Epstein Secrets

i- rected activities where defendant delivered products into stream of commerce with ex- pectation they would be purchased by resi- dents of forum); Calder, 465 U.S. at 789- 90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (fording publishing ac- tivities outside of forum were calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in forum where

m, and the litigation results from al- leged injuries that arise out of or related to those activities"). Pursuant to the hold- ings in Thayer King, Calder, and three recent terrorism cases—Rein v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 995 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1998), Daliberti v. Republic of Ira

. C. Defendants' Status as Foreign States for FSIA Purposes The Court must first determine if the moving Defendants are "foreign states" for 22. Zakat is required almsgiving by all Mus- lims. See, e.g., Emmet Complaint at 275; id. 140. EFTA00795052 788 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES purpose

5. C. Defendants’ Status as States for FSIA Purposes The Court must first determine if the moving Defendants are “foreign states” for Foreign 22. Zakat is required almsgiving by all Mus- lims. See, e.g., Burnett Complaint at 275; id. 140. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017852 --- PAGE BREAK --- 788 purposes of

minimum contacts existed since dispute arose from a contract with substantial con- tacts with the forum) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (finding personal juris- diction appropriate over non-resident de- fendants who “e

tates. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise to their clai

nt took ‘intentional * * * tortious, actions’ and ‘knew that the brunt of th[e] injury would be felt’ in the *15 foreign forum.” Jd. at *19, (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-790 (1984)). Even so, the United States argued that the questions presented by the Petition did not warrant review by the

ionally allege that “DMI [Trust] and its affiliated and subsidiary companies have known that many of the ostensible charities to which they channeled Zakat and Haraam funds were, in fact, fronts for al Qaeda [, including ITRO and MWL].” *88 JA4337. “Despite the actual knowledge that money contributed to