Epstein Secrets

lvo complaints. The Court consolidated Barrera v. al Qaeda Islamic Army, 03 Civ. 7038, with Ashton on December 6, 2004. S

ising funds for HIRO, Sanabel-al Kheer, WAMY, and Al-Haramain. As for other contacts with the United States, Pr

539 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 Saudi-based charities that were sponsors of al Qaida’s operations, including ITRO, MWL, WAMY, BIF, SHC, SJRC, and al Haramain. (Federal Compl. Jf 442-43.) 31 The Federal Plaintiffs seek leave to supplement the record against Prince Salman and Prince Naif with an article tha

ernation- al Islamic Relief Organization (“IIRO”),'* Al Haramain,'” Muslim World League (““MWL”)," and the World A

covery on that issue, © & KEY NUMBER SYSTEM 40oms In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Tremsky v. Qsama Bin Laden Salvo v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp. Federal In- surance v. Al Qaida Barrera v. Al Qae- d

ic Relief Organization (“IIRO”),'* Al Haramain,'” Muslim World League (““MWL”)," and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth “WAMY”).! Ashton Com- denied Al Haramain’s motion to dismiss the Burnett action. Burnett I, 274 F.Supp.2d at 107. 18. MWL is the parent of IIRO. See, e.g., Bur- nett Complaint {| 236. 19. WA

. *{ Corporate Disclosure Statement In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellants certify as follows: 11-3509 (Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army): Appellants are natural persons. 11-3503, 11-3505, 11-3506, 11-3507 (Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp.): Appellants are natural

al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, as confirmed by a 1996 CIA Report.“! The direct involvement of Appellee Aqeel and al-Buthe in orchestrating al Haramain’s terrorist activities was also well documented. As defendant Aqeel himself stated, “[t]he [al Haramain branch] offices’ directors are employees who fo