Court Won't Hear Sept. 11 Claims Vs. Saudi Arabia

Court won't hear Sept. 11 claims vs. Saudi Arabia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/...ept11_lawsuits

6/29/2009

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.

The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can't be sued in American courts.

The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case.

In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government's court brief filed in early June was an "apparent effort to appease a sometime ally" just before President Barack Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia.

At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible for acts of terrorism committed by others.

The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained property damage and other losses.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal judge's ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S. residents.

In their appeal to the high court, both sides cited the report of the Sept. 11 Commission. The victims noted that the report said Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding. The Saudis' court filing, however, pointed out that the commission "found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization."

The victims' lawsuits claim that the defendants gave money to charities in order to funnel it to terrorist organizations that were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The appeal also stressed that federal appeals courts have reached conflicting decisions about when foreign governments and their officials can be sued.

The case is Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 08-640.

Top court lets stand Saudi immunity in 9/11 case

http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...55S3PB20090629

Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:23am EDT
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that Saudi Arabia, four of its princes and other Saudi entities cannot be held liable for the September 11, 2001, hijacked plane attacks in the United States.

The justices refused to review the ruling by a U.S. appeals court in New York that the Saudi defendants were protected by sovereign immunity in the lawsuit brought by victims of the attacks and their families.

The appeals court had upheld a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit claiming Saudi Arabia, four princes, a Saudi charity and a Saudi banker provided material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.

The victims and their families argued that because the defendants gave money to Muslim charities that in turn gave money to al Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks.

The appeals court ruled that exceptions to the sovereign immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

Attorneys for the victims appealed to the Supreme Court. They said the appeals court's ruling dramatically limited the ability of victims to recover damages for acts of terrorism committed in the United States.

But the Obama administration late last month urged the high court to reject the appeal. It said New York courts correctly concluded that Saudi Arabia and its officials are immune from lawsuit for governmental acts outside the United States.

The Supreme Court turned down the appeal without comment.

Court won't hear Sept. 11 family claims

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

6/27/2009

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal in a suit filed by the families of Sept. 11 victims against members of the Saudi royal family, accusing four princes of financing al Qaeda.

President Obama's chief legal advocate, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, filed a brief before the high court opposing the lawsuit, saying that the families lacked standing to sue members of a foreign government.

Angry family members pressed State Department and Justice Department officials in a series of closed-door meetings earlier this month.

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal Of Saudi 9-11 Case

http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=79291

6/29/2009

(Washington, DC) -- Saudi Arabia and four Saudi princes will not be held liable for the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling on Saudi liability for the 2001 tragedy.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, saying the Saudis were protected by sovereign immunity in a lawsuit brought by 9-11 victims and families.

A Saudi banker and a charity were also named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argued the defendants were culpable because they donated money to Muslim charities that also helped fund the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062901630.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31612811...s-white_house/

Supreme Court Rules 9/11 Families Cannot Sue Saudi Royals

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stori...s/Default.aspx

6/29/2009

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that families of September 11th victims cannot file a lawsuit against the Saudi royal family.

The high court upheld an appeals court decision that victim's families cannot pursue lawsuits since the Saudis are protected by sovereign immunity, which prevents foreign countries from being sued in U.S. courts.

Nearly 6,000 plaintiffs had planned to sue, claiming money from Saudi Arabia and four of its princes ended up in the hands of Al Qaida members.

Meanwhile, in another decision, the court ruled white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. were unfairly denied promotions due to their race.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the city was wrong when it threw out results of a promotion exam because the results only allowed a few minorities to rank as lieutenants or captains.

The city argued it discarded results to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling is of particular note because it reverses an appeals court decision made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

U.S high court: Saudi Arabia can’t be sued over 9/11

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/break...9_11_suit.html

By Chris Mondics
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
6/29/2009

In a decision that creates broad immunity for Saudi Arabia in terrorism lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appeal of lower court rulings that said the desert kingdom and senior members of the Saudi royal family cannot be held responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The court offered no explanation for its decision to let stand the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit last summer that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred terrorism lawsuits against foreign governments unless they have been designated terrorism supporters by the state department.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, there has been no such designation.

The decision, for the moment, leaves untouched ongoing litigation against scores of Islamic charities, alleged terrorism financiers, and financial institutions named as defendants in the case.

But the Supreme Court's decision to reaffirm Saudi Arabia's immunity is a significant setback for the 6,000 individual victims and family members along with insurers and other commercial interests seeking compensation.

Cozen O'Connor law firm in Philadelphia had sued Saudi Arabia on behalf of dozens of insurers seeking to recover billions in losses at ground zero.

The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case.

In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government's court brief filed in early June was an "apparent effort to appease a sometime ally" just before President Barack Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia.

At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible for acts of terrorism committed by others.

The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained property damage and other losses.

In their appeal to the high court, both sides cited the report of the Sept. 11 Commission. The victims noted that the report said Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding.

The Saudis' court filing, however, pointed out that the commission "found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization."

The victims' lawsuits claim that the defendants gave money to charities in order to funnel it to terrorist organizations that were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The appeal also stressed that federal appeals courts have reached conflicting decisions about when foreign governments and their officials can be sued.

The case is Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 08-640.

Supreme Court Won't Hear Sept. 11 Claims Against Saudi Arabia

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529413,00.html

6/29/2009

A lawsuit against Saudi Arabia filed by survivors and families members of those killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has ended as the Supreme Court announced Monday it will not hear additional arguments from the victims who were trying to revive their case.

The case against Saudi Arabia and five of its princes was already tossed out by two lower courts. More than 6,000 people joined the suit, claiming the Saudis were directly responsible for allowing the flow of money to Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda that was necessary to bankroll the terror attacks.

The Obama Administration urged the Court not to take the case. Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the lower courts were right in their assessment that federal law protects the Saudi government and its princes are immune from lawsuits.

Kagan further noted that "in light of the potentially significant foreign relations consequences" of disputes similar to this one, the Court had in the past ruled that these matters are best handled through diplomatic channels — not courtrooms.

The victims believe the Sept. 11 attacks were financed though a network of Saudi Arabian charities that were known to government officials. They sued under the terrorism provision of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which normally protects other governments from lawsuits.

The Saudis noted the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks concluded the Saudi government or its officers did not fund Al Qaeda or its attacks on the United States. They also argued the terrorism exception highlighted by the plaintiffs only exists when the nation in question is labeled a "state sponsor of terrorism." Saudi Arabia has not been given that designation and contend they are a strong ally of the United States.

Statement by Counsel for the Family of John P. O'Neill in Response to U.S. Supreme Court's Refusal to Hear 9/11 Victims' Case Against Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Others

PHILADELPHIA, June 29, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is a statement by Jerry S. Goldman of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., counsel to the family of John P. O'Neill, Sr.:

We are disappointed by today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case brought by the family of the late American hero, John P. O'Neill, on behalf of the victims of 9/11 against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. Federal Insurance Company, et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 08-640 (6/29/09).

We are saddened to see that the Court declined to apply its traditional standards for accepting a case for review. We assume that it relied upon the arguments propounded by the Executive branch and the defendants to deny the 9/11 victims their day in Court against certain sovereign nations, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that we allege materially support terrorists.

We note, however, that there are still cases pending in the lower courts against other sovereign nations unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

We note, too, that there are still cases pending against other defendants seeking to hold them accountable for their actions in assisting Al Qaeda.

At the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the decision of the Second Circuit was only of limited impact on the other defendants in the case. We can only assume that the Justice Department will be consistent with the arguments that they propounded before the Supreme Court. Similarly, we are looking forward to their filings as to the scope of sovereign immunity.

We are optimistic that the lower courts will allow the rest of the lawsuit to proceed, as we believe that it is obvious that a United States court is the appropriate forum for hearing claims brought for harms suffered by individuals and businesses on American soil, whether against the terrorists who hijacked planes to wreak death and mass destruction, or against those, who provided the material support enabling terrorists to wreak death and destruction.

We look forward to finally proceeding with discovery and allowing justice to prevail.

About Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.

Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. practices law in the areas of Insurance Recovery, Anti-Counterfeiting, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, Corporate & Securities, Employment & Labor Law, Real Estate & Construction, Tax, and Trusts & Estates. The firm's senior attorneys maintain national and international practices from offices in New York City, Newark, NJ, Philadelphia, PA, Washington, D.C., and Ventura, CA. For more information, please visit www.andersonkill.com

GENERAL CONTACT: Jerry S. Goldman/267-216-2795

MEDIA Contact: Andrew Sprung/646-792-3739

SOURCE Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.

In Response to the Supreme Court's Denial of The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari

--On Behalf of The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism --(In Re: Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (GBD); In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03 MDL 1570)

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is a statement on behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism:

We are deeply disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied our petition for writ of certiorari, thus deciding not to hear our appeal of a lower court's decision to dismiss our charges against five Saudi defendants we allege provided material support for the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The High Court's decision only further denies us our day in court, while enabling members of the ruling family to evade accountability. We respect the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of legal matters in our system of government; nevertheless, we find this result a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the 9/11 families and others whose lives are impacted by terrorism.

