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

, arms or organs of the Kingdom: MWL, IIRO, WAMY, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Sa- udi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina, SJRC, Rabita Trust, Saudi Red Crescent, and BIF. The Kingdom disputes the instrumentality status of MWL, ITRO, WAMY, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Rabita Trust, and B

diction. 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 directed at the United States. Accordingly, Rabita Trust’s motions to dismiss the Ashton, Burnett, and Federal complaints are denied

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

st, appointing Jelaidan to a senior position within that organization as well, as reflected by the Treasury Department’s own press release concerning Rabita Trust’s designation under Executive Order 13224 indicating that “Rabita Trust is headed by Wa’el Hamza Julaidan, one of the founders of al-Qaida with bin Lad

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