Guest TJH Report post Posted August 16, 2002 WASHINGTON (AP) - Some 600 family members of Sept. 11 victims filed a trillion-dollar lawsuit Thursday against the Sudanese government and Saudi officials, banks and charities, charging they financed Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites)'s network and the attacks on America. The 15-count federal lawsuit, modeled after action filed against Libya in the Pan Am Flight 103 disaster, seeks to cripple banks, charities and some members of the Saudi royal family as a deterrent to terrorist financing schemes. But the suit also is therapeutic for relatives of the victims, who acknowledge they face long odds of collecting anything. "It's not the money. We want to do something to get at these people," said Irene Spina, whose daughter, Lisa L. Trerotola, 38, perished in the World Trade Center. "There's nothing else we can do." "This is the right thing to do," said Matt Sellito, father of Matthew Carmen Sellito, 23, who also died in the World Trade Center. "If the odds are stacked against us, we will beat them." The 258-page complaint, filed electronically Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, seeks more than $1 trillion and charges the defendants with racketeering, wrongful death, negligence and conspiracy. Lead attorney Ron Motley said the money would likely come largely from assets held by the defendants in the United States. He said the plaintiffs were after more institutions than those whose assets already have been frozen by the U.S. and other governments. The complaint also ignores the Bush administration's delicate diplomatic balancing act with Saudi Arabia by bluntly blaming the kingdom's officials and institutions for the attacks. "That kingdom sponsors terrorism," Motley told reporters at a news conference. "This is an insidious group of people." The complaint names more than seven dozen defendants, including the government of Sudan, seven banks, eight Islamic foundations and three Saudi princes. Those listed include Princes Mohammed al-Faisal and former intelligence chief Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Defense Minister Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, Khalid bin Salim bin Mahfouz of the National Commercial Bank, and the Faisal Islamic Bank. Officials from the Saudi Embassy did not immediately return a call for comment. President Bush ( news - web sites)'s administration has been careful not to blame the Saudi government for the attacks in its drive build a coalition for its war against terrorism. Prince Saud said last week that the 70-year-old U.S.-Saudi alliance was as solid now as before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He said bin Laden, who was stripped of Saudi citizenship and is accused of directing the al-Qaida attacks, had intended to drive a wedge between the two countries when he chose 15 Saudi citizens to be among the 19 hijackers. Several plaintiffs, fighting tears, said they would dedicate the rest of their lives to punishing those who financed the attacks. "We will succeed because we have the facts and the law on our side," said Thomas E. Burnett Sr., whose son, Thomas E. Burnett Jr., led a passenger revolt against the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 and died when it plummeted to the ground. "We have justice and morality on our side," he added. In May, lawyers announced that a group of Libyans had negotiated a deal that would give $10 million each to the families of those killed when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. But Libya insisted the group did not have authorization from the government to negotiate. Thoughts? Opinions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bosstones Fan Report post Posted August 16, 2002 This is total bullshit. It does nothing but make everyone in our society (American society, that is) look like a bunch of money-grubbing whores who are looking for someone, ANYONE, to blame for anything that goes wrong. I'm wondering exactly what it is they're trying to accomplish. Are they trying to punish Al-Queda? Trying to "punish" the Sudanese and the Saudi princes?? Why? What role did they play in the attacks? How are they responsible for any of it? It just doesn't make any sense. I'll tell you though: if this case has as little substance to it as I believe it does, then I would love to see all 600 of these morons tossed in jail for wasting everyone's time with their pathetic attempt to cash in on the tragedy of Sept. 11. "It's the right thing to do...." Yeah, what the fuck ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Hey, as long as it keeps American scumbag lawyers away from our legal system it's fine with me. Back in Nov./Dec. I was listening to a local morning radio show and they had this scumbag lawyer on talking about participating in a similar lawsuit (I forget which countries he and his clients were suing). What made me sick was the way he was saying that this was his contribution to America's war on terror. Christ, you'd think he was helping haul away debris at Ground Zero the way he was carrying on. God I hate lawyers... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Well I can't wait for this one to be dissmissed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Y'know what's funny? In cases like this, the American taxpayer ends up footing the bill. That's right, the federal government is legally obliged to pay the $116 trillion if the "defendants" don't. It's happened before, and if these people get their way, it'll happen again. I don't know whether they're greedy, naive, or just plain stupid, but what they're doing will only help the terrorists and hinder the United States. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Hmm I didn't know that. I'd guess the case could be dismissed on venue grounds though. The judiciary doesn't like interfering with the executive's foreign policy perogatives unless it has to under extreme cicumstances. That's assuming there is an alternate venue though where the case can be brought. I don't know. The case doesn't seem meritless to me, though. If party A is injured, and can prove that party B is partially responsible for that injury, then party A should be able to recover from party B. This is a foundational principle of anglo-american legal systems. I'm not understanding the populist anti-lawyer rhetoric in this instance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Foreign nationals and sovereign states are not within the jurisdiction of any court in the United States. The ICJ would be the only alternative. But ultimately, any judgement rendered in this case will be meaningless. An easy dismissal is unlikely, especially given the level of sorrow and sympathy for the victims and their families, and fully justified anger at the perpetrators. (I have no objection to the list of targets. This is just the wrong way to attack them.) It's a shame that noble emotions are being exploited for this contemptible action. Consider the realities. Even if some court somewhere handed down a judgement that ordered bin Laden to turn over all his assets, how would we enforce