Epstein Secrets

claim that these individuals were acting on behalf of or at the behest of the Kingdom. See, e.g., id 1 420 (claiming that in January 1999 Princess Haifa made payments to Al-Bayoumi, a Defendant al- leged to have paid rent on behalf of two of the hijackers). Finally, Plaintiffs allege that members

e foreign defendant regarding the scope of his offi- cial responsibilities. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 10. International Law C=.10.33 Director of Saudi Arabia's Depart- ment of General Intelligence (DGI) was immune from Antiterrorism Act (ATM suit by survivors of victims of Septem- EFTA00795032 768 349 F

therefore, limited jurisdictional discovery is warranted. As explained above, the PIF could qualify either as an organ or political subdivision of the Kingdom of Sa- udi Arabia. Additionally, the affidavits on which the parties ask the Court to rely have not been subjected to cross examina- tion and are rather self-serving

m of Saudi Arabia 112, at Berger Decl. Ex. 7 ("It is the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that NCB is a government instru- mentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Ara- bia."). To enjoy immunity from suit under the FSIA, NCB must demonstrate that it is an agency or instrumentality, or a politi- cal subdivision

a passage from Deuteronomy to conclude there was oil located somewhere on the ancient lands of the tribe of Asher, on "the foot of Asher" between Haifa and Caesarea. No luck. In 2007 the search for an American partner brought an Israel Petroleum Authority official to Houston and the offices of Shel

United States. The second was the so-called Arab spring and what the Saudis regarded as its negative consequences throughout the Arab world. From Saudi Arabia's point of view, the relationship with the United States soured for a number of reasons. First, the Saudis felt that the announced "Asia/Pacific" reo

seq. 10. International Law <-10.33 Director of Saudi Arabia’s Depart- ment of General Intelligence (DGI) was im

the foreign defendant regarding the scope of his offi- cial responsibilities. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1602 et seq. 10. International Law <-10.33 Director of Saudi Arabia’s Depart- ment of General Intelligence (DGI) was immune from Antiterrorism Act (ATA) suit by survivors of victims of Septem- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017832 -

e no claim that these individuals were acting on behalf of or at the behest of the Kingdom. See, eg. id. 1420 (claiming that in January 1999 Princess Haifa made payments to Al-Bayoumi, a Defendant al- leged to have paid rent on behalf of two of the hijackers). Finally, Plaintiffs allege that members of t