Judge Robertson
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Legal Opinion Issued | S.D.N.Y. | View |
| 2003-03-23 | N/A | Judge Robertson's order approving service by publication | Court | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017898.jpg
This document is page 833 from a 2005 Federal Court opinion (In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) regarding motions to dismiss by various banking defendants. The text details the court's decision to grant Al Rajhi Bank's motion to dismiss due to a lack of factual allegations connecting the bank to terrorist financing. It also introduces background on the Saudi American Bank, its formation from Citibank branches, and allegations regarding its employees' potential ties to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda financing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017897.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (Federal Supplement) regarding the 'Burnett Plaintiffs' lawsuit against Al Rajhi Bank concerning liability for the September 11 attacks and terror financing. The text details allegations that Al Rajhi Bank and its owners funded fronts for Hamas (Tulkarm Charity Committee) and al Qaeda, and discusses the legal standards for liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp but does not mention Jeffrey Epstein; it focuses entirely on banking compliance and terrorism financing litigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017890.jpg
This document is page 825 of a 2005 U.S. District Court (S.D.N.Y.) opinion titled 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text focuses on denying a motion by defendant Mr. Batterjee to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing his ties to Al Shamal Islamic Bank, Al Qaeda, and the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), as well as his travel to Chicago and Florida. It also outlines the legal standards for a 'Failure to State a Claim' and the definition of material support under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The document bears a House Oversight stamp, but contains no textual references to Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017881.jpg
This document is a page from a Federal Supplement court opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) discussing motions to dismiss by Saudi defendants. The court grants the motion to dismiss for Prince Mohamed, ruling that his role as an officer of DMI, IICG, and FIBS does not establish personal jurisdiction in the U.S. and that there is no evidence linking him to al Qaeda financing. It also introduces the Estate of Mohammad Abdullah Aljomaih as a defendant added in May 2003. While the prompt mentions Epstein, this specific page pertains to 9/11 litigation and contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017878.jpg
This document is page 813 of a court opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text details the court's decision to grant motions to dismiss claims against Saudi Princes Sultan and Turki due to a lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient factual evidence linking their charitable donations to the purposeful support of al Qaeda or terrorism in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017863.jpg
This is a page from a Federal Supplement court opinion (page 798) analyzing legal standards for 'aiding and abetting' and 'civil conspiracy.' It cites key precedents including 'Halberstam v. Welch' (burglary/murder liability) and 'Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst.' (terrorism financing). The text discusses how a defendant can be liable for the acts of another if they provide substantial assistance or are generally aware of their role in the illegal activity. While the document is stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT,' suggesting it was part of a congressional investigation (possibly related to Epstein banking/finance inquiries where these specific legal standards are often applied to banks), the text itself focuses on 9/11 litigation ('Burnett II') and Prince Sultan/Turki's defenses.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017862.jpg
This document is page 797 of a legal opinion titled 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (349 F.Supp.2d 765). It details legal arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the 'torts exception' to sovereign immunity, specifically addressing allegations against Saudi Princes Sultan and Turki for allegedly funding al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden through Islamic charities. While the user prompt mentions Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein is not mentioned on this specific page; the document is focused entirely on 9/11 litigation and liability under New York law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg
This document is page 795 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the legal arguments surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and whether the court has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia ('The Kingdom'), Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki. The text details allegations that these defendants provided material support to charities that funded al Qaeda and willfully ignored the threat of Osama bin Laden. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017858.jpg
This document is page 793 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and rules that alleged money laundering or charitable contributions by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki do not constitute 'commercial activity' that would strip them of sovereign immunity. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017849.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal reporter (349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series) detailing civil litigation related to the 9/11 attacks (specifically the 'Burnett' and 'Ashton' complaints). It outlines allegations against Saudi Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, claiming he funded Islamic charities (IIRO, Al Haramain, MWL, WAMY) that served as fronts for Al Qaeda. The text details a 1990 meeting between Prince Sultan, Prince Turki, and Osama bin Laden, and notes $6 million in personal contributions from Sultan to these organizations since 1994.
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_017845.jpg
This document is a page from a Federal Supplement (legal opinion) regarding civil litigation stemming from the September 11 attacks. It discusses motions to dismiss filed by Saudi defendants, specifically Prince Sultan and Prince Turki, as well as the National Commercial Bank, in cases alleging they provided material support to al Qaeda. The text details procedural history involving the transfer of cases between the District of Columbia and the Southern District of New York, and mentions a $4.5 billion claim by insurance companies.
Service by publication
Order approving service by publication for Defendants including Mr. Batterjee.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity