Epstein Secrets

e foreign defendant regarding the scope of his offi- cial responsibilities. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 10. International Law C=.10.33 Director of Saudi Arabia's Depart- ment of General Intelligence (DGI) was immune from Antiterrorism Act (ATM suit by survivors of victims of Septem- EFTA00795032 768 349 F

therefore, limited jurisdictional discovery is warranted. As explained above, the PIF could qualify either as an organ or political subdivision of the Kingdom of Sa- udi Arabia. Additionally, the affidavits on which the parties ask the Court to rely have not been subjected to cross examina- tion and are rather self-serving

m of Saudi Arabia 112, at Berger Decl. Ex. 7 ("It is the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that NCB is a government instru- mentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Ara- bia."). To enjoy immunity from suit under the FSIA, NCB must demonstrate that it is an agency or instrumentality, or a politi- cal subdivision

or a tort (3) committed in violation of the law of nations (i.e., international law)." Kadic v. Karad- zic, 70 FM 232, 238 (2d Cir.1995); see also Flores v. Southern Peru Corp, 343 F.3d 140, 143 n. 2 (2d Cir2003). Certain Plaintiffs in these actions are aliens and the complaints all allege common la

seq. 10. International Law <-10.33 Director of Saudi Arabia’s Depart- ment of General Intelligence (DGI) was im

the foreign defendant regarding the scope of his offi- cial responsibilities. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 10. International Law <-10.33 Director of Saudi Arabia’s Depart- ment of General Intelligence (DGI) was immune from Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of Septem- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017832 -

ngdom of Saudi Arabia 12, at Berger Decl. Ex. 7 (“It is the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that NCB is a government instru- mentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Ara- bia.”). To enjoy immunity from suit under the FSIA, NCB must demonstrate that it is an agency or instrumentality, or a politi- cal subdivision of the Kin

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 immunity and personal jurisdiction grounds. Judge Casey held that the FSIA protected the Princes from claims a

rwhelming majority of States, *124 condemned by binding United Nations Security Council resolutions, and repudiated by individual nations. See, e.g., Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233, 256-57, 261-62 (2d Cir. 2003); Filartiga v. Pena-lrala, 630 F.2d 876, 881-84 (2d Cir. 1980). Because the Const