| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Origin |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Maria
|
Resident |
1
|
1 |
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.
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) discussing the court's jurisdiction over Saudi defendants Prince Salman and Prince Naif. It details plaintiffs' arguments that Prince Salman funded terrorist-linked entities (IIRO, WAMY, etc.) and establishes his contacts with the U.S., including stock ownership in Texas and a 1989 meeting with George H.W. Bush. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional investigation.
This document is page 17 of a legal opinion titled 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539), bearing the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017920. The text discusses the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Saudi Prince Naif and Prince Salman regarding their official acts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), while analyzing whether personal jurisdiction exists for alleged private acts or conspiracy with al Qaeda. It details Prince Naif's role as Minister of Interior, his 1994 actions against Osama bin Laden, and the legal standards for establishing jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute and conspiracy theories.
This document is a page from a 2005 court opinion regarding terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, specifically addressing the sovereign immunity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi High Commission (SHC), Prince Salman, and Prince Naif under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court discusses whether the 'torts exception' or 'commercial activities exception' to immunity applies, noting that the commercial activities exception is inappropriate and analyzing the requirements for the torts exception and the discretionary function rule. The text concludes that the defendants are considered foreign states for FSIA purposes when acting in official capacities and examines legal precedents regarding jurisdiction.
This document is page 6 of a Westlaw legal research printout referencing the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It lists legal headnotes (points 25-31) summarizing court rulings on various statutes including the Torture Victim Protection Act, New York negligence law, the Antiterrorism Act, and RICO statutes in the context of 9/11 litigation. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a document production to Congress (possibly related to broader financial investigations), the specific text on this page contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their specific associates.
This document is a page from a Westlaw legal research printout regarding the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539). The page lists legal headnotes defining the standards for personal jurisdiction, conspiracy pleading requirements under New York law, and specific federal jurisdiction rulings concerning Saudi Arabian officials accused of funding terrorism through humanitarian channels. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017907' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a House Oversight Committee investigation.
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.
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.
This document is page 830 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It outlines legal standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass, and negligence in the context of lawsuits related to the September 11, 2001 attacks (specifically the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs). It significantly addresses banking liability, citing case law to establish that banks generally do not owe a duty to non-customers to protect them from the intentional torts of their customers, nor are they liable for injuries caused by money passing through routine banking services. While the document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named on this specific page; however, the legal precedents regarding banking liability are relevant to investigations into financial institutions that serviced high-risk clients.
This document is page 828 of a Federal Supplement legal opinion (likely 'In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001') bearing a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp. It details the dismissal of RICO and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) claims against various Saudi banks and individuals (including the Saudi Binladin Group and Al Rajhi Bank) because the TVPA only applies to individuals acting under color of law, and the RICO claims failed to prove the defendants directed the enterprise. The text also introduces the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and references the September 11 attacks in a footnote. While labeled as 'Epstein-related' by the user (likely due to its inclusion in a House Oversight production regarding banking irregularities or Deutsche Bank), the text specifically concerns 9/11 litigation.
This document is page 826 from the 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It appears to be part of a judicial opinion in the case 'Burnett I' (likely Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp.), concerning liability for the September 11 attacks. The text discusses legal standards for 'proximate cause,' 'concerted action liability' (conspiracy/aiding and abetting) under New York law, the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and civil RICO claims. It analyzes whether providing material support to al Qaeda creates liability for the 9/11 attacks. While the Bates stamp indicates it was produced to the House Oversight Committee, there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
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.
This document is page 822 from a Federal Supplement court opinion (House Oversight record) regarding 9/11-related lawsuits (Ashton and Burnett complaints). The court dismissed complaints against individuals Tariq, Omar, and Bakr Binladin for lack of jurisdiction but denied the motion to dismiss for the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG), citing the need for discovery regarding SBG's potential ties to al-Qaeda and operations in Maryland. The document also outlines allegations against the 'SAAR Network,' described as a web of charities allegedly established to fund terrorist organizations.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
This document describes a legal ruling (Page 812, 349 Federal Supplement 2d) regarding the 9/11 litigation (In re Terrorist Attacks). It details the court's analysis of 'jurisdictional discovery' regarding Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia. Plaintiffs allege Prince Sultan used profits from US assets to fund terrorism and that he knew his donations were funneling money to al Qaeda. The court discusses whether these allegations are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over him in the US. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation document production.
This document is page 810 from volume 349 of the Federal Supplement, 2d Series (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017875). It contains a legal opinion discussing the 'Due Process Requirements' for personal jurisdiction, specifically analyzing 'Minimum Contacts' under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. While the document is part of a House Oversight production, the text itself analyzes legal precedents (citing cases like Burger King, World-Wide Volkswagen, and International Shoe) and mentions 'al Qaeda' in the context of the specific case being judged, but does not explicitly name Epstein or his associates on this specific page.
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. The text focuses on legal arguments for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), arguing that by assisting Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, the defendants purposefully directed their activities at the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
This document is page 805 from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765), specifically regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' in the S.D.N.Y. It outlines the legal standards for establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants based on a 'conspiracy theory' under New York law (C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(2)). The text cites numerous precedents to explain that plaintiffs must prove a corrupt agreement, an overt act, intentional participation, and resulting damage to link a defendant to a conspiracy committed in New York. The document appears to be part of a production to the House Oversight Committee, likely included in an investigation file to establish legal precedent for jurisdiction over entities involved in complex conspiracies, though Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named on this specific page.
This is page 804 of a legal opinion from the Federal Supplement (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, though the case name is not explicitly at the top). It details the court's decision to grant the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss a complaint based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The text also discusses standards for Personal Jurisdiction and the New York Long-Arm Statute, citing various legal precedents. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional document production.
This document is page 801 from a 2005 legal opinion regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation (349 F.Supp.2d 765). The text discusses the 'discretionary function' exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the court's finding that this exception bars claims against Saudi Royals Prince Sultan and Prince Turki, who were accused of donating to charities linked to al Qaeda. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was likely part of a Congressional document production.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity