Thank you for visiting. My thoughts & Feelings are my Own.
Here I will share my feelings about America and her Future.
Let it be known to all the World, I love all Humankind, however the poor actions of the few that take away the Freedom's of the many wear on my soul. I don't hate them I feel sad for their foolishness before God and humankind.
Those leaders who seek to 'Keep their Oaths of office' and those who seek only self glory, power, tyranny and the destruction of America as it was founded, hoping to turn it into a Dictatorship, Marxist or other state of Tyranny.
For a long while I was unsure of putting a blog together with my thoughts on this, however Truth must be shared, if not to Awake American's to their dangerous situation then to record the folly of the ways of the wicked who do exist in the leadership of our Nation, States, Counties, Towns. Sad that I must add this page.
"We often search for things in life, yet seldom do we find.
Those things in life that really matter, until we make the time." S.T.Huls
OSP & FBI violated the 1st & 4th Amendment Rights of the occupants of two vehicles in a Stop and Road Block on Hwy 395 Harney county Oregon in violation of 18 USC §241/§242 by violently preventing them from attending a community meeting in John Day and by murdering LaVoy Finicum and then planting a gun in his pocket. These documents posted here is proof of this.
HAVE THE FEDS BEEN LYING ABOUT OWNING THE LAND AT THE MALHEUR REFUGE?????
We have created this article in order to share the information given to us by those who have done some research into the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. OTLEY case from the early 1940’s.
The Malheur land has been in the crosshairs of controversy in so many stories and cases that one may want to do some research and thinking about any and all “stories” spewed from the mouths of ABC agencies/agents. It is seeming to us that the majority of words in declarations of land ownership are anything but the truth fed to the Americans today. Read this and think, read the links and uncover what stinks!
"Oh, did we say WE owned the land? Sorry about that, we meant, "WE ARE STEALING YOUR LAND" says the BLM to the ranchers.
This is information from Dr Angus McIntosh.
Thank you to a follower, Charmaign Edwards, for sharing this with us. DID THIS CASE SET TRUTH IN STONE THAT THE LAND WAS THE RANCHERS AND NOT FEDERAL?
An example of prior existing rights is the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. In 1908 President Roosevelt, established by presidential proclamation a Bird Reserve (subject to prior existing rights). Thirty four years later the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Otley, 127 F2d 988 (1942), that not only did the prior existing ranchers living adjacent to Malheur Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malheur Lake itself. In 1942 the government paid for the right to construct roads, phone lines, plant trees, build fire towers, and build water control dams and structures. For the next thirty years these ranchers continued to graze cattle and cut hay. This all changed with a change in management at the Reserve/Refuge in the 1970's. I'm curious as to exactly what was in the original 1942 purchase agreements. What rights were reserved in those agreements? Why is this new generation of Feds trying to force out the Hammonds by ignoring 18 USC 1857 that exempts “allotment owners” from the criminal arson provisions? The biggest question I
have is why do the people of Harney County believe anything the Federal employees tell them when there is a proven history of them lying to ranchers about prior existing rights (U.S.
v Otley, 1942)?
"Did I mention to you folks interested in the Malheur Refuge Protest and subsequent Government assault, that in 1942 the Ninth Circuit ruled that most of the land withdrawn by President Teddy in 1908 and at least half of Malheur Lake did not belong to the US in the first place? The Court said it belonged to the prior established ranchers. The government had to condemn and buy the rancher's out under a 1933 conservation law, that only allowed for the construction of "projects". In that case it was 95 miles of roads, the construction of fire-lookouts, the planting of trees, and the building of certain water control structures. Under that act the ranchers still owned the improvements, grazing and hay/forage rights. There is a genuine question of fact as to whether or not the land upon which the so-called "occupied federal buildings" stand actually belongs to the government. Its my understanding the so-called "occupied buildings" were actually one of the old ranch headquarters. If that is the case the property still belongs to the original ranchers heirs (since the US cannot acquire property by adverse possession). The 1942 case is United States v Otley. Very interesting reading and available on the Justia website.
HE FURTHER COMMENTS: Here are further comments offered by Dr. Angus McIntosh.
"Actually they kept on ranching and grazing for over 30 years after that 1942 decision. It wasn't until about the time that Congress passed FLPMA that the Refuge managers started flooding out the ranchers. The original ranchers were all gone by then and the new ones simply assumed the Feds were acting lawfully."
