Legal Reality Newsletter 24 September A. D. 2011Posted: September 24, 2011 | |
24 September A.D. 2011
In the area of a factual problem with the case, what could they possibly learn two weeks into the suit that they didn’t know before filing? For context, the Supreme Court of the United States knows everything about everything. They have to. At that level of access to competent information, we also find Lloyd’s of London. So, there was no misunderstanding of the facts at any time.
Why Pennsylvania, since there was so self-evidently no plane crash there? (One reason might be that the case wouldn’t be caught up in the gauntlet of cases that are re-routed to New York.)
Will there be another filing, whether in this location or some other?
Was the point/purpose of the lawsuit satisfied by an undisclosed settlement?
Were they making a political statement by filing and then voluntarily dismissing that claim in that forum? (If so, is Lloyd’s “of Record” now suggesting that the case against Saudi Arabia is a concocted cover story masking what really happened and who financed what and how?)
It’ll be interesting to see what else happens with this, and when.
Harmon L. Taylor
Subscribe / unsubscribe : firstname.lastname@example.org
Insurance giant withdraws 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
Last updated at 8:37 PM on 21st September 2011