Epstein Secrets

SIA [24] Under the FSIA, a foreign state and its instrumentalities are presumed im- mune from United States courts' jurisdic- tion. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355, 113 S.Ct. 1471, 123 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993); 28 U.S.C. f..§ 1602-1607. The FSIA's exceptions to immunity provide the sole basis f

om, a position the Federal Plaintiffs al- lege is not entitled to immunity under the FSIA. In support of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determine

SIA [2-4] Under the FSIA, a foreign state and its instrumentalities are presumed im- mune from United States courts’ jurisdic- tion. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 US. 349, 355, 1138 S.Ct. 1471, 128 L.Ed.2d 47 (1993); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1607. The FSIA’s exceptions to immunity provide the sole basis for obtai

dom, a position the Federal Plaintiffs al- lege is not entitled to immunity under the FSIA. In support of this argument, the Federal Plaintiffs cite Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 480, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that instrumentality status is determined a

activity within the meaning of the FSIA's commercial activity exception. See OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. —- __ (2015); Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 356-359 (1993). At oral argument in this case, the Government stated that it has "serious doubts" whether petitioners' suit, which lar

rb in the Armed Career Crim- inal Act requires applying the law at the time of previous conviction, not the later time when the Act is applied), with Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U. S. 468, 478 (2003) (present-tense verb requires applying the law "at the time suit is filed"). The problem is simple: "Without