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

e or identify any duty owed to Plaintiffs). Banks do not owe non-custom- ers a duty to protect them from the inten- tional torts of their customers. Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 98 Civ. 926(CSH), 1999 WL 47239, at *Is (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 1999) (citing cases); Burnett 1, 274 F.Supp.2d at 109 ("

n cue 'Mt Acosta clams we negotiated n bad faith by appealing to the Dewing« of Juetco in Wastivion' Black said "Any person under investigabon by a Unite States attorney. mearing any of Ina 9.4 such offices in the country, has the right to seek review by the Dopalment of Justice ond it fl so molded for in

a. on 7/9/05. 3 97197/2996 SignEl by Aas lannign A Hem a 7/7/C4. (r) (Entwed: 07/07/2008) cpunt i on09/200, N011a Of Att0If anna by Oehee of United Sta of Arma (Eatered: 07/09/2008) Runnet 6 ,D7A)9/20015 Seale0 Oocan•-. (ib) UN5EALED set DE 12 . legled en 7/15/2008 (e5). (Enteretl: 07/10/2008) Ru

LexisNexis CourtLink - Show Docket Page I of LI US District Court Civil Docket U.S. District - Florida Soutnerr. (West Palm Beach) 9:08cv80736 Doe I. United States of America This case was retrieved from the court on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 oat Filed: 07/07/2008 Iv:sluts:I To: Judge Kenneth A Hamm Selerrad To: V.al:

r 8 :07/09/2006 Sela Dame Mb) UtaKE0 Of 14 . ~ned on 7/15/2Cel: (b5). (Entra 07/10/2005) UMSeAlED MOTION to Seal Reponse to Wales Etneracy Peon by united Ste of Anterce. 23;une 12 07/00/2006 (peyosynsly Med a5 6 Sealet1 auet) OM) (Ente: 07/15/2999) umsta.ro RESPONSE to 1 LireGerey Pols» ro; .5.1fterten

00230205 • -i trfccAr<A,-- — ''1 LexisNexis CotztLink - Rocket Number Scarch Result Page 3 of 4 n ceb. 15 o 16 • n opne 17 Rormø ta= Renner • 1 dosis snes) (u). (Vitna ONN/1~ 07/17/2000 TRANSCIUO or ~rin; hald on 7/11/2005 beror* /tilsi Kenneth A. Moro Court INNter: INtotie 9hTM na!~

•Prosemaion 'preened by pp. Revenos Na by 10/14/2006 (Al irret: it Te of Nomad DP erXEdrard. Bradley ved: 09/25/ 2000) 10/(01/2244 anted a of Americo. (Entered: 10/06/2004) RESPONSE In o f re 28 al n Agreement fad by R flu' to 29 Respell., bosom to MotbomVenal Non-dosecutioe Agreement INN

in 00:441Gte re 49 PlabaS MOTIONISIM~. Motion to Nave • 0 Orlin° '55 04/07/si I ltnye Foos Acute the GevarnaM's awe o sat ny me Pacts riled by United States of Anima (4~: 04/07/2011) : . _ . ri milt 99 .04057/2011 Dream" :ne U.S. AttOnleft Wee Nat to WM a nt ix Wiled SONS OR RESPON% in Opalti

m case. "kl, clams we negotiated n bed felt by appealing Is the Deparrtent of Justice in Washington: Bleck said "Any person under Investgahon by a United Stales attorney. mearing any of me gd such dices in the country, has the right to seek review by the Department of Justice and it ill so provided for n t

Arnrinca. : (Eared' 04/08/2011) _ , Runne — 04/04/2011 ~1 ENTRY • Docket Entry 63 rettn~Sealed ma Mather notice (4) (Entreat 04041/2011) . Renner 01/06/2011 SYSTEm ENOS - Docket entry 64 reacterMaied at rats ~o. Id» (entered: WOG/2011) MOTIONS Ea1aMl0e Silo Fee es to 48 Moats POTION ar SUMM

adle PUERTO MO IallBank Retail ganIchm °sermons PO BOX 9)46 Santora. PR 0(008 0146 787 72S 2511/ 1,846.669955 n11 Strohm* corn CONFIDENTIAL UNITEDSTATES VIRGIN ISLANDS Fintaarth PO Rog 374600 St Doman, V103803 1 Rfwi.fiqn 2511 lthstbreurom BRIDSH VIRGIN runes Orme/ant PO Rog 435 Roil Town.

OUT IF A DIRECT DEPOSIT MS BEEN FADE tl so_ lam actual erect deposas yo. annt that os nes boom WW1 OCWITIbia,SIS, y7u kACI as Scce Securer Feces' Renner teneTSS eTT:s yen) mas sa a us lc ask *meter or NI :he :exert has ben made Y re rums- moomd hem. Tot account :Ma 'cc ir.OrmalT . closes interest -

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

Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. at 617. a. Purposefully Directed Activities Theory Personal jurisdiction based on Rule 4(k) requires minimum contacts with the Unit- ed States to satisfy Fifth Amendment due process requirements. Plaintiffs claim these requirements are met because De- fendants purposefully directed their ac