Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 of 4 DOCUMENTS
"My husband found himself in the most forward trench of a terrible new kind of war," said Ellen Saracini, his widow
and the mother of their two children.
Thomas E. Mellon, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, described the suit as a way of disrupting the work of terrorist
groups by getting at their cash flow. He said the suit was an attempt to claim what money can be found and, more
importantly, an effort to tie up the terrorist organizations' frozen funds so they can't be released.
"It's not so much about our getting the money as it is of them not getting it," he said.
At least one other individual lawsuit against bin Laden and his network of terrorists was filed in U.S. District Court in
December. That suit, brought by the public interest group Judicial Watch on behalf of an unnamed man whose wife was
killed in the World Trade Center, is making its way through the court system.
But legal, political and practical problems abound with such claims.
By using the list of terrorist groups from President Bush's post-Sept. 11 executive order, the plaintiffs have a massive
problem in serving the defendants. They also will face challenges in proving their case against each of them at trial.
The suit names the former government of Afghanistan and the current governments of Iran and Iraq. But Afghanistan
was never listed as a sponsor of terrorism by the State Department, a prerequisite for claims against a foreign power to
move forward under U.S. law. And, although investigators have pointed out links between some of the Sept. 11
terrorists and Iraq or Iran, there has not been conclusive evidence of that.
"It's going to be very difficult to proceed if they get out ahead of the president and Congress on international law, on
naming states as taking part in specific terrorist events," said Stuart Newberger, a lawyer with the D.C. firm of Crowell
& Moring who has won a number of high-profile international terrorism claims. "The federal courts are just not going to
direct the nation's foreign policy."
LOAD-DATE: February 20, 2002
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2002 The Washington Post
3 of 4 DOCUMENTS
The Philadelphia Inquirer
May 20, 2011 Friday
CITY-C Edition
Saudi government and Saudi royal family, named initially as defendants, were immune from terrorism lawsuits.
For such lawsuits to go forward, the State Department must find that a foreign government had actively supported
terrorist causes, and in the Saudi case there was no such designation.
The Cozen litigation and other lawsuits that named the Saudis as defendants are still ongoing because other defendants,
including accused terrorism financiers and Islamist charities, remain as defendants.
The lawsuit filed by Mellon does not face the same hurdles because the State Department designated Iran a state
supporter of terrorism.
But it faces obstacles of its own. Iran's assets were frozen years ago, and very little remains to collect.
The Congressional Research Service reported in 2008 that U.S. courts had awarded $19 billion in judgments against
foreign governments found to have supported terrorism. But, it said, "the scarcity of assets within U.S. jurisdiction . . .
has made judgments against terrorist states difficult to enforce."
Mellon said that while it was not likely that the plaintiffs would be able to collect anytime soon, there was value in
exposing key facts about the alleged Iranian involvement through litigation.
"When we started this, it was to answer the questions of the families from the Philadelphia area. That is what motivated
us," he said.
For additional coverage of the lawsuit stemming from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, go to www.philly.com/cozenContact
staff writer Chris Mondics at 215-854-5957 or cmondics@phillynews.com.
LOAD-DATE: May 20, 2011
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2011 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
All Rights Reserved
4 of 4 DOCUMENTS