Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

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

Monday, October 17, 2016 10:48
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

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.

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



Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.