Epstein Secrets

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

i- rected activities where defendant delivered products into stream of commerce with ex- pectation they would be purchased by resi- dents of forum); Calder, 465 U.S. at 789- 90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (fording publishing ac- tivities outside of forum were calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in forum where

m, and the litigation results from al- leged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities"). Pursuant to the hold- ings in Thayer King, Calder, and three recent terrorism cases—Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1998), Daliberti v. Republic of Ira

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

nt took ‘intentional * * * tortious, actions’ and ‘knew that the brunt of th[e] injury would be felt’ in the *15 foreign forum.” Jd. at *19, (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (1984)). Even so, the United States argued that the questions presented by the Petition did not warrant review by the

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.

minimum contacts existed since dispute arose from a contract with substantial con- tacts with the forum) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (finding personal juris- diction appropriate over non-resident de- fendants who “e

tates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise to their clai