In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 392 F.Supp.2d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 Saudi-based charities that were sponsors of al Qaida’s or political subdivision thereof, and operations, including ITRO, MWL, WAMY, BIF, SHC, SJRC, and al Haramain. (Federal Compl. f§ 442-43.) (3) which is neither a citizen of a State of the United States ... nor created under the laws of any third 31 The Federal Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement the country. record against Prince Salman and Prince Naif with an ; ; article that appeared in Rus al Yusef, an Egyptian 28 U.S.C. § 1603. Further, “immunity under the FSIA publication, in August 1998. The unidentified author extends also to agents of a foreign state acting in their writes that Islamic aid organizations located in official capacities [because] [i]t is generally recognized Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, and Tajikistan provided that a suit against an individual acting in his official funds and cover to terrorists. (See Federal Mot. to capacity is the practical equivalent of a suit against the Supplement Record on Prince Naif and Prince Salman, sovereign directly.” Bryks vy. Canadian Broad. Corp., 906 Ex. 2, at 2.) Donors to these unidentified organizations F.Supp. 204, 210 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (internal quotations “probably ha[d] no idea where their charity money ha[d] omitted); see also Te errorist Attacks [, 349 F.Supp.2d at gone.” (d.) Prince Naif reportedly responded that “if 788-89 (finding Princes Sultan and Turki were foreign charity money is going to illegitimate targets, it must stop states for FSIA purposes to the extent Plaintiffs alleged immediately.” (/d.) From this submission, the Plaintiffs liability for actions taken in their official capacities). argue that the Princes knew their charitable donations were going to terrorists. The submission is problematic for a variety of reasons and will not be accepted. First, Plaintiffs do not provide 1. SHC an explanation as why they were only able to obtain and i5] S