BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366

United States Attorney

District of Oregon

STUART A. WEXLER

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

Stuart.A.Wexler@usdoj.gov

RYAN R. RAYBOULD

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

Ryan.R.Raybould@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave, Suite 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

Telephone: (503) 727-1000

Facsimile: (503) 727-1117

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 3:15-CR-00438-JO

Plaintiff,

v.

WINSTON SHROUT,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S REPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND OTHER PLEADINGS

The United States of America, by and through Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for 

the District of Oregon, and Stuart A. Wexler and Ryan R. Raybould, Trial Attorneys, Tax 

Division, hereby respectfully requests that the defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss for Treaty 

Violation and Treason Against Constitution Art. VI and Notice of Same to US Army Provost 

Marshall” (Doc. 31) be denied. The Government further moves to strike the defendant’s 

pleadings entitled “Notice of Default of Plea in Bar and Demand for Written Bill of Particulars 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 5
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AND OTHER PLEADINGS - 2

True Bill in Commerce of Necessity” (Doc. 32) and “Notice of Filing of IRS Form 1099A ON 

Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO.” (Doc. 33.) 

BACKGROUND

On March 15, 2016, the Grand Jury returned a Superseding Indictment against Defendant 

Winston Shrout in this case, charging him with 13 felony violations of 18 U.S.C. § 514 for 

making, presenting, and transmitting fictitious obligations, and six misdemeanor violations of 26 

U.S.C. § 7203 for willfully failing to file income tax returns. (Doc. 17.) The defendant was 

arraigned on the superseding charges on March 31, 2016. At arraignment, the defendant waived 

his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and chose to represent himself in this matter; the Court 

appointed Assistant Federal Public Defender Ruben Iniguez as standby counsel.

The defendant has previously filed a number of pleadings to the docket in this case. See

Docs. 9, 10, 13, & 23. In each instance, the Court has stated variously that the pleadings either 

had “no legal consequence,” were “nonsense” or were “legally meaningless.” 

On April 18, 2016, the defendant filed to the docket his latest round of pleadings. Document

31 is styled as a “Motion to Dismiss for Treaty Violation and Treason Against Constitution Art. 

VI and Notice of Same to US Army Provost Marshall,” accompanied by a “Memorandum for 

Motion to Dismiss for Treaty Violation and Treason Against Constitution Art. VI and Notice of 

Same to US Army Provost Marshal.” Document 32 is termed by the defendant as a “Notice of 

Default of Plea in Bar and Demand for Written Bill of Particulars True Bill in Commerce of 

Necessity.” Document 33 is termed by the defendant as a “Notice of Filing of IRS Form 1099A 

On Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO.” 

/ /

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 5
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AND OTHER PLEADINGS - 3

LAW AND ARGUMENT

1. The Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss for Treaty Violation And Treason Against 

Constitution Art. VI and Notice of Same to US Army Provost Marshal” is Frivolous 

and Without Legal Merit 

The substance of defendant Shrout’s filing identified on the docket as a “Motion to Dismiss 

for Treaty Violation And Treason Against Constitution Art. VI and Notice of Same to US Army 

Provost Marshal” (Doc. 31) is replete with classic tax defier nonsense and frivolous arguments. 

A “claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This Court can dismiss or deny a claim as frivolous “where 

it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly 

baseless. Id. at 327. 

Here, the defendant appears to claim that the government attorneys are committing treason 

by prosecuting this case, and that he has suffered some theft of his person. These accusations 

have no factual or legal merit. The entire pleading can fairly be classified as nonsensical and 

arbitrary legalese. Accordingly, the United States requests that the Court deny defendant’s 

motion.

2. Documents 32 & 33 should be stricken from the Court’s record

Defendant’s submissions to the Court contained in Documents 32 and 33 should be stricken

from the record. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 47(b) requires that a “motion . . . state the 

ground on which it is based and the relief or order sought.” Document 32, styled as “Notice of 

Default of Plea in Bar and Demand for Written Bill of Particulars True Bill in Commerce of 

Necessity” and Doc. 33, styled as “Notice of Filing of IRS Form 1099A on Case No. 3:15-cr00438,” are not motions, as they do not request any sort of relief. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 47(b). 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 5
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AND OTHER PLEADINGS - 4

Document 32 is termed as a “notice of default,” but doesn’t actually request the Court to do 

anything;1 Doc. 33 is a 2016 tax form filed on the Court’s docket. To the extent that Document 

32 purports to trigger default provisions in defendant’s prior filing, the document is arguably a 

threat against Court officers and federal government attorneys. See Doc. 23 at 10 (“The surety 

for failure of Officers of the USDC/DOJ Attorneys, et. Al. to settle this True Bill in Commerce 

is, but not limited to: . . . the private possessions of Officers of the USDC/DOJ Attorneys who 

are all benefitting from this action under “benefit of office” [sic] are to be seized to satisfy the 

True Bill.”) Accordingly, Documents 32 and 33 should be stricken from the record.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the defendant’s pleading contained in Doc. 31 should be 

summarily denied as a frivolous pleading that is legally meaningless. Additionally, defendant’s 

submissions contained in Documents 32 and 33 should be stricken from the record. 

Dated this 19th day of April, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

BILLY J. WILLIAMS

United States Attorney

/s/ Stuart A. Wexler

STUART A. WEXLER

RYAN R. RAYBOULD

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division

(202) 305-3167

 1 The defendant’s “notice” also either dismisses out of hand the Court’s April 5 Order or denies its existence. 

See Doc. 32 at 1 (“Judge Jones prejudiced this cause of action on 31 March 2016 saying that it was of no effect (or 

words to that effect) although no orders were issued to disallow said plea.”)

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 5
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

AND OTHER PLEADINGS - 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the 

attorney(s) of record for the defendant. Additionally, a copy of the foregoing was emailed to the 

defendant at millieannjones@gmail.com.

/s/ Stuart A. Wexler

STUART A. WEXLER 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 34 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 5