Epstein Secrets

asis added). These official records are subject to judicial notice, see, e.g., Coney v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing Moore v. Estelle, 526 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1976)), and this Court can and should take note of them. Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188. -20- EFTA00212912 Ca

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

asis added). These official records are subject to judicial notice, see, e.g., Coney v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing Moore v. Estelle, 526 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1976)), and this Court can and should take note of them. Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188. -20- EFTA00212979 Ca

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

asis added). These official records are subject to judicial notice, see, e.g., Coney v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing Moore v. Estelle, 526 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1976)), and this Court can and should take note of them. Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188. -20- EFTA00221382 Ca

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

asis added). These official records are subject to judicial notice, see, e.g., Coney v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing Moore v. Estelle, 526 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1976)), and this Court can and should take note of them. Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188. -20- EFTA00221479 Ca

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

asis added). These official records are subject to judicial notice, see, e.g., Coney v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing Moore v. Estelle, 526 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1976)), and this Court can and should take note of them. Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188. -20- EFTA00189768 Ca

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha