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: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by wserra »

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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by notorial dissent »

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: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by wserra »

I think it's the reporter's confusion.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
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.
morrand
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 399
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by morrand »

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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
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: 8219
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by Burnaby49 »

"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: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
"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: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by Famspear »

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.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by The Observer »

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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
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: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by wserra »

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: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by notorial dissent »

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: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
"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
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by 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.
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: 7550
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by wserra »

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: 3076
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by Jeffrey »

jcolvin2
Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Shrout, Winston

Post by jcolvin2 »