Epstein Secrets

be incompatible with the purpose of the FSIA, which is to grant governmental, not private corporate immunity, and ... would reflect infidelity to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dole Food" Id. at 218. Accordingly, it reiterated that "'a subsidiary of an instrumentality is not it- self entitled to instrumentalit

purpose). The Plaintiffs place great weight on the United States' inclusion of the "Golden Chain" in its proffer of evidence in United States v. Arnaout, the government's case against an executive of Defendant charity BIF. See Bierstein Aft at Ex. 1 (proffer). The court presiding over that case, ho

upport of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. has specifically addressed the issue. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_01

what purpose). The Plaintiffs place great weight on the United States’ inclusion of the “Golden Chain” in its proffer of evidence in United States v. Arnaout, the government’s case against an executive of Defendant charity BIF. See Bierstein Aff. at Ex. 1 (proffer). The court presiding over that case, howe

. Batter- jee allegedly transferred control of BIF to Defendant Enaam M. Arnaout, on Septem- ber 15, 1997.28 Burnett Complaint 1183. In October 2001, Arnaout allegedly told Batterjee he was worried about being un- der scrutiny of the U.S. government and in January 2002, Batterjee requested that Aranout rel

e of personal jurisdiction over them for the claims as pled would not comport with due process. Id. at 93-95. Plaintiffs thereafter sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court of each of these three principal holdings. In response to a request from the Supreme Court, the United States filed an amicus brief on May 29, 2009,

raid -- was relied upon by the Government in an Evidentiary Proffer of al-Qaeda sponsor, Enaam Arnaout, and also referenced and used as a resource in Arnaout’s sentencing hearing. See supra pp. 54-55 nn.85-86. It was cited in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report in July 2004, see supra pp. 25-26 & n.8, and t