Epstein Secrets

ganizations includ- ing Defendants WAMY, ITRO and Al Har- amain Foundation.” Ashton Complaint 1609; Burnett Complaint 1 147.

uded that a plaintiff “must demonstrate that the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy a traditional due process analysis.” Estates of Ungar v. Palestinan Auth, 153 F.Supp.2d 76, 95 (D.R.1.2001); see also Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Gov't Auth. 310 F.Supp.2d 172, 179 (D.D.C. 2004) (d

e [ (MWL’) ], IIRO, Saudi Red Crescent, WAMY, and al Haramain Foundation’).) He is also a member of the Council of Ministe

v. Robertson—Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir.1996); see also Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 810-11 (reviewing due process requirements); Ungar v. Palestinian Auth., 153 F.Supp.2d 76, 87 (D.R.1.2001) (requiring minimum contacts with the United States for personal jurisdiction under *558 ATA).

-1842, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106657 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011) ccccceseccscsnssseccsneecccsnseeccesnsseccesnseeccesnseeeeesnseeccennseeecennseeesees Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Org., 402 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. QOOS) crecccseesccccsneececcsnseceseseseeescsesecesnseseeesnseseesnsescesnsesecesnseseeesnseeee

ng’ (Intifada) by providing a bank account and facilities to receive donations for a committee of charity organizations including [WAMY], [IIRO,] and al Haramain Foundation.” JA844. In addition, plaintiffs allege that “from 1996 through 2001, the Saudi American Bank funneled money to and/or from the Spanish al Qaida cell