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

s subsequent decision in Kilbunz v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 376 F.3d 1123 (D.C.Cir.2004), effectively overrules the holding in Burnett IL See Kilburn, 376 F.3d at 1129 (evaluating a claim under § 1605(a)(7) and holding the requirement for jurisdictional causation was proximate cau

enewal pending con- clusion of jurisdictional 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. &

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.

(S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs in these cases filed consolidated responses to Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s motions. In Plaintiffs’ words, the New York Burnett action is materially identical to the D.C. Burnett action and was filed as a “prophylactic’’ measure in the event the D.C. court found that it lacked

tate a claim. Other Defendants move to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. Tarik Hamdi and Abdulrahman Alamoudi move to dismiss the Burnett and Federal complaints. Success Foundation moves to dismiss the Burnett complaint. The Burnett Plaintiffs denominate certain Defendants as the “SAAR

ns, 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 Plaintiffs adequat

ed in Virginia in 1983 and dissolved in December 2000. (Burnett Compl. § 261; Ashton Compl. J 333.) Its largest donor is the al Rajhi family of Saudi Arabia. (Burnett Compl. § 261; Ashton Compl. § 333.) The complaints claim that over one hundred “affiliated organizations” are registered or are doing busi

6.1, 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.): Appellants are natural persons. 11-3508 (Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. v. Akida Bank Private Limited): App

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