Post

Log inSign up

Tracy Beanz on X: "🚨THREAD: The USG doesn’t want the Flynn case to be heard in Florida. This will be a thread of their legal argument for doing so. For the full motion, see: https://t.co/6GFY9GHNy7"

  • user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    🚨THREAD: The USG doesn’t want the Flynn case to be heard in Florida. This will be a thread of their legal argument for doing so. For the full motion, see: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
    1:01 PM · May 2, 2023317.5KViews
  • user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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 consideration, and that it the Plaintiff’s choice of venue is granted less weight when
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    (Personal note: the interests of justice would absolutely NOT be served transferring this case to a biased kangaroo court where the judge who caused the massive travesty is seated.)
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    Just my personal opinion, this is a long shot motion, and I really think they know it. They are forced to concede he has the absolute standing to bring this in the “place where he resides” but are about to use several pages to talk about why that should be ignored because
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    “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.
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    As per the government, the court should consider 9 factors when determining whether 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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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, Preibus, several others who don’t live in the cesspool of DC.
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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.
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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 judges convenience and all. I can’t see how these numbers are correct, given the absurd number of frivolous J6
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    Also, the entire argument that all of these things happened in DC- that 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
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    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.
    user avatar
    Tracy Beanz
    @tracybeanz
    May 2, 2023
    We will continue to cover this case ALL the way through, just as we do many other cases of national importance. If you appreciate the work I do, I would be so appreciative if you could support my company, @UncoverDC - We rely on you to keep the lights on. You can buy the team