Shrout, Winston

The purpose of this board is to track the status of activity, cases, and ultimately the incarceration or fines against TP promoters and certain high-profile TPs.
User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6358
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby wserra » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:21 pm

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


notorial dissent wrote: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.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:42 pm

My confusion then.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6358
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby wserra » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:18 pm

I think it's the reporter's confusion.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:34 pm

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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
morrand
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby morrand » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:09 am

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


notorial dissent wrote: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.
---
Morrand

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Apr 20, 2017 2:59 am

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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5814
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:45 am

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby The Observer » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:38 pm

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.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7196
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby Famspear » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:28 pm

Headline:

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

The Observer wrote: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.
...why is anyone in this [losthorizons] community paying the least attention to...'Larry Williams' [Famspear], or other purveyors of disinformation from...quatloos? – Pete Hendrickson, former inmate 15406-039, Fed’l Bureau of Prisons

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby The Observer » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:37 pm

Famspear wrote: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.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby notorial dissent » Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:02 pm

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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6358
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby wserra » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:18 pm

Famspear wrote: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.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby Jeffrey » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:32 pm

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.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:51 am

Just adds to his overall {snort choke} credibility. :snicker:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby Jeffrey » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:26 am

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.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby The Observer » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:48 pm

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.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:54 pm

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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6358
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby wserra » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:18 pm

The jury got the case Thursday afternoon, April 20.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby Jeffrey » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:31 pm


User avatar
jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 586
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 4:19 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Shrout, Winston

Postby jcolvin2 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:33 pm



Return to “TP Status Board: Tracking Promoters and High-Profile TPs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest