BIF
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Mr. Batterjee
|
Involved operative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
WAMY
|
Connection |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Adel A.J. Batterjee
|
Leadership |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002-03-01 | N/A | Law enforcement raided BIF's offices and recovered documents linking Arnaout to Bin Laden. | Bosnia-Herzegovina | View |
| 2002-03-01 | N/A | Bosnian authorities raided offices of charity Defendant BIF. | Bosnia | View |
| 1994-08-26 | N/A | BIF's authorization to do business in Florida was revoked. | Florida | View |
| 1993-01-01 | N/A | BIF filed application to conduct business in Florida. | Florida | View |
| 1991-01-01 | N/A | Biography of Osama bin Laden jointly published by WAMY and BIF. | N/A | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017923.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal opinion (392 F.Supp.2d 539) regarding *In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001*. It discusses the court's jurisdiction over defendants Wa'el Jalaidan and the Rabita Trust, detailing Jalaidan's alleged role as a founder and logistics chief for al Qaeda and his connections to Osama bin Laden. While the document bears a House Oversight stamp (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017923), often associated with broader financial investigations, the text itself focuses strictly on 9/11 terrorist financing liability and does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017922.jpg
This page from a court opinion discusses motions to dismiss regarding jurisdiction over Saudi princes and the Rabita Trust in litigation related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The court grants the motions to dismiss for Prince Salman and Prince Naif due to a lack of minimum contacts with the United States necessary for personal jurisdiction. The document also begins discussing allegations against the Rabita Trust, including its designation as a terrorist entity and alleged ties to al Qaeda.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017916.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 court opinion (*In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001*) discussing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) status of Saudi defendants. It details the court's denial of a motion to supplement the record against Prince Salman and Prince Naif regarding a 1998 article linking Saudi charities to al Qaida, citing lack of authentication. It also establishes the 'Saudi High Commission' (SHC) as an organ of the Saudi government, noting Prince Salman's role as its President. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, suggesting it was part of a congressional production.
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_017899.jpg
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.
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_017889.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court opinion regarding the 'Burnett' litigation, involving claims against Abdel Abdul Jalil Batterjee, the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) for alleged ties to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The text details allegations that Batterjee funded BIF, commissioned a biography of Bin Laden, and transferred control of the charity to Enaam Arnaout, who was indicted for roles in the 9/11 attacks. Batterjee disputes these claims, denying financial support to BIF after 1993 and denying knowledge of Bin Laden's activities, while also contesting jurisdiction and service of process.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017883.jpg
This document is a page from a Federal Supplement court opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) bearing a House Oversight stamp. It details the court's decision to grant Mr. Al-Husani's motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient evidence linking him to the 'Golden Chain' list of al Qaeda donors. The document also introduces the analysis of jurisdiction over NCB (National Commercial Bank), noting Plaintiffs' arguments regarding NCB's subsidiary in New York City.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017879.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion discussing allegations against Prince Mohamed regarding the financing of terrorism through financial institutions like Al Shamal Islamic Bank and various charities. The text details claims by plaintiffs that Prince Mohamed provided material support to al Qaeda and questions whether the court has personal jurisdiction over him based on his contacts with the United States.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017868.jpg
This document is page 803 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the Southern District of New York (2005) regarding litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It details the Federal Plaintiffs' allegations that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia aided terrorists through various charities (MWL, IIRO, WAMY, etc.) and the Kingdom's defense based on sovereign immunity and findings from the 9/11 Commission Report stating no evidence was found of Saudi institutional funding. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865.jpg
This document is a page from a federal court opinion discussing motions to dismiss in a case involving allegations of material support for terrorism. It analyzes legal precedents such as *Halberstam* and *Boim* to determine if Prince Turki and Prince Sultan can be held liable for supporting charities allegedly linked to al Qaeda, noting distinctions regarding when organizations were officially designated as terrorists. The court examines whether plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to show the defendants knew the charities were fronts for illegal activities.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017851.jpg
This document is page 786 from a Federal Supplement legal opinion (likely *In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001*) bearing a House Oversight stamp. It details allegations by plaintiffs that Prince Turki (Head of Saudi Intelligence) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided financial and logistical support to al Qaeda and the Taliban, including facilitating money transfers and supporting charities linked to terrorism. The text also outlines Prince Turki's defense, where he denies these claims, citing his official role in attempting to extradite Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia's severance of ties with the Taliban in 1998. NOTE: While the prompt mentions Epstein, this specific page deals exclusively with 9/11 litigation and does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.
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_023392.jpg
This document is a page from a legal opinion (2012 WL 257568) related to the 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001' litigation. It discusses the liability of financial institutions, specifically Al Rajhi Bank and Dubai Islamic Bank, for allegedly knowingly providing financial services to Al-Qaeda. The text details how various charities (al Haramain, WAMY, MWL, IIRO, SJRC, BIFs) served as fundraising fronts for Al-Qaeda and links them to specific historical terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. While stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT', the document text itself focuses exclusively on terrorist financing and contains no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023390.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (2012 WL 257568) related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It details allegations against financial institutions Dallah al Baraka, ABID Corp, and DMI Trust (and individual Kamel) regarding their long-term financial support of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, dating back to the early 1980s. The text describes money laundering, the maintenance of bank accounts for terrorist front organizations, and the facilitation of funds transfers to operatives in Europe and Sudan. The document bears a House Oversight stamp (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023390).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015030.jpg
This document is page 3 of 4 of a printed web article from the Palm Beach Post, dated September 27, 2017. It details legal arguments by attorneys Edwards and Cassell, who are urging Judge Marra to rule that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The document discusses potential remedies, including restitution and legal fees, while Cassell emphasizes that the effort is about justice rather than money. The page also includes unrelated local news sidebars about the Wellington council and a cold-case arrest.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013786.jpg
This document appears to be page 286 of a larger file, containing a bibliography or reference list for a scientific paper or proposal. The citations focus heavily on neuroscience, chaos theory, nonlinear analyses, and behavioral styles, with publication dates ranging from 1981 to 1998. The page bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it is part of a government inquiry.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013764.jpg
This document is page 264 of a larger file produced by the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013764). It contains a bibliography of scientific papers published between 1986 and 1998, focusing on complex systems, chaos theory, fractals, and physiology (heart rate, gait, hormones). The content reflects the type of scientific research Jeffrey Epstein was known to follow or fund.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity