Epstein Secrets

omplaints. 4 The French Interior Minister named one charity, the World Islamic League, during his meeting. Plaintiffs claim this 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

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

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

{ 430. The specific charities that Prince Sultan donated to include Defendants Internation- al Islamic 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.

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

jahedeen.’ Throughout the Afghan jihad, Maktab al Khidmat worked in concert with a network of purported charities and relief organizations, including the Muslim World League (“‘MWL?”), International Islamic Relief Organization (“IIRO”), Rabita Trust, Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (“Al Haramain”), Muwafaq Foundation *26 (

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