Epstein Secrets

2d SERIES mainly banks in Arab and Islamic coun- tries. Ashton Complaint 11583; Burnett Complaint 147. It also has banks in Chi- cago, Illinois and Houston, Texas. Bur- nett Complaint II 47. Al Baraka allegedly provided financial infrastructures in Sudan to Osama bin Laden through Defendant charity Al

contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only the con- tacts with the forum state may be consid- ered." Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Here, personal jurisdic- tion under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pur

axi 10022 EFTA00191552 ,edife430•Slcowe Hatsuhana (Japanese) 01710Emilis Helsiace 0101 II Cantinori 32 East 10 (et Broadway) II Tre Marli Houston SUeet West B 691 709rvaY Karen Pets 1195 Le ton Ave. d Sts. Klinger, Georgette 480 Madison Ave. 10021 Florida Series r201482 Norme Jean L

an Dickenson, Debbie 240 S °pi Dickinson, Janice OOi 6wis Royer Dietrich Marc Antoine and Cath 51 Ave Montigne Paris 75008 00 331 4256 9672 Dietrich, Paul & Laura Pre rdoni Afrildian Ersseping .Markets. Cm 1141 Custis St. (haw) Alexandna VA 22308 °Rs; 891244.073sti? cr„,„:12dy0 netatinet(

utory foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign’s agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.” First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had subject matter juris

’s contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only the con- tacts with the forum state may be consid- ered.” Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Here, personal jurisdic- tion under the New York long-arm statute requires minimum contacts with New York pursua

efendant’s contacts throughout the United States, while under the Fourteenth Amendment only contacts with the forum state may be considered.” Chew v. Dietrich, 143 F.3d 24, 28 n. 4 (2d Cir.1998). Plaintiffs claim that Rule 4(k)’s minimum contacts requirement is satisfied because the Defendants have purpose

garding NCB’s FSIA defense would necessarily subject the Kingdom to discovery, which the Court is hesitant to do unnecessarily. See First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998); see also Arriba Ltd. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (Sth Cir.1992) (recommending