Epstein Secrets

deter- mine which of the Network's entities have a presence in Virginia and which entities transferred money to Nada and Nasred- din. 10. Mel AJ. Batterjee The Burnett Plaintiffs claim that Defen- dant Mel A.J. Batterjee is an associate of Osama bin Laden. Burnett Complaint 1181. On December 21, 2004,

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

al 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 global terrorist, his role with BIF, another designated terrorist, his *561 leadership of BIF’s United States operation

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

Adel A.J. Batterjee is an associate of Osama bin Laden. Burnett Complaint 9181. On December 21, 2004, the U.S. Department of Treasury designated Mr. Batterjee as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. See Dec. 23, 2004 Bierstein let- ter to Court; Exec. Order No. 13224. Mr. Batterjee is the chairman of Al

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