1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO-1 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) January 7, 2016 

WINSTON SHROUT, )

 ) 

 Defendant. ) Portland, Oregon

________________________________) 

FIRST APPEARANCE 

FTR-RECORDED PROCEEDINGS 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN V. ACOSTA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 33
 2

APPEARANCES 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 

 STUART A. WEXLER 

 Department of Justice 

 Tax Division 

 601 D Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20004 

FOR THE DEFENDANT: 

 RUBEN L. INIGUEZ 

 Federal Public Defender's Office 

 101 SW Main Street 

 Suite 1700 

 Portland, OR 97204 

 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 33
 3

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

 (In open court:) 

THE COURT: Mr. Iniguez, are you ready?

MR. INIGUEZ: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Wexler, go ahead, please.

MR. WEXLER: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Stewart Wexler of the United States Department of Justice Tax

Division, appearing for the United States, in the matter of

United States of America v. Winston Shrout. Case number

3:15-cr-438, assigned to Judge Jones. We are here for the

initial appearance and arraignment on a six-count indictment

alleging with each count a willful failure to file a tax

return.

The defendant is present and not in custody, appearing on

a summons. It is my understanding he has not retained counsel,

but Mr. Iniguez of the Federal Defender's Office is present.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Iniguez?

MR. INIGUEZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ruben

Iniguez appearing. Your Honor, my understanding is that

Mr. Shrout did receive a summons to appear. He obviously is

appearing before the Court pursuant to that summons. I did

receive, you know, via CM/ECF, a copy of this six-count

indictment, charging six misdemeanor counts, as Mr. Wexler just

indicated. I've had an opportunity to review it. I did not

have an opportunity to review it personally with Mr. Shrout;

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 33
 4

however, I believe he has reviewed it himself having previously

received it.

I had an opportunity to speak with him briefly before

court, and he clearly does not want this Court to appoint

counsel to represent him in this matter. He's allowing me to

stand here, as he knows it's my job, but he made very clear to

me, and I think he will tell the Court in a second, that he

does not want counsel appointed to represent him in this

matter, nor do I believe does he intend to represent himself,

as he understands that to be, for various reasons. He's not an

attorney, other things that he may better explain to the Court.

So that brings us to these proceedings. I'm here. I'm

perfectly willing and available to be appointed -- my office is

the same -- should the Court see fit; but he's made it very

clear to me that he does not want counsel appointed.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Shrout, you can remain seated. That's fine. Can you

hear me okay?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I can.

THE COURT: All right. You understand you have a

right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you. Do you know

that?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor, I don't.

THE COURT: Well, in a criminal case, you can have

appointed counsel if you can't afford counsel. If you can't

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 33
 5

retain counsel -- in other words, if you can't pay for a

lawyer, the Court will appoint one to represent you in this

case. 

Mr. Iniguez is a lawyer with the Federal Public Defender's

Office in this district. If you wanted him to represent you, I

would appoint him to represent you at no cost to you.

Do you want me to do that or --

THE DEFENDANT: I've spoken to this gentleman here.

He cannot represent me. However, if you want to appoint him as

standby counsel for purpose of procedure, I will accept that.

THE COURT: All right. I just want to be clear.

Whether it's Mr. Iniguez or another lawyer, either in the

Federal Public Defender's Office or a lawyer who is a member of

the CJA panel, are you telling me that you don't want the Court

to appoint any lawyer to represent you?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, that's correct.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you for clarifying

that.

So, in light of that, Mr. Iniguez, I will appoint you as

standby counsel for Mr. Shrout in this matter.

MR. WEXLER: Your Honor, if I may?

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Wexler.

MR. WEXLER: I believe it's only appropriate to

appoint Mr. Iniguez as standby counsel if the defendant is

choosing to represent himself. Mr. Iniguez mentions in his

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 33
 6

remarks that it's his understanding the defendant does not

intend to represent himself. I would ask that the Court go

through a Faretta colloquy with the defendant to determine

whether or not the defendant has made an unequivocal waiver of

his right to counsel and intends to represent himself or is

simply just trying to proceed without any attorneys in -- for

his side, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good point. Mr. Iniguez did make that

distinction.

So, Mr. Shrout, the other question I need to ask you about

is whether you intend to hire a lawyer to represent you in this

case.

THE DEFENDANT: Actually, once I'm (inaudible) my

intention is to plead guilty.

THE COURT: All right. Well, this is an arraignment

on the indictment. You're here to enter a plea. I'm going to

ask you if prior to coming to court today, after you had a

chance to review the indictment, you had the opportunity to

talk with a lawyer about the charges against you.

THE DEFENDANT: Actually, I never received a copy of

the indictment. I had to go to the clerk's office first thing

this morning to get one. They have not been supplied to me,

and I have not had a chance to review it.

THE COURT: Well, do you think you've had enough time

to review it now, or do you need more time to review it before

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 6 of 33
 7

you decide what plea to enter?

THE DEFENDANT: Actually, my intention is to plead

guilty as soon as the prosecutor will read and certify the

charges for the record.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wexler, your thoughts

about that?

MR. WEXLER: Yes, Your Honor. If the defendant is

simply asking that the indictment be read in court, I would be

happy to do that. My concern is -- and I have some experience

handling cases of this variety -- is the defendant's use of the

word "certify." I believe that the defendant is relying on

ideology and rhetoric, namely aligned with the sovereign

citizen movement, and, in his use of the term "certify," is

asking for something more than a simple reading of the

indictment. But I would be happy to indulge the Court and the

defendant with a simple reading of the indictment if he is not

fully aware of what it contains.

THE COURT: I think what I'm going to do is this,

Mr. Shrout: This is your initial appearance on these charges.

Almost always the defendant receives appointed counsel if the

defendant wishes it. You've indicated you don't want me to

appoint counsel and don't intend to hire a lawyer to represent

you, so we've been through that.

Typically, as you've heard, because you were here during

at least some of the criminal calendar proceedings, I advise

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 7 of 33
 8

defendants of their rights. I will tell you you have the right

to remain silent on the charges against you. You don't have to

talk to them about anyone if you choose to not do that, and you

have a right to know the charges that have been made against

you.

One of the other things we always do at these hearings is

we set the matter for further proceedings. 

If it is your intention to enter a plea in the case with

respect to one or more of the counts in the indictment, my

inclination is to set this matter for either a plea hearing or

a status hearing before Judge Jones. Judge Jones is the judge

assigned to the case.

I think if you intend to enter a plea, as you've

indicated, it's probably better entered after you've had some

time to fully review the indictment and can do so before the

judge who is assigned to the case.

I can set the matter for -- I'll say a status conference.

That way you'll have a hearing date before Judge Jones. If he

has questions, he can ask you directly, and then he can decide

how best to proceed with respect to what you wish to do with

this case.

So, Mr. Wexler, that's what I'm going to do. Do you have

any objections to that?

MR. WEXLER: No objections to that, Your Honor.

Though I would ask that it be timely, as I'm sure the Court

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 8 of 33
 9

intends, and there is the matter of the defendant's release

conditions pending that status conference.

THE COURT: Sure. Well, I think, to some extent, the

date I set for a hearing or a status hearing in this matter

will be affected by the release of the defendant.

Mr. Wexler, have you seen pretrial service's report?

MR. WEXLER: I have, Your Honor, as I'm not sure if

the Court has also reviewed it.

THE COURT: Yes, I have.

MR. WEXLER: It is short because there is no

information in the report really of any value. My

understanding is that the defendant was either not available or

not compliant with a pretrial interview.

I will note that I object to the ultimate conclusion of

the report, which is that the defendant be released on his own

recognizance, without conditions, subject to the providing of

an address. The government has strong concerns, not concerns

rising to the requirement of detention, but strong concerns

about the defendant's continued appearance in this case, and,

as a result, has fashioned a number of special conditions that

I went over with Mr. Nischik on the phone.

I also advised Mr. Iniguez briefly, before this matter

before you today, that we'd like the Court to institute to

ensure that the defendant appears at both the status conference

and future hearings in this case.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 9 of 33
 10

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wexler, why don't you

tell me what those conditions are you have in mind.

MR. WEXLER: Yes, Your Honor. First, the government

would ask that the defendant be required to surrender his

passport. The defendant has worked extensively outside the

United States. He has worked in Canada, in Australia, in

England. He is scheduled to speak on a cruise called The

Conspira-Sea Cruise, as noted in the pretrial service's report,

which leaves out of Los Angeles on January 24, 2016. That

cruise makes several stops in Mexico. 

And I would note that while Mr. Shrout has gone to other

countries to work, he's frequently gone there at the invitation

of like-minded individuals who also hold themselves out to be

sovereigns, and, if Mr. Shrout were to leave this country, he

would find safe haven among those communities. And so, as a

result, the government would first ask that Mr. Shrout

surrender his passport.

Second, Mr. Shrout maintains a residence, and his spouse

lives in the state of Utah. He also maintains a residence here

in Hillsboro, Oregon, and we would ask that Mr. Shrout's travel

be restricted to either the state of Utah or the state of

Oregon; that he be free to travel within those states but that

he could only travel to and from those two states and that he

would be required to check in and check out with pretrial

services as he moved from state to state.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 10 of 33
 11

I would note that this should not restrict Mr. Shrout's

ability to earn income. He gets a lot of his income through

internet payments. He earns his income through coaching

services that are done via email and on the phone and also does

a lot of seminars over the web, webinars, which he can do in

either location.

He actually has utilized facilities in Oregon before to

work, so being in Oregon should not restrict his employment

opportunities in any way.

Third, we'd ask that while on release that his income

sources be restricted to those that are reportable to the

Internal Revenue Service.

Mr. Shrout's been indicted for a willful failure to file,

failure to report his income to the IRS, and, absent the

reporting of his income by third parties, the United States has

no knowledge of whether or not Mr. Shrout continues to earn

income which could result in additional harm to the government.

So we would ask that any income sources be restricted to those

that are reportable.

I would note that all of his known income sources at this

time do report to the Internal Revenue Service, so it would not

require any change in his current employment.

And then, finally, Your Honor, I would note that

Mr. Shrout, since the indictment in this case, has submitted

several documents, both to the Department of Justice, as well

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 11 of 33
 12

as the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the Court.

Indeed, immediately after the indictment, I was approached

outside of this courthouse with a document in which Mr. Shrout

alleged that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of this

court; that he was a sovereign entity protected by a UN

charter. 

And, subsequent to being presented with that document, I

received via mail, as well as the agent -- investigating agent

in this case received via mail, a document styled a commercial

lien in which the defendant reiterated that he is not subject

to the jurisdiction of the federal government and assessed

penalties against myself, against Special Agent Hill. I will

also note that Your Honor has also been mentioned in that

document. Each individual mentioned, as well as acting U.S.

Attorney Mr. Williams, is liable, according to that document,

for $1 trillion to Mr. Shrout. 

In addition, after those -- those documents provided for

three days to comply. After three days, I received a

failure-to-comply notice and that the matter was going to be

forwarded to the appropriate international authorities.

Subsequent to that, I was made aware of a mailing that was

received by the Clerk of the Court here in which two documents

were provided. One had mentioned the Clerk of the Court, one

that mentioned Your Honor specifically, and which, again,

Mr. Shrout reiterated that he is not subject to the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 12 of 33
 13

jurisdiction of this Court.

All of this activity echoes activity that Mr. Shrout took

in a case -- a criminal case in the state of Utah in 2014 in

which he received a trial subpoena from the defense to appear

as a witness. He responded to that trial subpoena by writing a

letter to the Court, a handwritten letter to the Court, saying

that he was not going to appear, that he was a protected

sovereign, and that appearing would be a conflict of interest.

And, ultimately, he also did not appear in response to that

subpoena.

He also responded with a similar commercial lien document

in response to a search warrant that was executed on himself

and associated business premises. That warrant was executed in

2012. He responded in 2014 with a commercial lien, again

naming various prosecutors, members of the U.S. Attorney's

Office, as well as Judge Stewart, who signed that document.

