They start with precedent; in short, the Plaintiff's choice of venue shouldn't be disturbed unless the defendant (in this case, the government) can show that it is clearly outweighed by other considerations and that the Plaintiff's choice of venue is granted less weight when the original venue lacks any significant connection to the claim.
The choice to grant the motion to change venue will come at the sole discretion of the judge. As the filing states, first, the court has to find that the Plaintiff could have originally brought this action in DC and then whether transferring the case there would serve the interest of justice and significantly impacts the balance of convenience for the parties to the suit and the witnesses…
**Personal note: the interests of justice would absolutely NOT be served by transferring this case to a biased kangaroo court where the judge who caused the massive travesty is seated.
"Everything Plaintiff is alleging happened in DC, therefore the Plaintiff *could* have brought the case in DC…." But he didn't. Because HE lives in Florida.
As per the government, the court should consider 9 factors when determining whether the venue should be changed:
1. The convenience of the witnesses
2. The location of relevant documents and the ease of access to sources of proof
3. The convenience of the parties
4. The locus of operative facts.
5. The availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses
6. The relative means of the parties
7. A forums familiarity with governing law
8. The weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum
9. Trial efficiency and the interests of justice are based on the totality of the circumstances.
Get ready to twist into a pretzel.
The government argues that the Florida court doesn't have subpoena power over the "non-party witnesses;" People like Comey, Strzok, etc., and therefore if the court goes to trial, it would be much harder to get them to testify as witnesses. It would also be more convenient for THEM if they didn't have to travel… Just wait.
Here the government is telling you they needed to use publicly available records to locate the people listed below here and where they live. And in the second footnote, they are trying to make the case that you can't depose witnesses where they live and must make them travel to YOU. This is nonsense, weak, and absurd. Perhaps the government would also like to answer how representatives can vote from their home offices on important legislation and also how large bureaucracies functioned virtually throughout the entire pandemic.
As an aside—there are plenty of witnesses who could be called who DO NOT live near DC- Trump comes to mind—just the security nightmare of that ALONE for DC weighs in favor of a FL hearing. Pence, Priebus, and several others who don't live in the cesspool of DC.
Now they argue that because the "Locus of facts" occurred in DC, the case should be tried there. Never mind, this is a FEDERAL case, and if I were the judge, I would be a bit offended—Jeff Jensen, the SC that was assigned to review this case, was out of St. Louis, and this step was taken SPECIFICALLY TO REMOVE the taint of DC from the investigation.
This is a FEDERAL case.
By this logic, the USG wouldn't fare very well bringing cases ANYWHERE but DC!! If this judge has any fortitude, this isn't going to fly at all. "DC judges are more familiar with the laws at issue here, so they are best to handle it" I would be PISSED if I were the judge reading this.
This is probably the most absurd self-own I have ever seen. The government argues that because the documents needed reside in DC, the case should be heard there. Then, in the footnotes, they acknowledge that modern technology renders the point moot. This is weak as anything. They also use a venue argument that Flynn made in another case, unrelated, to try to say to the judge, "See! Even he says the law here is best applied by Fl judges since the event happened here" That argument was made in a DEFAMATION case. Ridiculous.
They then try to argue that the FL judges are just *too busy* to have the time to hear the case. DC judges are *less busy* so the case should be moved there for the judge's convenience and all. I can't see how these numbers are correct, given the absurd number of frivolous J6 cases pending in DC, but hey, this is what the government says. Federal judges in DC are just not as busy as judges in FL.
Next, it's more convenient for the government to have the case heard in DC, and they make an assumption that General Flynn is more often in RI than FL (this is likely 100% false)—the next argument they made was that Gen. Flynn didn't move to FL until AFTER the facts in the case had taken place, and so DC is a better venue because it happened there. The problem is, he didn't live there EITHER. He was in RI, right? Isn't that what you just said?
Also, the entire argument that all of these things happened in DC—is incorrect. The phone call that started happened in a foreign country. The people involved in the setup were spread all over the world—this "locus" of facts, in this case, ARE NOT centered around DC entirely by a long shot.
The majority of their argument hinges on General Flynn being in RI more than FL. If that isn't true, and this judge stands on her footing the way she should (likely, it's FL), this motion will fail.