Epstein Secrets

ion; BGC Partners, Inc., a publicly-traded corporation, indirectly owns more than 10% of it. 11-3490, 11-3494, 11-3495, 11-3511 (Federal Ins. Co. v. al Qaida): Appellants Federal Insurance Company, Pacific Indemnity Company, Chubb Custom Insurance Company, Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company, Chubb Insuranc

aeessreeenseeeseseaess 24 The Role of Ostensible Charities in al-Qaeda’s Growth and Development 2.00... cccceescceesseeeeteeceeeseeeeeteeeeteneeee 28 Al-Qaeda’s Collaborators in the Financial Industry cee eecsssssseesseessseeesneeceseceseeesneeenseceseeesneeseseceseeeaeeeeneeeateeeatersneess 42 Al-Qaeda’s Add

§ 2333, knew that or recklessly disregarded whether al-Qaeda was the recipient of the financial and other support each defendant was providing to al-Qaeda. 2. Whether, for purposes of claims asserting violations of “the law of nations” under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, such violations inc

m- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017830 --- PAGE BREAK --- 766 ber 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as insurance carriers, brought actions against al Qaeda, al Qaeda’s members and associ- ates, alleged state sponsors of terrorism, and individuals and entities who allegedly provided support to Al Qaeda, asserting cau

m Act (ATA) complaint by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, alleging that Saudi Princes con- tributed to charities that supported al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda repeatedly and publicly targeted United States, failed to allege causal connection sufficient to satis- fy New York standard for c

with the Ashton case on Decem- ber 6, 2004. Prince Sultan and Prince Turki have each also filed a separate motion to dismiss in Federal Insurance v. Al Qaida, 03 Civ. 6978 (S.D.N.Y.), both of which are fully submitted and are resolved in this opinion. The Federal Insurance Plaintiffs are forty-one insuranc

59; see also Ashton Compl. § 452; Burnett Compl. J 398.) The Federal Plaintiffs claim that the SHC “has long acted as a fully integrated component of al Qaida’s logistical and financial support infrastructure ... [and that the attacks of September 11 were] a direct, intended and foreseeable product of [its] p

upp. Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (stating Prince Naif urged the Kingdom to strip bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship in 1994), and thus became a target of al Qaeda himself (see, e.g., Bierstein Aff. in Opp’n to Prince Sultan’s Mot. to Dismiss (fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden expressing extreme bitterness toward

laintiffs’ injuries.” Jd. at 809.° The Court does not require direct WESTLAW participation in the attacks themselves, but at least participation im al Qaeda’s terrorist agenda. 181 Tn analyzing a defendant’s minimum contacts, courts distinguish between specific and general jurisdiction. “Specific jurisdict