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 met with members of the Taliban and representa- tives of bin Laden and agreed to not extra- dite bin Laden or close terrorist camps in exchange for bin Laden’s protection of the II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 16. This Court has re- viewed these affidavits and agrees with Judge Robertson’s assessment. For example, one

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

haracterized [him] as having ‘directed organizations that have provided financial and logistical support to al-Qa-ida, [he] is the logistics chief of bin Laden’s organization and fought on bin Laden’s side in WESTLAW Afghanistan.’ ” (Ashton Compl. J¥ 304, 312, 523-24; Burnett Compl. J 236, 255, 271; Federal

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

RRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001., 2012 WL 257568 (2012) The Role of Ostensible Charities in al-Qaeda’s Growth and Development Consistent with bin Laden’s plan to adapt the infrastructure developed during the Afghan jihad to build a global terrorist movement, al-Qaeda relied on the network of charities

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