Epstein Secrets

r claims against these financial sponsors of terrorism. Statement Of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had subject matter jurisdiction over these actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330, 1331, 1332, 1350, 1367, 1407, and 1605, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 and 2338,

STLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023373 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) On January 18, 2005, Judge Casey issued his decision in Terrorist Attacks I, dismissing claims against, inter alia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and several Saudi Princes on sovereign

rorist activities and to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. See Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d at 647-48; see also Goldberg v. UBS AG, 660 F. Supp. 2d 410, 428-29 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that plaintiffs had “sufficiently pled that the defendant consciously disregarded the fact that it was supporting a terrorist organiza

n 22 Mich. J.L. & Reform 773 (1989). 50 See United States v. Sells Eng., Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 466 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 5! See, e.g., State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756 (Utah 2002), discussed infra notes 163-66 and accompanying text. 32 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(4) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005); see In re Kari Ann

rious crimes the right to restitution. *°* Reinforcing those laws, the CVRA guarantees that victims have "the right 43 Magistrate Judge Orenstein of the Eastern District of New York, who has written many thoughtful opinions on the CVRA, has taken a contrary position. See Report and Recommendation, United States v. Ingrassis, No.

(S.D.N.Y. 2005) has been a party to lawsuits in the South- ern District of New York, both as a plain- tiff and defendant.

battery. Actions were consolidat- ed by Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Vari- ous defendants filed motions to dismiss. Holdings: The District Court, Casey, J., held that: (1) jurisdictional discovery was warranted on issue whether Saudi Arabian bank was immune under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FS

h is consistent with the leading case of State v. Casey, !7! which considered whether a victim's request

(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 1341, 1343-44 (D. Utah 2005); see also United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reaching same conclusion). *98 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 299, 302-03. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711 --- PAGE BREAK --