| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-10-14 | N/A | Court heard oral argument from Defendants regarding failure to state a claim. | Court (S.D.N.Y.) | View |
This document is page 28 of a Westlaw legal report regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539). It discusses a legal motion for reconsideration filed by NCB (National Commercial Bank) regarding personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. The text analyzes legal standards for reconsideration and jurisdiction, citing various precedents (Steel Co., Bush, etc.), but does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell on this specific page, despite the House Oversight stamp.
This document is page 837 of a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The page details the court's rulings on motions to dismiss filed by various Saudi defendants, including the SAAR Network, Adel A.J. Batterjee, the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG), and members of the Saudi royal family (Prince Sultan, Prince Turki). While some motions were granted for lack of jurisdiction, others (such as those for SAAR Network and Batterjee) were denied, allowing claims to proceed. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was likely part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
This document is a page from a court opinion in the case "In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001." It dismisses complaints against Arab Bank for lack of factual evidence linking them to terrorism financing and introduces claims against Al Baraka Investment & Development Corporation and Saleh Abdullah Kamel regarding their alleged ties to al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers through subsidiaries and employees like Omar al Bayoumi. The text details allegations involving financial support for hijackers in San Diego and banking ties deemed suspicious by Israel.
This document is page 834 from a Federal Supplement (349 F. Supp. 2d) concerning 9/11-related litigation (Ashton and Burnett complaints). It details the court's decision to grant Saudi American Bank's motion to dismiss claims that it provided material support to al Qaeda. It also introduces allegations against Arab Bank regarding its financial support for terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda and Hamas, and its alleged role in facilitating the September 11 attacks. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.
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.
This document is a page from a legal opinion concerning the "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" litigation, specifically addressing RICO claims against Arab Bank and the SAAR Network. The court dismisses the plaintiffs' claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) for failure to allege injury from investment of racketeering income and discusses the requirements for liability under § 1962(c) and (d), noting that defendants must have some part in directing the enterprise's operation.
This document is page 781 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the Southern District of New York concerning 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details procedural history, specifically oral arguments heard in October 2004 regarding motions to dismiss filed by various Saudi banking, corporate, and individual defendants (including the Binladin Group and Al Rajhi Bank) based on lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, suggesting it was part of a congressional inquiry, though no direct textual link to Jeffrey Epstein appears on this specific page.
This document is a page from a legal opinion (2012 WL 257568) regarding litigation over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It discusses legal theories of primary and secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for defendants accused of providing material support or financing to al-Qaeda. The document does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein, but bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was included in a larger production of documents to the House Oversight Committee.
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing, marked with Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023368. It lists various legal precedents and case citations, primarily focusing on litigation related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sovereign immunity, and international liability (Alien Tort Statute). While the document is part of a collection likely reviewed by the House Oversight Committee (possibly related to an investigation involving Epstein or similar legal themes of jurisdiction/immunity), this specific page contains no direct mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their associates.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity