Shrout, Winston

[Judge Roy Bean]

The only one I've even heard of involved overseas military duty. If I recall correctly the prosecutor had to send someone to Beirut to depose a Marine officer. That was well before video conferencing.

The witness list should be interesting.

[notorial dissent]

This is Shrout after all, so I wouldn't hold my breath for it actually having any legal or probative value first off. This has drug on so long now I've lost track if he ever actually got a real lawyer or not, or is still just shucking and jiving the judge at this point.

[wserra]

nd - it's the govt's application.

[notorial dissent]

nd - it's the govt's application.

OK then, I am officially puzzled then.

[Jeffrey]

The docket now shows 2x - OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED. One for his Faretta hearing and another for a hearing from January.

Does this mean anything?

There was also an evidentiary hearing where Shrout chose not to show up.

[wserra]

The docket now shows 2x - OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FILED. One for his Faretta hearing and another for a hearing from January.

Does this mean anything?

No. Just that the transcripts for those proceedings are now available, but subject to redaction requests before becoming publicly available on PACER.

There was also an evidentiary hearing where Shrout chose not to show up.

That one is more interesting. It appears to be the deposition discussed above, witness one Jennifer Becker. A quick Google is unhelpful as to who that is. I don't have time for a real search, but, if someone else does . . .

[Jeffrey]

Shrout's PL has filed a motion to dismiss for "vindictive prosecution":
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/downl ... z=d2082e1e

[Judge Roy Bean]

IMHO, a swing and a miss, but a swing nevertheless. It demonstrates the AC isn't being a potted plant.

In his theory, anyone already charged with a misdemeanor deserves a break on any other crimes just because the prosecutor didn't bring them all up at once.

[wserra]

The govt's response to Shrout's vindictive prosecution motion.

The govt gonna win but - as JRB says - not a frivolous motion. Of course, Shrout didn't write it. Had he done so, it would have been frivolous.

[jcolvin2]

The govt's response to Shrout's vindictive prosecution motion.

The govt gonna win but - as JRB says - not a frivolous motion. Of course, Shrout didn't write it. Had he done so, it would have been frivolous.

Motion to dismiss denied:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON, PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WINSTON SHROUT,
Defendant.
3: 15-cr-00438-JO

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive Prosecution [#73]. On December 8, 2015, the Grand Jmy returned an indictment charging defendant with six misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file tax returns in violation of26 U.S.C. § 7203. [#1] On March 15, 2016, the Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment charging him additionally with 13 felony counts of issuing fictitious obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 541. [#17] Defendant contends the superseding indictment appears to be a vindictive response to his decision to proceed without counsel and to file pro se documents. The motion is DENIED.

STANDARDS

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a prosecutor from vindictively prosecuting a defendant to punish the defendant's exercise of a protected right. Blackledge v. Peny, 417 U.S. 21, 27 (1974); United States v. Kent, 649 F.3d 906, 912 (9'h Cir. 2011). To establish a prima facie case of vindictive prosecution, a defendant must show either direct evidence of the prosecutor's actual vindictive motive to punish him for exercising a protected right or evidence of circumstances that give rise to an appearance that charges were vindictively filed. United States v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694, 699 (9'h Cir. 2007); United States v. Edmonds, 103 F.3d 822, 826 (9'h Cir. 1996).

An appearance of vindictiveness results when there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor pursued additional charges only because of hostility or a punitive animus toward the defendant because he exercised a legal right. Jenkins, 504 F.3d at 700. If the defendant establishes the appearance of vindictiveness, he is entitled to a presumption which the prosecution must rebut by showing "independent reasons or intervening circumstances dispel the appearance of vindictiveness and justify its decisions." United States v. Hooton, 662 F.2d 628, 634 (9'h Cir. 1981).

DISCUSSION

In dete1mining whether the circumstances warrant a presumption of vindictiveness, courts must analyze the timing of the superseding indictment and the nature of the right which the defendant exercised. United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681F.2d1164, 1168 (9'h Cir. 1982) citing United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381-82 (1982).

Here the initial indictment was returned while the prosecution was engaged in an ongoing long term investigation of defendant's activities. The superseding indictment also came during pretrial proceedings, while the prosecution was preparing a complex case for trial and before the defendant filed routine pretrial motions. The only matters before the court had been a status conference and Faretta hearing. At this early stage of the proceedings it is reasonably likely that, before seeking the superseding indictment, the prosecution had not fully discovered and assessed all of the information against the defendant and made a final determination, based on that information, of the extent to which he should be prosecuted. In addition, before trial defendants routinely exercise rights by filing motions to suppress, challenging the indictment, seeking discove1y, asking for a trial by jury and so forth. It is not realistic to assume that prosecutors who routinely face these burdens would respond vindictively to defendant's pretrial decision to proceed prose in this case. Thus the timing of the superseding indictment suggests that a presumption of vindictiveness is not warranted. Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 381; Gallegos-Curiel, 681F.2d1168.

