Epstein Secrets

RRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Qaida Barrera v. Al Qae- da Islamic Army Vigilant Insurance v. Kingdom of Saudi Ar

to state a claim is granted. Saudi American Bank's motions to dismiss the Burnett and Ashton complaints for failure to state a claim are granted. Arab Bank's motions to dismiss the Burnett and Federal Insur- ance complaints for failure to state a claim are granted. Al Baraka and Saleh Abdul- lah Kamel's

fter “Al Rajhi Bank”)," the Saudi American Bank,” Arab Bank,” NCB, the SAAR Network, Prince Mohamed, Al Barak

covery 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. & Dev. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Qaida Barrera v. Al Qae- d

ure to state a claim is granted. Saudi American Bank’s motions to dismiss the Burnett and Ashton complaints for failure to state a claim are granted. Arab Bank’s motions to dismiss the Burnett and Federal Insur- ance complaints for failure to state a claim are granted. Al Baraka and Saleh Abdul- lah Kamel’s mo

lvo complaints. The Court consolidated Barrera v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, 03 Civ. 7038, with Ashton on December 6, 2004. S

sonal jurisdiction over NCB, Plaintiffs’ claims are doomed because the Court dismissed similar claims against Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, and Arab Bank. NCB contends that Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183, 194-95 (2d Cir.2002), supports its theory that the Court does not need