kross
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
LaFlam
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lambus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laskow
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laurenti
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Venezuela
|
Diplomatic dialogue |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Cuba
|
Rapprochement |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Saudi Arabia
|
Strategic alliance |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Israel
|
Geopolitical subordination |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lara Pomerantz
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Gulf Security Partners
|
Military alliance cooperation |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
NCB
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
France
|
Game theory players |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Modification of the Non-Prosecution Agreement | United States | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of the Syrian situation, including the legitimacy of Mr. Assad, international response... | Global political context, U... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Clarification of provisions in paragraph 7 of the Non-Prosecution Agreement regarding the selecti... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Assignment of Independent Third-Party | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-prosecution agreement (NPA) intended for broad, complete resolution of matters, including Eps... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) entered into by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern Dis... | Southern District of Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Agreement regarding Epstein's charges, sentencing, and victim representation. Includes terms for ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | War with Iran / U.S.-led attack | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Negotiation and execution of a plea agreement | Eleventh Circuit | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cold War | Global | View |
| N/A | N/A | Non-Prosecution Agreement execution | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Epstein agrees to plea deal (NPA) for 18 months imprisonment. | Florida | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential Iranian nuclear targeting of US logistics hubs. | Middle East / Bahrain | View |
| N/A | N/A | Selection of attorney representative for victims | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | N/A | Public protests and Mubarak's time of need | Cairo, Egypt | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | US shipment of battery-operated TV sets to Pacific islands. | Pacific Ocean islands | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hypothetical conflict/coalition warfare between US and Iran | Middle East | View |
| N/A | N/A | Potential U.S. attack on Iran | Iran | View |
| N/A | N/A | Suspension of federal Grand Jury investigation | Federal Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed peace conference to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. | U.S. | View |
| N/A | N/A | Palestinian bid for full U.N. membership. | United Nations | View |
| N/A | N/A | United States' decision to pursue warmer ties with Tehran. | International | View |
| N/A | Legal case | United States v. Rodriguez, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ | N/A | View |
| N/A | Non-prosecution agreement | Epstein agreed to a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on two charges, and in return, the ... | N/A | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017901.jpg
This page from a legal opinion (349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series) addresses motions to dismiss in the Ashton and Burnett cases involving terrorism allegations. The court dismisses claims against Al Baraka and Mr. Kamel due to insufficient factual allegations, denies NCB's motion to dismiss without prejudice pending discovery on immunity and jurisdiction, and allows limited jurisdictional discovery regarding the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017898.jpg
This document is page 833 from a 2005 Federal Court opinion (In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) regarding motions to dismiss by various banking defendants. The text details the court's decision to grant Al Rajhi Bank's motion to dismiss due to a lack of factual allegations connecting the bank to terrorist financing. It also introduces background on the Saudi American Bank, its formation from Citibank branches, and allegations regarding its employees' potential ties to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda financing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017896.jpg
This document is a page from a judicial opinion regarding claims against Al Rajhi Bank related to the September 11 attacks. It details allegations that the bank provided financial services to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hamas, failed to implement anti-money laundering controls despite warnings, and held accounts for 9/11 hijackers.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017893.jpg
This document is page 828 of a Federal Supplement legal opinion (likely 'In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001') bearing a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp. It details the dismissal of RICO and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) claims against various Saudi banks and individuals (including the Saudi Binladin Group and Al Rajhi Bank) because the TVPA only applies to individuals acting under color of law, and the RICO claims failed to prove the defendants directed the enterprise. The text also introduces the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and references the September 11 attacks in a footnote. While labeled as 'Epstein-related' by the user (likely due to its inclusion in a House Oversight production regarding banking irregularities or Deutsche Bank), the text specifically concerns 9/11 litigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017891.jpg
