Epstein Secrets

is C-a-s-s-e-I-1. 5 THE COURT: And who are you representing in 6 this matter? 7 MR. CASSELL: I represent putative 8 intervenors L.M., E.W. and Jane Doc, who have a pending 9 motion for leave to intervene. 10 THE COURT: All right. Let me ask, is there 11 any opposition to the motion to intervene?

he In Re: McClean case, 2 Courts have held, and we've cited them in 2 and countless other 11th Circuit cases, and lower court 3 our motion, that Bankruptcy Courts don't have the inherent 3 cases, that's seeking criminal contempt sanctions, which 4 power to find criminal contempt. 4 I've already discussed

Fowler White AKERMAN, LLP, by JOAN LEVIT, Esquire On behalf of Michael Goldberg PAUL G. CASSELL, Esquire (via telephone) On behalf of LM, EW and Jane Doe ALSO PRESENT EDWARD BRISCO ECRO - Electronic Court Reporting Operator OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS. INC. EFTA00787718 1 2 3 4 5 6

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 provisions of Title 11. Courts have held, and we've cited them in our motion, that Bankruptcy Courts don't have the inherent power to find criminal contempt. Now based on the facts that I just laid out, I don't think there could ever be a basis fo

re at issue here. See DE 6351, p. 23. Accordingly, the request to intervene should be denied. To the extent this Court will consider L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe's Joinder in Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Discovery, to Access Sanctions and Costs for Other Appropriate Relief (DE 6345), this resp

ontempt powers only to Article III judges and that magistrates are not empowered to try criminal proceedings. As a result, the court concluded that Bankruptcy Courts do not have the inherent power to consider criminal contempt sanctions. See also In re Lickman, 288 B.R. 291, 292-93 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2003)(as Art