Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-31569House OversightOther

Saudi princes and foreign officials file motions to dismiss 9/11 terrorism lawsuits

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #017933
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage lists motions to dismiss by Prince Salman, Prince Naif, and other foreign-linked entities in 9/11 litigation, hinting at possible high‑level interference with victims' claims. While it pro Prince Salman and Prince Naif filed motions to dismiss multiple 9/11 related complaints. Several Saudi‑linked charities and trusts (e.g., World Islamic League, Rabita Trust) are involved in Executive

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

foreign-influencelegal-strategy911-litigationgovernment-designationlegal-exposuresaudi-arabiahouse-oversightterrorism-financing
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied, but the RICO, TVPA, negligence, and Federal intentional tort claims against it are dismissed. Tarik Hamdi’s motions to dismiss the Burnett and Federal complaints are denied, but the RICO, TVPA, negligence, and Federal intentional tort claims against him are dismissed. Abdulrahman Alamoudi’s motion to dismiss the Burnett complaint is granted; his motion to dismiss the Federal complaint is Ashraf, M. Omar Ashraf, M. Yaqub Mirza, and Iqbal Unus are granted. Jamal Barzinji’s motion to dismiss the Federal complaint is denied, but the RICO, TVPA, intentional tort, and negligence claims against him are dismissed. National Commercial Bank’s motion to reconsider the Court’s January 18 opinion and order is granted to the extent that it requests the Court to consider its personal jurisdiction defense before resolving the FSIA *576 denied, but the RICO, TVPA, intentional tort, and issue. negligence claims are dismissed. Success Foundation’s motion to dismiss the Burnett complaint is granted. The So ordered. motions by African Muslim Agency, Grove Corporate, Heritage Education Trust, HIT, Mar—Jac Investments, All Citations Reston Investments, Safa Trust, and York Foundation to dismiss the Burnett complaint are granted. IIIT’s motion to dismiss the Ashton complaint is granted. Mar—Jac Poultry’s motions to dismiss the Burnett, Ashton, and Federal complaints are granted. The motions to dismiss the Federal complaint by Taha Al-Awani, Muhammad 392 F.Supp.2d 539, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 Footnotes 1 SHC moves to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, Federal, Barrera, and Salvo complaints. The Court consolidated Barrera v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, 03 Civ. 7038, with Ashton on December 6, 2004. Similarly, at Plaintiffs’ request, the Court consolidated Salvo v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, 03 Civ. 5071, with Burnett on August 16, 2005. 2 Prince Salman moves to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federa/ complaints. 3 Prince Naif moves to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federa/ complaints. 4 The French Interior Minister named one charity, the World Islamic League, during his meeting. Plaintiffs claim this is another name for the Muslim World League. 5 Plaintiffs bring the Court’s attention to Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2005), in which the D.C. Circuit found that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were subject to personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) because they had “engaged in unabashedly malignant actions directed at and felt in this forum.” /d. at 13 (citing, among other examples, bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s orchestration of the Nairobi embassy bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, their plot to bomb various landmarks in New York City, their fatwas against Americans, the criminal indictment against them arising from the Nairobi attack, and the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission). As a result, their “decision to purposefully direct their terror at the United States, and the fact that the plaintiffs’ injuries arose out of one of those terrorist activities, should suffice to cause the defendants to ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into’ an American court.” /d. at 14. In light of the level of bin Laden’s and al Qaeda’s unquestionably direct involvement in the Nairobi attack, Mwani supports this Court’s conclusion that a defendant’s actions must be personal or direct so that the defendant has fair warning that his activities could subject him to personal jurisdiction in the United States. /d. 6 Rabita Trust moves to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints. Z Certain Defendants have been designated Specially Designated Global Terrorists (“SDGTs”) pursuant to Executive Order 13224. In response to the attacks of September 11, President Bush issued Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001, pursuant to the authorities of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 287(c), and 3 U.S.C. § 301. The Secretaries of State and Treasury, in consultation with each other and the Attorney General, may designate individuals or entities if they determine the individual or entity has committed or poses the risk of committing acts of terrorism, or are owned or controlled by terrorists, or assist in or sponsor terrorism. As a result, the property and interests of the SDGT that come within the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked. The process is intended to deter contributions to designated persons and entities and WESTLAW

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1 U.S. Department ofJustiee United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Bullefing One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 August 19, 2019 VIA ECF The Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) Dear Judge Berman: As the Court is aware, on the morning of August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein died while in custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. On August 16, 2019, and after conducting an autopsy, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York issued a statement identifying the cause of death as hanging, and the manner of death as suicide. In light of the death of the defendant prior to a conviction becoming final, the Government must request the Court approve the attached proposed or

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP

CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRAMOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. / PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF SERVING VERIFIED ANSWERS TO SECOND INTERROGATORIES COMES NOW the Plaintiff, , by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby gives notice that that Verified Answers to Second Interrogatories propounded by the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, on August 28, 2009, have been furnished to the attorney for the Defendant. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by e-mail this trday of November, 2009 to alt counsel ob the attached service list. Attorney tor minim 3505-038 Page I of 5 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00005262 EFTA00157825 CLAIM ID: 26H9-2VPP VS. EPSTEIN, et al Case No.: 08-CV-80811-Marra/Johnson Plaintiffs Verified Answers to Second Interrogatories SERVICE LIST Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Atterbury, Goldb

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' yt To: ' .111r)a.r>alSANYS)" )" Cc: ' (CRM)" czi Subject: RE: SDNY case Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:46:21 +0000 Dea I heard you defeated the bail proposal. Congrats! My meeting with the Paris Prosecutor's Office was pushed by a day, and is now set for January 7th. Can we pick a time for a call between now and then? Would Tuesday the 5th in the am (NY time) work for everyone? In the meantime, I am referring the French MLAT request to your IC ). I don't know if you have any privilege issues in your case...and I don't see anything in the request that would revealed any privileged info. But I wanted to mention, in case anyone needs to screen it before it comes to you. If not, I can send it to you directly as well. DOJ Attache/Magistrat de liaison anthicain U.S. Embassy, Paris From: Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 6:03 PM To: (USANYS) Cc: (CRM) < Subject: RE: SDNY case Hi all, (CRM) Maxwell's attorneys filed the attached supplemental report from their French

12p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Comprehensive Overview of U.S. AML Laws, Agencies, and Enforcement Actions

The document is a generic reference guide summarizing existing AML statutes, agency roles, and past enforcement actions. It contains no new allegations, specific transactions, or undisclosed relations Lists major U.S. AML statutes (BSA, USA PATRIOT Act, etc.) Identifies federal and non‑bank regulators and law‑enforcement agencies Describes typical enforcement tools (CMPs, DPA, consent orders)

29p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

FRENCH REPUBLIC

FRENCH REPUBLIC MINISTRY OF JUSTICE APPEAL COURT OF PARIS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF PARIS COURT OF JUSTICE Paris, July 8, 2020 DIVISION Section P4 - Public Prosecution Service for Minors. The Public Prosecutor To Prosecutor-General at the Appeal Court of Paris. SUBJECT: Request for international legal assistance in criminal matter addressed to the United States authorities concerning the investigation related to Jean-Luc BRUNEI., and others, in connection with the "EPSTEIN case". N/REF : prosecution number : 19 235 449 V/REF : APPLICANT AUTHORITY The Public Prosecutor at the Paris Court of Justice. AUTHORITY ADDRESSED TO The competent authorities of the United States of America. Having regard to the accord between the European Union and the United States of America dated June 25, 2003 which entered into force on February 1, 2010 ; Having regard to the Article 14 of the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance between France and the United States dated December 10,

7p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.