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.
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.
This document is page 774 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, containing legal headnotes (61-67) regarding the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) litigation following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The text details court rulings on personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian princes, banks, and individuals alleged to be on the 'Golden Chain' donor list for al Qaeda. While found in a House Oversight Committee file (likely related to investigations into financial institutions used by Epstein), the text itself focuses strictly on 9/11-related jurisdictional case law.
This document contains legal headnotes from a court case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) in relation to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It details court rulings that alleged actions by a Saudi Prince and Saudi Arabia—such as charitable contributions and intelligence decisions—fell under the "discretionary function exception" of the FSIA, thereby barring claims from victims' survivors. It also touches on procedural standards for motions to dismiss regarding personal jurisdiction.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity