Event Details

This document is a page from a legal brief or court opinion (sourced from Westlaw) regarding litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It argues for the reversal of dismissals for the Saudi Joint Relief Committee, Saudi Red Crescent Society, and National Commercial Bank based on the precedent set in 'Doe v. Bin Laden' regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, though the text itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a page from a 2012 legal opinion (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) retrieved from Westlaw, bearing a House Oversight stamp. It details the financial infrastructure supporting al-Qaeda, specifically implicating financial institutions such as Al Shamal, FIBS, Al Rajhi Bank, and National Commercial Bank (NCB) in knowingly providing services and funneling money to the terrorist organization. The text cites testimony confirming that high-ranking banking officials had direct ties to Osama bin Laden and that the banks used charity fronts to channel funds for 'financial jihad.' Note: While labeled as an Epstein-related document request, this specific page contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell; it focuses entirely on 9/11 terrorist financing litigation.

This document is page 28 of a Westlaw legal report regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539). It discusses a legal motion for reconsideration filed by NCB (National Commercial Bank) regarding personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. The text analyzes legal standards for reconsideration and jurisdiction, citing various precedents (Steel Co., Bush, etc.), but does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell on this specific page, despite the House Oversight stamp.

This document is a page of legal headnotes from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (349 F.Supp.2d 765), dated 2005. It outlines legal standards regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), jurisdiction, and the immunity of foreign officials, specifically mentioning the Director of Saudi Arabia's Department of General Intelligence. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a Congressional document production, potentially related to investigations into 9/11 or financial oversight, though Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named in the text of this specific page.

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.

This document is page 777 from a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the litigation 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It lists legal headnotes (summaries of points of law) concerning negligence, damages, and banking liability under New York law and the Antiterrorism Act. While the content specifically discusses 9/11 and a Saudi Arabian bank, the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, suggesting it was included in a Congressional investigation file, likely as legal precedent regarding bank liability for customer actions (relevant to investigations into banks serving Jeffrey Epstein).

This document is a page from the Federal Supplement (349 F. Supp. 2d 766) summarizing legal holdings by Judge Casey regarding civil litigation stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The page outlines 17 specific holdings concerning jurisdiction, sovereign immunity (FSIA), and liability regarding claims brought by survivors and insurance carriers against Saudi Arabia, Saudi Princes, banks, and charities alleged to have supported Al Qaeda. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation, though the content specifically concerns 9/11 litigation rather than Jeffrey Epstein directly.

This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the litigation 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It lists legal headnotes (35-43) defining the standards for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants in conspiracy cases under New York law. While part of a House Oversight production (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017836), the specific text discusses allegations against Saudi Arabian Princes regarding the 9/11 attacks and does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein, though such legal precedents regarding conspiracy and jurisdiction are often cited in complex international litigation.

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.

This document is page 795 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the legal arguments surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and whether the court has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia ('The Kingdom'), Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki. The text details allegations that these defendants provided material support to charities that funded al Qaeda and willfully ignored the threat of Osama bin Laden. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' 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 document is page 797 of a legal opinion titled 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (349 F.Supp.2d 765). It details legal arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the 'torts exception' to sovereign immunity, specifically addressing allegations against Saudi Princes Sultan and Turki for allegedly funding al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden through Islamic charities. While the user prompt mentions Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein is not mentioned on this specific page; the document is focused entirely on 9/11 litigation and liability under New York law.

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 a Westlaw printout of legal headnotes from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It details legal precedents regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically confirming immunity for a Saudi Arabian relief agency and its chairman regarding allegations of funding the 9/11 attacks. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation production.

This document is a page from a 2012 legal filing titled 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001' obtained from House Oversight records. It details the financial support network of al-Qaeda, specifically focusing on 'The Golden Chain' list of donors, which includes prominent figures such as Khalid bin Mahfouz, Suleiman al Rajhi, and the half-brothers of Osama bin Laden (Bakr, Tariq, Yeslam, and Omar). The text outlines how these individuals allegedly used charities (IIRO, SAAR, Muwafaq) and corporate entities (Saudi Binladin Group) to funnel millions of dollars to al-Qaeda operations.

This document is a page from a legal filing (2012 WL 257568) related to 9/11 terrorist attacks litigation, specifically detailing the financial infrastructure of al-Qaeda. It describes the interconnections between Osama bin Laden, various financial institutions (Al Shamal, Faisal Islamic Bank, Tadamon, Al Rajhi Bank), and individuals designated as terrorists or sponsors. It notably discusses the discovery of the 'Golden Chain' document in Bosnia, which identified major financial benefactors of al-Qaeda.

This document is page 43 of a legal opinion or brief from 2012 titled 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' It discusses the legal liability of entities under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) for providing material support and financing to al-Qaeda. The text argues that the District Court erred in dismissing claims against banks (Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, National Commercial Bank) on the grounds that corporations cannot be sued as individuals under the TVPA, citing various precedents including 'Khulumani' and 'Mohamad v. Rajoub'. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation production.

This document is a Table of Contents from a legal filing related to the case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001,' printed from Westlaw in 2019 as part of a House Oversight production. The text outlines legal arguments accusing several financial institutions and individuals (including Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, and Saleh Abdullah Kamel) of knowingly or recklessly supporting al-Qaeda through financial means and charities. While part of the House Oversight production likely related to financial investigations, Jeffrey Epstein's name does not appear on this specific page.

This document is a page from a 2012 legal opinion regarding litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It details allegations against DMI Trust and its subsidiaries (Faisal Islamic Bank, Faisal Finance, Tadamon Bank) for knowingly facilitating financial support for Al Qaeda, the National Islamic Front in Sudan, and various terrorist operatives including Wa’el Julaidan and Yasin Al Kadi. The text argues that the District Court failed to draw reasonable inferences regarding the defendants' knowledge of their support for terrorism, citing specific financial relationships and public knowledge of Al Qaeda's intent to wage war on the U.S.

This document is page 22 of a Westlaw printout of a 2005 court opinion titled 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details legal standards for civil liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), and civil RICO statutes (Section 1962), specifically defining 'material support' for terrorism. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a congressional production (possibly related to the Epstein investigation given the context of the request), this specific page discusses 9/11 litigation and does not explicitly name Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.

This document is a page from a legal brief retrieved from Westlaw, bearing a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp. It argues that a lower district court erred in dismissing Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) claims against Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, and others related to the financing of al-Qaeda. The text focuses on legal standards (Rule 8 and Rule 12), arguing the court applied an incorrectly heightened standard of scrutiny to the plaintiffs' pleadings regarding the defendants' intent and support for terrorism.

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.

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.

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.

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 legal opinion (cited as 2012 WL 257568) regarding litigation related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks ('In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'). It discusses the dismissal of intentional tort claims (assault, battery, IIED), arguments regarding statutes of limitations in New York versus Virginia and Pennsylvania, and equitable tolling due to the clandestine nature of the conspiracy involving al-Qaeda. The document bears the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023406', indicating it was produced as part of a US House Oversight Committee investigation, likely included in a production by a financial institution or entity being investigated for connections to high-profile cases, though Jeffrey Epstein is not explicitly named in the text of this specific page.

This document is a page from a 2012 Westlaw legal opinion regarding litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001). It details legal arguments concerning the liability of entities including DMI Trust, Dallah al Baraka, and individual Saleh Abdullah Kamel for providing material support to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the 1990s. The text discusses pleading standards under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and criticizes a lower court for applying an incorrect standard regarding the causal connection between 1990s support and the 2001 attacks. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp.

This document is a page from a legal opinion (2012 WL 257568) regarding litigation over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It discusses legal theories of primary and secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for defendants accused of providing material support or financing to al-Qaeda. The document does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein, but bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was included in a larger production of documents to the House Oversight Committee.

This is a page from a legal document (Westlaw printout, stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023404) regarding the case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' It contains legal arguments requesting the court defer decision on TVPA (Torture Victim Protection Act) claims pending a Supreme Court decision, and argues that organizations (not just individuals) should be liable under the TVPA. It also argues that the lower court improperly dismissed negligence and intentional tort claims related to the 9/11 attacks. While the prompt identifies this as 'Epstein-related,' the visible text strictly concerns 9/11 litigation case law and corporate liability, likely included in the House Oversight files as legal precedent or research material.

This document is page 45 of a Westlaw printout concerning the case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' It discusses New York legal precedents regarding 'duty of care,' 'negligent entrustment,' and 'material support' to third-party tortfeasors (criminals/terrorists). While the text focuses on 9/11 and gun safety cases, the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was used in the House Oversight Committee's investigation, likely as legal precedent to establish liability for financial institutions (financial angels) supporting Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a page from a legal brief or opinion related to the litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (In re: Terrorist Attacks). It argues against a district court's dismissal of claims, contending that defendants who provided material support to al-Qaeda through intermediaries or 'front charities' should be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). It specifically critiques the reasoning of Judge Daniels, comparing it to his predecessor Judge Casey, and cites various legal precedents regarding indirect support of terrorism.

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 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 page 30 of a Westlaw printout detailing a court order from 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539). The text outlines the court's rulings on various motions to dismiss filed by numerous defendants, including charities, financial entities (National Commercial Bank), and individuals such as Tarik Hamdi, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, and members of the Saudi royal family (Prince Salman and Prince Naif mentioned in footnotes). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional inquiry.

This document is a page from a Table of Authorities, likely from a legal brief or court opinion related to litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (specifically 2012 WL 257568). It lists various legal precedents (case law) alphabetically from 'Abrahams' to 'Chambers', including high-profile cases such as 'Ashcroft v. Iqbal' and several cases involving 'Obama' regarding detainees. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, though the page itself contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a page from a 2012 legal opinion (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) originating from a House Oversight Committee production. It details the interconnectivity between purported Islamic charities (MWL, IIRO, SJRC) and Al-Qaeda leadership, specifically outlining how charity officials appointed known terrorists like Wa'el Jelaidan and Mohammed Jamal Khalifa to positions of power to facilitate funding and logistics for attacks, including the 1993 WTC bombing and the Bojinka plot. While part of a dataset potentially reviewed in Epstein-related investigations (likely regarding foreign financing), the text itself focuses exclusively on Al-Qaeda financing and 9/11 litigation without mentioning Jeffrey Epstein.

This document is a page of footnotes (97-116) from a legal filing related to 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text discusses legal claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) against Saudi financial institutions, specifically Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank (SAMBA), and NCB, regarding allegations of material support provided to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It references various international treaties regarding aviation safety and terrorist bombings, and discusses the 'mental state' required for banking services to constitute material support of terrorism.

This document appears to be page 24 of a legal opinion (2012 WL 257568) regarding 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the Second Circuit's review of a district court's dismissal of claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), Alien Tort Statute (ATS), and Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The text critiques the lower court for applying incorrect legal standards regarding 'material support' to al-Qaeda. While the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023384' suggests this was part of a congressional investigation (possibly included in a larger production of documents), the specific text on this page contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, or their specific activities.

This document is page 42 of a Westlaw printout concerning 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' It is a legal text discussing the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), customary international law regarding terrorism, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp (indicating it is part of a Congressional investigation production), the text itself focuses entirely on legal precedents regarding 9/11 and al-Qaeda liability; there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein or his associates on this specific page.

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 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 page 833 from a 2005 Federal Court opinion (In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) regarding motions to dismiss by various banking defendants. The text details the court's decision to grant Al Rajhi Bank's motion to dismiss due to a lack of factual allegations connecting the bank to terrorist financing. It also introduces background on the Saudi American Bank, its formation from Citibank branches, and allegations regarding its employees' potential ties to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda financing.

This document is a page from a legal brief regarding litigation over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (2012 WL 257568). It argues that the District Court improperly dismissed Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) claims against several financial defendants, including Al Rajhi Bank and Saudi American Bank, for allegedly providing material support to al-Qaeda. The text cites various legal precedents to argue that the ATA should be construed broadly to cut off funding sources to terrorist groups. Although the prompt mentions Epstein, the document text refers strictly to 9/11 litigation, though the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' suggests it may have been part of a broader congressional investigation.

This document is a page from a 2012 legal opinion (In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001) produced during a House Oversight investigation (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023378). It details how al-Qaeda utilized a network of ostensible charities, such as the Muslim World League and the International Islamic Relief Organization, to finance operations, launder money, and provide logistical support for terrorism. The text lists specific defendants (Charity Officials) alleged to have knowingly orchestrated this support using their positions within these organizations.

This document is page 774 from 349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series, containing legal headnotes (61-67) regarding the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) litigation following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The text details court rulings on personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian princes, banks, and individuals alleged to be on the 'Golden Chain' donor list for al Qaeda. While found in a House Oversight Committee file (likely related to investigations into financial institutions used by Epstein), the text itself focuses strictly on 9/11-related jurisdictional case law.

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).

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 775 from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765), containing legal headnotes from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text outlines legal standards regarding jurisdiction, the Antiterrorism Act, conspiracy, international law regarding hijacking, and RICO liability for defendants accused of funding or supporting the 9/11 attacks. It contains a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.

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 a page from a Table of Contents and Table of Authorities for a legal filing related to the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It outlines legal arguments regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the Torture Victim Protection Act, and negligence claims against defendants alleged to have materially supported al-Qaeda, specifically mentioning 'NCB' (National Commercial Bank) and 'Sovereign Defendants.' The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production, likely related to investigations into financial networks supporting terrorism.

This document is page 772 from Volume 349 of the Federal Supplement, 2d Series. It contains legal headnotes (numbered 44-52) summarizing points of law regarding Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, and Personal Jurisdiction. Specifically, Headnote 45 references litigation involving 'Saudi Arabian Princes' and their alleged involvement with 'al Qaeda' concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks, discussing whether the court has personal jurisdiction over them under the Antiterrorism Act. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, suggesting it was part of a production for a Congressional investigation, though the text itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.

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.

This document appears to be a page (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023412) from a Westlaw printout of the legal case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'. It contains footnotes 52 through 74, which cite various intelligence reports (CIA, UN, Interpol) and testimonies (Richard Clarke, Lee Wolosky) regarding Al Qaida, Usama Bin Laden, and terrorist financing. Footnote 70 specifically identifies officials of the Al Rajhi Bank as the 'Al Rajhi Defendants'. While the document is part of a House Oversight collection, there is no direct mention of Jeffrey Epstein on this specific page.

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 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.

This document is a court opinion and order from the Southern District of New York regarding the multi-district litigation 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' Judge Casey addresses motions to dismiss filed by various defendants, including Saudi Princes (Salman and Naif), the Saudi High Commission, and various entities labeled as the 'SAAR Network' and Islamic charities, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The document lists numerous defense attorneys and specific defendants accused of being material sponsors of terror.

This document is a page from a 2019 Westlaw printout containing legal headnotes for the 2005 case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It details legal arguments regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), specifically affirming that the Saudi High Commission (SHC) and two Saudi officials were entitled to immunity in a lawsuit alleging they funded terrorism. The text discusses the rejection of a specific article offered as evidence by plaintiffs and establishes the legal standard for sovereign immunity regarding foreign agents.

This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 Federal Supplement, 2d Series) containing headnotes (summaries of legal points) 96 through 102. The text details legal rulings regarding the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) and civil lawsuits filed by survivors of the September 11, 2001, attacks against various financial institutions and companies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp (indicating it is part of a Congressional investigation, likely related to Deutsche Bank/Epstein financial probes), the text itself strictly concerns 9/11 litigation, sovereign immunity, and jurisdictional discovery regarding terrorist financing.

This document is a page from a legal reporter (349 F.Supp.2d 765) concerning the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001', dated 2005. It outlines legal headnotes (53-60) regarding the court's decision that allegations against a Saudi Arabian Prince and the Saudi Royal Family—concerning business ties via Saudi Arabia Airlines and charitable donations allegedly funding terrorism—were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a Congressional document production.

This document is a page from a Westlaw legal printout (2012 WL 257568) regarding 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' It outlines legal arguments criticizing a district court for ignoring plaintiffs' pleadings against Al Rajhi Bank. The text details allegations that Al Rajhi Bank knowingly provided material support, banking services, and donation management to al-Qaeda and several front charities (IIRO, MWL, WAMY, etc.), as well as providing services to 9/11 hijacker Abdulaziz al-Omari. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.

This document is page 23 of a legal opinion from the case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' (392 F.Supp.2d 539), printed from Westlaw with a House Oversight Bates stamp. It discusses the dismissal of certain claims (TVPA, negligence) against defendants including the IIRO, SAAR Network, and Tarik Hamdi, while analyzing RICO liability standards. A specific section details allegations against Tarik Hamdi, accusing him of supplying a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden in 1996, which was subsequently used to coordinate the African embassy bombings.

This document is page 813 of a court opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' The text details the court's decision to grant motions to dismiss claims against Saudi Princes Sultan and Turki due to a lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient factual evidence linking their charitable donations to the purposeful support of al Qaeda or terrorism in the United States. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee.

This document is a page from a Westlaw legal database printout (dated 2019) referencing the 2005 case 'In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001'. It contains legal headnotes [20-24] summarizing court rulings on Federal Civil Procedure, personal jurisdiction over foreign terrorist entities/charities, and requirements for RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation, potentially serving as legal precedent or research within that file.

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 a page from a Westlaw printout of a 2012 legal opinion (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) stamped with a House Oversight Committee Bates number. It details the legal standards for detaining individuals as 'part of' al-Qaeda, referencing the 'Golden Chain' document which identifies financiers such as Saleh Abdullah Kamel and Suleiman Abdel Aziz al Rajhi. The text analyzes D.C. Circuit precedents regarding habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo Bay detainees and the evidentiary standards required to prove material support for terrorism.

This document is page 39 of a legal brief or court opinion (Westlaw) regarding 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'. It discusses the legal liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for defendants who provided financial and material support to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, specifically noting funding provided in Sudan in the early 1990s. The document bears the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023399', suggesting it was part of a congressional investigation, likely related to financial institutions involved in terrorist financing.

This document appears to be the final page (page 55) of a Westlaw printout related to the legal case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' The text is a fragment of a legal opinion citing 'Terrorist Attacks III' and discussing links between charities and terrorist networks. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023415' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee, likely within a larger batch of documents involving financial investigations.

This document is page 41 of a Westlaw printout referencing the legal case 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.' It details international conventions and Security Council resolutions regarding the definition and financing of terrorism. While the text does not explicitly mention Jeffrey Epstein, it bears the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023401', indicating it was included in a document production to the House Oversight Committee, likely as legal precedent or an exhibit regarding financial compliance or terrorism financing laws.