Epstein Secrets

this Court may not accept "unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts" Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188 (citing Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284), and Plaintiffs contrary assertions "will not prevent dismissal." Id. Because Plaintiff has not alleged—and cannot allege—that De

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

this Court may not accept "unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts" Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188 (citing Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284), and Plaintiffs contrary assertions "will not prevent dismissal." Id. Because Plaintiff has not alleged—and cannot allege—that De

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

this Court may not accept "unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts" Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188 (citing Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284), and Plaintiffs contrary assertions "will not prevent dismissal." Id. Because Plaintiff has not alleged—and cannot allege—that De

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

this Court may not accept "unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts" Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188 (citing Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284), and Plaintiffs contrary assertions "will not prevent dismissal." Id. Because Plaintiff has not alleged—and cannot allege—that De

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

this Court may not accept "unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts" Oxford Asset Mgnt., 297 F.3d at 1188 (citing Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284), and Plaintiffs contrary assertions "will not prevent dismissal." Id. Because Plaintiff has not alleged—and cannot allege—that De

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