that? By ferretting them out with our intelligence agencies and confiscating them, right? Wait a minute. Aren't we supposed to be doing that anyway? Banks and charities with terrorist connexions are already being investigated as well. As for the Saudi "royalty," that's fine by me, but how were you planning to get them to pay up? Incidentally, $116 trillion is just a little over the top, to put it mildly. The entire Saudi royal family has just a bit over half a trillion in the bank. Seriously, $116 trillion? The GDP of the entire fucking world is $31.4 trillion. Basically, these 600 people are asking for the total output of 6 billion people over 4 years. I'm sure the lawyers are delighted, but I find it absurd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Yah so much for the media's dilusion that, "Sept. 11th changed the way people are in America" bwahaha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted August 16, 2002 Foreign nationals and sovereign states are not within the jurisdiction of any court in the United States. The ICJ would be the only alternative. But ultimately, any judgement rendered in this case will be meaningless. An easy dismissal is unlikely, especially given the level of sorrow and sympathy for the victims and their families, and fully justified anger at the perpetrators. (I have no objection to the list of targets. This is just the wrong way to attack them.) It's a shame that noble emotions are being exploited for this contemptible action. Foreign nationals and sovereign states actually are subject to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction in the federal district courts, under 28 USC section 1605 (A)(5) and 28 USC section 1331 (I think) respectively. But yeah, the judgement would be meaningless if the defendants refuse to pay and the U.S. is unable to legally seize the defendant's assets to satisfy the judgement. I disagree about the likelihood of an early dismissal, but that doesn't really matter. Besides if you're correct about U.S. courts lacking jurisdiction, then they would have no choice but to dismiss the case. I don't know about it being the wrong way to attack them, though. Systems for the private resolution of disputes are the mark of civilization. By saying that however, I'm not implying we shouldn't bomb the shit out of people who deserve it. I'm merely saying that these aren't necessarily inappropriate means for these particular people. If all you're saying, however, is that this lawsuit is futile and would be detrimental to the United States as your prior post pointed out, then ignore this paragraph. As this is all theory and I agree with you as a practical matter, assuming the facts as given. Incidentally, $116 trillion is just a little over the top, to put it mildly. The entire Saudi royal family has just a bit over half a trillion in the bank. Seriously, $116 trillion? The GDP of the entire fucking world is $31.4 trillion. Basically, these 600 people are asking for the total output of 6 billion people over 4 years. I'm sure the lawyers are delighted, but I find it absurd. You are indeed correct about $116 trillion being a ridiculous sum. I wasn't paying attention to the dollar amount when I skimmed the article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney Report post Posted August 16, 2002 You're right about the jurisdiction issue in a sense, but those sections of the Code assume cooperation. We're not going to get that from Osama bin Laden, and we're not going to get that from a bunch of oily turbaned pricks telling us that they're sorry it happened, but we had it coming. The only way this money could possibly be collected is through the use of military force. And that decision is made by Congress and the President, not by any court. We aren't dealing with civilised people. Wars aren't solved by police action; they're solved by military action, and military action alone. And, in fact, the judgement would not be meaningless if the defendants refused to pay - as I mentioned earlier, the United States would then be obliged to pay the damages. Hmm, I wonder who'd benefit from trillion-dollar deductions from the federal budget? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted August 16, 2002 The jurisdiction question isn't really my forte so you may be right. I do know that when it comes to suing foreign states that it gets really complicated. There are all kinds of immunities and exceptions to those immunities and then you have to take a look at treaties as well. It's a lot easier to sue foreign nationals and foreign corporations. Or at least not anymore difficult than suing a New York corporation in California for example. I don't have my civil procedure materials handy and this isn't my forte, like I said, so I'm a bit fuzzy. Of course that only applies to the jurisdiction question. Even if you prevail, then you still have to figure out how you'd compel them to pay if they refuse to. Though apparently the U.S. will pay if there's no way to satisfy the judgement with the foreigners' assets? I don't like the sound of that at all. When I said meaningless, I didn't mean that the plaintiffs wouldn't recover from somewhere, it's just unlikely that these people have enough American assets if any to satisfy the judgement, and so they wouldn't feel the "sting" of being found liable. Clearly if the American government must pay the judgement, than that's counterproductive, from an American point of view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CED Ordonez Report post Posted August 17, 2002 And people wonder why I refused to show patriotism after 9/11. Answer: bullshit like this by my "fellow man". I can feel for you losing your loved one, but, damn, $116 TRILLION? Gimme a xerox of the names of the plantiffs in this case so I can post it to my ever growing list of people I no longer give a damn about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted August 17, 2002 I really hope a judge dimisses this and fast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shaved Bear Report post Posted August 17, 2002 this is fucking annoying, these people dont care about 9/11, they just want to be greedy pieces of shit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted August 17, 2002 these people don't care about 9/11? whatever man. Call them greedy, fine. Calling them naive or dumb might even be generous. But to say the family members of the fucking victims don't care, seems more than a bit extraordinary to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Shaved Bear Report post Posted August 17, 2002 trust me, living in NYC, i know people who lost people, and they mourned yes, and mourning over loved ones is fine, but now they have just turned greedy, as not all people are looking to sue...people shouldn't consider a lawsuit revenge, they just think that some $$$ can make them feel better...and note this is not everyone of course, but just a select few Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest LooseCannon Report post Posted August 17, 2002 I didn't take issue with the label "greedy." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
