Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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