Shrout, Winston

[jcolvin2]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oregon-ma ... ax-returns

If convicted, Shrout faces a statutory maximum sentence of six years in prison and a maximum fine of $150,000.

Rejoice.

The press release apparently computed the maximum fine by looking at the amount ($25,000) specified in section 7203 (the failure to file statute) and multiplying it by six to get $150,000. I believe this is incorrect. Section 3571(b) of Title 18 provides that the fine is the maximum of the following:

(b) Fines for Individuals.—Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—

(1) the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense;

(2) the applicable amount under subsection (d) of this section;

(3) for a felony, not more than $250,000;

(4) for a misdemeanor resulting in death, not more than $250,000;

(5) for a Class A misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $100,000;

(6) for a Class B or C misdemeanor that does not result in death, not more than $5,000; or

(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.

Because section 7203 is a Class A misdemeanor (A Class A misdemeanor is one whose maximum sentence is between 6 months and one year), the technical maximum fine is $100,000 per count, or $600,000.

[Famspear]

The case is United States v. Winston Shrout, case no. 3:15-cr-00438-JO, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland Division).

The indictment alleges that Shrout operated a business as Winston Shrout Solutions in Commerce, and that he received payments for services as a presenter at seminars and licensing fees associated with the sale of products such as DVD recording of seminars and one-on-one consultations with "clients."

He is accused of willfully failing to file U.S. federal income tax returns for years 2009 through 2014, which of course embodies the six counts under Internal Revenue Code section 7203, a misdemeanor statute.

[NYGman]

A Bit off topic, and I am sorry for that, but this Just clicked in my head.

Isn't Winston one of the people presenting on the FMOTL cruise ship spectacular?
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10728&

[notorial dissent]

Yeppers.

[NYGman]

Yeppers.

Wonder if he can get his case delayed until he returns from that trip.

[notorial dissent]

Wonder if he still even has a passport.

[Jeffrey]

Been about a week since the indictment, I been keeping tabs on the usual forums. Nobody has acknowleged Shrout's indictment.

Did find this video of a non-SovCit discussing Shrout's indictment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug5Pg27KQkk

[wserra]

Because he is charged with misdemeanors, Shrout was served a summons to appear (rather than being arrested). He has to show up (with or without Strawman) on January 7 for arraignment.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Not knowing the venue's rules, we can only hope for some kind of audio/visual transcript.

Anything other than that is subject to all manner of absurd manipulation.

[noblepa]

Wonder if he still even has a passport.

You don't need a passport to go on a cruise. If the cruise is a closed-loop trip (leaves/arrives at the same port), a certified birth certificate is sufficient.

If, however, you miss the ship in one of the ports of call, or have a family emergency and need to leave the ship and fly home, a passport is essential.

[Jeffrey]

Going with misdemeanor is clearly bogus. They should have gone with conspiracy to defraud or something beefier. There's already a clear public record showing Shrout was getting people to file fraudulent 1099 forms then having those people give him a portion of the refund check.

[Famspear]

Speaking of U.S. federal taxes and U.S. passports, I hope Mr. Shrout does not have a problem with Internal Revenue Code section 7345, which was enacted on (and became effective on) December 4, 2015. That new provision states (in part):

SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate] receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that an individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 32101 of the FAST Act [i.e., the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Public Law No. 114-94, signed into law on December 4, 2015].

(b) SERIOUSLY DELINQUENT TAX DEBT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘seriously delinquent tax debt’ means an unpaid, legally enforceable Federal tax liability of an individual—

(A) which has been assessed,

(B) which is greater than $50,000, and

(C) with respect to which—

(i) a notice of lien has been filed pursuant to section 6323 and the administrative rights under section 6320 with respect to such filing have been exhausted or have lapsed, or

(ii) a levy is made pursuant to section 6331.

(2) EXCEPTIONS.—Such term shall not include—

(A) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement to which the individual is party under section 6159 or 7122, and

(B) a debt with respect to which collection is suspended with respect to the individual—

(i) because a due process hearing under section 6330 is requested or pending, or

(ii) because an election under subsection (b) or (c) of section 6015 is made or relief under subsection (f) of such section is requested. [ . . . ]

[noblepa]

Speaking of U.S. federal taxes and U.S. passports, I hope Mr. Shrout does not have a problem with Internal Revenue Code section 7345, which was enacted on (and became effective on) December 4, 2015. That new provision states (in part):

This wouldn't stop him from going on the cruise, although some cruise lines are requiring a passport, even though the law does not. If he were to be put ashore in a foreign country, or if he missed the ship for whatever reason, or had to fly home for a family emergency, he would need a passport.

