You’re incorrect on both counts.
The subpoena would be quashed, and testimony as to what a document purports to say is not acceptable when the document is in existence and available.
It wouldn't be quashed. He cited the relevant HI statute for you. I recommend you read it. Testimony would be allowed by FRCP Rule 44(1)(B) - Proving an Official Record. I suggest you familiarize yourself with that as well, lest you make yourself look silly. It requires that an official record be under seal andattested by the appropriate government officer, or their deputy. That may be done in person, or by sworn affidavit or statement.
Everyday, in courtrooms all across America, certified copies of official documents are entered and accepted into the record, because it would be impractical (and possibly against statutory law) to remove the original documents. What you say is nonsense, just gibberish.