Shrout, Winston

[Judge Roy Bean]

His supporters seem to think he entered a guilty plea.

Given that he has them right where he wants them in his trap, I doubt a guilty plea would be within the grasp of his ego.

[notorial dissent]

Considering the level of sophistication and gullibility of his usual followers none of this is or should be surprising. I also agree, that with his ego he'd never plead guilty since it would be admitting he was a fraud.

[wserra]

Shrout's new release order contains the following special conditions:

The defendant shall remove from the website http://www.wssic.com all materials for sale that reference paying debt or creating credit through the creation of financial instruments.

The defendant shall not make such materials available for sale through any other source.

The defendant shall refrain from presenting seminars or conducting one-on-one consultations with clients that reference paying off debts or creating credit through the creation of financial instruments.

Shrout has obviously not yet complied with the first condition - but the order was only mailed to him on Thursday. They'll give him a few days. After next week, however - well, the AUSA is stuart.a.wexler@usdoj.gov

As for pleading guilty: I don't think so. Based on what he filed last week, though, he may plead nitwit.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...

As for pleading guilty: I don't think so. Based on what he filed last week, though, he may plead nitwit.

Something tells me Shrout will be really pissed off that the court and the AUSA ignore him. He probably hasn't encountered the phrase, "... it is as if the proponent had advanced no argument at all."

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like a Winston Shrout argument to me, as in one at all.

Gee eleven whole pages of genuine sovrun in commerce jibber jabber meaning and signifying nothing at all.

My question would be is the affiant delusional? Rhetorical I know.

[wserra]

He probably hasn't encountered the phrase, "... it is as if the proponent had advanced no argument at all."

Or, for that matter, "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

[notorial dissent]

That'll do too.

[Jeffrey]

Shrouts filing has to be read to be believed, he actually argues that WSSIC (Winston Shrout Solutions in Commerce), the website where he sells his DVDs, does not exist!

http://www.stage2omega.com/winston-shro ... st-events/

Interview with Shrout dated March 31st.

[exiledscouser]

This guy is very inventive and hugely entertaining in a perverse way. As I read his pleadings he is some sort of unholy trinity consisting of Winston Shrout, WINSTON SHROUT and WINSTON SHROUT ******** as, respectively, sole shareholder, settlor and beneficiary in a weird trust-like arrangement. He probably needs three letter boxes and a car with a wide bench seat up front. And I bet his missus (assuming there is one) will have quickly tired of four in a bed.

I've probably incurred a horrendous fee of some sort for the temerity of using one or all of his forms of address. Which he can go whistle for as I've opted completely out of Common Law and wholly into Admiralty/Statute Law in all my dealings with everyone, including pseudo-trio, bizarre quasi-trusts and off-the-dial Oregonians.

After all, before he gets to me he'll have to spend some to get through the nineteen
MILLLLLLION USD he's demanding from the US District Court, the DOJ, various attorneys, Uncle Tom Cobley and all, to be met from from the US Govt, the personal property of his accusers or both. Note; not in Federal Reserve Notes if you please. And after all, the indictments charge him with issuing $100 TRILLION in fake finance documents which is really going some. Is there a hollowed-out volcano somewhere in Hillsboro?



With some resignation I fear that it's only a matter of time before this type of nuttery spreads across the Atlantic, notwithstanding that Winston is likely to fare very badly on his journey through the US legal system.

[jcolvin2]

...

As for pleading guilty: I don't think so. Based on what he filed last week, though, he may plead nitwit.

Something tells me Shrout will be really pissed off that the court and the AUSA ignore him. He probably hasn't encountered the phrase, "... it is as if the proponent had advanced no argument at all."

The judge apparently ruled that no response to Shrout's latest filing was required:

During the defendant’s March 31 arraignment on the superseding indictment, this Court addressed the defendant’s pleading. The Court described various portions of the pleading as “nonsense” and “legally meaningless.” See Attachment A, Court’s Faretta advisement. The Court also indicated the pleading did not present any question to which the government was required to respond. Id. Nevertheless, the government hereby submits this limited Response to the defendant’s pleading.

