Epstein Secrets

) 15 United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018) 10 United States v. Mogan, 393 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 13, 14 United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1985) 8 United States v. Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) 9 United States v. Rashkovski, 301 F.3d

entails" the identified conduct can it be said to be an "offense involving" that conduct. Kawashima, 565 U.S. at 484. In United States v. Morgan, the D.C. Circuit used this approach in interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), a venue statute that applies to "[a]ny offense involving the use of the mails, transportati

decision regarding placement of a water hose on a ship was an operational function and there- fore not discretionary and not protected by the FSIA); Napolitano v. Tishman Constr. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 4402(SJ), 1998 WL 102789, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1998) (finding purchasing consulate buildings and hiring con

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

level, are protected by the immunity.’ ” Marchisella v. Gov't of Japan, No. 02 Civ. 10023(DC), 2004 WL 307248, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.17, 2004) (quoting Napolitano vy. Tishman Constr. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 4402(SJ), 1998 WL 102789, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb.26, 1998)). Here, since SHC, Prince Salman, and Prince Naif are

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