Epstein Secrets

. C. Defendants' Status as Foreign States for FSIA Purposes The Court must first determine if the moving Defendants are "foreign states" for 22. Zakat is required almsgiving by all Mus- lims. See, e.g., Emmet Complaint at 275; id. 140. EFTA00795052 788 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES purpose

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

5. C. Defendants’ Status as States for FSIA Purposes The Court must first determine if the moving Defendants are “foreign states” for Foreign 22. Zakat is required almsgiving by all Mus- lims. See, e.g., Burnett Complaint at 275; id. 140. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017852 --- PAGE BREAK --- 788 purposes of

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

ionally allege that “DMI [Trust] and its affiliated and subsidiary companies have known that many of the ostensible charities to which they channeled Zakat and Haraam funds were, in fact, fronts for al Qaeda [, including ITRO and MWL].” *88 JA4337. “Despite the actual knowledge that money contributed to