- 8 -
the calendar for trial (recall of this case). At that recall, we
asked petitioners whether they had complied with the October 13,
2000 Order. Petitioners stated that they had not complied with
that Order and began to reassert as an objection to the produc-
tion of the requested trust documents that they did not have
custody or control over such documents. At the recall of this
case, we reminded petitioners that the Court had previously
rejected that contention in the October 13, 2000 Order. We also
rejected that contention in our denial of petitioners’ motion to
reconsider. We advised petitioners at the recall of this case
that we considered them to be willfully failing to comply with
the October 13, 2000 Order.
We asked petitioners at the recall of this case whether they
had any response to respondent’s motion for sanctions. Petition-
ers replied by reasserting their Fifth Amendment claim as an
objection to the production of the requested trust documents. We
reminded petitioners at the recall of this case that in the
October 13, 2000 Order the Court had carefully considered and
rejected petitioners’ Fifth Amendment claim insofar as it per-
tained to the requested trust documents, and we again asked
petitioners whether they had any response to respondent’s motion
for sanctions. Petitioners stated that they did not have any
response to that motion.
Thereafter, at the recall of this case, we proceeded with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011