[Cboldt]

-- Lawyers make up stuff as they go along all the time. Just depends on what they can get away with. Eh? --

Of course, And venue can be hotly litigated. Courts can also remove cases from one jurisdiction to another, and defendants have the right to ask for removal, on many different rationales, including convenience.

The set of NSA civil cases, some 20 of them, were consolidated and removed to Federal court in San Francisco, for example. Plaintiffs from Maine, to Washington State, to Indiana, and 15 or so other states. Not removed to Utah, where the data was all directed.

[txhurl]

That’s what I was thinking, venue is almost 100% negotiable, unless it’s a tribunal.

[bagster]

Which brings us back to the Grand Jury rules that somebody posted earlier and I'm way too lazy to search for, wherein I highlighted the "may" not as opposed to "shall" not assign jurisdiction according to where the crime was committed. GJ jurisdiction seems subject to legal ruling rather than a strict finding of locale. An open door for lawyers to walk though and do the lawyer dance.

Okay, I got unlazy for a second;

9-11.121 - Venue Limitations

A case should not be presented to a grand jury in a district unless venue for the offense lies in that district.

The difference between "should" and "shall," and "may," are very important in lawyer-speak.