Replies

A court of competent jurisdicition is, in general any court having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated or the persons being investigated. A department or agency can turn down a subpoena if they think the court in question fails to show competent jurisdiction. So far, several officials in Hawaii have been willing to go to bat to keep Obama’s birth records secret. I could this requiring a federal court order before Hawaii would comply, but we know this won’t happen because we know who controls the justice department.

DEFINITION OF “ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION”
A subpoena signed by a clerk of a Federal or State court, without specific approval of the court itself, does not comprise an “order of a court of competent jurisdiction” for purposes of nonconsensual disclosures under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). The overall scheme of the Privacy Act’s nonconsensual disclosure provisions in subsection (b) is to balance the need for disclosure against the potential harm to the subject of the disclosure. Even though a subpoena signed by a clerk of the court is issued in the name of the court and carries with it the threat of contempt to those who ignore it, there is no guarantee that it is based upon a careful consideration of the competing interests of the litigant and the individual who is the subject of the record. It is common practice for a subpoena to be issued in blank by a court clerk to a party requesting it, who then fills in the blanks as he or she chooses.

To allow nonconsensual disclosure pursuant to a subpoena—grand jury or otherwise-–would permit disclosure of protected records at the whim of any litigant, whether prosecutor, criminal defendant, or civil litigant. Therefore, disclosure of records under subsection (b)(11) requires that the court specifically order disclosure. If there is a threat of punishment for contempt for ignoring a subpoena not approved by the court, the subpoena should be challenged by a motion to quash or modify.

Therefore, any prosecuting attorney who can convince any state or federal judge to issue a subpoena would constitute a “court of competent jurisdiction.”
The Obama Administration’s Department of Justice has no political control over state or federal judges.

This doesn’t say anything about whether a court is considered to have competent jurisdiction or not. What you cited says a court (or judge) has to specifically sign off on a subpoena in order to force the release of nonconsensual reords, and that a prosecutor can’t do so on independently, which undercuts a claim you made earlier.

As for having competent jurisdiction, a local court in Indiana or New York or Arizona could potentially be deemed NOT to have such in a criminal case against the president, since Congress is the only body that can impeach a president. As far as an investigation by the justice department would be concerned, it would have to be ordered by the executive, most likely because of a Congressional request. But we know that won’t happen because we know who controls the justice department and Congress (at the moment).