This legal document, part of a court filing from September 16, 2020, argues that legal precedents cited by an individual named Maxwell are inapplicable to the current case. The author contends that the cited cases (Pichler v. UNITE, Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., and Brown v. Maxwell) are distinct because they all involve appeals by non-party intervenors seeking to modify protective orders, unlike the situation in the author's case. The document details these examples to demonstrate why appellate jurisdiction was appropriate in those specific instances but not in the present one.
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.
This document is page 815 of a court opinion (In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) from the S.D.N.Y. dated 2005. It details allegations that Prince Mohamed, as CEO of DMI (Dar al-Maal al-Islami Trust), provided financial support and banking services to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden through institutions like Faisal Islamic Bank and Al Shamal Islamic Bank. The text discusses jurisdiction arguments and lists specific terrorist events (1993 WTC bombing, 1998 embassy bombings, 9/11) as part of a common scheme. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity