Epstein Secrets

of September 11, 2001 attacks stated cause of action against bank chairman under Antiterrorism Act (ATA), in that allegations and his designation by Department of Treasury as Specially Des- ignated Global Terrorist were sufficient to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017843 --- PAGE BREAK --- IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2

e incor- rect.’’’) (internal citations omitted). The Court bears in mind that it is bound by Sec- ond Circuit precedent while Judge Robertson applied D.C. Circuit law. Menowitz v. Brown, 991 F.2d 36, 40-41 (2d Cir.1993) (explaining transferee court is to apply its interpretation of federal law, not that of the

e war with the United States). 26. Plaintiffs argue that Judge Robertson held them to an unnecessarily stringent theory of causation and submit that the D.C. Circuit’s subsequent decision in Kilburn v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 376 F.3d 1123 (D.C.Cir.2004), effectively overrules the holding in Burne

rrorist,’ frozen his assets, and named him “one of the founders of al Qaeda.” (Ashton Compl. J 304; Burnett Compl. § 255; Federal Compl. Ff 117, 91.) The Treasury Department “characterized [him] as having ‘directed organizations that have provided financial and logistical support to al-Qa-ida, [he] is the logistics chief

is is another name for the Muslim World League. 5 Plaintiffs bring the Court’s attention to Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2005), in which the D.C. Circuit found that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were subject to personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) because they had “engaged in unabashedly malignant a

relevant to the employment relationship. Thus, as the D.C. Circuit has observed, ‘‘an employer’s right to silence is

ules.28 Mayo concerned in part the question of how much deference a Treasury Department tax regulation should receive. In Mayo, an amicus argued that the Treasury Department’s interpretation should receive less deference because it was issued under a general grant of rulemaking authority, as opposed to an interpretation iss

fendants’ provision of material support to al-Qaeda was knowing or, at the very least, reckless. The reasonableness of this inference is supported by the D.C. Circuit’s judicial review of habeas petitions brought on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainees. See, e.g., Al Alwi v. Obama, 653 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Uthman

ed to as “Arnaout Evidentiary Proffer”); R.963, Ex. 1, pp. 4-5, 7-8, 10-11 (1996 CIA Report); R.209, Exs. 1 and 2 (June 2004 Press Releases issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury regarding the WESTLAW HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023409 --- PAGE BREAK --- In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) 20 21 2