John M. Eubanks
With more than 10 years researching, investigating terrorism foundations and financing in the Middle East region, John Eubanks is an integral part of Motley Rice's Anti-Terrorism and Human Rights practice group. He represents victims, survivors and family members of terrorism and human rights violations in litigation against international and domestic defendants, including the September 11, 2001, attacks as part of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism multidistrict litigation designed to end terrorist financing.
John's legal efforts include pursuing litigation against Libya allegedly providing material resources to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, resulting in the death and injury of citizens of the United States and United Kingdom. John has completed extensive litigation work on the Arab Bank lawsuit on behalf of victims of terrorist attacks in Israel as well as in Mother Doe I, et al. v. Maktoum on behalf of young boys kidnapped for enslavement as camel jockeys in the United Arab Emirates.
A former independent terrorism consultant for the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, The Investigative Project, John served as a liaison and researcher working with the FBI, INS, and U.S. Customs on terrorism financing investigations related to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization. Prior to joining Motley Rice in 2004, John served as counsel in civil litigation against various groups in the U.S. for supplying Hamas with material support and financial resources in the groundbreaking Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute.
John is a published author on counterterrorism and security and was a central contributor to the non-fiction work American Jihad: The Terrorists Live Among Us (Free Press 2002), which details the activities of organizations and individuals within the U.S. who provide material support and/or resources to Middle Eastern and Islamic terrorist organizations abroad. He is a member of the American Association for Justice.
* Please remember that every case is different. Any result we achieve for one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.