The Bundy Affair #18 – Sheriff Wehrly v. CCA and the feds?

The Bundy Affair – #18
Sheriff Wehrly v. CCA and the feds?

nevada_southern_detention_center_-_ccaGary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

I was asked to forward the following document to Nye County Sheriff Sharon Wehrly. The concern was that if it was sent out by an inmate in the Southern Nevada Detention Center (SNDC), a CCA (Customer base: U.S. Marshals Service – Facility Type: Medium, Owned since 2010) facility, that they would have no way of determining whether it was received by the Sheriff, or not.  It could simply end up in the trash bin, or on the desk of the US Marshal Service (USMS).

For the record, it went in the mail about the same time this article is being posted.

So, being the curious sort, I wanted to find more about the SNDC, a went searching for the contract between the CCA and the USMS, or whoever was the party on the government side. I was able to find the highly redacted Solicitation and Contract for the construction of the facility, with an initial price tag of $122,250,660.00. The solicitation also included construction, maintenance, control, prisoner requirements, and a number of change orders -which, obviously allowed them to exceed the $122 million price tag. However, any per bed cost was redacted, as were the other prisoner related expenses.

What is quite clear is that the federal government pays for 750 beds per day, whether occupied, or not. Any additional beds are paid for as long as they are used. Well, that means that until the 750 beds are full, the government is simply throwing away our money. However, being conscious of that, it may well be that they endeavor to keep as many of those beds filled, all of the time.

This, then, would mean that if they can declare someone a “flight risk” or a “danger to the community”, instead of allowing them out on bail, or a more realistic “pre-trial release”, they are not saving many, but they are making CCA earn our money.

However, in reviewing the information I had gleaned and from the letter (below) the is being sent to the Sheriff, other questions arose that I wish to lay before you, the People.


First is what the intent was in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution when it says:

No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Simply with the opinion of the Prosecutor, who claims that those who have families and homes to tie them to the land, which pretty much assures that they will not abandon their life’s work, are “flight risks”; or, that those who have never harmed anyone are “a “danger to the community”, begins a process. This, then, results in the deprivation of liberty, with the simple concurrence of the judge. It seems more like collusion to me.

However, we can’t just leave the question at that. We need to also look at the intent of the Eighth Amendment, which says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Now, that says “Excessive bail“. What can we conclude, with regard to intent? The implication is clear — that for one to retain that “liberty“, that he is not to “be deprived of“, the bail is a requisite, and only an “Excessive bail” is prohibited. So, by what perverse interpretation can that bail be denied and those who have been in custody for over eight months, be consistent with the limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution?

Now, the final consideration is the additional limitation imposed on the government by another provision in that Amendment, and relies, also, on the whole concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. If one is innocent, then is it not cruel, though unfortunately in this modern police state not necessarily unusual, to imprison someone on such meager pretenses?

Now, the final consideration is one of jurisdiction, and that is where the “inmate’s” letter comes in to play. The SNDC is a privately owned facility, under contract to the federal government. It is on privately owned land that has left the federal public lands, years ago. It was never ceded back to the federal government, as required by Article I, § 8, clause 17, so it clearly is under the jurisdiction of ONLY Nevada and Nye County.

Now, if we stand back and look with an objective eye, perhaps we should really see that these 12 people have been deprived of their liberty as a consequence of being kidnapped by the federal government, in violation of the Constitution. They are detained by a co-conspirator, the CCA, in violation of the Constitution, and absent any legal authority on the part of the CCA — simply a contract to deprive them of their rights. And, finally, within the jurisdiction of Nye County, Nevada and Sheriff Sharon Wehrly.

This, of course, leaves us to ponder whether the state and local governments will conform to their state constitutional duties and protect people within their jurisdiction against overreach, and criminal acts, of the federal government and its co-conspirators.

Now, considering the matter carefully, all that is necessary is for the Sheriff to take protective custody of the inmates, and then present them to a local court to determine if the State Constitution prohibits the acts mentioned above. And, if so, to release them on their own recognizance, subject, of course, to them agreeing to appear to present their case under the pending federal Indictment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Defendants in the Bundy Case
Nevada Southern Detention Center
2190 E. Mesquite Ave.
Pahrump, Nevada, 89060

October 11, 2016

Sheriff Sharon Wehrly
1520 E. Basin Rd
Pahrump, Nevada, 89060

Subject: Emergency Request for Protective Custody

Dear Sheriff Wehrly,

As you may already be aware, the discovery/evidence obtained by the government in the Bundy case has been subjected to a secretive “Protective Order” prohibiting the public release of information which would prove our innocence, and contradict the government and court justifications for our current captivity.  Now that we’ve had an opportunity to review the U.S. government’s body cam, dash-cam, video, photographic, and audio evidence, we believe that the protective order was put in place so that the government can continue to deceive the public, without any disclosure of the truth, tainting the perspective jury pool.

