Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Blessed Relief Society
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Khalid bin Mahfouz
|
Family |
5
|
1 |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017902.jpg
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.
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_017846.jpg
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023381.jpg
This document is a page from a 2012 legal opinion (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) retrieved from Westlaw, bearing a House Oversight stamp. It details the financial infrastructure supporting al-Qaeda, specifically implicating financial institutions such as Al Shamal, FIBS, Al Rajhi Bank, and National Commercial Bank (NCB) in knowingly providing services and funneling money to the terrorist organization. The text cites testimony confirming that high-ranking banking officials had direct ties to Osama bin Laden and that the banks used charity fronts to channel funds for 'financial jihad.' Note: While labeled as an Epstein-related document request, this specific page contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell; it focuses entirely on 9/11 terrorist financing litigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023378.jpg
This document is a page from a 2012 legal opinion (In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001) produced during a House Oversight investigation (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023378). It details how al-Qaeda utilized a network of ostensible charities, such as the Muslim World League and the International Islamic Relief Organization, to finance operations, launder money, and provide logistical support for terrorism. The text lists specific defendants (Charity Officials) alleged to have knowingly orchestrated this support using their positions within these organizations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023376.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief or court opinion (specifically 2012 WL 257568) regarding the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It details procedural history concerning the dismissal of claims against numerous defendants, including Saudi banks (Al Rajhi, SAMBA), organizations (Saudi Red Crescent), and individuals (multiple members of the Bin Laden family). The text discusses the impact of the 'Doe v. Bin Laden' decision on jurisdictional arguments under the FSIA (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act) and mentions motions to vacate previous dismissals. The document appears to be part of a House Oversight Committee production (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023376).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023375.jpg
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.
Legal Service
Notice published in The International Herald and Al Quds al-Arabia.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity