HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017883.jpg

818 5-7. He has never supported any person or organization that he has known to par- ticipate in any terrorist attacks. Jd. 19. Mr. Al-Husani submits that Plaintiffs can- not cure the lack of allegations in the complaint in its motion papers. Wright v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 152 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.1998) (explaining a party is not permitted to amend its complaint through allegations made in motion papers). Mr. Al-Husani also claims that he was not properly served because The Interna- tional Herald Tribune has a circulation of only 199 in Saudi Arabia and is published in English, and Al Quds Al Arabia is a London-based paper banned in the King- dom. Even if service was proper, howev- er, Mr. Al-Husani submits this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over him. The Burnett Plaintiffs claim that Mr. Al-Husani is also implicated by the “Gold- en Chain,” and thus an early supporter of al Qaeda. Plaintiffs’ Opp. to Al-Husani Motion to Dismiss at 10; Bierstein Aff. at Ex. 2 (document listing “Hamad Al Husai- ni,” without indicating when list was writ- ten, by whom, or for what purpose). The Plaintiffs place great weight on the United States’ inclusion of the “Golden Chain” in its proffer of evidence in United States v. Arnaout, the government’s case against an executive of Defendant charity BIF. See Bierstein Aff. at Ex. 1 (proffer). The court presiding over that case, however, ruled that the document was inadmissible hearsay. United States v. Arnaout, No. 02 Cr. 892, 2008 WL 255226, at *1-2 (N.D.IIL Feb. 4, 2003). Nevertheless, by supporting al Qaeda, Plaintiffs assert Mr. Al-Husani purposefully directed his activi- ties toward the United States, making the exercise of personal jurisdiction appropri- ate. See, eg. Bierstein Aff. Exs. 9-15 (detailing al Qaeda’s hatred for and actions against the United States). Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that one of Mr. Al-Husa- 349 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES ni’s companies is a supporter of Al-Waqf al-Islami Foundation, a Dutch entity whose seminars “have drilled extremist messages into the heads of thousands of young Mus- lims.” “Radical Foundation: In ‘Law’ Seminars, A Saudi Group Spreads Ex- tremism,” Wall St. J., Apr. 15, 2003, at Bierstein Aff. Ex. 6. [64] Plaintiffs have not established a prima facie showing of jurisdiction over Mr. Al-Husani to survive his motion to dismiss or warrant jurisdictional discovery. The “Golden Chain” does not say what the Plaintiffs argue it says. It is only a list of names found in a charity’s office. It does not establish Mr. Aljomaih’s involvement in a terrorist conspiracy culminating in the September 11 attacks and it does not dem- onstrate that he purposefully directed his activities at the United States. According- ly, Mr. Al-Husani’s motion to dismiss the Burnett complaint against him is granted. 6. NCB The Court outlined the Ashton and Bur- nett Plaintiffs’ claims against NCB in Part I.B.4. For purposes of the personal juris- diction analysis, the Court will assume at this point that the FSIA does not provide for subject matter and personal jurisdic- tion over NCB. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs will have to make a prima facie showing to survive NCB’s motion to dismiss. In that vein, Plaintiffs argue that NCB purpose- fully directed its activities at the United States and participated in a conspiracy that culminated in the attacks of Septem- ber 11. Plaintiffs submit NCB has many con- tacts with the United States, including a wholly-owned subsidiary in New York City through which it operates an international banking business. See, e.g., Aff. of John Fawcett in Support of Ashton Plaintiffs’ Opp. to NCB’s Motion to Dismiss (herein- after “Fawcett Aff.”) 13, Exs. 2 & 3. NCB HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017883