- 9 -
the trial without acting on respondent’s motion for sanctions,
which remained under advisement. We proceeded with the trial
without acting on that motion because, although we had informed
petitioners at the calendar call and at the recall of this case
that we would impose sanctions on them for their failure to
comply with the October 13, 2000 Order, we had not had adequate
time as of the beginning of the trial in this case to consider
and decide what sanction(s) we would impose on petitioners.
Although not requested by the Court, on October 31, 2000,
petitioners submitted, and the Court had filed, petitioners’
response (petitioners’ response) to respondent’s motion for
sanctions. In petitioners’ response, petitioners reasserted
essentially most of the same arguments that they had advanced in
opposition to respondent’s motion to compel, which we rejected in
the October 13, 2000 Order, and that they had continued to
advance in petitioners’ motion to reconsider, which we denied on
October 18, 2000.
In petitioners’ response to respondent’s motion for sanc-
tions, petitioners also advanced an argument under the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution (Fourth Amendment). According to
petitioners, Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), holds
that an individual may not be compelled to produce his “private
papers to establish a criminal charge against him, or to forfeit
his property”, id. at 622, and that no negative inferences may be
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