Epstein Secrets

l jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory under New York’s long-arm statute, plaintiffs must make a prima fa

39 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 that it has been designated a terrorist, but claims 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

re “the interference with a person’s right to possession of real property either by an unlawful act or a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner.” N.Y. State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1361 (2d Cir.1989). Provided the Federal Plaintiffs plead that Defendants here acted in concert w

Defendants are not individuals. Arndt, 342 F.Supp.2d at 141. The TVPA claims against Tarik Hamdi, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, Wa‘el Jalaidan, and the SAAR Network executives are dismissed because there is no allegation that these Defendants were acting under *566 color of state law. In re: South African Aparthe

on- al jurisdiction over Princes and others under New York’s long-arm statute; (8 nai modified due process

tate a claim, including Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation (hereinafter “Al Rajhi Bank”)," the Saudi American Bank,” Arab Bank,” NCB, the SAAR Network, Prince Mohamed, Al Baraka In- vestment & Development Corporation and Saleh Abdullah Kamel," Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, the Saudi Binladin Group, and A

ry where the complaint stated, without any supporting facts, that the defendant “participates in a ‘multina- tional insurance arrangement’ present in the State of New York”); Im re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria, 230 F.Supp.2d at 410-413 (granting motion to dismiss and denying jurisdictional discovery where complaint

Dep’t of State, 373 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir, 2004) occceeesescsnsesssesnseeesesnseeecesnseeenesnseeeeesnseenesnseees Neumeier v. Kuehner, 286 N.E.2d 454 (N.Y. 1972) ccs Redding v. Edwards, 569 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2008) ........ Rivera v. Heyman, 157 F.3d 101 (2d Cir, 1998) eee Salahi v. Obama, 625 F.3d

8 (2010) eee *vili Schneberger v. Wheeler, 859 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir. L988), sarcasm cena enemies Sickles v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 167 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. SUP CH 1987) ccnscencnmmennencnmennencmmennennmmaennencmen Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. DOO) sesceveescecswrencernccccreee

obal expansion. Defendant Abdullah Naseef met personally with Osama bin Laden around the time of Al-Qaeda’s formation, and reached agreement with bin Laden at that meeting that al-Qaeda would use MWL offices to launch attacks.*! This meeting and agreement are documented in the historical records of al-Qa