In a sad day for justice, the Saudi ruling class' interests have been advanced at the expense of the rights granted to civil litigants under our Constitution and the laws designed by Congress to deter terrorism such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 USC 2331 et seq. We believe the High Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent that those who provide support to terrorism atrocities will now see themselves as beyond the reach of U.S. laws. The High Court's decision allows fundamental questions of law to go unresolved, and lets stand a decision by the Second Circuit that the Department of Justice itself believes to be wrong, potentially affording terrorism sponsors undeserved protection from accountability in ongoing and future cases. We will continue to do everything within our rights to stop the material support pipeline fueling al Qaeda and to press our remaining claims in the case.

SOURCE 9/11 Families/Burnett v. Al Baraka

Justices uphold rejection of 9/11 suit against Saudis

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/busin...st_Saudis.html

By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer
6/30/2009

In a decision that creates broad immunity for Saudi Arabia in terrorism lawsuits, the Supreme Court yesterday let stand lower-court rulings that the desert kingdom and senior members of the Saudi royal family are not liable for the 9/11 attacks.

As is typical in such cases, the court offered no explanation for its decision not to hear an appeal of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred terrorism lawsuits against foreign governments unless they had been designated terrorism supporters by the State Department.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, there has been no such designation.

The decision is a setback for the Philadelphia law firm Cozen O'Connor, which represents dozens of insurance companies seeking to recover billions in losses at ground zero.

For the moment, the decision leaves untouched litigation against scores of Islamic charities, alleged terrorism financiers and financial institutions named as defendants in the case. But the Supreme Court's decision is a significant defeat for the 6,000 individual victims and family members along with insurers and other commercial interests seeking compensation.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, representing the views of the Obama administration, filed a friend of the court brief on May 29 urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case.

"We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court followed the unfortunate recommendation of the solicitor general in declining to grant review of the Sept. 11 victims claims against the government of Saudi Arabia and members of the royal family," said Stephen Cozen.

"In my view, denial of access to our courts is a very high price to pay to assuage the concerns of an unreliable ally."

The government of Saudi Arabia and members of its royal family have consistently denied that they had any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, and their lawyers have called lawsuits by Cozen and other firms consolidated into one case in federal district court in Manhattan a hodgepodge of hearsay and unfounded allegations.

The plaintiffs allege that Saudi Arabia funded and controlled Islamic charities that were used to launder money into al-Qaeda.

Absent that financial support, al-Qaeda never would have become a global terrorist threat and never would have been able to pull off the Sept. 11 attacks, they allege.

To back up their case, the plaintiffs cite scores of U.S. Treasury findings and declassified government intelligence reports outlining alleged support for terrorism by Islamic charities, individual financiers and financial institutions.

They also cite statements from senior U.S. officials in the Clinton administration that they had warned the Saudis before the 9/11 attacks that the charities and other institutions had been used to finance al-Qaeda but that the Saudis failed to act on the information. Cozen O'Connor also has taken a deposition from at least one former al-Qaeda commander in the Balkans who testified that his unit was supported by a prominent Saudi government charity.

A federal district judge in Manhattan removed Saudi Arabia and senior members of the royal family as defendants in 2005. Among other things, Judge Richard Conway Casey found that U.S. citizens have no right to sue foreign governments for alleged acts of terrorism unless the State Department had concluded that the foreign state was a terrorism supporter.

He was upheld by the Second Circuit court last year. Casey's ruling added further legal hurdles for the plaintiffs, including the stipulation that defendants must have some presence in the United States to be included in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' lawyers say that finding may be used to exclude other defendants who currently remain in the case.

"We have 3,000 families who may be told they can't utilize their courts to pursue a grievance," said Jerry S. Goldman, of Anderson Kill & Olick P.C., the lawyer for former FBI agent John O'Neill Sr.'s family. O'Neill was a top anti-terrorism official at the FBI who took a job as head of security at the World Trade Center after his retirement and who was killed in the attacks.

Although it generated hundreds of thousands of documents and created friction in the relationship between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, the litigation had gone largely unnoticed until Kagan weighed in with the recommendation that the Supreme Court not hear the case.

Kagan argued that there were no significant unresolved legal issues that the Supreme Court needed to address and suggested that permitting overly broad latitude by U.S. citizens to sue foreign sovereigns would interfere with the making of U.S. foreign policy.

That brief triggered a sharp response from 9/11 victims and their family members, who accused the Obama administration of ignoring the harm done to them in favor of appeasing an important U.S. ally.

Absent discovery and a trial, they say they may never get a full accounting of how al-Qaeda executed the attacks.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/seg...c90a47220003c0