Epstein Secrets

wealthy Saudis to the Tali- ban and al Qaeda. Ashton Complaint 1259; Federal 1451. Additionally, the Federal Plaintiffs claim that, while Prince Turki was the head of DGI, Saudi Arabian intelligence officers allegedly trained a member of the al Qaecla Spanish cell in explosives and provided mater

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

the allegations concerning acts tak- en in his personal, as opposed to official, capacity. Id. Judge Robertson dismissed the complaint against Prince Turki for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as well. Id. Prince Sultan and Prince Turki both move to dismiss the complaints against them in Ashton v. Al

906 F.Supp. 204, 210 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (internal quotations omitted); see also Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 788-89 (finding Princes Sultan and Turki were foreign states for FSIA purposes to the extent Plaintiffs alleged liability for actions taken in their official capacities). 1. SHC (51 SHC co

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