This document is page 826 from the 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It appears to be part of a judicial opinion in the case 'Burnett I' (likely Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp.), concerning liability for the September 11 attacks. The text discusses legal standards for 'proximate cause,' 'concerted action liability' (conspiracy/aiding and abetting) under New York law, the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and civil RICO claims. It analyzes whether providing material support to al Qaeda creates liability for the 9/11 attacks. While the Bates stamp indicates it was produced to the House Oversight Committee, there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017890.jpg
This document is page 825 of a 2005 U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) opinion titled 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text focuses on denying a motion by defendant Mr. Batterjee to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing his ties to Al Shamal Islamic Bank, Al Qaeda, and the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), as well as his travel to Chicago and Florida. It also outlines the legal standards for a 'Failure to State a Claim' and the definition of material support under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The document bears a House Oversight stamp, but contains no textual references to Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017889.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court opinion regarding the 'Burnett' litigation, involving claims against Abdel Abdul Jalil Batterjee, the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) for alleged ties to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The text details allegations that Batterjee funded BIF, commissioned a biography of Bin Laden, and transferred control of the charity to Enaam Arnaout, who was indicted for roles in the 9/11 attacks. Batterjee disputes these claims, denying financial support to BIF after 1993 and denying knowledge of Bin Laden's activities, while also contesting jurisdiction and service of process.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017887.jpg
This document is page 822 from a Federal Supplement court opinion (House Oversight record) regarding 9/11-related lawsuits (Ashton and Burnett complaints). The court dismissed complaints against individuals Tariq, Omar, and Bakr Binladin for lack of jurisdiction but denied the motion to dismiss for the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG), citing the need for discovery regarding SBG's potential ties to al-Qaeda and operations in Maryland. The document also outlines allegations against the 'SAAR Network,' described as a web of charities allegedly established to fund terrorist organizations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017885.jpg
This document is page 820 from a Federal Supplement court opinion regarding the 'Burnett action,' a lawsuit related to the September 11 attacks. The text analyzes personal jurisdiction over Saudi defendants, specifically the National Commercial Bank (NCB) and Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, detailing their alleged business ties to the U.S. and connections to entities accused of financing terrorism, such as the Blessed Relief Society (Muwaffaq). The court denies NCB's motion to dismiss but notes the complaint lacks specific actions by Mahfouz directed at the U.S. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017884.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It details the arguments of National Commercial Bank (NCB) against US jurisdiction, citing the closure of its NYC branch in 1992, the dissolution of its subsidiary SNCB Securities Inc. in 2001, and its lack of physical presence or general business solicitation in the US. The document bears a House Oversight Committee stamp, indicating its inclusion in a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017883.jpg
This document is a page from a Federal Supplement court opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) bearing a House Oversight stamp. It details the court's decision to grant Mr. Al-Husani's motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient evidence linking him to the 'Golden Chain' list of al Qaeda donors. The document also introduces the analysis of jurisdiction over NCB (National Commercial Bank), noting Plaintiffs' arguments regarding NCB's subsidiary in New York City.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017881.jpg
This document is a page from a Federal Supplement court opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) discussing motions to dismiss by Saudi defendants. The court grants the motion to dismiss for Prince Mohamed, ruling that his role as an officer of DMI, IICG, and FIBS does not establish personal jurisdiction in the U.S. and that there is no evidence linking him to al Qaeda financing. It also introduces the Estate of Mohammad Abdullah Aljomaih as a defendant added in May 2003. While the prompt mentions Epstein, this specific page pertains to 9/11 litigation and contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017880.jpg
This document is page 815 of a court opinion (In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) from the S.D.N.Y. dated 2005. It details allegations that Prince Mohamed, as CEO of DMI (Dar al-Maal al-Islami Trust), provided financial support and banking services to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden through institutions like Faisal Islamic Bank and Al Shamal Islamic Bank. The text discusses jurisdiction arguments and lists specific terrorist events (1993 WTC bombing, 1998 embassy bombings, 9/11) as part of a common scheme. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017879.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion discussing allegations against Prince Mohamed regarding the financing of terrorism through financial institutions like Al Shamal Islamic Bank and various charities. The text details claims by plaintiffs that Prince Mohamed provided material support to al Qaeda and questions whether the court has personal jurisdiction over him based on his contacts with the United States.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017878.jpg
