Editorial: Bill would strengthen public records law

It is time to put some teeth into Nevada’s public records law.

Even though state law requires that all public records and books, except those specifically exempted as confidential by law, must be open for inspection and copying, government agencies have been flouting the law for years, refusing to turn over anything that might prove embarrassing to the agency or its bosses. Police refuse to release records. School districts and cities conduct investigations of misconduct and refuse to release the results. One coroner refuses to release autopsies, even to a spouse. The public employee pension system refuses to release the names and pensions of pensioners.

And when someone challenges the intransigence in court, the agencies hire lawyers and spend tax dollars to fight letting the taxpayers know what they are doing with our money. When they lose, they shrug it off and do it all over again, because there are no consequences for the agency or the decision makers.

Now comes Senate Bill 287, which would put some skin in the game for the agencies and the people who wrongly deny public records requests.

Should SB287 become law, if a court determines a governmental entity or the person making the decision on behalf of the governmental entity wrongly denies a records request, the requester may be awarded a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 or more than $250,000 per offense from the agency or the responsible party or both.

That part about making the responsible party pay up should grease a few skids.

Perhaps it also should specify that the agency may not reimburse the responsible party for the civil penalty.

A newly formed group called Right to Know Nevada sent out a press release via email recently supporting SB287.

Maggie McLetchie, an attorney who has represented the Las Vegas newspaper in a number of records lawsuits, was quoted as saying, “By ensuring that existing law is actually followed, Senator (David) Parks’ bill would reduce the need for expensive public records litigation, which is a good thing. The goal is to eliminate the need for costly lawsuits and to simply have the government be fully transparent and accountable to the people it serves, which is what state law already requires.”

ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Tod Story said, “While existing law already requires a response within 5 business days, we have experienced vastly different response times, not too mention fees, from governments across the state in response to the identical request. In fact, some agencies simply never responded to our request at all.”

The bill would also limit what an agency could charge for a public record to what it actually costs to produce it, excluding labor cost.

Passage of SB287 might actually put some meaning into the original law’s intended purpose: “The purpose of this chapter is to foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with access to inspect and copy public books and records to the extent permitted by law; The provisions of this chapter must be construed liberally to carry out this important purpose; Any exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access to public books and records by members of the public must be construed narrowly.”

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Senate bill would make those who wrongly deny public records requests pay for the effrontery

It is time to put some teeth into Nevada’s public records law.

Government agencies have been flouting the law for years, refusing to turn over anything that might prove embarrassing to the agency or its bosses. The police refuse to release records. The school districts conduct investigations and refuse to release the results. One coroner refuses to release autopsies. The public employee pension system refuses to release the names and pensions of pensioners. Etc., etc., et forever cetera. They hire lawyers and use taxpayer money to fight and pay the costs of requesters when they lose, then shrug it off and do it all over again.

Now comes Senate Bill 287. It would put some skin in the game for the agencies and the people who wrongly deny public records requests.

Should SB287 become law, if a court determines a governmental entity or the person making the decision on behalf of the governmental entity wrongly denies a records request, the requester may be awarded a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 or more than $250,000 per offense from the agency or the responsible party or both.

That part about making the responsible party pay up should grease a few skids. Perhaps it also should specify that the agency may not reimburse the responsible party for the civil penalty.

A newly formed group called Right to Know Nevada sent out a press release via email on Friday supporting SB287.

Maggie McLetchie, an attorney who has represented the Las Vegas newspaper in a number of records lawsuits, was quoted as saying, “By ensuring that existing law is actually followed, Senator (David) Parks’ bill would reduce the need for expensive public records litigation, which is a good thing. The goal is to eliminate the need for costly lawsuits and to simply have the government be fully transparent and accountable to the people it serves, which is what state law already requires.”

ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Tod Story said, “While existing law already requires a response within 5 business days, we have experienced vastly different response times, not too mention fees, from governments across the state in response to the identical request. In fact, some agencies simply never responded to our request at all.”

