Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: Lloyd’s Insurer Sues Saudi Arabia for ‘Funding 9/11 Attacks’
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Lloyd's Insurer Sues Saudi Arabia for Funding 9/11 Attacks'

September 19th, 2011Well, well, this could meander into all sorts of interesting areas.
Via: Independent:
A Lloyd's insurance syndicate has begun a landmark legal case against Saudi Arabia, accusing the kingdom of indirectly funding al-Qa'ida and demanding the repayment of £136m it paid out to victims of the 9/11 attacks.
The Brighton-based Lloyd's 3500 syndicate, which paid $215m compensation to companies and individuals involved, alleges that the oil-rich Middle Eastern superpower bears primary responsibility for the atrocity because al-Qa'ida was supported by banks and charities acting as "agents and alter egos" for the Saudi state.
The detailed case, which names a number of prominent Saudi charities and banks as well as a leading member of the al-Saud royal family, will cause embarrassment to the Saudi government, which has long denied claims that Osama bin Laden's organisation received official financial and practical support from his native country.
Outlined in a 156-page document filed in western Pennsylvania, where United Airlines flight 93 crashed on 9/11, the claim suggests that the nine defendants "knowingly" provided resources, including funding, to al-Qa'ida in the years before the attack and encouraged anti-Western sentiment which increased support for the terror group.
The legal claim states: "Absent the sponsorship of al-Qa'ida's material sponsors and supporters, including the defendants named therein, al-Qa'ida would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the 11 September attacks. The success of al-Qa'ida's agenda, including the 11 September attacks themselves, has been made possible by the lavish sponsorship al-Qa'ida has received from its material sponsors and supporters over more than a decade leading up to 11 September 2001."
Posted in Covert Operations, Elite, False Flag Operations
Insurers drop 9/11 suit against Saudi Arabia
Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Less than two weeks after filing a federal lawsuit in Johnstown, a London-based group of insurers has dropped its claim that Saudi Arabia and several Saudi organizations should be held responsible for insurance claims related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Lloyd's Syndicate 3500, part of the company more commonly known as Lloyd's of London, filed a notice on Monday that it was voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit. The dismissal is "without prejudice," which means the group can refile the lawsuit.
The defendants included the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya, Saudi Red Crescent Society, the Saudi-based National Commerce Bank, Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Co. and three Saudi citizens connected to the organizations.
The notice filed by Stephen Cozen, a Philadelphia lawyer representing the group, doesn't provide a reason for the dismissal. Cozen, in an e-mail, declined comment.
A spokesman for the Saudi Arabia embassy in Washington couldn't be reached for comment.
Rhonda Wasserman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said the voluntary dismissal is a mystery because it doesn't seem to fit any of the usual reasons for dropping a lawsuit.
A voluntary dismissal coming shortly after the initial filing usually means that the plaintiffs have decided another court would be more friendly than the one where they filed, she said.
"They realize that they don't want to be there," Wasserman said.
But Cozen said Sept. 8 that Lloyd's Syndicate 3500 had decided to file the lawsuit in Western Pennsylvania instead of New York City because it believes the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would be more sympathetic to the lawsuit than the 2nd Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes New York. The 2nd Circuit ruled in 2008 that Saudi Arabia was immune from a lawsuit brought against it by the families of the 9/11 victims in New York federal court.
A dismissal could mean the defendants already have settled with the plaintiffs, but that's unlikely given the type of dismissal, Wasserman said.
"If it were a settlement, it would most likely be filed 'with prejudice,' " she said.
Plaintiffs sometimes dismiss lawsuits because they learn new evidence that convinces them the case won't succeed, but "that seems unlikely given how recently they filed," she said.
Cozen said previously that the plaintiffs have been researching the law for years and have been waiting for other lawsuits to settle before filing this one.

Read more: Insurers drop 9/11 suit against Saudi Arabia - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review [URL=""]

Brian Bowling is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer and can be reached at 412-325-4301 or via e-mail.

Some how....I knew this was coming. I think they had an offer they couldn't refuse. angryfire
Magda Hassan Wrote:Some how....I knew this was coming. I think they had an offer they couldn't refuse. angryfire

...or a threat they couldn't ignore....or both. I was going to post a few days ago on this thread that I felt it would be dropped, but they beat me to it. There is no way they want the truth about S.A.'s massive involvements in the lead up to; events of; cover-up after re: 9-11 to be known.....and S.A.s connections to the Bush Admin. and many other powerful persons, companies, banks, financiers and oligarchs in the USA. They are perhaps our most favored dictatorship [of so many], after all. :mexican:
Given what we know about trans-national criminal cabals operating under the cover of sovereign government agencies and in a world long rife with "false-flag" incidents, placing blame at the doorstep of any sovereign state becomes specious. That some linkages went through Saudi Arabian peoples, banks, entities, agencies and the like doesn't prove that it was a Saudi Arabian initiative, or that the nation was complicit. But it doesn't disprove it either. It seems to be part of a larger campaign to make sovereignty irrelevant, state by state, event by event.