Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
see also Wis. Stat. § 273.06 (1935). ¶ 36. The language that remained after the legislature amended Wis. Stat. § 273.06 (1933) is identical to the language contained in § 816.06 (2007-08). See Wis. Stat. § 273.06 (1935). Therefore, since 1935, Wisconsin's supplemental proceeding law has been bereft of any language that would grant a judgment creditor the right to compel a non-judgment debtor third party to testify at a supplemental proceeding. 3. THE RESULT OF THE 1935 REVISIONS ¶ 37. We conclude that the legislature has deliberately removed the statutory right of judgment creditors to compel a non-judgment debtor third party to testify at a supplemental proceeding. As a general matter, courts may not find a statutory right in legislative silence alone. See Harvot, 320 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 50, . This is so because statutory rights "are
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that another courts decision is a proper subject of judicial notice
B. holding that the courts should not undertake ad hoc judicial discovery of implied statutory rights
C. recognizing that courts routinely take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts
D. holding order of contempt sentence without statutory opportunity for appeal was in error but nevertheless involved a judicial act subject to judicial immunity
E. recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.