Epstein Secrets

such, they were recognized as consular property by the United States Department of State ("State Department"), Office of Foreign Missions ("OFM") (Massey Dec., Exh. A thereto), and enjoyed the protection of the Foreign Missions Act ("FMA"), ss& 22 U.S.C. §§ 4302(a)(3)-(4), the Vienna Convention on Consular Rela

U.S.C. § 1701 et seq . ("IEEPA"), authorities thereunder and a license granted to OFM by the Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Massey Dec., Exh. B thereto). OFM is empowered to bring this action to seek equitable relief to protect the premises, see 22 U.S.C. §§ 4301(b)-(c), 4311(a), and to c

otion seeks an order of ejectment against the present respondents, who, as of this writing, have declined to execute the stipulation and order ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 8 & n.2; Exh. G thereto). ARGUMENT THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE EJECTED FROM THE PREMISES Under the Foreign Missions Act, "[t]he United States, acti

such, they were recognized as consular property by the United States Department of State ("State Department"), Office of Foreign Missions ("OFM") (Massey Dec., Exh. A thereto), and enjoyed the protection of the Foreign Missions Act ("FMA"), ss& 22 U.S.C. §§ 4302(a)(3)-(4), the Vienna Convention on Consular Rela

U.S.C. § 1701 el seq . ("IEEPA"), authorities thereunder and a license granted to OFM by the Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Massey Dec., Exh. B thereto). OFM is empowered to bring this action to seek equitable relief to protect the premises, = 22 U.S.C. §§ 4301(b)-(c), 4311(a), and to con

otion seeks an order of ejectment against the present respondents, who, as of this writing, have declined to execute the stipulation and order ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 8 & n.2; Exh. G thereto). ARGUMENT THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE EJECTED FROM THE PREMISES Under the Foreign Missions Act, "[t]he United States, acti

U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. ("IEEPA"), authorities thereunder and a license granted to OFM by the Treasury Department, Office of Foreign Assets Control (Massey Dec., Exh. B thereto). OFM is empowered to bring this action to seek equitable relief to protect the premises see 22 U.S.C. §§ 4301(b)-(c), 4311(a), and to c

otion seeks an order of ejectment against the present respondents, who, as of this writing, have declined to execute the stipulation and order (see Nakano Dec. ¶ 8 & n.2; Exh. G thereto). ARGUMENT THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE EJECTED FROM THE PREMISES Under the Foreign Missions Act, "[t]he United States, act