Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Plaintiffs
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
INS
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MWL, IIRO, WAMY, Al Haramain, etc.
|
Alleged control funding |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Joel Pashcow
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Osama bin Laden
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
PIF
|
Potential political subdivision |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
NCB
|
Instrumentality |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Two Saudi officials
|
Employee |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Sultan
|
Government official |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Turki
|
Government official |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Public offering/sale of Aramco stake | Saudi Arabia/Global Markets | View |
| N/A | N/A | The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's motion to dismiss the Federal complaint for lack of subject matter ... | Federal Court | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026649.jpg
This document serves as a briefing or news summary regarding the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) and its diplomatic fallout with Saudi Arabia. It details the Saudi Foreign Minister's warning about the erosion of sovereign immunity and addresses threats that Saudi Arabia might liquidate $750 billion in US assets, though the minister later clarified they intend to maintain their investments. The document is part of a House Oversight collection.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017918.jpg
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017917.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) analyzing whether the Saudi High Commission (SHC) qualifies as an organ of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is thus entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. The text details arguments regarding SHC's status, funding sources, and structure, citing declarations from Saudi officials and legal precedents like Filler v. Hanvit Bank.
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_017912.jpg
This document contains a segment of a court opinion regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, specifically addressing legal claims under the Antiterrorism Act, RICO, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It outlines headnotes on legal standards for motions for reconsideration and sovereign immunity, and lists numerous attorneys and law firms representing the plaintiffs and defendants.
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_017869.jpg
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.
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_017859.jpg
This document is page 794 of the 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, containing a legal opinion regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It discusses the 'Torts Exception' and 'Discretionary Function' exception to sovereign immunity, specifically noting that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not a state sponsor of terrorism. The text cites various precedents to define discretionary acts versus operational acts in the context of government immunity.
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_017857.jpg
This document is page 792 of a Federal Supplement legal opinion (likely In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, based on context and case citations). It discusses a motion by the National Commercial Bank (NCB) to dismiss a case based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court denies the motion without prejudice, ordering 'limited jurisdictional discovery' to determine if the Public Investment Fund (PIF) qualifies as a political subdivision of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The document also references exceptions to sovereign immunity, including 'state sponsor of terrorism' and 'commercial activities.' The footer indicates this document was part of a House Oversight Committee production. There is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017854.jpg
This page is from a 2005 court opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) regarding the immunity of Saudi officials and entities under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court rules that Prince Sultan and Prince Turki are immune from suit for official acts. It also discusses the National Commercial Bank's (NCB) claim to immunity as a government instrumentality of Saudi Arabia, analyzing share ownership by the Public Investment Fund (PIF) and transactions involving the bin Mahfouz family.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017853.jpg
This document is page 788 from a legal opinion in the Federal Supplement (349 F.Supp.2d) discussing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It addresses whether immunity extends to Prince Sultan and Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia for actions taken in their official capacities. The text references a complaint filed on September 10, 2003, where plaintiffs argued Prince Turki was not entitled to immunity because he was serving as the Ambassador to the UK at the time. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017847.jpg
This document is page 782 from a court opinion discussing subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It outlines the legal standards for immunity of foreign states, citing precedents like *Saudi Arabia v. Nelson* and *Virtual Countries v. Republic of South Africa*, and details the burden of proof required for plaintiffs to challenge a foreign state's immunity.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830.jpg
This document is page 765 of a Federal District Court opinion (S.D.N.Y.) dated January 18, 2005, regarding litigation stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001). The text discusses jurisdictional issues concerning a defendant named 'Privatbank' and dismisses claims against individual defendants Horath and Buchmann. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, often associated with investigations into financial institutions (like Deutsche Bank) that may overlap with Epstein investigations, this specific page contains no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023653.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a transcript produced for the House Oversight Committee, featuring a Q&A with a high-level Saudi official (contextually likely Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman) regarding the privatization of Aramco. The text details the strategy behind selling a stake in the oil giant, clarifying that the sale involves the company's value rather than the state-owned oil wells, and mentions a target sale figure of approximately 5% to raise cash for other investments.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023645.jpg
This document appears to be a fragment of a transcript or translation included in House Oversight Committee records (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023645). The text discusses economic strategy within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, specifically referencing 'Vision 2030,' private sector investment, and a goal to reduce the unemployment rate to 7% by or in relation to the year 2020. While the prompt references Epstein, this specific page contains no names or direct references to Jeffrey Epstein or his associates; it appears to be related to broader government oversight investigations (potentially involving foreign relations or emoluments).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023409.jpg
This document is page 49 of a legal brief or court opinion titled 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001,' printed via Westlaw. It discusses the legal necessity of jurisdictional discovery regarding 'Sovereign Defendants' and 'NCB' (National Commercial Bank), which claims to be an instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The text concludes by requesting the reversal of a lower court's dismissal of certain defendants and includes detailed footnotes referencing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the 9/11 Commission Report, and CIA documents concerning Usama Bin Laden and Enaam Arnaout.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023367.jpg
This document is page 7 of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief generated via Westlaw in 2019, likely related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks litigation ('In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'). It carries a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee. While the user identifies this as Epstein-related, there are no direct mentions of Jeffrey Epstein or his immediate associates on this specific page; however, the inclusion of cases involving Deutsche Bank (implied by similar financial litigations) or UBS AG suggests this may be part of a larger file regarding financial institutions.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity