Epstein Secrets

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

to work with SBG in Jeddah. Ashton Complaint 1 548; Burnett Complaint 1317. SBG allegedly continued to support Osama bin Laden after he relocated to Sudan in 1991. Ash- ton Complaint 1548; Burnett Complaint 1317. For example, SBG, through two subsidiaries allegedly supported Osama bin Laden’s participat

Qaeda organization” because of its support of an al Qaeda guest house in Egypt, its office’s close proximity to Osama bin Laden’s personal office in Sudan, and its relationship with bin Laden’s brother-in-law Defendant Mohammed Jamal Khalifa. (Ashton Compl. F§ 310, 315, 317; Burnett Compl. Ff 234, 239,

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

was. “Bin Ladin began delivering diatribes against the United States before he left Saudi Arabia [in 1991]. He continued to do so after he arrived in Sudan. In early 1992, the Al Qaeda leadership issued a jihad against the Western ‘occupation’ of Islamic lands...[s]pecifically singling out U.S. forces fo

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