to corpora tions, see Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74, 26 S.Ct. 370, 378-79, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906), and an individual cannot assert his personal privilege in order to defeat a subpoena for corporate records, even if the records contain information incriminating him, see Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. at 88-89, 94 S.Ct. at 2183-84; United States v. White, 322 U.S. at 699, 64 S.Ct. at 1251, and even if the documents were drafted by him in his capacity as a corporate officer. See Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 n. 11, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1580 n. 11, 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976) (stating that “[t]he fact that the documents may have been written by the person asserting the privilege is insufficient to trigger the privilege”); Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. at 378, 31 S.Ct. at 543 (<HOLDING>). “In producing records as an officer of the
holding that motion to dismiss should be denied if in view of what is alleged it can reasonably be conceived that the plaintiffs  could upon a trial establish a case which would entitle them to relief recognizing that courts should not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of holding that counsel cannot be said to be ineffective for not filing a motion for which there is no legal basis holding that where an officer of a corporation has possession of corporate records which disclose his crime there is no ground upon which it can be said that he will be forced to produce them if the entries were made by another but may withhold them if the entries were made by himself holding that the district court did not abuse discretion in limiting the number of diary entries that could be read to the jury and explained by the defendant where there were hundreds of diary entries and all diaries were admitted into evidence and available for review by the jury