The nature of the right defendant asserted also does not warrant a presumption of
vindictiveness. Defendant asks the court to conclude that the prosecution modified the charges against him to punish him for representing himself and filing frivolous documents. Neither his exercise of the right to self representation nor his filing of frivolous documents imposes additional burdens on the prosecution to prove its case. Under these circumstances, I find it unlikely the prosecutor would have a punitive animus toward defendant for exercising the rights he asserted.

I find that the rights exercised here and the circumstances defendant identified fail to present a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness or raise a threshold appearance of vindictiveness sufficient to trigger further inquiry into the prosecutor's actual motives in seeking the superseding indictment.

Accordingly, the motion [#73] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of March, 2017.
Robert E. Jones
United Stated District Judge

[notorial dissent]

Right, not frivolous, but essentially pointless, more in the let's give it a shot and see what happens vein.

[Jeffrey]

Shrout's trial begins today.

[wserra]

For those interested: a summary of the govt's case, witness by witness.

I'm convinced (even though I have questions about the admissibility of a couple of things there).

And Shrout's exhibit list. From (3) and (4) - the consent decree in Diversified Metal Products and Delaware records showing that there is a DE corp named "Internal Revenue Tax and Audit Service, Inc" respectively - it appears that Shrout was going with the tried-and-true "the IRS isn't part of the US govt" defense. But the Court ruled those exhibits inadmissible per FRE 416, "Moronic Rantings Inadmissible".

Man, are the courts corrupt!

[Arthur Rubin]

I can't find FRE 416. Must be new.

[Pottapaug1938]

I can't find FRE 416. Must be new.

Or, Wes had tongue planted firmly in cheek when he cited that rule.

[The Observer]

I can't find FRE 416. Must be new.

Or, Wes had tongue planted firmly in cheek when he cited that rule.

Well, if Wes made it up, I would argue that the courts should have such a rule.

[Famspear]

I can't find FRE 416. Must be new.

Or, Wes had tongue planted firmly in cheek when he cited that rule.

Rule 416 is found in the Super-Secret Jethro Bodine Double-Naught Spy Pocket Part for the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Pocket Part can be viewed only by Illuminati members over the age of fifty, wearing special eyeglasses that shield us from the radiation inherent in such things.

Anyway, very few people younger than the age of fifty even know what a pocket part is......

[Jeffrey]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... _more.html

Good news, we got a man on the inside.

[The Observer]

He [Shrout] spoke of his upbringing in Kentucky and called himself an "eighth-generation hillbilly.''

I'm thinking the previous seven generations are disavowing any relation to Shrout.

He described his college training in psychology,...

Which it appears he used in this scheme to fleece his "customers."

...[F]our years of service in the Marine Corps and his respect for the American flag.

It appears that he forgot all about that while he was running his scam.

He called the government's allegations that he defrauded U.S. financial institutions by issuing hundreds of bogus documents as legal tender and failing to file six years of income tax returns "not very accurate.''

Uh, Winston, even if it's only a little accurate, you are looking at some serious jail time.

He called the government's allegations that he defrauded U.S. financial institutions by issuing hundreds of bogus documents as legal tender and failing to file six years of income tax returns "not very accurate.''

Though he said he has spent a great deal of the last 18 years conducting research, he said federal tax statutes are too difficult for a college graduate to master.

But a 8th generation hillbilly can, right?

"It's impossible to understand the U.S. Code,'' he told jurors. "I have 16 years of formal education. I would need another seven years to understand.

So not understanding the US Code drove you to issue phony bonds? How come everyone else with less education than you has avoided doing that?

In 2011, Shrout sent by FedEx a package to a bank in Chicago called American Metro Bank. It contained 1,000 "International Bills of Exchange,'' each supposedly worth $1 trillion.

Bank vice president Bill McGrath is expected to testify that it took considerable time for him to determine that the documents were bogus before he sent them back to Shrout.

I am finding it hard to believe that an experienced banker had to spend a lot of time to realize that what Shrout sent him was phony. I think the big tip off would be that bonds supposedly had a face-value of $1 trillion dollars.

[notorial dissent]

I have to admit that I find the banker's statement extremely difficult to believe, or else he was exactly the candidate Shrout needed for his con. Either way I'd be seriously questioning his competence.