On April 4, 2016, the government did respond on the merits to the request for a Bill of Particulars:

While styled as a pleading, the defendant’s document is merely a frivolous harangue against the government and the Court. First, the defendant denies every allegation set forth in the superseding indictment, including any evidence of his own existence or the existence of the Court. (Doc. 23 at 4.) The pleading then purports to establish a demand for a written bill of particulars, but instead is merely a set of interrogatories that presents 84 frivolous incoherencies, such as:
 In Case what is WINSTON SHROUT?”
 In Case is USDC a for profit and gain corporation, profiting from use or sale of GSA bonds?
 In Case is USDC a legal fiction entity, 14th Amendment person, individual, commercial strawman, or juristic person created by the federal government?
 In Case does USDC lie in USA?
 In Case upon what premise does Defendatn(s) assert standing to sue as against Winston Shrout/secured party of WINSTON SHROUT or any derivative therof?
 In Case can any legal fiction possess a right?
 In Case does Respondent(s) impede commerce of Winston Shrout by ‘arrest’ of US vessel, WINSTON SHROUT, which is sole property of Winston Shrout?
(Doc. 23 at 6-9.)

The frivolous nature of the defendant’s pleading is confirmed in its “NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES,” which claims that the grand jury’s superseding indictment may amount to a treasonous act that would be referred to the United States Army for court martial, and its “True Bill in Commerce for Injury to Winston Shrout,” which seeks a remedy of $19 million due to injury caused by the superseding indictment. The pleading specifically notes that this money should be paid by both the government and the Court, failure to do so resulting in the seizure of both public and private property belonging to officers of the Court and employees of the federal government. (Doc. 23 at 10.)

While the defendant’s pleading was accompanied by a supporting memorandum, the memorandum contains merely additional frivolous claims, such as “Winston Shrout strongly suspects that the Clerk of the USDC has already made a draw at the back office of the US Treasury, and may have even issued the GSA bonds 24, 25, and 25a, or similar Miller Act Bonds. These are acts of thievery of the estate belonging to Winston Shrout without the express consent of Winston Shrout as the only settlor of WINSTON SHROUT.” (Doc. 23-1 at. 3.)

While the pleadings of a pro se defendant may be held to a less stringent standard, it is beyond a doubt that the defendant can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See e.g. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). That is largely in part due to the fact that the legal theories presented in the defendant’s pleading, to the extent that it presents any, are clearly baseless and indisputably meaningless. As a result, the defendant’s pleading should be denied by the Court.

2. Bill of Particulars

To the extent that it purports to do anything, the defendant’s pleading arguably purports to be a motion for a bill of particulars under Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 7(f). While the pleading is frivolous and without meaning, it also lacks legal merit as a request for a bill of particulars under the law.

A bill of particulars should be granted only where necessary to inform the accused of the charge with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare a defense, to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, or to enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of further prosecution for the same offense. Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 82 (1927); United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir. 1991).

A bill of particulars is not a tool for a defendant “to obtain a detailed disclosure of the government’s evidence prior to trial.” United States v. Kilrain, 566 F.2d 979, 985 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 819 (1978); see United States v. Ryland, 806 F.2d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 1986) cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1057 (1987) (finding that before trial a defendant “is not entitled to know all the evidence the government intends to produce but only the theory of the government’s case.”). In other words, a bill of particulars is not to be used for generalized discovery. United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438 (11th Cir. 1986). To allow a bill of particulars to serve as discovery would frustrate the purposes of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. Id.

Moreover, a bill of particulars is not necessary if the indictment advises a defendant of the details of an offense. United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979). A bill of particulars thus should be ordered only of the indictment is too vague and indefinite to achieve the purposes served by the bill. United States v. Sullivan, 421 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1970). The applicable standard is not whether the information sought is helpful to the defense, but whether it is necessary to the defense.
Finally, a bill of particulars is not necessary if the United States’ discovery adequately advises the defendant of the charges against him. United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “[f]ull discovery will obviate the need for a bill of particulars.”); United States v. Mitchell, 744 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Buckner, 610 F.2d 570, 574 (9th Cir. 1979).

In this case, the Superseding Indictment is neither vague nor ambiguous; the nature of the charges and the conduct at issue is clearly set forth through detailed Introductory Allegations and specific and detailed charging language for each count of the Superseding Indictment. Moreover, the defendant has been provided with full and exhaustive discovery; the discovery provided to-date adequately apprises the defendant of the nature of the charged conduct. To the extent that some of the defendant’s interrogatories seek appropriate information, that information can be found in the discovery provided by the government. The defendant has been provided with over 1.5 terabytes of evidence, including bank records, IRS records, business records, FedEx shipping records, and correspondence obtained by the government during the course of its investigation. Indeed, the defendant has both records pertaining to an undercover investigation conducted against the defendant that corresponds directly with many of the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment, as well as the specific documents alleged in Counts 1-13 of the Superseding Indictment. The defendant has also been provided with the substance of statements made to the government by witnesses and transcripts of grand jury testimony.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the defendant’s pleading should be denied as a frivolous pleading that is legally meaningless. To the extent that the defendant’s pleading purports to be a motion for a bill of particulars, the defendant’s motion should also be denied for lacking legal merit.

[The Observer]

I really, really, really think that the government should have filed a motion for the court to have a large cream pie tossed into Shrout's face at some point during the trial.

[Gannibal]

He explained in this conference call that he TRIED to enter a guilty plea (I think he said at the arraignment, but I don't recall for sure) on the condition that the prosecutors do something. Verify and attest to the charges, something like that--standard gabble. They wouldn't, so I guess he had no choice but to plead not guilty.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... 256&cmd=tc

[Jeffrey]

I heard rumors that the case was pushed back to June.

[Jeffrey]

ORDER - Final Pretrial Conference is set for 6/1/2016 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland Courtroom 10A. A 2-Week Jury Trial is set for 6/7/2016 at 09:00AM before Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland Courtroom 10A.

[Jeffrey]

I'm going to post some open questions here that I can't seem to be able to figure out.

In this 2011 interview Shrout mentions a guy in Cambodia, Ray C. Dam (unknown spelling), who essentially had access to trillions of dollars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l428i3WAkuU

In this 2012 interview, Keith Scott mentions the same guy in Cambodia having trillions of dollars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtL0mfiq5ko

Now cross referencing those dates with the dates of the "International Bills of Exchange", the first one Shrout passed was in August 2011. A few months after the interview mentioning the "Office of International Treasury Control" guy.

So I'm wondering if there is even a guy in Cambodia. Or did the guy in Cambodia tell Winston to try passing the bills, or say gave Winston fake account numbers and told him to go write trillions in dollars of fake financial instruments.

Meanwhile, add to that, Neil Keenan, the guy now claiming there's been a military coup also seems to be involved with the Cambodian. Shrout at the same time is echoing the claim that there's been a military coup by General Dunford. So I'm wondering if Keenan is himself also possibly about to be indicted for his involvement in these shenanigans or if he's safely out of the country.

Second issue. Who were the groups that Shrout was trying to pass off these instruments to?

The second company that Shrout sent these bills to is Rainmaker Services Inc., an oil and gas company in Oregon (Shrout's state), for $10 million.

So that raises the question of what was Shrout doing by sending that to an oil company? According to the indictment the bills indicated those companies were to be credited that amount. So was it an attempt to pay off a debt he owed? It doesn't make sense for Shrout to owe an oil company $10 million. Or somehow an attempt to get them to cash it for him?

Or did the owners of these companies go to Shrout to try to get money somehow?

Then there's the $10 billion BoE he sent to Clarington Capital Group LLC, a corporation whose only online presence appears to be this case:

https://casetext.com/case/cx-inc-v-clar ... al-grp-llc

I cannot figure out what the company does based on the little information in that court decision.

A $10 million BoE to A&P Management Corporation, S.A., I couldn't find who they are or if they exist.

$1 Billion BoE to Capital International Investments Ltd, which appears to be a name shared by several companies one of which is a P.O. Box in the Virgin Islands, another in the Cayman Islands, another in Dubai.

$500 billion BoE to Worldwide Funding LLC. which was basically a Ponzi Scheme that got busted a year after Shrout sent the BoE to them:

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/c ... unding.htm

$25 billion to Assett International Funding, no idea who they are. Possibly this UK company that was dissolved in 2011?

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06127387

$100 million to AMERICA PACIFIC GLOBAL EXCHANGE CORPORATION, possibly this company in California, absolutely no information about what they are or what they do:

http://www.businessescalifornia.com/c/b ... n/C3033948

The Google Street image of their business address shows that it's a Postal and More, which suggests to me that this business is registered to a mailbox at this store.

Then there's the only slightly traditional target, $2 trillion to American Metro Bank, which is a Chicago based bank. So why Shrout was sending it there from Oregon is a bit of a mystery.

That one is listed separately and the indictment doesn't seem to indicate what the point of it was. Was he trying to get $2 trillion from the bank or give the bank $2 trillion or get $2 trillion from the bank to someone else?

[notorial dissent]

Oh. My. Dog. You’ve hit the motherlode of cray cray. Ray C. Dam, or whatever his real name is a loon of the first water. He is the crazy all the other financial con crazies aspire to be, and yet he never quite made it and is at last hearing a more or less a permanent guest of the Thai authorites for all sorts of things he shouldn’t have been doing, mostly currency fraud as I recall. Dam invented a little thing called the OITC, otherwise known as the Office of International Treasury Control, a really really complicated fantasy involving trillions of dollars or whatever and all sort of fantasy illusions about authority and power and stuff, he was a minister and ambassador plenipotentiary and all sorts of things he claimed. Really top grade cray cray, and the dim and bewildered bought in to it like no body’s business. Ronny the loon Van Dyke was one of the earlier pushers. I’m not sure if the Dragon Ambassador farce grew out of this or not, but I think it did after OITC foundered on the rocks of reality and their front man getting busted, but between Dam, Keenan, and the crazy conspiracy nut from Japan whose name eludes me at the moment, Alford it think, are the ones that got it started. I think Keenan has been involved in all of these in one way or another. Keenan is another one who is calling in from an unlicenced and unregistered reality. Keenan tried to run a monumental civil suit through the Eastern Dist of NY that languished there for far longer than it should have before it got bounced as the veriest of hooey, whole long thread here at Quatloos, the fantasy was at least entertaining though. As far as I know Keenan has managed to keep his fingers out of the fire, he is more of shill and an encourager of others to do stupid things kind of guy. As far as anyone can tell the real Gen Dunford doesn’t even know who these loons are or what they are doing in his name, but it is being pushed by one of the alternate RuSA type organizations, mostly on NESARA News as far as I can tell. They make grand pronouncements every so often that the loons there drool and fawn over and then it gets forgotten in the next “real” news cycle. Short attention spans are a good thing for that crowd.

The last I’d heard Shrout got busted for sending his magic paper to the Feds, they busted him for tax fraud as near as I can figure, haven’t seen the actual indictment, but that is the gist of what I remember hearing about it. I hadn’t heard anything about any other companies, although Rainmaker sounds familiar for some reason. So that is all basically new information. I am betting that since Shrout is involved that they are all made up in one fashion or another. If Shrout is involved with it in any way you can pretty well bet there is a scam buried there somewhere.

[Jeffrey]

My bad, this is the link to the superseding indictment:

http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-nor ... ctment.pdf

Has the list of the companies referenced in the bills of exchange.

[Jeffrey]

There's been some action if someone could grab these:

Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum) (sss) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

Notice of Default of Plea in Bar and Demand for Written Bill of Particulars True Bill in Commerce of Necessity. Filed Pro Se by Winston Shrout. (sss) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

Notice of 1099A. Filed Pro Se by Winston Shrout. (sss) (Entered: 04/18/2016)

Response to Motion by USA as to Winston Shrout regarding Motion to Dismiss 31 filed by Defendant Winston Shrout (Wexler, Stuart) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

ORDER Denying 31 Motion to Dismiss as to Winston Shrout (1)Signed on 4/18/2016 by Judge Robert E. Jones. (Mailed to Defendant this date.) (sss) (Entered: 04/19/2016)

[notorial dissent]

Here is the 3-25 Plea in Bar, haven't found the others yet.

Plea in Bar

[Judge Roy Bean]

As far as I can tell, there is only one statement in the entire document that makes any sense whatsoever, and that is where he sort-of identifies himself as someone "who is unschooled in law."

He then asks that the court " ... look to the substance of the pleadings rather in the form," which is absurd, since there is no substance, let alone form.

I feel sorry for the judge.