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

ches of Al Hara- main have since been designated. See Exec. Order No. 18224 (designating BIF (November 19, 2002) and branches of Al Haramain (Bosnia, Somalia on March 11, 2002; Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Tanza- nia on January 22, 2004; Afghanistan, Al- bania, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, the Nether- lands on Jun

d 539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 [4] [5] @ Matters considered in general Article stating that Islamic aid organizations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia, and Tajikistan provided funds and cover to terrorists would not be admitted to supplement record on motion to dismiss in action, arising out of the

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

panded its global terrorist and military 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 t

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