| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-05-02 | N/A | Burnett Plaintiffs added Mohammad Bin Abdullah Al-Jomaith as a defendant. | Court (implied) | View |
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 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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity