Epstein Secrets

110 (D.D.C.2003) (hereinafter “Burnett I’’). 12. Saudi American Bank moves to dismiss the Ashton and Burnett complaint

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

t dismissed similar claims against Al Rajhi Bank, Saudi American Bank, and Arab Bank. NCB contends that Center for Repr

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

o have been done “[i]n cooperation with the charities operating within al Qaida’s infrastructure ....” JA3844. Also, plaintiffs allege that in “2000, the Saudi American Bank participated in the fund raising campaign in Saudi Arabia for collecting donations to the ‘heroes of the Al Quds uprising’ (Intifada) by providing a

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