| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge Casey
|
Professional succession |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-14 | N/A | Bail denied in US v. Bradley | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2010-09-13 | N/A | Judge Daniels issued opinion Terrorist Attacks V | District Court | View |
| 2010-06-17 | N/A | Judge Daniels issued opinion Terrorist Attacks IV | District Court | View |
This document is a page from a legal brief or opinion related to the litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (In re: Terrorist Attacks). It argues against a district court's dismissal of claims, contending that defendants who provided material support to al-Qaeda through intermediaries or 'front charities' should be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). It specifically critiques the reasoning of Judge Daniels, comparing it to his predecessor Judge Casey, and cites various legal precedents regarding indirect support of terrorism.
This document is a Westlaw printout (dated 2019) bearing a House Oversight Committee bates stamp. It details legal proceedings regarding the 'Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation, specifically summarizing Judge Daniels' 2010 dismissals of numerous defendants (including members of the Bin Laden family, Saudi banks, and other individuals) for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The text focuses on the legal standards for liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the requirement to prove specific intent to support the 9/11 attacks.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity