Epstein Secrets

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

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

UBS AG, 342 F.Supp.2d 132, 141 (E.D.N.Y.2004) (citing Flores, 343 F.3d at 153); 28 U.S.C. 1350 note. Only individuals maybe sued under the TVPA. Arndt, 342 F.Supp.2d at 141 (citing Friedman v. Bayer Corp., No. 99 Civ. 3675, 1999 WL 33457825, at *2 39. The ATA defines international terrorism as:

nly NCB’s contacts with the United States and not Saudi Arabia’s relationship to NCB. The Supreme Court and Secon

e product of [its] participation in al Qaida’s jihadist campaign.” (Federal Compl. Jf 182, 189.) *549 2. Prince Salman’ Prince Salman is a member of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Council of Ministers, the governor of the province of Riyadh, and the President of Defendant SHC. (Prince Salman Mem. in Sup. Mot. to Dismiss

yal family have assets and do business in the United States. (Ashton Compl. § 296.) 3. Prince Naif® Prince Naif has been the Minister of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since 1975. (Ashton Compl. J 286; Federal Compl. § 433; Prince Naif Mem. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 5.) According to Plaintiffs, the Minister of

tate Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 435 F. App’x 52 (2d Cir, 2011) eceeccesescscsnescescsneecescsnsecescsnseeesesnseeessseseeesesnseeesnseseersnseseeeensess Arndt v. UBS AG, 342 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .......... Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 8. Ct. 1937 (2009) ..eeceecseseceesseeeeeteesteeeeee Aziz v. Alcolac

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