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

ims against Nimir LLC. See Mem. in 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Relief is a branch of the Human Concern International Society, which Osama bin Laden identified as a supporter in 1995. Id. 1333. He is a shareholder and the CEO of former Defendant Nimir, LLC, also known as Nimir Petroleum Ltd. Jd. 1

39 (2005) 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 789 that it has been designated a terrorist, but claims it does not have the same connections to the United States, bin Laden, and al Qaeda that Defendants Benevolence International Foundation (“BIF”) and Adel A.J. Batterjee had. See Terrorist Attacks I, 349 F.Supp.2d at 823

phone number registered in Hamdi’s name when it advertised the contact information of CDLR’s U.S. branch. (Burnett Compl. § 580.) CDLR published bin Laden’s October 12, 1996 fatwa on the Muslim Students Association listserve, the “MSA News.” (Burnett Compl. 4 584.) Plaintiffs claim that ARC allegedly se

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

obal expansion. Defendant Abdullah Naseef met personally with Osama bin Laden around the time of Al-Qaeda’s formation, and reached agreement with bin Laden at that meeting that al-Qaeda would use MWL offices to launch attacks.*! This meeting and agreement are documented in the historical records of al-Qa

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