 

 

Editorial: Rip the veil of secrecy from the Bundy case

Bunkerville standoff (Reuters pix)

Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done.

The wheels of justice continue to grind in the federal criminal case against Cliven Bundy, four of his sons and a dozen co-defendants over the April 2014 armed standoff with federal agents trying to confiscate Bundy’s cattle at his Bunkerville ranch. All of the defendants have been jailed for more than a year.

The standoff occurred after armed Bureau of Land Management agents attempted to roundup Bundy’s cattle after he had refused for 20 years to pay grazing fees in the Gold Butte area. The BLM said he owed $1 million in fees and penalties.

Faced with armed protesters the BLM agents eventually released the cattle and left to avoid potential bloodshed.

Much of the evidence in the high-profile case remains cloaked in secrecy due to a blanket court protective order that requires just about everything filed in the case must be filed under seal.

But the press — specifically the Las Vegas daily newspaper, this newspaper and The Associated Press — continue to fight for openness. Just this past week attorney Maggie McLetchie filed a writ with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the veil of secrecy be lifted, because it “is anathema to the First Amendment” and longstanding court precedent from the 9th Circuit itself.

McLetchie argues, among other things, that much of the rationale for keeping material secret is merely to protect government agents from legitimate criticism of their conduct. She also says the protective order is  based on “speculation and scaremongering” supported almost entirely by a series of years-old online social media posts.

Since the arrests of most of the defendants back in February 2016, things have not gone swimmingly for the government.

Two of Bundy’s sons, who had been arrested on separate but similar charges of illegally occupying an Oregon wildlife refuge to protest the jailing of father and son ranchers under a terrrorism law for letting fires get out of control and burn a few acres of federal public land, were acquitted of those charges this past fall by a jury, along with their co-defendants.

In April, the first of three scheduled trials for the Bunkerville defendants — charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers — ended in a mistrial. The jury found only two of six people on trial guilty of some charges but deadlocked on the others. The jurors agreed to convict on only 10 of the 60 charges brought. None of the conspiracy charges stuck.

In January, the Interior Department’s Inspector General released a 16-page investigative report outlining misconduct and ethical violations by the BLM agent who supervised the Bundy cattle roundup. The report never named the agent but said he abused his powers by obtaining preferential treatment for family and friends at the 2015 Burning Man event on BLM land, misused BLM personnel and equipment, improperly intervened in hiring a BLM agent and attempted to influence an employee’s testimony during the Inspector General’s investigation of him.

News accounts identify the agent as Dan Love.

McLetchie noted that the misconduct allegations add fuel to the “general public’s concern that the government mishandled the investigation in this case.”

Her writ quotes from a 9th Circuit ruling from 1983 in which The Associated Press sought information about a criminal case. The court stated there “can be little dispute that the press and public have historically had a common law right of access to most pretrial documents. … Moreover, pretrial documents, such as those dealing with the question whether [a defendant] should be incarcerated prior to trial and those containing allegations by [a defendant] of government misconduct, are often important to a full understanding of the way in which ‘the judicial process and the government as a whole are functioning.’”

Seems on point for the Bundy case.

The defendants from the first Bundy trial are to be retried in late June on the same day Cliven Bundy, his sons and others were scheduled for trial. The court has yet to say what the schedule will be for the long-jailed remaining defendants.

The court needs to shine more light on this case so the public can see whether justice is being done.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

 

Editorial: Media object to widespread Bundy case secrecy

Three media organizations have filed an objection to a federal judge’s order to veil in sweeping secrecy documents and evidence in the Bundy case.

Earlier in July, U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen ordered all materials produced by the government in discovery in the case — grand jury transcripts, agency reports, witness statements, memoranda of interviews, documents and objects produced by the government — are to be confidential and anything filed court relating to these are to be automatically filed under seal.

She said this was being done to protect witnesses, victims, law enforcement, prosecutors and other government officials from being intimidated — mostly based on vague 2-year-old Internet postings that suggested certain people might come to harm.

Attorney Maggie McLetchie — who represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper, this newspaper and The Associated Press — on Friday filed the 22-page objection, saying the secrecy order is excessive and unnecessary.

The Bundy case grows out of the April 2014 standoff between Bureau of Land Management law enforcement and armed supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy. Bundy had failed to pay grazing fees for 20 years and the BLM was attempting to roundup his cattle. The 19 defendants face felony charges that include conspiracy, obstruction, extortion and assault, which carry penalties of up to 50 years in prison.

The BLM eventually released the cattle rather than risk bloodshed.

McLetchie argues (specific cites omitted): “The Magistrate Judge noted that public access to discovery materials is more limited than to court proceedings. … However, in allowing the materials deemed ‘Confidential’ to be automatically filed under seal, the Court’s Protective Order essentially misapplied the lesser standard for access to criminal discovery to judicial filing. The law of this circuit and the common law ‘start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.’ … Given this presumption of public access, the Ninth Circuit ‘requires a party to make a particularized showing of good cause for each document it seeks to file under seal.’”

McLetchie notes that the rambling and ranting social media postings cited by the government as a rationale for secrecy are free speech, protected expression of frustration and not actual threats.

These included: “EVERYONE PLEASE CALL … They need to know that they are doing is NOT right and that we notices [sic] it and we are a shamed [sic] of them!” and “Sounds like to solve the problem a lqnd [sic] owner will, have to take out an AR 10 and put a bullet in -head to save the other land owners to stop this, if I had land. i will now, kniw [sic] who to shoot first….”

Rather than close off everything, the attorney suggests identifying information could be redacted.

McLetchie concludes: “Indeed, the magistrate judge’s protective order subverts longstanding presumptions that (1) court records are presumptively public, and (2) depriving the public of access to public records requires a careful balancing of the private and public interests at stake. Instead, with little in the way of good cause to support a protective order, the magistrate judge has mandated that all confidential documents attached to motions and pleadings must be filed under seal without requiring the filing party to show why sealing is necessary. This runs contrary to the Ninth Circuit and this Court’s law, and should not be the standard for filing documents and supporting discovery in this case.”

The public has a right to see whether justice is done from now until and through the trial scheduled for next February. Meanwhile, all the defendants are being held without bail. They and their attorneys should have a right to speak freely about their cases.

A version of this editorial appears in the print version of this week’s Mesquite Local News.

Protesters confront BLM agents near Bundy ranch. (Reuters photo via Newsweek)

Media object to sweeping Bundy secrecy order

Bundy standoff. (Reuters photo)

Three media organizations have filed an objection to a federal judge’s order to veil in sweeping secrecy documents and evidence in the Bundy case. Intervenor objects

Earlier, U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen ordered all materials produced by the government in discovery in the case — grand jury transcripts, agency reports, witness statements, memoranda of interviews, documents and objects produced by the government — are to be confidential and anything filed court relating to these are to be automatically filed under seal.

She said this was being done to protect witnesses, victims, law enforcement, prosecutors and other government officials from being intimidated — mostly based on vague 2-year-old Internet postings that suggested certain people might come to harm.

Attorney Maggie McLetchie — who represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper, The Associated Press and Battle Born Media, which publishes a half dozen weekly newspapers across the state — on Friday filed the 22-page objection, saying the secrecy order is excessive and unnecessary.

The Bundy case grows out of the April 2014 standoff between Bureau of Land Management law enforcement and armed supporters of Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy. Bundy had failed to pay grazing fees for 20 years and the BLM was attempting to roundup his cattle. The 19 defendants face felony charges that include conspiracy, obstruction, extortion and assault, which carry penalties of up to 50 years in prison.

The BLM eventually released the cattle rather than risk bloodshed.

McLetchie argues (specific cites omitted):

The Magistrate Judge noted that public access to discovery materials is more limited than to court proceedings. … However, in allowing the materials deemed “Confidential” to be automatically filed under seal, the Court’s Protective Order essentially misapplied the lesser standard for access to criminal discovery to judicial filing. The law of this circuit and the common law “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” … Given this presumption of public access, the Ninth Circuit “requires a party to make a particularized showing of good cause for each document it seeks to file under seal.”

McLetchie notes that the rambling and ranting social media postings cited by the government as a rationale for secrecy are free speech, protected expression of frustration and not actual threats.

These included: “EVERYONE PLEASE CALL … They need to know that they are doing is NOT right and that we notices [sic] it and we are a shamed [sic] of them!” and “Sounds like to solve the problem a lqnd [sic] owner will, have to take out an AR 10 and put a bullet in -head to save the other land owners to stop this, if I had land. i will now, kniw [sic] who to shoot first….”

Rather than close off everything, the attorney suggests identifying information could be redacted.

McLetchie concludes:

Indeed, the magistrate judge’s protective order subverts longstanding presumptions that (1) court records are presumptively public, and (2) depriving the public of access to public records requires a careful balancing of the private and public interests at stake. Instead, with little in the way of good cause to support a protective order, the magistrate judge has mandated that all confidential documents attached to motions and pleadings must be filed under seal without requiring the filing party to show why sealing is necessary. This runs contrary to the Ninth Circuit and this Court’s law, and should not be the standard for filing documents and supporting discovery in this case. Instead, this Court should follow the guidance of the Ninth Circuit and require parties to establish that submitting discovery documents in a public filing will result in a specific, particularized harm. In addition, the party seeking to file discovery documents under seal should be required to demonstrate that alternatives to sealing such as redacting identifying information would not suffice to address the government and the magistrate judge’s concerns.

She also notes that in a recent Nevada case Magistrate Judge George Foley recently ruled that the party seeking a protective order in a criminal case must bear the burden of showing good cause and a showing of specific harm.

The public has a right to see whether justice is done from now until and through the trial scheduled for next February. Meanwhile, all the defendants are being held without bail.

Editorial: Bundy prosecutors should prove need for any secrecy

A  federal judge has granted the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Battle Born Media newspapers and The Associated Press the right to intervene in the criminal case involving the armed standoff at the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville two years ago in order to challenge an effort by the prosecution to keep virtually all evidence in the case veiled in secrecy until the trial next February.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen wrote, “As the Second Circuit has eloquently written, ‘[t]ransparency is pivotal to public perception of the judiciary’s legitimacy and independence.’ … Federal judges are not elected. We claim legitimacy not by election, but by reason. The Constitution grants the federal judiciary ‘neither force nor will, but merely judgment.’ The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). The Court finds that allowing intervention will promote transparency and the integrity of the judicial proceedings in this case. The Court will therefore grant the Amended Motion to Intervene for the limited purpose of opposing the Government’s Motion for Protective Order.” Bundy intervene order copy

The prosecutors, who opposed the media intervention, have asked that all evidence shared with the attorneys for the 19 defendants — including rancher Cliven Bundy and four of his sons — not be made public, claiming disclosure could jeopardize the safety of witnesses and prosecutors.

The defendants face felony charges that include conspiracy, obstruction, extortion and assault, which carry penalties of up to 50 years in prison. The charges grow out of the April 2014 standoff between self-styled militia and Bureau of Land Management law enforcement when the government tried to roundup Bundy’s cattle after he had refused for 20 years to pay grazing fees in the Gold Butte area. The BLM said he owed $1 million in fees and penalties. The BLM eventually released the cattle and left.

Cliven Bundy (R-J photo)

Among the reasons cited by Judge Leen in allowing the media intervention is the fact the indictment “followed a two-year investigation and a decades’ long series of disputes between Defendant Cliven Bundy and the federal government over land use restrictions and federal laws and regulations. Mr. Bundy’s co-defendants are his family and supporters. Defendants claim they were peacefully protesting government overreaching, some of them while exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Government claims Bundy and his co-defendants planned and led an armed assault to threaten, intimidate, and extort law enforcement officers from carrying out lawful orders of this Court. It has generated considerable public debate about the Constitutional role of the federal government in owning large amounts of land in the western United States.”

