their conduct to these rules ['the rules by which all parties must operate when appearing before federal district courts’], or face sanctions for their failure to do so; this is even more true for the federal government, a party that regularly appears before the federal courts, knows the rules by which they operate, and is even at times a special beneficiary of those rules.”). 162 . 9 F.3d at 782. 163 . See id. at 781. But see id. at 782 (finding that "the court identified no violation of any statute, constitutional or other recognized right except, perhaps, Rule 16 as a basis for exercising its supervisory powers” and reversing the court’s monetary sanctions against the government). 164 . Bradley, 866 F.2d at 127. 165 . Id. at 128. 166 . 290 F.3d 63, 79 (1st Cir.2002); see also id. (<HOLDING>). 167 . Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44-45, 111 S.Ct.
recognizing civil contempt power under  105a holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel holding that a civil contempt defendant has a right to a jury trial when the act of contempt was not committed in the presence of the court and when the incarceration is in part punitive holding that prejudgment interest as a theoretical matter is an acceptable component of a remedial sanction for civil contempt and quoting the holding in mccomb v jaclcsonville paper co 336 us 187 193 69 sct 497 93 led 599 1949 that the measure of the courts power in civil contempt proceedings is determined by the requirements of full remedial relief holding that in addition to statutory contempt powers city courts have inherent contempt power