All that is to say that those documents and the

defendant's assertions regarding jurisdiction give the

government, regardless of Mr. Shrout's presence here today,

concern that that presence will continue.

I would also ask the Court that the Court admonition the

defendant regarding these mailings. It's the government's

experience that these mailings are sort of entry documents into

a process that frequently results in the filing of actual liens

with various state entities, and that is a violation of Title

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 13 of 33
 14

18 U.S.C. 1521. 

So while it's customary to advise the defendant not to

violate any laws while on release, we would ask that the Court

specifically admonish the defendant to cease these mailings. 

Now that this matter is underway, if the defendant has any

argument to make, the proper venue for that argument is through

the court filing system in the form of a pleading or a motion

and also specifically admonition the defendant that the filing

of false retaliatory liens is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C.

1521. It's 1521. 

And that is all of the special conditions.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Wexler, the question for me to

decide under the Bail Reform Act is whether Mr. Shrout presents

a risk of danger to the community --

MR. WEXLER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- a risk of flight or both.

So the first thing I need to make sure I understand are

you proceeding -- are you seeking detention? Let's start with

basics.

MR. WEXLER: No, Your Honor, because we feel that

these conditions will assure --

THE COURT: So you want conditions?

MR. WEXLER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So the conditions that are implemented in

any pretrial release order have to be such as to ensure that

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 14 of 33
 15

the defendant, while on release, does not present a risk of

danger to the community or a risk of flight.

Is it the government's position that he is a risk of

flight or a risk of danger or both, such that one or more of

the conditions you've articulated need to be implemented?

MR. WEXLER: Yes, Your Honor. And I apologize if

I -- I may have spoken too fast at the beginning. We believe

that the defendant is a risk of flight, and we believe that the

defendant is a risk of economic harm --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEXLER: -- but that these conditions would

ensure -- that would assuage the government's fears.

THE COURT: Let's talk about flight.

MR. WEXLER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Shrout is here. He was not arrested.

He wasn't brought in by the marshals. He was here on a

summons. He showed up voluntarily. He's obviously been around

the courthouse based on your description of certain encounters

with him. You're aware of his involvement in another criminal

case, apparently, out of the District of Utah. He doesn't seem

to me and there's nothing in the record to suggest that he is

going to get on a boat or a plane or in some other form of

transportation and either try to flee this jurisdiction, the

country, or otherwise make himself unavailable.

In fact, certainly some, if not many of the activities

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 15 of 33
 16

you've described, suggest that he intends to stick around so

that he can engage in some of the activities that you've

describe he's already begun in connection with these particular

charges.

The Bail Reform Act is pretty clear about the factors that

I have to consider. There isn't anything in the record showing

that he has a criminal record. There isn't anything in the

record that I have that shows that he -- well, it shows he has

ties to the community. You've already indicated that he

maintains a residence here in Oregon. He doesn't seem to have

any problems with respect to use of drugs or lack of financial

resources. He clearly has community ties. He's apparently

lived in Oregon for at least a sufficient amount of time to

maintain a residence here.

Now, let's just put aside the cruise to Mexico. Okay?

Let's put that aside, and we'll take that up separately. If

this were -- and, Mr. Wexler, tell me if I'm understanding the

nature of the charges. Are each of the counts in the

indictment misdemeanors, or are there any felonies involved?

MR. WEXLER: There all misdemeanors, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So if this were any other case and I had

the record before me that I had, on the flight issue, I would

release this defendant whether there would be conditions or

not; but given, frankly, the absence of any negative

indicators, under the Bail Reform Act, regarding risk of

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 16 of 33
 17

flight, I don't think I would impose any conditions that would

ensure his continued appearance for proceedings in this matter.

I understand the arguments you've made. I'm not sure what

happened in the Utah case. What I do know is Mr. Shrout is

here now. He's apparently been around in connection with the

charges in this case, making certain filings or delivering

certain documents.

So the risk of flight -- again, the Mexico cruise aside --

I think doesn't exist.