[jcolvin2]

01/07/2016

Docket Entry 8

Minutes of Proceedings: First Appearance before Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta as to Winston Shrout held on 1/7/2016. AFPD Ruben L. Iniguez appointed as "advisory counsel" for defendant Winston Shrout. ORDER: SETTING over Arraignment is set for 2/3/2016 at 09:30AM in Portland Courtroom 10A before Judge Robert E. Jones. Also setting for 2/3/2016 a further Status Conference and Plea. FURTHER ORDERED - GRANTING the parties request to WAIVE the 14 day discovery deadline. Defense counsel ORDERED to send Mr. Shrout a copy of the minutes of this proceeding. Counsel Present for Plaintiff: Stuart Wexler. Counsel Present for Defendant: Ruben Iniguez. (Court Reporter FTR(pg)11b) (peg) (Entered: 01/08/2016)

[Gannibal]

I'm on board attending the conference, blogging it (slowly given time and data constraints) at Violent Metaphors - violentmetaphors.com, natch.

Shrout did indeed board using a birth certificate. I know that because he passed it around the audience at his lecture, so we could all see the ALL CAPS that makes him a non-taxable entity. (Live babies are original issue, so non-taxable.)

I asked him about the indictment. No worries, guys! It's a sting. HIS sting. He had to work SO HARD to get them to attack, but now he's got the government riiiiiiiight where he wants it. Now they've infringed on the sovereignty of an International Judge. He's going to get the IRS and the corporation that owns it (wrote the name down, can't recall it at the moment) over a barrel. Why, he's already got a commercial lien on the judge!

I recorded his lecture but not our private conversation afterwards. I'll write up a description and my thoughts on the blog, but it might take a couple of days.

[wserra]

Thanks, Gannibal. This is great stuff.

[LightinDarkness]

I'm on board attending the conference, blogging it (slowly given time and data constraints) at Violent Metaphors - violentmetaphors.com, natch.

Shrout did indeed board using a birth certificate. I know that because he passed it around the audience at his lecture, so we could all see the ALL CAPS that makes him a non-taxable entity. (Live babies are original issue, so non-taxable.)

I asked him about the indictment. No worries, guys! It's a sting. HIS sting. He had to work SO HARD to get them to attack, but now he's got the government riiiiiiiight where he wants it. Now they've infringed on the sovereignty of an International Judge. He's going to get the IRS and the corporation that owns it (wrote the name down, can't recall it at the moment) over a barrel. Why, he's already got a commercial lien on the judge!

I recorded his lecture but not our private conversation afterwards. I'll write up a description and my thoughts on the blog, but it might take a couple of days.

The blog take down is epic and I love it:
http://violentmetaphors.com/2016/01/27/ ... ise-day-2/

Can you tell us anything about the people in the room? I guess given the audience of the conspira-sea cruise, they were all eating it up?

[The Observer]

The greatest line in the blog:

I don’t just mean that Shrout is uneducated in the law. I mean that the basic vocabulary of law has defeated him utterly.

If a guru can't even understand basic definitions and get them right, then there is no way ever his or her woo, no matter how much they tell you their woo is, is ever going to get off the ground.

[wserra]

But they may manage to get under the ground. LeRoy Schweitzer did, and Shrout is following in those august footsteps.

Last week, Shrout filed two, well, pseudo-legal thingies in the Court docket, and sent two more directly to the govt. A little background first - when Shrout appeared on the summons three weeks ago, he said he wanted to go pro se. However, the Magistrate before whom he appeared apparently didn't want to deal with defendant Fraudly Nutcase, and deferred arraignment until Shrout's appearance before DJ Jones this coming Wednesday. So as of now Shrout is unrepresented, and thus able to file gibberish for our amusement.

So: what is the first thing any self-respecting sovrun will do when hauled before the Court? Why, appoint the Judge his "fiduciary" and then send him an "Invoice" for the privilege. Next, you direct the United States Treasury to "liquidate" your debt to the Court. I mean, for someone like Shrout this stuff is Sovrun 101.

The advanced technique - pioneered by none other than Shrout himself - is to send stuff directly to the U.S. Attorney. You know, the people who want to put you in jail. So first Shrout sends them a "notice" that he is "an internationally
protected person under sovereign immunity" because "THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TREASURY CONTROL" has designated "THE HONORABLE WINSTON SHROUT" a "Notary Exequatur With Authority of Legate Adjudica". Since the govt ignored his exalted personage in prosecuting him, it owes Shrout $7,000,000,000,000. Yes, seven trillion dollars. Just to be sure, he sends the govt a lien, under the auspices of that same "OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TREASURY CONTROL".

It's a bad sign when Wikipedia calls your authority "a seemingly elaborate fraudulent organization".

[notorial dissent]

And here I thought that OITC was dead and gone, since its progenitor is now languishing in a Thai prison, or at least was last I heard. Good old day late and a dollar short Winny, bravely marching to a long past drummer's beat.