Quote from: TwitchySeal on November 15, 2019, 02:27:32 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2019, 02:07:18 AM

ANY subpoena has basic legal requirements to be enforceable. This is not because of what jurisdiction they were issued from but because that is what due process requires. Part of that due process is a filing of the subpoena, certifying it, and serving it. That means as standard procedure public records are generated, ones which you should easily be able to produce, but can't.

Just because a document has to be certified and served doesn't mean public records are generated. There are plenty of scenarios where documents, like subpoenas for example, being made public would be a violation of privacy or interfere with an investigation. Sometimes Subpoenas are made public, but not very often. Go see how many subpoenas you find on the internet if you don't believe me.

Then go see how many congressional subpoenas you can find. The answer is not many. That's because A) Congress is not required to make the subpoenas public and B) It's just a form. If they want to make the substance of the subpoena public they would put the subpoena letter on the internet.

There are groups that are very against the exception Congress has when it comes to requiring records to be public, and the laws have been challenged, which is why in Jan 2017 The House voted to be even more explicit:

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres5/BILLS-115hres5eh.pdf

Code:

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
January 3, 2017.
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, including applicable provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred
Fourteenth Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House
of Representatives of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress,
with amendments to the standing rules as provided in section
2, and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.
SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES.

...

Code:

Records created, generated, or received by the
congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties
are exclusively the personal property of the individual
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and
10
HRES 5 EH
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has
control over such records.

And let me stop you before you play the "that's for records, not for Subpoenas!"

Anything filed with the clerk is considered a record.

If you're going to continue to insist that all congressional subpoenas are public record, and if a subpoena isn't available to the public then it must not exist, I kindly request you let me know where all the other subpoenas are.

I've only been able to find 8 out of thousands.

Your public record argument is unrelated and a non-sequitur. A subpoena is not just a record. This post is a record. A subpoena has actionable legal force. It is a matter of due process and constitutional law it has certain requirements based on that fact.

"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that before any witness under congressional investigation can be punished for failure to cooperate, the pertinency of the interrogation to the topic under the congressional committee's inquiry must be brought home to the witness at the time the questions are presented.

The Justices have explained:
Unless the subject matter has been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.10 Even when a legislative committee acts within bounds, the form of questions asked and the rulings on objections to them maybe so obtuse as to make it violative of due process of law for courts to punish a refusal to answer."

http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/relacs/2018_PDS/Committee_Sub_Jones.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_17

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

Quote from: nutildah on November 15, 2019, 02:42:35 AM

No, it doesn't mean that. This is your unfounded assertion. At least you abandoned your incorrect application of the term "court of record."

Your argument is unless you accept the subpoenas are real without reading them you are not "capable of thinking both logically and honestly"?

It does mean that, as explained above. You can't enforce a subpoena without due process. If it is not enforceable, then it is not a subpoena.

Let me put it in simpler terms for you. You are driving down the highway and you get pulled over. The cop asks for your drivers license. You hand it to him and he says "hey this expired 3 months ago". He then tickets you for driving without a license. You have your license in your hand, but legally speaking you have a piece of plastic because it has no authority under the law.

A subpoena without authority under the law to punish is by definition not a subpoena (Latin for under penalty). Just like it is not a license because it has no legal standing, a subpoena is not a subpoena without its own basic constitutional due process requirements as outlined above.

Produce the subpoenas hyenas.