Attorney Maggie McLetchie, who represents the media in this case, told the Las Vegas newspaper, “We are very pleased that our concerns with the protective order will be considered by the court, and agree that transparency is especially important due to the nature of the Bundy case.”

In a motion filed with the court this past week McLetchie argued, “This overbroad and unsupported protective order impedes the rights of Intervenors and other news outlets to report on a case of local and national importance. One of the most critical aspects of news reporting is to inform the public of justice being carried out in the courts. In this regard, the press is vital to the health of a democracy. … This right is anchored in the value of keeping ‘a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies,’ and in publishing ‘information concerning the operation of government.’ … ‘In short, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.’” Bundy intervene memo

The right to intervene is merely the first step. Now the courts must do more than pay lip service to transparency. Though it may prove time-consuming, the prosecutors should now be required to provide specific reasons and proof — not just vague suspicions and speculation — that a particular piece of evidence, testimony or documentation should be kept from public scrutiny.

In her latest motion McLetchie quotes from a court case detailing this requirement, “‘The party opposing disclosure has the burden of proving good cause, which requires a showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the protective order is not granted.’ … A party seeking a protective order must show ‘“that disclosure will result in a clearly defined, specific and serious injury.’”

A version of this editorial appears this past week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Bundy ranch standoff

Editorial: Press fights for your right to observe justice while it happens

Cliven Bundy at his ranch near Bunkerville (Getty Images via Politico)

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media newspapers and The Associated Press are continuing to push for public access to evidence in the federal case against Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, four of his sons and 14 others.

This past week attorney Maggie McLetchie, who represents the press as intervenors, filed another motion seeking to overturn an overly broad protective order that places everything being provided by government prosecutors in the discovery process to defense attorneys under a veil of secrecy. The reason given for the secrecy is some vague fear of intimidation. The government cites some threatening Internet posting, without any measure of confidence that the threat is anything more than some crackpot bloviating, but with no intention or capability to carry out a threat. (Motion to Intervene)

The 19 defendants are jailed without bail on charges that include obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers growing out of the armed standoff in April 2014 between Bundy supporters and Bureau of Land Management agents attempting to roundup cattle Bundy had been grazing on public land for 20 years without benefit of a permit or the accompanying grazing fees. Fees and interest and penalties were said to top $1 million. Most of those defendants also oppose the protective order.

The Constitution guarantees a right to a public trial and the right to confront witnesses, and that includes during the procedures leading up to the trial, which is scheduled for nearly a year from now.

One of the more specious claims supporting sweeping secrecy is the fact Jerad and Amanda Miller, who later ambushed and killed two Las Vegas police officers and a civilian, were present at the standoff. No mention is made of the fact the Millers were told to leave the ranch because they were lunatic radical leftists involved in the Occupy Movement.

Prosecutors seeking the blanket secrecy wrote, “The Government has a reasonable fear that the defendants, or other supporters will further disseminate this information into the public domain for the purpose of harassing and intimidating these third parties, including victims and witnesses.” (Request for protective order)

McLetchie points out in her motion, “Intervenors are concerned about the First Amendment implications of the government’s proposed protective order … Intervenors have reported and will continue to provide members of the public with information about this case, which is a small part of a larger national dialogue about the ongoing competition for natural resources between ranchers, environmental groups, and the federal government. Given these concerns, as well as the controlling case law, it is imperative that the Court consider the First Amendment implications of the government’s proposed protective order in determining whether the government has established good cause.”

The attorney adds that Cliven Bundy himself has said, “(W)e want the press to shine the light of truth on this case so that the government cannot hide its misdeeds by burying those deeds …” — clearly a First Amendment concern.

