Epstein Secrets

the enterprise itself,’ which requires that these Defendants must have had some part in directing the enterprise’s affairs.” Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, No. 95 Civ. 51910FK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N-Y. Sept.30, 1997). 25] 26] The TVPA provides a cause of action against individuals who under act

minds of the embassy bombings. (Burnett Compl. § 582.) Finally, Plaintiffs claim Hamdi is a co-conspirator with the SAAR Network. He worked at IIT in Herndon, Virginia, “the central address surrounding the SAAR Foundation raids, evidence and investigation.” (Burnett Compl. F§ 267, 583; Federal Compl. ¥ 146

amdi participated in the operation or management of any enterprise. The RICO claims against Mr. Hamdi must be dismissed. See Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 1997 WL 603496 at *5. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hamdi knew about bin Laden’s terrorist activities at the time he procured a phone for him because t

rict. After an ongoing investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, federal authorities raided the offices of several of these Defendants in Herndon, Virginia in March 2002. Id. 127. The investigation has allegedly revealed that SAAR Net- work funds have been transferred to des- ignated terroris

28 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Beata' Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191(JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) ("A defendant does not 'di- rect' an enterprise's affairs under § 1962(c) merely by e

- trict. After an ongoing investigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, federal authorities raided the offices of several of these Defendants in Herndon, Virginia in March 2002. Jd. 1227. The investigation has allegedly revealed that SAAR Net- work funds have been transferred to des- ignated terrorist

RSIGHT_017892 --- PAGE BREAK --- 828 Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim against the moving Defendants. See id.; Redtail Leasing, Inc. v. Bellezza, 95 Civ. 5191JFK), 1997 WL 603496, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (“A defendant does not ‘di- rect? an enterprise’s affairs under § 1962(c) merely by engaging