So let's now talk about the cruise to Mexico and whether

that changes the -- the circumstances of the risk of flight.

Mr. Shrout, I have a question for you before I continue to

talk to Mr. Wexler. This cruise that you plan to go on

beginning January 24, when did you first make your reservations

or book the cruise?

THE DEFENDANT: Oh, probably -- I can't tell exactly,

but probably as long as three or four or five months ago.

THE COURT: Have you gone on similar cruises before?

THE DEFENDANT: No. I never have. It would be the

first time.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

So, Mr. Wexler, what we have is we have a long-scheduled

trip, apparently, scheduled prior to the time Mr. Shrout knew

anything about these charges. You indicated earlier that

he's -- I think it was you -- maybe it was Mr. Iniguez -- he's

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 17 of 33
 18

gone to different countries. You indicated some concern that

he might find safe haven with other ideological colleagues in

those jurisdictions; but, apparently, because he's sitting

right here at counsel table, he always comes back from those

countries, and I -- you haven't told me anything that gives me

concern that if he were to go on this cruise he would not

return or that there is someone waiting somewhere along the

cruise route to give him safe harbor.

Do you have any other information that bears on that?

MR. WEXLER: Well, Your Honor, first, I would note

for the Court that -- that defendant's circumstances have

changed because, while it was a misdemeanor indictment, he is

under indictment now and facing the possibility of imprisonment

of up to a year in prison for each count, which could certainly

weigh on the defendant's state of mind at this time.

I will also specifically address the cruise note, and I

have documents that I would be happy to provide the Court for

review. I will note that the cruise has approximately two to

three dozen similarly minded speakers scheduled to appear on

the cruise, and so certainly the defendant would be within a

community just on the boat itself.

THE COURT: Okay. Hang on a minute. There had been

times in the past, in the eight years I've been on the bench,

I've been presented with search warrants and in some of those

instances the underlying rationale for the request to search is

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 18 of 33
 19

based on the particular target's association with people of

specific ideological groups.

If Mr. Shrout were a Democrat or a Republican going to a

Democrat or a Republican convention, I'm not sure that would be

much different than getting on a boat with a bunch of other

folks who have the same ideas that he does about various rights

and freedoms.

Apart from whether I may agree or not with any of those

ideas, what you're asking me to do is impose a condition, based

on the risk of flight, essentially because he might hang out

with people who think the same things that he does, and, in

some way you have not yet made clear to me, that might

ultimately persuade him to never come back to this country.

I'm not sure I understand how the connection is made.

MR. WEXLER: Your Honor, I'm not trying to say that

simply by being on the cruise he will be persuaded to not come

back to this country. What I'm saying is that the

circumstances the defendant now finds him under will persuade

him to not come back to this country and that the cruise

provides him an opportunity to do that.

THE COURT: Sure. He -- was he under indictment in

this Utah case?

MR. WEXLER: No, Your Honor. He was subpoenaed as a

witness in that case. 

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, that's not correct. I

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 19 of 33
 20

was never subpoenaed in any case to be a witness to anything.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.

MR. INIGUEZ: Judge, if I could only say a few

things. It's a cruise. It's a seven-day cruise. He goes to

Mexico and comes back. You're right. He's had those plans for

some time. Maybe it doesn't sound like a lot of money to some

folks, but a couple thousand dollars he would lose for that.

There's no indication that he would flee, and I think he will

tell the Court, if you ask him -- he will give you his

assurance he has every intention to appear for all proceedings

related to this matter. I think we can take his word.

67 years old. There's nothing in the record to suggest that

he's going to flee. He's never fled, so --

THE COURT: Mr. Shrout, if you get on that boat and

you take your seven-day cruise around Mexico, are you coming

back here?

THE DEFENDANT: I promise to come back and make an

appearance any time you have a hearing.

THE COURT: Mr. Wexler, I think, given what I've

heard so far, your description of charges and the rationale

underlying the conduct upon which the charges are based, it

seems pretty clear to me that Mr. Shrout has every intention of

coming back and continuing to engage with you in this case.