“This case in part involves the fine line the government must walk when criminalizing speech — especially when the speech at issue is critical of the very government that is prosecuting the case,” the motion states. “The public has a right to evaluate the nature of the government’s case for itself. The need for transparency is especially important in light of the fact that this case involves government critics.”

Under the prosecution’s free-wheeling presumptions, every case would necessarily have to be conducted in secrecy because someone somewhere for some unknown reason might try to do something that might intimidate someone somewhere.

McLetchie cites case law that clearly requires something a little more specific than such vagaries. “Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity. Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not support a good cause showing,” she quotes.

The very purpose of providing discovery to defense attorneys is so they might be able to form a proper rebuttal to charges, which requires them to be able to talk to people about the evidence and witness statements and perhaps seek input from the public via the press.

If there are specific examples of real endangerment, prosecutors can redact that specifically and not keep everything under seal.

A version of this editorial appears this past week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Editorial: Bundy and his followers should get a speedy, public trial

Rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and their 16 co-defendants in the April 2014 armed standoff with federal agents trying to round-up Bundy’s cattle should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but prosecuted under the full constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

This past week U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen set a trial date of Feb. 6 next year before Federal District Court Judge Gloria Navarro for the 19 defendants, all of whom are being held without bail pending that trial. The case was scheduled for trial on May 2.

Cliven Bundy at an event near his Bunkerville ranch a year ago. (R-J photo)

Judge Leen said it is a complex case and the “ends of justice” outweigh the interest of the public and the defendants in having a speedy trial. At a hearing the 69-year-old Bundy and most other defendants said they wanted to exercise their right to a speedy trial, according to press accounts.

Leen also told prosecutors and defense attorneys to confer to determine whether they could agree on a “stipulated protective order” that would keep secret from the public key evidence.

U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden promptly filed a motion seeking sweeping secrecy in order to “protect victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, and agent/investigators associated with this case from threats, intimidation, and harassment from supporters of the Bundy defendants.” The bulk of his argument is that some unnamed people have posted strong language on the Internet. (motion for protective order)

As Claude Rains said in “Casablanca,” we are shocked — shocked — to find strong language on the Internet.

The defendants face felony charges that include conspiracy, obstruction, extortion and assault, which carry penalties of up to 50 years in prison.

Prosecutors have had two years to prepare their case for trial, why should it take another year and a shroud of secrecy?

The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

Keeping the defendants in prison for a year without the benefit of a conviction is hardly a speedy trial, nor does keeping evidence a secret constitute a public trial.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Battle Born Media and The Associated Press filed a legal challenge this past week to the proposed protective order to keep evidence secret — a move reminiscent of the British Star Chamber the Founders found so repugnant. (BUNDY RJBBMAP secrecy)

The motion by attorney Maggie McLetchie says “the government’s protective order thwarts the public’s right to information about this case by depriving it of access to all documents produced by the government. Moreover, in its hubris, the government has failed to provide any good cause to do so.”

The attorney offered that, if prosecutors can confirm their “concerns for witness safety and security,” perhaps names and identifying information could be redacted but not the entire evidence.

Yes, Bundy and his followers in all likelihood broke numerous laws, but that is for a jury to decide in a speedy and public trial.

The government has had enough time to prepare its case and call its witnesses. Perhaps, May 2 was too soon since none of the attorneys for the defendants have yet been given the evidence and the names of witnesses who they must confront at trial, but that preparation should not take a year — especially since all of their clients are being held without bail.

The government should not be able to have it both ways — getting a lengthy delay while keeping not-yet-convicted suspects jailed and unable to provide for their families.

The Bureau of Land Management leaders were embarrassed when their army of heavily armed agents descended upon the ranch only to face a couple hundred  armed civilians and have to back down to avoid bloodshed.

The BLM bungled the round-up effort, but no one at the agency has yet been reviewed or held accountable for that.

The delay and the secrecy make this case look more like revenge than justice.

A version of this editorial appears this past week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.