Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 9

                                        - 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