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.,

ision regarding placement of a water hose on a ship was an operational function and there- fore not discretionary and not protected by the FSIA); Napolitano v. Tishman Constr. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 4402(5.1), 1998 WL 102789, at •4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1998) (finding purchasing consulate buildings and hir

decision regarding placement of a water hose on a ship was an operational function and there- fore not discretionary and not protected by the FSIA); Napolitano v. Tishman Constr. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 4402(SJ), 1998 WL 102789, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1998) (finding purchasing consulate buildings and hiring con

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.,

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

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. 4402(SJ), 1998 WL 102789, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb.26, 1998)). Here, since SHC, Prince Salman, and Prince Naif are