Epstein Secrets

retion in deciding whether to order jurisdictional discovery before resolving motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See, e.g, APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003). This Court finds that such discovery would be helpful in assessing whether any of Rabita Trust’s activities were di

haracterized [him] as having ‘directed organizations that have provided financial and logistical support to al-Qa-ida, [he] is the logistics chief of bin Laden’s organization and fought on bin Laden’s side in WESTLAW Afghanistan.’ ” (Ashton Compl. J¥ 304, 312, 523-24; Burnett Compl. J 236, 255, 271; Federal

t Marion or the holding cell at the Tombs, but between Alan Dershowitz and a television camera.” Mr. Dershowitz relished the chance to take on Judge Potter (nicknamed "Maximum Bob" for his harsh sentencing), with whom he'd tangled in a previous case. "This is a judge who doesn't understand the difference

s fuelled by images of death and destruction, set to the backdrop of Arabic melodies about Jihad and speeches of Hizbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah or Osama Bin Laden. There was also constant, casual antisemitism around me. My father would boast of how Adolf Hitler was a hero, his only failing being that he didn't

e met with members of the Taliban and representa- tives of bin Laden and agreed to not extra- dite bin Laden or close terrorist camps in exchange for bin Laden’s protection of the II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 16. This Court has re- viewed these affidavits and agrees with Judge Robertson’s assessment. For example, one

l discovery. In evaluating jurisdic- tional motions, district courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding whether to order discovery. See, eg., APWU v. Potter, 348 F.3d 619, 627 (2d Cir.2003) (noting a court may “devis[e] the procedures [to] ferret out the facts pertinent to jurisdiction”); Marine Midland B