Prosecution Calls Government Liars – Bunkerville Trial
by Redoubt News Staff – 10/30/2017
The Bunkerville Standoff Trial-Of-The-Century began with a bang this weekend, even before jury selection got underway Monday morning.
A motion filed on behalf of defendant Ryan Payne this weekend addressed the prosecution’s requested extension to respond to Payne’s sealed motion.
Specifically, Ryan Payne filed a motion to dismiss the case based on a report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and it’s attachments. The court had ordered the prosecution to turn over the report’s attachments to the defense. There are hundreds of pages of attachments to the report, which concerns SAC Dan Love, the incident commander of the 2014 cattle gathering operation.
Payne included the attachments in his motion. The motion is less than 30 pages by itself. The government was due to respond to this motion, yet complained that they did not have the time to go through a thousand page motion. This was a blatant exaggeration, as the attachments are the same documents they were already familiar with and were forced to share with the defense.
Yet, the prosecution continued to whine about their workload and requested a 60-day extension to respond. The court granted them an extension until December 11th, roughly 5 weeks.
Payne’s lawyers responded this past weekend with some interesting points.
From motion # 2792, filed 10/27/17:
Even during this week’s hearing, for example, the government’s counsel referred to the allegations as “innuendo,” and suggested that the conclusions reached by the OIG reports were incorrect. The attachments show that the evidence of the incident commander’s misconduct is serious, extensive, well-documented by credible sources, and (most importantly for purposes of this case) relevant to the 2014 cattle gathering operation that he planned and ran.
The prosecution seems to think that the Inspector General’s Office is not accurate in their reporting, and it’s documents cannot be trusted. The report is accurate enough to fire Dan Love from the Bureau of Land Management. It is accurate enough for our elected officials. It is accurate enough for Washington DC bureaucrats. Yet it is not accurate to the Federal prosecutors?
If we cannot trust this branch of government (OIG) then how can we be expected to trust any other branch of government (like the BLM) or, more importantly, the judiciary branch (the Federal Courts)? With the prosecution calling out the credibility of the OIG, how can any part of the Federal government retain any credibility at all?
If Navarro allows the prosecution this very long extension, it will be almost impossible to get any relief for the defendants, should this motion prevail. They will have gone through weeks of trial, weeks of not being allowed a release hearing, or any other possible relief they are due. The citizens will have spent millions of dollars on weeks of hearings that may be avoided.
Judge Navarro needs to start thinking about what is the right thing to do, not what does the prosecution want me to do?