Epstein Secrets

hat they were members of conspiracy pursuant to New York long-arm statute, or that they had any general business contacts with United States. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; N.Y.McKinney's CPLR 302(a)(2). 68. Federal Courts C=97 Jurisdictional discovery was warrant- ed, at dismissal stage of Antiterrori

rrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of September 11, 2001 attacks, as to issue whether company purposefully directed its activities at United Slates, for purposes of personal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq.; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.CA. 101. Federal Civil Procedure (3=

ts with the United States generally, but in- sufficient contacts with any one state in particular. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) advisory committee's note; United Stales v. Intl. Bhd, of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609, 616- 17 (S.D.N.Y.1996). For jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), there must be a federal claim, personal

dismissed for lack of per- sonal jurisdiction. 3. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Jurisdic- tional Discovery as to Privatbank's Investing Activities in the United States [37] Plaintiffs point out that Privat- bank's website and its 2001 Annual Report state that Privatbank engages in transac- tions involving securiti

some conceivable non-discretionary tortious act falls within the purview of these generic allegations under the appli- cable substantive law. 28 U.S.C.A. 1605(a)(5). 28. International Law C=10.33 In determining whether functions are discretionary, for purposes of the discre- tionary function except

schemes as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Cen- ter, the 1998 attack of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 at- tack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen." Bur- nett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at 105; see also Ashton Complaint 11105-108 (1993 World Trade Center attack), 130-136 (embassy bombings

fficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particu- lar state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 50. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) The due process minimum contacts

has sufficient con- tacts with the United States as a whole but is not subject to jurisdiction in any particu- lar state, requires contacts with the United States as a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 4(k)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. 50. Constitutional Law ¢=305(5) The due process minimum co

t, but in the manner of a private player within it, the foreign sover- eign’s actions are ‘commercial’ within the meaning of the FSIA.” Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160. Courts must in- quire whether the foreign state’s actions “are the type of actions by which a private party engages in trade a

st schemes as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Cen- ter, the 1998 attack of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 at- tack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.” Bur- nett [, 274 F.Supp.2d at 105; see also Ashton Complaint 11 105-108 (1993 World Trade Center attack), 180-1386 (embassy bombings)

es.*! As a result of al Kadi’s deep involvement in sponsoring al-Qaeda, through Muwafaq as well as various businesses under his control or influence, the *41 United States listed him as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on October 12, 2001.” Read in context and collectively, the allegations concerning the chariti

st schemes as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1998 attack of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 attack of *92 the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.” SPA20, 50 (Terrorist Attacks I) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In addition, President Bill Clinton signed an Executive Orde

18th-century paradigms.” Jd. at 724-25. In making this determination, courts should consider “the potential implications for the foreign relations of the United *122 States” and should be “wary of impinging on the discretion of the Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign affairs.” Jd. at 727. In cases dec