I don't get any sense from anything I've seen either in

the record or what I've heard here in court today that he's not

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 20 of 33
 21

going to come back if he goes on this cruise. I don't think

he's a risk of flight. I think he will come back. In fact, I

think he's looking forward to coming back, from what I can

tell, and I don't believe he's a risk of flight even if he goes

on this cruise to Mexico.

On the issue of economic harm, let me tell you what I'm

thinking about that, and then you can respond specifically.

If I release him on his own recognizance, as with any

other defendant, as with Mr. Proudfoot, who was previously --

who was the case just before Mr. Shrout, that doesn't relieve a

defendant from the obligation to abide by all laws. 

So if he were engaging in forms of non-reportable income,

that would, as you pointed out, be a violation of law. I'm not

sure I need to have a written condition that tells him exactly

that. It's already what he's required to do, and it could

affect his pretrial release status.

I want to make sure I don't misunderstand the argument

you've made. I don't -- I don't think I heard anything to

suggest that right now the government has a concern that

Mr. Shrout is engaging in activities which may be the basis of

additional misdemeanor charges or other crimes that might be

brought by the government.

Am I right about that, or did I misunderstand?

MR. WEXLER: I think that perhaps goes a little bit

too far --

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 21 of 33
 22

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEXLER: -- from what I was saying, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEXLER: And I can clarify and say that the

special conditions I had outlined were largely focused on the

risk of flight.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEXLER: And speaking to the potential for

economic harm, I think it's sufficient that the Court simply

admonition the defendant regarding the compliance with laws;

but I would also ask that the Court specifically address the

criminal act codified under 18 U.S.C. 1521 of filing false

liens. I believe that the defendant's actions in regard to

these letters, in which the letters are styled as commercial

liens -- and I have them all here if the Court would like to

review them --

THE COURT: I've -- I've seen similar documents.

Thank you.

MR. WEXLER: -- are an indication of that type of

activity, and so a specific admonishment is called for.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Shrout, I'm going to follow the

recommendation of the pretrial services officer. I'll release

you on your own recognizance. You were here as I talked to

Mr. Proudfoot about what that means, but I'll go through it

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 22 of 33
 23

again just to make sure that it's clear on the record in this

case.

What it means is there are no specific conditions for your

pretrial release except that you have to make all your court

appearances and make sure you respond to whatever requests or

orders or scheduling events that the Court has for your case

and you have to obey all the laws -- local, state, and federal.

There are a lot of laws out there -- local, state, and

federal -- as you probably are aware. Mr. Wexler has brought

to the fore one or two of those that he has particular concerns

about.

As a judge, I can't give you legal advice, and I'm not

purporting to do that. I will just tell you this: While

you're on pretrial release and while your case is pending, you

have to obey all the laws -- local, state and federal. If the

government charges you with violating any law -- local, state,

or federal -- and they establish the violation to a sufficient

probability, at least some of the things that could happen is

your pretrial release could be revoked or conditions could be

imposed; whereas, now you don't have any conditions pending

that govern your release except to obey the laws; or the

government, if it believes it has sufficient basis to do so,

could use any of those behaviors or conducts as the basis for

additional charges against you. 

So I'm just telling you that because that comes under the

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 23 of 33
 24

umbrella of obeying all the laws -- local, state, and

federal -- while you're out there. That's pretty much it. 

Do you have any questions about that?

THE DEFENDANT: Not about that, but I have another

request.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE DEFENDANT: I request an appearance bond at no

cost to myself.

THE COURT: That is not a condition of your -- of

your release. Release on your own recognizance means all you

have to do is make sure you make your court appearances, so

there is no appearance bond required.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. The only other thing I need

to do is set a date for the next hearing before Judge Jones to

make sure that the matter moves along.

Here is what I'm going to do at this time: As I think the

lawyers know, I don't have access to the district judge's

calendars, except for purposes of setting supervised release

violation hearings. So what I'm going to do is set a status

conference before Judge Jones on one of the two days of the

week. Wednesday or Thursday he typically hears supervised

release violations.

