Shrout, Winston

[wserra]

Bank vice president Bill McGrath is expected to testify that it took considerable time for him to determine that the documents were bogus

I have to admit that I find the banker's statement extremely difficult to believe

I would too, but it's not "the banker's statement". It's an account a reporter wrote of what s/he "expect[s]" the banker to testify. God knows where it came from. The govt's summary doesn't say that.

[notorial dissent]

My confusion then.

[wserra]

I think it's the reporter's confusion.

[notorial dissent]

I just generally figure that anything coming out of Shrout's mouth is self serving BS, much simpler that way, and yet to be proven wrong.

[morrand]

Bank vice president Bill McGrath is expected to testify that it took considerable time for him to determine that the documents were bogus

I have to admit that I find the banker's statement extremely difficult to believe

I would too, but it's not "the banker's statement". It's an account a reporter wrote of what s/he "expect[s]" the banker to testify. God knows where it came from. The govt's summary doesn't say that.

I guess it would make sense if Shrout were going to raise the defense that his behavior was so outrageous that it couldn't have been criminal. Or in other words, that what he did was no more criminal than showing up at the teller window and trying to deposit Monopoly money would be. Not that it's a good defense, necessarily, but in the wrong sort of conditions, it might be enough.

Maybe it makes more sense to read that as a description of the VP's efforts to figure out how those "Bills of Exchange" were bogus, or how to explain that they were bogus, rather than whether they were bogus. Plainly they were, but I guess it'd be important for the bank to document their specific objections, rather than just kicking them back.

[notorial dissent]

It makes considerable sense if Shrout is making the claims, since almost his every utterance is a lie, but in reality....

As I said previously, I find it hard, well nigh on to impossible to believe that any real banker would even have a moment of hesitation about those pretty colored pieces of paper. As someone pointed out the numbers alone should have been a dead give away, but an IBOE, come on, that just begs reality.

[Burnaby49]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ments.html

[The Observer]

That headline seems to be inaccurate. From what I can tell, Shrout successfully forged those documents; he just wasn't successful in convincing anyone that matters that they were legitimate for the purpose of satisfying a debt.

[Famspear]

Headline:

Suit: Sovereign Citizen Tried to Forge $100 Trillion Worth of Fake Financial Documents

That headline seems to be inaccurate. From what I can tell, Shrout successfully forged those documents; he just wasn't successful in convincing anyone that matters that they were legitimate for the purpose of satisfying a debt.

If you're referring to the word "Tried" -- yes, there is a connotation of the term "tried" that is essentially the meaning of "attempted but failed".

But, in a denotative sense, "Tried" could mean a successful or unsuccessful attempt.

Speaking of the word "attempt," this reminds me of a discussion some years ago with someone who did not understand this verbiage:

Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax.

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

---26 USC section 7201.

We often refer to this statute as the "tax evasion" statute, but it would be more precise to say it is the "attempted tax evasion" statute. The term "attempt" as used in section 7201 covers both successful attempts and unsuccessful attempts.

[The Observer]

If you're referring to the word "Tried" -- yes, there is a connotation of the term "tried" that is essentially the meaning of "attempted but failed". But, in a denotative sense, "Tried" could mean a successful or unsuccessful attempt.

I guess it is boiling down to an issue of semantics as least in terms of the headline. I could see Winston stupidly arguing that since no one was fooled by his documents, they simply could not be forgeries, thus he did not pass forged documents. Someone brought up the example of someone going into a bank and attempting to deposit Monopoly money; I think it is not as much as question as to whether the depositor had successfully created a forged document as it is the issue that he or she attempted to pass the documents in the first place.

[notorial dissent]

I wouldn't exactly say he "forged" the documents, since that implies that there were real ones he copied them from.

AS far as I know there ain’t no such critter as an IBOE, and a non-negotiable BOE would be well non-negotiable, i.e. worthless, so that pretty well cuts out the “forging” statement. You can make up all the pretty pieces of paper and pretend checks you want, so long as you don’t try and convince someone they are real money, or try to pay for something with them.

What he did do was use an actual Treasury number and attempt to access funds at the Treasury, which is a financial fraud. He also attempted to get various entities to accept them as payment when they were in fact worthless allegedly pretty pieces of paper.

Now Shrout is apparently claiming that everything he did was legal, and I would really like to hear his explanations for this, the comedy value alone should be priceless.

As I’ve said previously, if Shrout is making the claim, it is a pretty much certain bet he is lying.

[wserra]

If you're referring to the word "Tried" -- yes, there is a connotation of the term "tried" that is essentially the meaning of "attempted but failed".

But, in a denotative sense, "Tried" could mean a successful or unsuccessful attempt.

In other words, however hard he tried, it was still treif.

[Jeffrey]

https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status ... 2120995840

Winston Shrout testifying in his defense says he's an officer of the Office of International Treasury Control, appointed by Dr Ray C Dam

Yeah he actually cited OITC as a defense.

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/post-weeke ... -ray-c-dam

Also found a very well researched article on Ray C. Dam.

[notorial dissent]

Just adds to his overall {snort choke} credibility.

[Jeffrey]

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... river_home

We're lucky the case was in Portland, another update from inside the court room. Jury continues deliberating tomorrow.

[The Observer]

He [the public defender] called each of Shrout's fake bills of exchange "ludicrous on its face.'' While prosecutors described the blue decorative borders, account numbers, red thumbprints and Shrout's signature on the documents as "hallmarks of legitimacy,'' Iniguez said they failed to point out the words, "Void where prohibited by law,'' which clearly made the documents worthless.

Using a Monopoly analogy, Iniguez argued that if someone hands a player game money worth a trillion dollars but it says "void'' on its face, "is that person really trying to defraud you?''

And I am not surprised that Shrout is trying the "documents-so phony-they-are-not-even-phony" defense. This is why I questioned the semantics on "attempted forgery" - I got the impression that Winston, in saying, that the accusations against him were not "very" accuarate, was going to try move the goal posts regarding the nature of his documents.

[notorial dissent]

So if the trial started on the 18th, when did it go to the jury? I figured Shrout would drag it out for a least a week.

[wserra]

The jury got the case Thursday afternoon, April 20.

[Jeffrey]

Guilty on all counts:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... river_home

[jcolvin2]

DOJ Press Release:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/oregon-p ... s-treasury