MORE THOUGHTS BY DR. ANGUS MACINTOSH
AGRICULTURE April 11, 2016
From Preference Rights to Grazing Allotments:
Why Ranchers Own their Allotments
By Angus McIntosh PhD
Director Natural Resource Law & Policy Research
Land And Water USA Foundation
There are a lot of US Supreme Court decisions on the subject of “pioneer rights”, or settlers'
rights of “possession” or “occupancy” and “use”. The case that specifically refers to "pioneer
rights" is Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1873). Arguello v United States, 59 US 539 (1855),
refers to a “cattle range” held in possession for 50 years (from prior to the Mexican cession to
the US) as sufficient evidence of ownership. Essentially, pioneer rights are equivalent to
"possessory" or "occupancy" rights that typically have the sanction of State or Territorial
legislation, or; local laws, customs and decisions of the courts; or “aboriginal” title” or
“possessory” or “occupancy” rights dating from a time prior to US acquisition through “treaty” (ie. Gudalupe-Hidalgo, 1848, or the Oregon-Northwest Treaty with Great Britain, 1846). This same possessory or occupancy right of “actual settlers” gives the settler a “color of title” which has been referred to as the "preference" right. The preference is the preferred right to acquire the government's “legal title” when the land occupied or in the possession and use of the pioneer is eventually opened to settlement. (See Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869)). This pioneer right of possession and preference gives the occupant the right to sell his improvements as well as his possessory title, and such ownership will "relate back" to the first pioneer's date of settlement. This is important when you talk about establishing senior water rights and "land use rights" that predate later wildlife, fish, or environmental statutes. The Supreme Court has held that this pioneer/possessory right or title is good against all the
world, accept the United States as the actual legal title owner. However, once the United States Congress by positive legislation recognizes, confirms, or sanctions a “use”, or grants a right or title, then it is no longer a mere preference or possession. Once recognized or granted to a settler by an Act of Congress, that right could not be defeated by an employee of the Executive Branch (i.e. Interior or Agriculture) who failed to perform their duty to survey
and record the settler's claim, (Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898).
Regarding stock raising by bona fide settlers on “public lands” prior to passage of the Grazing Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat 481), stock grazing was merely at the sufferance or tacit consent of Congress under a color of title based on State/Territorial “range” laws. While this
“possessory/ preference” right was good against all others, it was not good against the United States as legal title owner until validated by, or properly initiated under, an Act of Congress (Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869) and The Yosemite Valley Case, 82 US 77 (1872)). However, after passage of the Grazing Act of 1875, Congress validated the right of settlers to
“graze” cattle, horses and other stock animals (even to the point of “destroying grass and trees”), on any land open to settlement under the homestead, preemption, or mineral land
laws. Of course this was often necessary in order to improve pasture or plant crops. By the Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat 2530) Congress had already recognized, sanctioned and confirmed ranch settler's stockwater rights and stocktrail (“highway”) right-of-ways. Therefore, when land in the actual possession of a bona fide settler as a “range” was later incorporated into a federal military reservation, the ranch settler not only owned stockwater rights and stocktrail ROWs, but, had the “preference” right over all others to be “granted the privilege” to continue “grazing cattle, horses, sheep and other stock animals” (Act of 1884, 23 Stat 103).
Additionally, when the reservation was no longer needed for military purposes, any actual settler (if still in possession) had the preference right to acquire title through the homestead laws or by purchase (Act of 1884, supra).
A short list of key decisions pertaining to this principle of “preference/possessory rights” related to “range” rights would be:
Arguello v US, 59 US 539 (1855)
50 yrs possession of cattle range under color of title gives title good against the United States government.
Frisbie v Whitney, 76 US 187 (1869) Possession and improvement gives a settler a preference right to acquire title, which right land department officers are bound to protect. Lamb v Davenport, 85 US 307 (1872)
Possessory rights and improvements could be sold even before any act of congress was passed allowing for disposal of that land. Atherton v Fowler, 96 US 513 (1877) Possession of an enclosed range and improvement of the forage was sufficient to establish possession and defeat later homestead claimants even if the enclosed land far exceeded the amount allowed under the homestead laws. The first settler was entitled to compensation as owner of the forage cut and removed by a second fraudulent claimant even if the legal title to
the underlying land was still in the US. Hosmer v Wallace, 97 US 575 (1879)
Where a settler was in possession or occupancy of thousands of acres as a stock ranch the land was segregated from appropriation by later settlers.
