Prince Naif
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Prince Salman
|
Co defendants |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Prince Salman
|
Co defendants familial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Osama bin Laden
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Charles Pasqua
|
Professional diplomatic |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994-01-01 | N/A | Stripping of Osama bin Laden's citizenship | Saudi Arabia | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017933.jpg
This document is page 30 of a Westlaw printout detailing a court order from 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539). The text outlines the court's rulings on various motions to dismiss filed by numerous defendants, including charities, financial entities (National Commercial Bank), and individuals such as Tarik Hamdi, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, and members of the Saudi royal family (Prince Salman and Prince Naif mentioned in footnotes). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional inquiry.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017932.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (392 F.Supp.2d 539) concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the court's decision to prioritize personal jurisdiction discovery over subject matter jurisdiction (FSIA) for NCB to avoid intrusion into Saudi Arabia's sovereignty. The conclusion section lists rulings granting motions to dismiss for SHC, Prince Salman, and Prince Naif, while denying others.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017922.jpg
This page from a court opinion discusses motions to dismiss regarding jurisdiction over Saudi princes and the Rabita Trust in litigation related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The court grants the motions to dismiss for Prince Salman and Prince Naif due to a lack of minimum contacts with the United States necessary for personal jurisdiction. The document also begins discussing allegations against the Rabita Trust, including its designation as a terrorist entity and alleged ties to al Qaeda.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017921.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) discussing the court's jurisdiction over Saudi defendants Prince Salman and Prince Naif. It details plaintiffs' arguments that Prince Salman funded terrorist-linked entities (IIRO, WAMY, etc.) and establishes his contacts with the U.S., including stock ownership in Texas and a 1989 meeting with George H.W. Bush. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017920.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal opinion titled 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539), bearing the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017920. The text discusses the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Saudi Prince Naif and Prince Salman regarding their official acts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), while analyzing whether personal jurisdiction exists for alleged private acts or conspiracy with al Qaeda. It details Prince Naif's role as Minister of Interior, his 1994 actions against Osama bin Laden, and the legal standards for establishing jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute and conspiracy theories.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017919.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 court opinion regarding the September 11 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the dismissal of claims against the Saudi High Commission (SHC) and Prince Salman and Prince Naif based on the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity, ruling that their funding decisions were policy-based and thus immune from suit.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017918.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 court opinion regarding terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, specifically addressing the sovereign immunity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi High Commission (SHC), Prince Salman, and Prince Naif under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court discusses whether the 'torts exception' or 'commercial activities exception' to immunity applies, noting that the commercial activities exception is inappropriate and analyzing the requirements for the torts exception and the discretionary function rule. The text concludes that the defendants are considered foreign states for FSIA purposes when acting in official capacities and examines legal precedents regarding jurisdiction.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017916.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 court opinion (*In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001*) discussing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) status of Saudi defendants. It details the court's denial of a motion to supplement the record against Prince Salman and Prince Naif regarding a 1998 article linking Saudi charities to al Qaida, citing lack of authentication. It also establishes the 'Saudi High Commission' (SHC) as an organ of the Saudi government, noting Prince Salman's role as its President. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, suggesting it was part of a congressional production.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017915.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, specifically discussing allegations against Saudi Princes Salman and Naif. It details claims that Prince Salman and Prince Naif used their positions and various charities (such as the SHC, IIRO, and SJRC) to fund and support Islamic militants, including Al Qaeda and Hamas, in regions like Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Palestine. The text cites various complaints alleging the princes knowingly supported terrorist networks and ignored warnings from Western governments.
Islamic charities funding terrorism
Warning that Islamic charities were being used to fund terrorism.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity