Epstein Secrets

2d SERIES tions that he knew they were funneling money to terrorists, do not suffice. See Burnett II, 292 F.Supp2d at 23 (citing Burger King and Keeton v. Hustler Maga- zine, Inc., 465 U.S. at 774-75, 104 S.Ct. 1473); see also Exec. Order 13244 (desig- nating certain branches of Al Haramain and BIF

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

me and finding a six-year period reasonable). Prince Salman’s deceased son’s contacts with the United States are irrelevant to this Court’s analysis. Keeton vy. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (“Each defendant’s contacts with the forum State must be assessed

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

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

hort of alleging Prince Sul- tan’s actions were ‘expressly aimed’ or ‘purposefully directed’ at the United States.” Id. at 23 (citing Burger King and Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774-75, 104 S.Ct. 1478, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984)). Judge Robertson also denied Plaintiffs’ request for discover

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