Griffith v Godey,113 US 89 (1885) A settler in possession of thousands of acres of a cattle range, controlled by his ownership of water rights in key springs and of a homestead was the owner of a property right in the range. Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616 (1891)
An expansive cattle range on the Republican river and its tributaries covering portions of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas was a possessory private property interest subject to recovery of damages. Cameron v United States, 148 US 301 (1893), Possession and improvement of thousands of acres as a cattle range gave color of title or a claim that removed the land from the class of “public lands” and therefore the enclosure of
such was not a violation of the Unlawful Occupancy act of 1885.
Lonergan v. Buford, 148 US 581 (1893),
An expansive cattle range together with all water rights, fences and improvements thereon covering portions of Utah and Idaho was possessory private property capable of sale and subject to contract enforcement.
Swan Land and Cattle Co. v Frank, 148 US 603 (1893),
A large cattle range in Wyoming together with water rights, and improvements were possessory property rights subject to actions at law for recovery.
Catholic Bishop v Gibbon, 158 US 155 (1895) By treaty possessory rights of settlers in British Oregon shall be respected; Grayson v Lynch, 163 US 468 (1896) A cattle range suitable for pasturage, watering, and raising cattle in New Mexico was a property right such that the owner could recover for damages caused by diseased cattle being driven across his range.
Tarpey v Madsen, 178 US 215 (1900) Possession implies improvement and settlement with intent to acquire title when land is opened for disposal, but cabins, corrals improvements for hunting, trapping, etc also allowed Ward v Sherman, 192 U.S.168 (1904) A large cattle range, cattle then on the range, and the desert wells were all private property subject to sale and mortgage. Bacon v Walker, 204 US 311 & Bown v Walling, 204 US 320 (1907)
Idaho range laws recognizing settler's right to exclusively graze lands within two miles of their homestead did not infringe on United States' underlying title.
St Paul M&M R Co v Donohue, 210 US 21 (1908) All public lands were opened to settlement and entry after 1880 and a settlers' improvements were sufficient notice of his claim to defeat later claimants. Northern Pacific R Co v Trodick, 221 US 208 (1911) Until a local land office was established and a survey conducted the rights of settlers in possession of public lands could not be defeated by either subsequent withdrawal or grants to third parties.
Curtin v Benson, 222 US 78 (1911) Where a settler owned seven scattered parcels of land connected with 1866 Act right-of-ways, intermingled with 23,000 acres of range rights, before the United States included that land into a national park, the possessory range owner did not afterwards have to acquire a permit prior to using his property rights.
Under the Forest Reserve/Homestead Acts of 1891/1897 (26 Stat 1102/30 Stat 33) all land withdrawn as Forest Reserves that was occupied by “actual settlers” (possessory range rights), and was valuable for “agriculture" (stock raising), not only had “preference” rights attached to them, but also had a network of easements, water rights, Right Of Ways, and improvements that belonged to the bona fide settlers (Act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat 253), Livestock Reservoir Site Act, 0f 1897 (29 Stat 484), and cases cited above). The Act of 1880
had opened all the land in the West to settlement, and had recognized settlers' improvements and possession were sufficient to put any later claimants on notice that the land was already occupied (Cox v Hart, 260 US 427 (1922). The free homestead Act of 1900, (31 Stat. 179), opened all agricultural public lands acquired by treaty to settlement and entry free of charge (except for filing fees).
In1902 Congress enacted the Reclamation Act (32 Stat 388), which altered the policy of granting specific acreage amounts of Desert Land (i.e.160, 320, 640, etc.) and adopted the “Unit policy” which instead granted to a homestead entryman an “amount of land sufficient for the support of a family”. The same policy was followed when Congress enacted the Forest Homestead Act of June 11,1906 (34 Stat. 233, 35 Stat. 554) which included a “preference”
right for actual settlers to enter any number of 160 acre tracts up to the amount of their actual settlement. In1910, Congress authorized the granting of “allotments” to Indians “occupying, living on, or having improvements on” land within National Forests “more valuable for agricultural or grazing purposes than for timber” (36 Stat 863).
