Epstein Secrets

FSIA defense in their motions to dismiss. The Court is not convinced by this argument because the waiv- er of FSIA immunity must be explicit. See Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc., 344 F.3d 255. 261 (2d Cir.2003). EFTA00795068 S04 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES tions would not sustain juri

rince Mohamed, Al Baraka In- vestment & Development Corporation and Saleh Abdullah !Camel? Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, the Saudi Binlaclin Group, and Adel A.J. Batterjee. Finally, the last of this group of motions was entertained on 7. Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz moves to dismiss the complaint in Burnett. 8. The Saudi

d to as the “SAAR Net- work”),® Prince Turki, and Adel A.J. Bat- terjee,!’ also raised personal jurisdiction defenses. On

ounsel, did not raise the FSIA defense in The Court is not convinced by this argument because the waiv- er of FSIA immunity must be explicit. See Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc., 344 F.3d 255, 261 (2d Cir.2003). their motions to dismiss. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017868 --- PAGE BREAK --- 804 tions w

read as a waiver of immunity from this court’s jurisdiction. The Second Circuit has made clear that the waiver of FSIA immunity must be explicit. See Banco de Seguros del Estado v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc., 344 F.3d 255, 261 (2d Cir.2003) (requiring wavier that unambiguously waives claims of immunity from legal proceedings

it does not have the same connections to the United States, bin Laden, and al Qaeda that Defendants Benevolence International Foundation (“BIF”) and Adel A.J. Batterjee had. See Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 823-25 (finding Court had personal jurisdiction over Mr. Batterjee based on his designation as a globa