Epstein Secrets

n, and Bakr Binladin.s Although their counsel did not argue on that day, motions to dismiss by the African Muslim Agency, Grove Corpo- rate, Inc., Heritage Education Trust, In- ternational Institute of Islamic Thought, Mar-Jac Investments, Inc., Mena Corpo- ration, Reston Investments, Inc., Safa Trust, Sana-Bell Inc.,

80(a). Courts have found both exceptions are "in- tended to preserve immunity for 'decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy.'" Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, No. 02 Civ. 10023(DC), 2004 WL 307248, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2004) (citing United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Ri

adin, and Bakr Binladin.’ Although their counsel did not argue on that day, motions to dismiss by the African Muslim Agency, Grove Corpo- rate, Inc., Heritage Education Trust, In- ternational Institute of Islamic Thought, Mar-—Jac Investments, Inc., Mena Corpo- ration, Reston Investments, Inc., Safa Trust, Sana—Bell Inc.,

§ 2680(a). Courts have found both exceptions are “in- tended to preserve immunity for ‘decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy”” Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, No. 02 Civ. 100238(DC), 2004 WL 307248, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2004) (citing United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio G

ntiffs denominate certain Defendants as the “SAAR Network entities.” The SAAR Network entities, which include African Muslim Agency, Grove Corporate, Heritage Education Trust, International Institute of Islamic Thought (“IIIT”), Mar—Jac Investments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, Safa Trust, and York Foundation, move

ption, ‘acts which are performed at the planning level of government, as opposed to those at the operational level, are protected by the immunity.’ ” Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, No. 02 Civ. 10023(DC), 2004 WL 307248, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.17, 2004) (quoting Napolitano vy. Tishman Constr. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 44