This was the law as it existed in 1912 when Congress amended the 1880 Act For Relief of Settlers (37 Stat. 267) and recognized a “preference right” of settlers to an ”additional entry” under the “enlarged homestead provisions” of the Desert Land Laws to claim an amount of land to the extent of their occupancy and possession as long as their boundaries were plainly marked.
In1916 (after 17 years of debate) Congress finally passed the only homestead Act specific to livestock production, the Stock Raising Homestead Act. The intent of the SRHA was to make a permanent disposal of all the remaining approximately 600 million acres in the West "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops".(Stock-Raising Homesteads, 1916. House Rep. No.35. 64Th Cong., 1st Sess.) Section 10 of the SRHA provided for the withdrawal of 600 million acres under the 1910, Pickett Act for "classification" so the range could be surveyed, and allotted as “additional entries” under Section 8. Where an entryman had paid the required fees, made the required improvement and cultivation, and the size of the unit was determined and the plat returned, the entryman had done all required and the equitable title was vested in the entryman (Irwin v. Wright, 258 US 215 (1922)).
By an Act for the Relief of Settlers of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat 1445) Congress allowed settlers under previous homestead acts to convert their “original” or base property entries to either Desert Land (Enlarged) Homestead entries or to Stock-Raising Homestead Act entries in order to change their required “proofs” to $1.25/acre “improvements”. See also the Act of June 6, 1924 amending the SRHA (43 Stat 469). Both the Desert Land (Enlarged)
Homestead Acts and the Stock-Raising Homestead Act also allowed “preferential” or “preference” right “additional entries” to the extent of the settler's actual possession (where his boundaries were clearly marked), of an amount of land “sufficient for the support of a family”
The Pickett Act in conformance with Section 10 of the SRHA provided authority for the creation of grazing Districts outside of National Forests, and the President began creating Grazing Districts in 1928. The Taylor Grazing Act provided for administration of Grazing Districts and provided a formalized process for establishing them. The TGA did not affect valid existing rights, and allowed for ranchers to complete their improvement requirements under section 8 of the SRHA.
This classification, adjudication and surveying was accomplished between 1916 and 1950. The SRHA Act was the grant from Congress, the survey of the ranges into allotments the recording of the maps, improvement of the additional entry to an amount equal to $1.25 per acre, and return of the maps to the ranchers in possession was all that was required by the statute, (see Sellas v Kirk, 200F.2d 217 cert. Denied 345 US 940 (1953). See also Shaw v Kellogg, 170 US 312 (1898).
Some bureaucrats would have people believe that somehow the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) of 1976 somehow changed 130 years of Congressional grants and property rights. FLPMA itself contains 2 pages of “savings provisions” intended to “grandfather” in place all prior existing rights. FLPMA specifically states “All actions by the Secretary [of Interior] concerned under this Act are subject to valid existing rights”. If it was true that FLPMA was intended to extinguish all of ranchers (and anyone else's) property
rights, then Congress the next year would not have provided for the protection of ranchers' property rights under the Surface Mining Reclamation Act of 1977. (91 Stat. 524, Sec. 714, 715 and 717).
An example of prior existing rights is the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge. In 1908 President Roosevelt, established by presidential proclamation a Bird Reserve (subject to prior existing rights). Thirty four years later the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in United States v. Otley, 127 F2d 988 (1942), that not only did the prior existing ranchers living adjacent to Malhuer Lake have the absolute right to graze and cut hay within the reserve, but actually owned half of Malhuer Lake itself. In 1942 the government paid for the right to construct roads, phonelines, plant trees, build fire towers, and build water control dams and structures. For the next thirty years these ranchers continued to graze cattle and cut hay. This all changed with a change in management at the Reserve/Refuge in the 1970's. I'm curious as to exactly what was in the original 1942 purchase agreements. What rights were reserved in those agreements? Why is this new generation of Feds trying to force out the Hammonds by ignoring 18 USC 1857 that exempts “allotment owners” from the criminal arson provisions? The biggest question I
have is why do the people of Harney County believe anything the Federal employees tell them when there is a proven history of them lying to ranchers about prior existing rights (U.S.
v Otley, 1942)?