We currently possess evidence which shows, with no doubt what so ever, that we defendants have essentially been kidnapped and held against our will, the only explanation for such being some political malfeasance.  We have indisputable photographic and audio evidence which totally exonerates us, and we would like to share this information with you as soon as possible.

We have begged the court to release us from pre-trial detention, and we have all been denied.  The prosecution has literally trumped up accusations in order to justify labeling each of us “a danger to the community” and “a flight risk”.  The US Government obviously knows that we are all innocent and is now using pre-trial detention as a punishment for us and our families while we are supposedly “ presumed innocent”, and as a tool to intimidate others who might be inclined to protest against government actions the disagree with.  This appears to be a political conspiracy to chill any future effort by the people to redress grievances regarding increasingly heavy-handed tactics and militarization of law enforcement, both of which are clearly portrayed by the government’s discovery productions.

We are respectfully submitting this emergency request for your intervention; and we also request to immediately be placed in your protective custody, within your county jurisdiction, while our attorneys prepare an emergency request for the dismissal of all charges against us.  We are currently held prisoner at a private facility, Nevada Southern Detention Center, which is within your constitutional jurisdiction to uphold the law.  The federal government can by no means justify our current captivity on lawful grounds, and is making a great effort to hide this fact.  This alludes to a conspiracy between two separate branches of government; executive, and judicial.

Please assert your constitutional authority, as the chief law enforcement officer in your county, and demand an in-person meeting with any one of the defendants named below.  The federal government is detaining many presumably innocent citizens within counties across the Union, and will continue to do so as long as county Sheriffs, the highest elected law enforcement officers of the land, allow this atrocious unlawful practice, which amounts to kidnapping, to persist.  We assume that action would be taken if there was awareness of the situation, and a very brief investigation into the facts we can present you with will expose the matters succinctly, at least in regards to our case.

We thank you in advance, with faith that your interest in upholding the law and the Constitution will compel your involvement in this matter.


           Respectfully Submitted,

Jason Woods, Eric Parker, Ryan Payne, Mel Bundy, Dave Bundy, Cliven Bundy, Rick Lovelien,

Steve Stewart, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Todd Engel, Micah McGuire, Peter Santilli


  1. Bill Goode says:

    SNDC is not a prison. It is a detention center. Not being a prison, I doubt any of the potentially 750 inmates have been convicted of anything. They are being “detained” pending upcoming trials. EVERY inmate in SNDC it would seem is being held pending trial, ie without due process. That would make the entire facility unlawful per the First Amendment.

    • ghunt says:

      You are correct. I was correct, I never called it a prison.
      However, once detained, you are a prisoner. You can be imprisoned and not be in a prison.
      I opted not to use the politically correct “detainee”. It is not harsh enough to convey the ordeal that the “prisoners” are being subjected to.

      • Bill Goode says:

        OK, but whether the inmates are prisoners or detainees, is beside my point.

        I was pointing out that all 750 prisoners are being held without due process. Are the not?

        • ghunt says:

          I believe that I addressed that. My purpose, in this article, is to address the letter that the inmates chose to send to Sheriff Wehrly.
          Perhaps I could have made it clearer, however, I think that this sentence carries that point:
          “This, then, results in the deprivation of liberty, with the simple concurrence of the judge.”

          • Bill Goode says:

            OK. One additional point is that SDNC is within the city limits of Pahrump. Would that not add the City of Pahrump to the jurisdiction covered by Nye County and State of Nevada?

          • ghunt says:

            Your assumption of city limits was not researched, was it?
            Pahrump is a census-designated place and an unincorporated town in Nye County, Nevada, United States.
            So, the Sheriff has jurisdiction in the unincorporated areas, and often inside of city limits.

    • Laron Woods says:

      Since this was dated October 16, before the acquittal in Oregon, I am assuming the names of Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy could and should be added to this list. Is this a correct assumption?

  2. Jolene Kniffing says:

    Thanks for your diligence, hero, in exposing the truth.

Leave a Reply