communications, whatever form they might take, and the compulsion of responses which are also communications, for example, compliance with a subpoena to produce one’s papers.”); Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 587-91, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 1258-61, 90 L.Ed. 1453 (1946) (distinguishing private papers from public property in the custody of a citizen in applying the Fifth Amendment privilege); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 1251, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944) (stating that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination “protects the individual from any disclosure, in the form of oral testimony, documents or chattels, sought by the legal process against him as a witness”); Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 489, 33 S.Ct. 158, 162, 57 L.Ed. 309 (1913) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361, 377,
holding that there is no selfincrimination where one is compelled to produce the papers of a business that has no privilege holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required