Now, Mr.Shrout, as I understand it, you leave on the 24th;

correct?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 24 of 33
 25

THE DEFENDANT: I don't recall. It's either the 22nd

or the 24th. I think it's actually the 22nd. Is that a

Sunday?

THE COURT: The 22nd is a Friday. The 24th is a

Sunday.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay. It would be the 24th. It

leaves on a Sunday.

THE COURT: Today is the 7th.

THE DEFENDANT: It leaves from California, by the

way.

THE COURT: When are you leaving for California?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not quite sure if I'm going --

well, I'm not sure about my means of transportation, so it

would be probably a couple of days before that at least.

THE COURT: So let me ask you this question: If I

set the matter for a status hearing before Judge Jones on

Wednesday the 20th, could you appear?

MR. INIGUEZ: I think the preference, Your Honor,

would be to do it once he returns. And if I'm going to be

here, I'm going to be gone that day, the 20th.

THE COURT: What about Wednesday the 3rd of February?

MR. INIGUEZ: That would -- that would work.

THE COURT: Mr. Shrout? 

All right. Mr. Shrout has indicated he can appear before

Judge Jones on Wednesday, February 3rd, at 9:30 a.m.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 25 of 33
 26

Judge Jones's courtroom is in this building on the 10th

floor, and that will be the time for the next hearing in the

case. I'm going to set it as a status hearing and then all

matters the parties wish to address to Judge Jones at that time

regarding the case and further proceedings can be taken up.

So Wednesday, February 3, 2016, at 9:30, before

Judge Jones.

All right.

MR. WEXLER: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Wexler.

MR. WEXLER: If I may, I would just like to note for

the record that there's been no plea entered in this case as

of -- I don't think that --

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WEXLER: -- Mr. Iniguez entered a plea of not

guilty on Mr. Shrout's behalf. And I know it's customary in

this jurisdiction to order discovery within 14 days. However,

I don't know that that's appropriate -- 

THE COURT: Yes, I -- 

MR. WEXLER: -- given that hearing is occurring after

the 14-day time period.

THE COURT: I -- I agree. So -- 

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not understanding what he just

said. 

THE COURT: Let me see if I can be clear about it.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 26 of 33
 27

MR. WEXLER: Okay.

THE COURT: There are two things we always do at

these initial appearances, Mr. Shrout, that we haven't really

done yet. One is I haven't ordered the parties -- the

government to give discovery, the parties to exchange

information, within the 14-day time period. Mr. Wexler thinks

that's probably not workable in this particular case until at

least we have the status hearing on February 3rd. I think he's

right. So at this time, unless you have concerns, I will not

order the government to produce discovery within 14 days.

THE DEFENDANT: Oh, I don't need discovery.

THE COURT: Okay. So any further issues about

discovery you can take up with Judge Jones on February 3rd.

THE DEFENDANT: Sure.

THE COURT: The second thing, I know what you told me

earlier about entering a plea. Here is what I think the best

thing would be to do -- and, Mr. Iniguez, I am interested to

hear from you, and, Mr. Wexler, from you. We can do one of two

things. Mr. Shrout, we can enter a not guilty plea until you

see Judge Jones on the 3rd, or we can defer your entry of a

plea -- 

THE DEFENDANT: I'm going to enter.

THE COURT: -- until you see Judge Jones on the 3rd.

I'm sorry?

THE DEFENDANT: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 27 of 33
 28

THE COURT: Or we can defer your entry of a plea

until you see Judge Jones, because this is his case, on

February 3rd.

What do you think about that?

THE DEFENDANT: I think that would be the best idea.

THE COURT: Mr. Wexler, any concerns about deferring

the defendant's entry of a plea in a case until February 3rd?

MR. WEXLER: I can't think of any, Your Honor, so I

would be fine with that. 

THE COURT: All right. So we'll defer the entry of a

plea on the defendant's behalf until the matter is before

Judge Jones on February 3rd. I think that takes care of

everything.

Mr. Shrout, do you have any other questions?

THE DEFENDANT: Not at this time.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Wexler, thank you.

MR. WEXLER: Thank you.

