HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865.jpg

800 Dismiss, Ex. 16 (Prince Turki, “Allied Against Terrorism,” September 17, 2002, Washington Post, editorial in which Prince Turki explains the Saudis’ practice of shar- ing information regarding Osama bin Lad- en and al Qaeda with the CIA and states that al Qaeda also targeted the Kingdom); Exs. 3, 5, 6 (fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman targeting Americans and expressing ex- treme bitterness toward the Saudi Royal family). Prince Sultan argues that Plain- tiffs blur the distinction between charities he is on record of supporting, ITRO and WAMY, and those he is not, Al Haramain and MWL. See supra note 20. Both Princes also distinguish the instant case from Bowm and other cases cited by the Plaintiffs on the basis that groups that they are alleged to have supported were not designated as terrorist organizations by the United States government. See Bown I, 291 F.3d at 1002 (noting Hamas was designated a terrorist organization by President Clinton in 1995 and by the Sec- retary of State in 1997); see also Consoli- dated Plaintiffs’ Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss at 16-17 (citing Flatow, 999 F.Supp. at 18 (holding Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, liable as provider of material support to terrorist organization Palestine Islamic Jihad pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1605(@)\()); Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, 262 F.Supp.2d 217, 282 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (granting default judgment against Iraq, a designated state sponsor of terror, after plaintiffs demon- strated it provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda)); Consoli- dated Plaintiffs’ Opp. to Prince Turki’s Motion to Dismiss at 8 (same). Although they did not involve New York law, the Court agrees that Halberstam and Boim are instructive. In Halberstam, the defendant enjoyed an extravagant life- style made entirely possible by her long- term live-in boyfriend’s regular burglaries. 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES The court concluded that she had to know of his criminal activities because she acted as a money launderer for her boyfriend’s stolen metals business. Halberstam, 705 F.2d at 486-88. The court found the de- fendant was so close to the illegal activity that she had to be aware of her role in it. Id. at 486. In Boim, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss because the complaint contained specific factual allega- tions tying the defendants to Hamas. For example, one defendant entity allegedly employed an individual designated as a terrorist affiliated with Hamas, another entity admitted providing funds to Hamas, two individual defendants had documented and admitted ties to Hamas, and numer- ous links existed between the individual terrorist defendants and the entity defen- dants. Bown [, 127 F.Supp.2d at 1006- 1008. Unlike Hamas in Bowm, none of the organizations the Princes are alleged to have supported in an official capacity were designated a sponsor of terrorism at the time of the alleged contributions. In fact, only BIF and certain branches of Al Hara- main have since been designated. See Exec. Order No. 18224 (designating BIF (November 19, 2002) and branches of Al Haramain (Bosnia, Somalia on March 11, 2002; Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Tanza- nia on January 22, 2004; Afghanistan, Al- bania, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, the Nether- lands on June 2, 2004)). Thus, pursuant to Bowm, the Plaintiffs would have to al- lege specific facts showing that the Princes knew or should have known that the charities they supported were actually fronts for al Qaeda. See Burnett [, 274 F.Supp.2d at 106. [25-27] Plaintiffs have pleaded al Qae- da’s repeated, public targeting of the Unit- ed States. They have not, however, plead- ed facts to support an inference that the Princes were sufficiently close to the ter- rorists’ illegal activities to satisfy Halber- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017865