Epstein Secrets

0 and RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & COHEN. by 10 of his obvious concern about the allegations in the II CHAD P. PUGATCH. Esquire On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein 11 motion. 12 12 MR. PUGATCH: Good afternoon, your Honor. 13 CARLTON FIELDS. BY NIALL SKLAUCHLAN. Esquire 13 Chad Pugatch, P-u-g-a-t-c-h, her

tive intervenors. For that reason I think the motion 23 should be denied as to E.W. and Jane Doe. 24 MR. PUGATCH: Your Honor, on behalf of 25 Mr. Epstein, we would join in that objection, that limited Page 6 THE CLERK: Okay. 2 ECRO: Do you want me to print you a 3 calendar that shows his name? 4

n the II CHAD P. PUGATCH. Esquire On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein 11 motion. 12 12 MR. PUGATCH: Good af

e. 24 MR. PUGATCH: Your Honor, on behalf of 25 Mr. Epstein, we would join in that objection, that limited P

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

RSON, Esquire On behalf of Farmer Jaffe SCOTT LINK, Esquire and RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & COHEN, by CHAD P. PUGATCH, Esquire On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein CARLTON FIELDS, BY NIALL McLAUCHLAN, Esquire JOSEPH IANNO, Esquire On behalf of Fowler White AKERMAN, LLP, by JOAN LEVIT, Esquire On behalf of

hree putative intervenors. For that reason I think the motion should be denied as to E.W. and Jane Doe. MR. PUGATCH: Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Epstein, we would join in that objection, that limited OUELLETTE & MAULDIN COURT REPORTERS, INC. EFTA00787723 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

COHEN, by CHAD P. PUGATCH, Esquire On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein CARLTON FIELDS, BY NIALL McLAUCHLAN, Es

Jane Doe. MR. PUGATCH: Your Honor, on behalf of Mr. Epstein, we would join in that objection, that limited O

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

to anyone else. The Agreed Order Cancelling Hearing provides, in its entirety: The Motion for Relief From Amended Order (D.E. #1068) and to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman,

ions" (id. at p. 17) or a finding of criminal contempt "as may be appropriate" and monetary sanctions of $25,000 for each of the intervenors against Epstein for any noncompliance with the order at issue, for which amounts "Epstein [be] permitted to seek reimbursement from any of his attorneys who may ha

E OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT,

in its files, having provided all hard files to Mr. Epstein's current counsel, Scott Link. Movants' Motions

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