Epstein Secrets

ng con- clusion of jurisdictional discovery on that issue. In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Federal In- surance v. A

f Septem- EFTA00795032 768 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES ber 11, 2001 attacks for his official acts, notwithstanding that he was also Saudi Arabia's ambassador to United Kingdom, unless exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applied. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; 28 U.S.CA §1603

blame us for it," he said, arguing that the renewed agreement to engage, after several weeks of foot- dragging, was "a small diplomatic victory" for Ashton. "The formula we have agreed is that they will engage in the substance of our proposal," the diplomat said. "In turn we will think a bit about the

overthrow a fellow Arab head of state, President Bashar al-Assad - and to do whatever they can to hurt Iran. Iranians increasingly interpret Saudi Arabia's mood as a hungering for war; and Gulf statements do often have that edge of hysteria and aggression: a recent EFTA_R1_02203688 EFTA02720376 ed

estments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, Safa Trust, and York Foundation, move to dismiss the Burnett complaint. IIIT also moves to dismiss the Ashton complaint. In addition to its motion to dismiss Burnett, Mar—-Jac Poultry moves to dismiss the Ashton and Federal complaints. The Federal Plaintiffs

ry actions, even when that discretion is abused). Accordingly, the Court finds SHC is immune from suit in this litigation. Its motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack subject matter jurisdiction are granted. 2. Prince Salman and Prince Naif M11 Similarly, even if Plaintiff

helpful in assessing whether any of Rabita Trust’s activities were directed at the United States. Accordingly, Rabita Trust’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied without prejudice. C. Wa‘el Jalaidan® 21 The United States Department of Treasury has designated Defenda

tional discovery on that issue, © & KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 40oms In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Q

ctims of Septem- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017832 --- PAGE BREAK --- 768 ber 11, 2001 attacks for his official acts, notwithstanding that he was also Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to United Kingdom, unless exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applied. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2881 et seq; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1608.

Second Circuit law after 28 U.S.C. 8 1407 transfer from a district court in the Fifth Circuit). 3. NCB moves to dismiss the complaints against it in Ashton and Burnett. 4. Prince Mohamed moves to dismiss the com- plaints against him in Ashton and Federal Insurance. 5. The estate of Mohammad Abdullah Al

Appellants. *{ Corporate Disclosure Statement In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants certify as follows: 11-3509 (Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army): Appellants are natural persons. 11-3503, 11-3505, 11-3506, 11-3507 (Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp.)

ut must instead be brought exclusively under the FSIA’s so-called State Sponsor of Terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. §1605A. Jd. at 80-86. Because Saudi Arabia is not a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Panel deemed the Kingdom and SHC immune from the September 11th plaintiffs’ tort claims. Jd. In a