HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839.jpg
2.24 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal case law / law reporter page (federal supplement) / house oversight committee evidence
File Size:
2.24 MB
Summary
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.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabian Prince | Officer of financial institution / Defendant |
Court ruled his position as officer was not basis for personal jurisdiction without knowledge of al Qaeda accounts.
|
| Founder of Saudi Arabian company | Alleged donor / Defendant |
Name appeared on 'Golden Chain' list.
|
| Saudi Arabian watch retailer | Alleged donor / Defendant |
Name appeared on 'Golden Chain' list.
|
| Director of charity | Defendant |
Allegations insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
|
| Survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks | Plaintiffs |
Bringing action under Antiterrorism Act (ATA).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Specific court making the rulings cited.
|
|
| Saudi Arabian financial institutions |
Subject to jurisdiction inquiries.
|
|
| al Qaeda |
Recipient of alleged funds; perpetrator of attacks.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (via Bates stamp).
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction location; location of attacks.
|
|
|
Specific jurisdiction mentioned regarding corporate presence.
|
|
|
Origin of defendants (banks, prince, retailer).
|
Relationships (2)
Prince's position as officer of such institutions
Name in 'Golden Chain' list
Key Quotes (3)
"The mere fact that a corporation is subject to jurisdiction in New York does not mean that individual officers may be hauled before New York courts without any showing that the individuals themselves maintained a presence or conducted business in New York."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839.jpg
Quote #1
"Appearance of Saudi Arabian watch retailer's name in 'Golden Chain,' which allegedly listed early direct donors to al Qaeda, was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839.jpg
Quote #2
"Limited discovery would be permitted... with regard to whether Saudi Arabian bank's contacts with United States were sufficient for exercise of personal jurisdiction..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,516 characters)
774
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
tacks, consisting of one speech in United
States, and handful of investments in Unit-
ed States through banks with which he
was affiliated, were not sufficiently sys-
tematic and continuous for general person-
al jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA)
action by survivors of victims of attacks.
18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
States, and handful of investments in Unit-
ed States through banks with which he
was affiliated, were not sufficiently sys-
tematic and continuous for general person-
al jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA)
action by survivors of victims of attacks.
18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
61. Federal Courts 🗝 76.20, 86
Even assuming that district court had
personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian
financial institutions in Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action by survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks, Saudi Arabian
Prince’s position as officer of such institu-
tions was not basis for personal jurisdic-
tion over him, where there was no allega-
tion he had knowledge or involvement in
any al Qaeda accounts at any banks he
chaired. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Even assuming that district court had
personal jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian
financial institutions in Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action by survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks, Saudi Arabian
Prince’s position as officer of such institu-
tions was not basis for personal jurisdic-
tion over him, where there was no allega-
tion he had knowledge or involvement in
any al Qaeda accounts at any banks he
chaired. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
62. Courts 🗝 12(2.20)
The mere fact that a corporation is
subject to jurisdiction in New York does
not mean that individual officers may be
hauled before New York courts without
any showing that the individuals them-
selves maintained a presence or conducted
business in New York.
The mere fact that a corporation is
subject to jurisdiction in New York does
not mean that individual officers may be
hauled before New York courts without
any showing that the individuals them-
selves maintained a presence or conducted
business in New York.
63. Federal Courts 🗝 96
Even assuming that name of founder
of Saudi Arabian company appeared in
“Golden Chain,” which allegedly listed ear-
ly direct donors to al Qaeda, such list was
insufficient to establish personal jurisdic-
tion in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by
survivors of victims of September 11, 2001
attacks, absent indications of who wrote
list, when it was written, or for what pur-
pose it was written. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et
seq.
Even assuming that name of founder
of Saudi Arabian company appeared in
“Golden Chain,” which allegedly listed ear-
ly direct donors to al Qaeda, such list was
insufficient to establish personal jurisdic-
tion in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) action by
survivors of victims of September 11, 2001
attacks, absent indications of who wrote
list, when it was written, or for what pur-
pose it was written. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et
seq.
64. Federal Courts 🗝 96
Appearance of Saudi Arabian watch
retailer’s name in “Golden Chain,” which
allegedly listed early direct donors to al
Appearance of Saudi Arabian watch
retailer’s name in “Golden Chain,” which
allegedly listed early direct donors to al
Qaeda, was insufficient to establish person-
al jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA)
action by survivors of victims of Septem-
ber 11, 2001 attacks, inasmuch as list did
not establish his involvement in terrorist
conspiracy culminating in attacks and did
not demonstrate that he purposefully di-
rected his activities at United States. 18
U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
al jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA)
action by survivors of victims of Septem-
ber 11, 2001 attacks, inasmuch as list did
not establish his involvement in terrorist
conspiracy culminating in attacks and did
not demonstrate that he purposefully di-
rected his activities at United States. 18
U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
65. Federal Courts 🗝 97
Limited discovery would be permitted,
at dismissal stage of Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action by survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks, with regard to
whether Saudi Arabian bank’s contacts
with United States were sufficient for ex-
ercise of personal jurisdiction consistent
with due process, inasmuch as contacts,
including former presence of bank’s
branch office and subsidiary in United
States, bank’s instigation of lawsuit in
United States, and its advertisements in
United States publications, when taken to-
gether, might establish personal jurisdic-
tion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18
U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.
Proc.Rule 12(b)(1), 28 U.S.C.A.
Limited discovery would be permitted,
at dismissal stage of Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action by survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks, with regard to
whether Saudi Arabian bank’s contacts
with United States were sufficient for ex-
ercise of personal jurisdiction consistent
with due process, inasmuch as contacts,
including former presence of bank’s
branch office and subsidiary in United
States, bank’s instigation of lawsuit in
United States, and its advertisements in
United States publications, when taken to-
gether, might establish personal jurisdic-
tion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; 18
U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.
Proc.Rule 12(b)(1), 28 U.S.C.A.
66. Federal Courts 🗝 94
Allegations of survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks were insuffi-
cient to establish personal jurisdiction over
director of charity in Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action, inasmuch as complaint did
not contain any specific actions by director
from which district court could infer that
he purposefully directed his activities at
United States, his affiliations with entities
that were alleged to have United States
contacts would not sustain jurisdiction, and
his being shareholder in United States
company was not sufficient for jurisdiction.
18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
Allegations of survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks were insuffi-
cient to establish personal jurisdiction over
director of charity in Antiterrorism Act
(ATA) action, inasmuch as complaint did
not contain any specific actions by director
from which district court could infer that
he purposefully directed his activities at
United States, his affiliations with entities
that were alleged to have United States
contacts would not sustain jurisdiction, and
his being shareholder in United States
company was not sufficient for jurisdiction.
18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.
67. Federal Courts 🗝 94
Allegations of survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks were insuffi-
Allegations of survivors of victims of
September 11, 2001 attacks were insuffi-
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017839
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document