Epstein Secrets

ere was originally, my understanding is, two CDs that were delivered to Fowler White for printing. Those documents were then put onto one CD, with Bates numbers, and the documents were printed. So we now have a single CD, that's correct. THE COURT: And is the information contained on this disputed

the objection of the law firm, the electronic documents were to be turned over to Fowler White so that Fowler White could print out a hard copy of Bates stamped, numbered e-mails extracted from those multiple compact disks. This Court entered an order on November 30, 2010, recognizing the fact that

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

originally, my understanding 3 is, two CDs that were delivered to Fowler White for 4 printing. Those documents were then put onto one CD, with 5 Bates numbers, and the documents were printed. So we now 6 have a single CD, that's correct. 7 THE COURT: And is the information contained 8 on this d

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

t of the parties as follows. The law firm of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., will print a hard copy of all of the documents contained on the discs with Bates numbers added, and will provide a set of copied, stamped documents to the Special Master and an identical set to Farmer, who will use same to creat

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