As the contempt defendants have failed to show otherwise, the Court presumes that the contempt proceeding is ancillary to the underlying liquidation proceeding. As the Court cannot exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying liquidation proceeding, it cannot exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding. The Court finds for another reason under Mississippi law that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the contempt proceeding. See e.g. Culpepper v. Mississippi, 516 So.2d 485, 487 (Miss.1987) (finding that “[t]he authorities are legion that the power to punish for contempt rests solely with the court contemned, and one court cannot punish a contempt against another court.”). See also Kitchens v. State, 293 So.2d 815, 815 (Miss.1974) (<HOLDING>). The Court finds, based on the arguments
holding no appeal lies for order to punish for contempt holding that this court has inherent as well as express statutory authority to punish for contempt recognizing inherent power of supreme court independent of statutory authority to punish for contempt of court holding that the power of a constitutionally established court to punish for contempt may be regulated within reasonable bounds by the legislature but not to the extent that the courts power is substantially impaired or destroyed holding that it is a well established rule that the power to judge a contempt rests exclusively with the court contemned and that no court is authorized to punish a contempt against another court