Epstein Secrets

cknowledging re- sponsibility for, such terrorist 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

ng con- clusion of jurisdictional discovery on that issue. In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Der. Corp. Federal In- surance v. A

estments, Mar-Jac Poultry, Reston Investments, Safa Trust, and York Foundation, move to dismiss the Burnett complaint. IIIT also moves to dismiss the Ashton complaint. In addition to its motion to dismiss Burnett, Mar—-Jac Poultry moves to dismiss the Ashton and Federal complaints. The Federal Plaintiffs

“found computer hard drives with photographs of the World Trade Center before and after its collapse as well as photos of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole.” (Ashton Compl. J 451; Burnett Compl. J 397; Federal Compl. J § 186, 458.) The U.S. forces also apparently found fi

ry actions, even when that discretion is abused). Accordingly, the Court finds SHC is immune from suit in this litigation. Its motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints for lack subject matter jurisdiction are granted. 2. Prince Salman and Prince Naif M11 Similarly, even if Plaintiff

tional discovery on that issue, © & KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 40oms In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Q

Second Circuit law after 28 U.S.C. 8 1407 transfer from a district court in the Fifth Circuit). 3. NCB moves to dismiss the complaints against it in Ashton and Burnett. 4. Prince Mohamed moves to dismiss the com- plaints against him in Ashton and Federal Insurance. 5. The estate of Mohammad Abdullah Al

acknowledging re- sponsibility for, such terrorist 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

Appellants. *{ Corporate Disclosure Statement In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants certify as follows: 11-3509 (Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army): Appellants are natural persons. 11-3503, 11-3505, 11-3506, 11-3507 (Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp.)

ary operations to regions as diverse *30 as the Philippines, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kashmir, Somalia, Palestine, Pakistan, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia.! Plaintiffs’ pleadings and other record materials describe in detail the pervasive involvement of these p