Yes the interpretation you provided IMHO is utter BS. The term subpoena is not a difficult term to understand even from the Latín. No dictionary necessary.
The motion to quash the subpoena anyone might do if one knows they haven't done anything wrong and feels that there is over reach. One could of course argue that if one has done nothing wrong then comply. Others would argue DAMN them for looking to snoop into bank records to see ones banking history.
Surely, it's only logical to conclude that if he had done something wrong, he would have been NAMED already.
That Kistler was slammed by the court. It's all part and parcel. If there was something more to it then something would have come out by now IMHO.
Being questioned by law enforcement or receiving a government subpoena for information or documents does not alone indicate that you are suspected of criminal activity or the target of an investigation — but it could mean that. Sometimes it may mean no more than the government considers you or your company a witness with relevant information regarding a different investigation target.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