MR. INIGUEZ: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Shrout, I have an order that says

you can go on your own recognizance, and I need you to sign

that before you leave today. So I'll sign it, and then you can

sign it.

MR. WEXLER: You Honor, can I reopen the matter just

briefly?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 28 of 33
 29

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Nischik.

PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER: Your Honor, I was just

going to mention that the defendant will need to be processed

by the marshals service.

THE COURT: Because of the summons?

PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER: Because of the summons.

THE COURT: That's right. I forgot about that. 

Before I talk to Mr. Shrout again, Mr. Wexler, go ahead.

MR. WEXLER: Just, Your Honor, there was a request in

the pretrial report that as a condition of the defendant being

released on his own recognizance that he provide an address of

contact information.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEXLER: I just would like the Court to reiterate

that requirement.

THE COURT: Right. So, Mr. Shrout, I'm sorry. There

are two other things.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay.

THE COURT: The first thing is I need you to give

some contact information to pretrial services so we know where

to send things and let you know when hearings are happening.

Typically, that's an address, a phone number, and an email

address. That's what people typically provide.

THE DEFENDANT: So you can actually email, though,

instead of hard mailing them?

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 29 of 33
 30

THE COURT: Not necessarily.

THE DEFENDANT: That would be the easiest.

THE COURT: For email service?

THE DEFENDANT: Sure.

THE COURT: Well, all right. If you just provide

your address, phone number, and email address to Mr. Nischik,

then we'll get that into the record, and things can be sent to

you.

THE DEFENDANT: Like I said, I mean, up until today,

until I came to the clerk's office to get a copy of the

indictment, I never had any receipt of that, you know, on email

or hard mail.

THE COURT: Our practice here is typically when a

party does not have a lawyer of record in a case, the clerk's

office mails things to the address. That's their practice.

They really don't have the capacity to email. Lawyers do and

sometimes they exchange documents that way, but the clerk's

office really doesn't have the capacity to do that, so they

mail hard copies to your physical address. Is that okay?

THE DEFENDANT: Of course it is. They sent the

summons to that address.

THE COURT: Okay. Good. So we'll get your most

recent address, phone number, with -- with Mr. Nischik, before

you leave.

I have the order here as well.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 30 of 33
 31

Mr. Wexler, you raised a point, and I think I forgot it

already.

MR. WEXLER: I -- I think that was my point,

Your Honor; just that the pretrial had asked for that address

in order for him to be released.

THE COURT: Mr. Nischik, what was your point? Was

that the same thing, or was it different?

PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICER: The marshals.

MR. WEXLER: The marshals.

THE COURT: Oh, right. Mr. Shrout, because there was

a summons issued, the marshals service has to process you so

that the summons is satisfied and all the --

THE DEFENDANT: What does that entail?

THE COURT: Not much. It doesn't mean you're going

to be detained or anything. There's just some paperwork to

fill out. It shouldn't take you too long.

Mr. Iniguez can talk to you about that and what's

involved.

THE DEFENDANT: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm sure it won't take very much time.

All right. Mr. Gale, would you hand this to Mr. Shrout,

please.

Thank you.

THE DEFENDANT: Do I get a copy of this?

MR. INIGUEZ: Yes, you will.

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 31 of 33
 32

THE COURT: Thank you. We're adjourned.

(FTR-recorded hearing concluded.) 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 32 of 33
 33

C E R T I F I C A T E 

United States of America v. Winston Shrout 

3:15-cr-00438-JO-1 

FIRST APPEARANCE 

January 7, 2016 

I certify, by signing below, that the foregoing is a 

true and correct transcript of the FTR-recorded hearing, taken 

by stenographic means, via FTR recording, of the proceedings in 

the above-entitled cause. A transcript without an original 

signature, conformed signature, or digitally signed signature 

is not certified. 

/s/Jill L. Jessup, CSR, RMR, RDR, CRR 

____________________________________ 

Official Court Reporter Signature Date: 9/22/16 

Oregon CSR No. 98-0346 CSR Expiration Date: 3/31/17 

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 67 Filed 11/02/16 Page 33 of 33