doolols said:I think it's funny that we don't know the nature of the subpoena. He's got to appear in court to give testimony, but we have no idea whether it's in his own defence or to give evidence in a case against someone else.
I'm not sure why everyone is assuming that Johan has been served with a subpoena. Why couldn't it be a summons and complaint?
I'm also not sure of the basis for the conclusion that Johan has been served by an agent for the United States.
I am NOT (repeat NOT) (repeat NOT NOT) (repeat NOT NOT REALLY NOT) saying that Johan has not been served with a subpoena by an agent of the United States. I'm just looking for a report that supports that conclusion.