a clear and unambiguous record of respondent’s actions since his temporary suspension, and because due process requires a hearing when the contempt is alleged to have occurred outside the presence of the court. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 275-276, 68 S.Ct. 499, 508-509, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537, 45 S.Ct. 390, 395, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925). Our appointment of a special master is founded upon the court’s inherent power to provide itself with appropriate instruments which it may require to perform its duties, in this instance to determine respondent’s compliance or non-compliance with our September 14 order. See In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 40 S.Ct. 543, 64 L.Ed. 919 (1920); cf. Morrow v. District of Columbia, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 417 F.2d 728 (1969) (<HOLDING>). There is specific precedent in this
holding that this court has power under 28 usc  1651 to issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law holding that this court has authority in appropriate circumstances to issue writs under all writs act 28 usc  1651a holding that 28 usc  1651 may be used to compel agency action unreasonably delayed holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act holding mandamus under the all writs act 28 u s c  1651 improper but expressing no opinion on relief under the federal mandamus statute 1361