Epstein Secrets

purpose). The Plaintiffs place great weight on the United States' inclusion of the "Golden Chain" in its proffer of evidence in United States v. Arnaout, the government's case against an executive of Defendant charity BIF. See Bierstein Aft at Ex. 1 (proffer). The court presiding over that case, ho

s exception of FSIA; (7) survivors failed to make prima fade showing necessary to establish person- al jurisdiction over Princes and others under New York's long-arm statute; (8) modified due process standard appro- priate for mass torts would not be applied to question of personal juris- diction; (9)

rocess under either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment applies. U.S.CA. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 48. Courts 0 ,12(2.5) Personal jurisdiction under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S.CA. Const. Amend. 14; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 3

Kreindler, Marc 5. Moller, Milton G. Sincoff, Noah H. Kushlefsky, Paul S. Edelman, Robert James Spragg, Steven R. Pounian, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, Elliot R. Feldman, J. Scott Tarbutton, John M. Popilock, Sean P. Car- ter, Stephen A. Cozen, Cozen O'Connor (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA, for

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

raid -- was relied upon by the Government in an Evidentiary Proffer of al-Qaeda sponsor, Enaam Arnaout, and also referenced and used as a resource in Arnaout’s sentencing hearing. See supra pp. 54-55 nn.85-86. It was cited in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report in July 2004, see supra pp. 25-26 & n.8, and t