Here is the 2nd. Yes just make sure you give Dr Angus McIntosh credit for these "These three statutes make it clear that the intent of Congress was that no state would lose its jurisdiction over any land included within a Forest Reserve, Grazing District (BLM), or a Land Utilization/Resettlement Project (National Grasslands) nor any citizen lose any of their State recognized rights (such as water rights or range rights). The comments about "offenses against the United states" refers to "subject matter" jurisdiction (i.e. counterfeiting, etc.). Also, while the Forest Act says the Secretary can make rules and regulations, it also says"Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers...etc. or crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach there homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed..." Also the reserves are open to settlement and appropriation of water rights. Bureaucrats make a big deal out of the allowance for the Secretary to make rules and regulations, but the Supreme Court said the authority to make rules and regulations does not allow the Secretary to prohibit or restrict the very thing authorized by an Act of Congress (United States v. United Verde Copper Company, 196 US 207 (1905)). 30 Stat 36 (Forest Reserves) 48 Stat 1269-1270 (Grazing Districts) 49 Stat 2035-2036 (Resettlement/Utilization Projects aka National Grasslands)"
Another interesting fact Angus has brought to our attention!! "OK folks listen up. The Antiquities Act of 1906 is the authority that Obama, Clinton etc have used to designate millions of acres of parks and monuments. But, guess what? First the Act states it must be some kind of artifact or oddity,something identifiable (not thousands of acres of land), next it is confined to the smallest legal subdivision necessary of the land survey system (40 acres), finally if there are any private lands or even unperfected claims the owner must sign a "relinquishment" before it can become effective. Allotments are property rights, so unless the rancher signs a relinquishment of his rights the monument designation is totally ineffective."
We thank all the men and women who are seeking truth to bring real justice to America. We need to free the POW’s held who are Whistle Blowers who love America, God and their families enough to take a stand for Freedom! FREE THE POLITICAL PRISONERS HELD AS POW’s!
TR/Thom & Rene’
email any news tips to: tr_thecowboyandthelady@yahoo.com
by Thomas Mitchell
as published by Elko Daily Free Press No bureaucratic bungling shall go unrewarded.
Be it at the State Department, Veterans Affairs, Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, Immigration or the Bureau of Land Management.
The man who was in charge of security for the BLM during the botched Bundy ranch cattle roundup two years ago — which resulted in the agency spending $1 million to round up a couple hundred head of cattle, only to release them when confronted by armed supporters of the rancher — has been promoted to a newly created position.
Dan Love, who was in charge of BLM security forces in Nevada and Utah, will now serve as the BLM’s agent in charge of security, protection and intelligence nationwide.
The intelligence part of the job reportedly includes gathering information on emerging threats, such as from websites and online social media.
Why a land management agency should have what amounts to its own law enforcement division is a question to begin with. Even the Nevada Test Site uses private security firms. Aren’t actual law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and U.S. marshals, as well as local police and sheriff agencies, sufficient to protect these public servants?
As for intelligence? Why does a federal land agency need a spy?
Gov. Brian Sandoval chastised the BLM at the time of the Bundy ranch invasion for creating an “atmosphere of intimidation.”
“Due to the roundup by the BLM, my office has received numerous complaints of BLM misconduct, road closures and other disturbances,” Sandoval said in a statement at the time. “I have recently met with state legislators, county officials and concerned citizens to listen to their concerns. I have expressed those concerns directly to the BLM.”
He said most disturbing to him was the BLM’s establishment of a “First Amendment Area,” where any protests were supposed to be contained, calling that a trampling of Nevadans’ fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.
“No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans,” he said. “The BLM needs to reconsider its approach to this matter and act accordingly.”
Though he said rancher Cliven Bundy must be held accountable for defying federal court orders and grazing cattle on federal land without proper permits, then-Sheriff Doug Gillespie was critical of the tactics and behavior of the BLM security forces for creating a situation that threatened to turn into a bloodbath.
Speaking at an editorial board of the Las Vegas morning newspaper a couple of months after the roundup, Gillespie said he had a tense meeting with some of Bundy’s sons a few weeks before the agents moved in with armed vehicles, heavy weapons, snipers and attack dogs. He feared emotions would boil over.
“I came back from that saying, ‘This is not the time to do this,’” he told the editors. “They (the BLM) said, ‘We do this all the time. We know what we’re doing. We hear what you’re saying, but we’re moving forward.’”