This document is page 813 of a court opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text details the court's decision to grant motions to dismiss claims against Saudi Princes Sultan and Turki due to a lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient factual evidence linking their charitable donations to the purposeful support of al Qaeda or terrorism in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017877.jpg
This document describes a legal ruling (Page 812, 349 Federal Supplement 2d) regarding the 9/11 litigation (In re Terrorist Attacks). It details the court's analysis of 'jurisdictional discovery' regarding Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia. Plaintiffs allege Prince Sultan used profits from US assets to fund terrorism and that he knew his donations were funneling money to al Qaeda. The court discusses whether these allegations are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him in the US. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation document production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017875.jpg
This document is page 810 from volume 349 of the Federal Supplement, 2d Series (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017875). It contains a legal opinion discussing the 'Due Process Requirements' for personal jurisdiction, specifically analyzing 'Minimum Contacts' under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While the document is part of a House Oversight production, the text itself analyzes legal precedents (citing cases like Burger King, World-Wide Volkswagen, and International Shoe) and mentions 'al Qaeda' in the context of the specific case being judged, but does not explicitly name Epstein or his associates on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017873.jpg
This document is page 808 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, bearing a House Oversight file stamp. It details legal precedents regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically focusing on establishing jurisdiction over state sponsors of terrorism (Libya and Iraq) for acts such as the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and torture in Kuwait. It cites cases including Rein, Daliberti, and Pugh to argue that foreign states and officials, including Muammar Qadhafi, can be sued in the U.S. for terrorist acts aimed at U.S. nationals.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017872.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. The text focuses on legal arguments for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), arguing that by assisting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the defendants purposefully directed their activities at the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017868.jpg
This document is page 803 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the Southern District of New York (2005) regarding litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It details the Federal Plaintiffs' allegations that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia aided terrorists through various charities (MWL, IIRO, WAMY, etc.) and the Kingdom's defense based on sovereign immunity and findings from the 9/11 Commission Report stating no evidence was found of Saudi institutional funding. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court opinion discussing motions to dismiss in a case involving allegations of material support for terrorism. It analyzes legal precedents such as *Halberstam* and *Boim* to determine if Prince Turki and Prince Sultan can be held liable for supporting charities allegedly linked to al Qaeda, noting distinctions regarding when organizations were officially designated as terrorists. The court examines whether plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to show the defendants knew the charities were fronts for illegal activities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017862.jpg
This document is page 797 of a legal opinion titled 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (349 F.Supp.2d 765). It details legal arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the 'torts exception' to sovereign immunity, specifically addressing allegations against Saudi Princes Sultan and Turki for allegedly funding al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden through Islamic charities. While the user prompt mentions Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein is not mentioned on this specific page; the document is focused entirely on 9/11 litigation and liability under New York law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg
This document is page 795 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the legal arguments surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and whether the court has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia ('The Kingdom'), Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki. The text details allegations that these defendants provided material support to charities that funded al Qaeda and willfully ignored the threat of Osama bin Laden. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017859.jpg
This document is page 794 of the 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, containing a legal opinion regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It discusses the 'Torts Exception' and 'Discretionary Function' exception to sovereign immunity, specifically noting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism. The text cites various precedents to define discretionary acts versus operational acts in the context of government immunity.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017857.jpg
This document is page 792 of a Federal Supplement legal opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, based on context and case citations). It discusses a motion by the National Commercial Bank (NCB) to dismiss a case based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court denies the motion without prejudice, ordering 'limited jurisdictional discovery' to determine if the Public Investment Fund (PIF) qualifies as a political subdivision of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The document also references exceptions to sovereign immunity, including 'state sponsor of terrorism' and 'commercial activities.' The footer indicates this document was part of a House Oversight Committee production. There is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity