Epstein Secrets

80(a). Courts have found both exceptions are "in- tended to preserve immunity for 'decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy.'" Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, No. 02 Civ. 10023(DC), 2004 WL 307248, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2004) (citing United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Ri

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

§ 2680(a). Courts have found both exceptions are “in- tended to preserve immunity for ‘decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy”” Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, No. 02 Civ. 100238(DC), 2004 WL 307248, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2004) (citing United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio G

ption, ‘acts which are performed at the planning level of government, as opposed to those at the operational 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. 44

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