by support for a lot of this is not merely forseeable but is purposeful either directing knowing or acting in concert as a fellow traveler advancing as objectives chast by creating a new cause of action however did that they did not but both proximate we agree with the rashi bank that proximate cause bears upon the jurisdiction analysis and jasta by creating the new claim did change the proximate cause test and walden indicates that the claim is an input into the personal jurisdiction analysis by focusing on but the claim related action is related to the forum it makes the claim relevant waldon indicates that the scope of the claim determines the scope of jurisdiction same with proximate cause lindi holds that for a jackass to claim the terrorist act itself serves as proximate cause for the entire concerted action and it holds that there's different proximate cause for a primary liability claim compared to terrorist intentions towards the united states and with awareness that the loans would be furthering that objective that's right in three respects awareness was connected to  raising and then the rd is the through the provision of financial services except itself without awareness that the were saying that the bank purposefully opened its doors to al qaeda operatives including the nine hundred and eleven attack opposite which was denied that's correct it was denied as is futile but that's because the we did make the request what we asked for was the ability to undertake additional discovery in relation to the acts of support and the knowledge related to it was indicated in the cia reports and that we would build upon the specific transfers of the specific types of support that we alleged in the complaint or the things you're asking for now is that we direct that you be it you be allowed to get at discovery absolutely and we think there's in terms of the abuse of discretion standard but this is information that you need clear within the bank's purview and the decision the futility decision rested upon the notion that there was no legal theory that could possibly support our claim and that's that's clearly not right in three respects in terms of their courts conclusion or belief that the decision had resolved this under any factual circumstances against us st the two thousand and thirteen decisions simply did not address the issue here that would give rise to liability namely the bank's intent for purposes of jurisdiction and the bearing of its controlling officers in knowledge on the banks actions the family members were dismissed under a general rule of terrorist attacks three that senior officer to remote from the harm related to banking activities and the a r b about eating and abetting liability i did that's what you said it was just the point that the prior cases didn't address the issue here because in the case of the rb decision it united states that supports liability and these apps that's who clearly congress is intent was thinking about this n d l action in the nine hundred and eleven attack specifically when it made that amendment and that's clear you know even beforehand in the o'neill directly also there's no there is no general rule as a district court seemed to think that financial services simply couldn't be the basis of personal jurisdiction the only real decision applied the terrorist act attacks three analysis was calls for a case by case determination of whether that support is merely forseeable or is purposeful it just said nothing about a broad rule and it wouldn't have made sense to because the material support definition includes financial services the weiss versus national westminster case is predicated on the notion that financial services can be the basis for for support for terrorism the executive branch's policies as well as congresses for since well before the nine  attacks have focused on financial services is the basis for sars here are times out there that the the financial services are the lifeblood of terrorism and can be that type of purposeful princes there this court announced the governing standard and applied it in circumstances very similar to those we're dealing with still here there the court said that in order to find personal jurisdiction over a nonresident party there had to be factual allegations stablish ing that the foreign party purposefully directed its activities to the united states or stated differently directly aimed its purpose expressly aimed its activities to the united states and that the plaintiff's injuries arose from or related to that conduct in that case the very st case involving the four saudi princes as well as a th prince mohammad this court concluded that the indirect provision of financial support through charities the same charities we're talking about now and the provision of financial services are not sufficient to satisfy that standard of personal jurisdiction jafta change that jasta as your as your honor suggested in your question to mr klingler just a can't change the constitutional you don't get his nose of such discoveries not promise well this court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery under those circumstances so we're relying on that holding as as binding  indistinguishable it wouldn't it would not be an abuse of discretion here as well but i'm not i'm not just hang my hat on that on that decision that decision is not an outlier right your honor was on the panel inches eenie which is one of the leading cases showing that in order to get to justify jurisdictional discovery there has to be a prime a face a showing of personal jurisdiction st that there's no such thing here and what this court did in two thousand and eight in this same m t l was apply just see the effect i think it cited in quoted in the final paragraph of that decision we're just back in that situation there were two separate decisions by this court one on personal jurisdiction and that addressed and c b our peer bank in saudi arabia as well as officers and officials in that was in the and how the injuries have to arise from that the foreign conduct aimed at the united states that's the proximate causation analysis so necessarily this court's prior ruling that the allegations against bank are not sufficient to establish proximate cause ation of the plaintiffs injuries that necessarily undercuts any suggestion that there could be personal jurisdiction here so we were resting on the three cases that this court said all three of them this this these are recycled claims there's really nothing new here other then the new testimony from this guy and that testimony is undeniably cryptic he says bank is a good brother what the heck does that mean no one knows what that means the pla infer from that oh that means that the bank was an operational partner of fully engaged in honeycomb with nonsense you can't draw that kind of an inference from a cryptic comment like that and the plaintiffs who took that deposition of us are we could have asked a follow up question and they the saudi government charity licensed by the saudi government to raise money for people suffering bosnia hurts good herzegovina how that charitable contribution can sustain suggestion that our bank was supporting nine hundred and eleven dollars in the united states again there's no way that that's a fair inference and this court was right to reject that last time and judge daniels was right to reject it yet again this time around what we have here are we've got the same allegations repackaged embellished in briefs at with with unsustainable inferences being drawn and that's that's what this case is all about right now these are just recycled claims and and the the charitable donations is one example the massai allegations or another but all of the allegations that the plaintiffs are making are either embellish or a wild inferences drawn based on very thin factual allegations and unless the court has any further questions i will sit at this point thank you  why is that why is this different than these other cases that alludes to the the other cases never grappled with either the bank's actions with the intent of its controlling officers how much you bank was dismissed based upon the lack of proximate cause under a primary a liability claim just on the bit basis that banking services were insufficiently tied to the actual harm jass ja purposeful support and that purposeful support is in the form of charitable lending the financial opening the doors to the al qaeda operatives and then to charitable lending to the al qaeda affiliated and it is that the allegation is that each of the charities was part of the al qaida network that through the golden cino some of bin laden set those up the operational support elements for al qaeda and address of the allegations regarding purposeful intent have been addressed in any of the decisions that the family members were dismissed based upon outlook ation of terrorist attack three's personal jurisdiction rule that they were too remote from the harm under primary jurisdiction theory the al rashid decision itself said that under a primary jurisdiction theory that there was no proximate cause nation lynn he says that dismissal has been removed and the court has never grappled with the allegations here it's never rejected them the end of allegations of purposeful conduct relate there are four groups of evidence related to that one is the controlling officers of the bank who are responsible for the account policies and for the charitable giving had extensive dealings with al qaeda and the most senior al qaeda members in supporting them the concealment of the charitable activities and the i'm sorry the the contributions to the charities and the us government's own indications that there had been those transfers of funds and concealment of those funds a nd itself  operatives to use all russian bank in the us government's indication is that in fact the all russia officers were funding al qaeda including through the charities and moving vast amounts of money to do that your adversary  disputed your claim in answer to my question earlier that the complaint pleads providing financial resources with awareness of al qaeda as terrorist intentions towards the united states can you tell of the paragraphs of the complaint where were the paragraphs of the complaint that you say contained those allegations well i think it was crippling with your characterization of funding that we do say that it's it is the t with knowledge of with awareness of that that this would be used for two dollars to two dollars to promote terrorist activities or at least with knowledge that al qaeda was engaged in and planning to the golden chain allegations and that is include that includes so luminal rashi's participation in a group that committed to have their controlled entities support operatives so and then there are the allegations that suleman and sala in particular had had knowledge of the nature reports particularly for the i r o received reports of the ira rose activities against united states in coordination with al qaida that he served on the you know the executive committee in the board associated with that to to use the bank's facilities in support in aid of that and they knew exactly what those organizations were that they were giving money to the ira was alleged  and fifty eight through one hundred and sixty two and that's where the u s and the u s government and particularly the cia report but also afterwards in the just in the in the episode related whether they would the that circumstantial evidence i'm sorry they indicate that the back to controlling officers directly supported extremists and likely knew that the bank was being used by extremists and then they point separately to at one hundred and sixty that even after nine hundred and eleven there were efforts to conceal the bank's own charity the allegations well is that the that the junior officers reported to the controlling officers who were in the family members who made the decisions related to how the bank would be operated the shari'a board funding the opening the accounts to the al qaeda affiliated groups so that's the source of awareness through this those four prongs of the direct dealings with al