brief - Iran 911 Case

demand more or different evidence than it would ordinarily receive in order to render adecision. Commercial Bank of Kuwait v. Rafidain Bank, 15 F.3d 238, 242 (2nd Cir.1994). In evaluating the plaintiff‘s proofs, a court may ―accept as true the plaintiffs‘uncontroverted evidence,‖ Estate of Botvin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 510 F.Supp.2d101, 103 (D.C. 2007); Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97, 100 (D.D.C.2000), and a plaintiff may establish proof by affidavit. Weinstein v. Islamic Republic ofIran, 184 F.Supp.2d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). While a plaintiff must demonstrate only aprima facie case to obtain a judgment of liability in a FSIA case, a plaintiff must showentitlement to punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence. Peterson v. IslamicRepublic of Iran, 264 F.Supp.2d 46, 48 (D.D.C. 2003).IV.OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE OF IRAN’S DIRECT AND MATERIAL SUPPORT OFAL QAEDA GENERALLY, STARTING IN THE EARLY 1990S, AND FOR THE 9/11ATTACKSSupporting their Motion for Entry of Judgment, the Havlish Plaintiffs presentclear and convincing evidence demonstrating that culpability for the 9/11 terrorist attackson the United States lies not only with al Qaeda, but also with the Islamic Republic ofIran and Hizballah. The evidence establishes that Iran provided material support to alQaeda generally, starting in the early 1990s, and direct and material support to al Qaedaspecifically for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon,and the target of the attack on Washington, D.C. that resulted in the crash of a hijackedairliner near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.Iran‘s material support to al Qaeda began years before September 11, 2001, asIran and its proxy terrorist organization, Hizballah, entered into a terrorist alliance with alQaeda reaching back to the early 1990s. Thereafter, Iran, Hizballah, and al Qaeda11