Parsing words isn’t winning your argument. Saying Horsesh*t is saying “I don’t have any facts to back up my position”.
You did make one point although it was for my position, not yours. Your link to a civil subpoena is perfect. The issuing party is required to sign same. It asks the question
“Is the Issuing Party the Attorney for Plaintiff or Defendant?” The word Judge is not there. It never would be. What part of that don’t you understand.
You provided a stamp which would have one believe it is used on a Subpoena. It is used on a Judge’s COURT ORDER. I guess we can’t get around that because you provided a substantive arguement “A subpoena issued by a judge is commonly referred to as a judical subpoena. I guess that makes it game set Match because of your use of the word “commonly” without any fact to back up your position.
It what I call Horsesh*t!
The word "judge" doesn't have to be there, genius. A judge is an officer of the court. "Officer of the court" is on the sample civil subpoena I provided for you.
Instead of arguing with me about whether or not a judge has ever in the history of law signed a subpoena, why don't you spend 5 minutes to look it up? I'll even give you two, easy search terms: so-ordered subpoena and judicial subpoena.
You clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. Until you do, don't bother arguing from a point of complete ignorance.