He noted that a video of one of Bundy’s sons being Tasered went viral on the Internet, prompting self-styled patriots and militia to pour into the ranch, an outcome for which the BLM was unprepared.
Gillespie added, “You’ll have a hard time convincing me that one person’s drop of blood is worth any one of those cows,” adding that the BLM had no place to take the cattle it had gathered anyway.
Two years later, Bundy, four of his sons and 14 others are being held without bail on federal charges growing out of the standoff.
Love’s handling of the Bundy situation is hardly the first criticism leveled at his methods.
In an article in the Salt Lake City Tribune in October 2014, rural Utah sheriffs described Love as Public Enemy No. 1.
“Elected law enforcement officers from Nephi to Blanding call him an arrogant and dishonest bully who has little regard for local authority and dodges accountability, derailing a collaborative approach to police work on the state’s federal lands,” the article declares.
According to the Reno newspaper, Love also has a penchant for demanding pampering for himself and his agents. Before the 2015 Burning Man festival in Black Rock, Love told festival organizers his staff would require a separate compound with amenities such as flushing toilets, washers and dryers, and 24-hour access to ice cream.
The cost was estimated to be $1 million. The BLM backed off after being widely ridiculed.
That’s how to mount the ladder of success in a bureaucracy. Reposted by Reagangirl.com 6/13/16
It's so bad that Jerry dictated the words to me so that you could hear it from him.
"My Court Appointed Council..., Brian Smith, and his office have failed to file my Detention Hearing Appeal according to the Court filing deadlines. My appeal was filed 5 days late and thus denied by Judge Gloria Navarro. At this point I don't know if there will be another chance for a detention hearing before trial. Bottom line is that the Monday Court Hearing has been cancelled. I am concerned about the competence of the Court Appointed Council due to the fact that 4 days before the Appeal I'm notified that the attorney's office didn't follow the filing guidelines, exposing me to incarceration until trial in 2017." Jerry DeLemus
Jerry's attorney is filing today for reconsideration of the denial.
The prosecutor has no objections to Jerry's Detention Appeal being heard so there is a chance that he may still get the chance to be heard.
So it seems the Court picks your/their attorney doesn't follow guidelines and OH WELL, at this point what difference does it make?!
Please pray. I have been on a fast since Monday and will continue that fast until we hear back about reconsideration. We need Jehovah to hear our prayers.
As always, we are more than grateful for an that you are doing. For those of you who are helping Jerry and I through this. Please send Jerry a letter of encouragement if you can.
Gerald DeLemus 15263-049 2190 East Mesquite Avenue Pahrump, NV 89060
We love you all, Sue and Jerry
( Auto updates open this link each time for latest version)
Schuyler Barbeau #46153-086 FDC SeaTac FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER P.O. BOX 13900 SEATTLE, WA 98198 Commissary Sponsor Information: To Send Money: Western Union, "Send Money" then "send money to an inmate", use account # as 46153-086BARBEAU, if asked for attn to: Schuyler Barbeau, if asked for Code city, use FBOP, DC. http://prisonhandbook.com/499/seatac-federal-detention-center/ FAMILY Sponsor Information- NEEDED
Gregory Burleson Inmate ID #56875-408 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5160079 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html
FAMILY Sponsor Information- NEEDED
Brian Cavalier
Moved updates coming soon FAMILY Sponsor Information- NEEDED
Gerald DeLemus 15263049 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5188193
Orville Scott Drexler #18424-023 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5164227 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html FAMILY Sponsor Information- NEEDED
Todd Engel #18427-023 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5165921 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html
Richard Lovelien #07906-063 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5164779 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html FAMILY Sponsor Information- NEEDED
Micah McGuire #56874-408 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5160090 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html FAMILY Sponsor Information: https://www.paypal.me/AlysiaMc
Eric Parker Inmate ID #18426-023 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #51474150 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html
Jason Woods #56869-408 Nevada Southern Detention Center 2190 East Mesquite Ave Pahrump, NV 89060 Commissary Sponsor Information: For Western Union commissary funds, Correction Corp of America ONLY: ID #5160084 https://www.westernunion.com/us/en/send-inmate/start.html FAMILY Sponsor Information- NEEDED
