Hon. Winston Shrout 

c/o PO Box 4043 

Hillsboro, Oregon 

97123-9998 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic] ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

WINSTON SHROUT [sic] 

Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO 

PLEA IN BAR AND DEMAND 

FOR WRITTEN BILL OF PARTICULARS 

TRUE BILL IN COMMERCE 

OF NECESSITY 

By: Winston Shrout, as Real Party in Interest, 3rd Party Interest Intervenor under Injury, Sole 

Shareholder in WINSTON SHROUT, Settlor/Beneficiary of WINSTON SHROUT 401643573 

COMES NOW Winston Shrout, a Real Party in Interest, 3rd Party Interest Intervenor under 

Injury, Sole Shareholder in WINSTON SHROUT, Settlor and Beneficiary of WINSTON 

SHROUT 401643573, who is neutral in the public, who is unschooled in law, and making a 

special appearance before this court under the supplemental rules of Admiralty, Rule E(8), a 

restricted appearance, without granting jurisdiction, and notices the court of enunciation of 

principles as stated in Haines v.Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, wherein the court has directed that those 

who are unschooled in law making pleadings and/or complaints shall have the court look to the 

substance of the pleadings rather in than the form, and hereby makes the following 

pleadings/notices in the above referenced matter without waiver of any other defenses. 

PLEA IN BAR 

PLAINTIFF FAILS OF ANY CAUSE OF ACTION 

Winston Shrout, a Real Party in Interest, 3rd Party Interest Intervenor under Injury, Sole 

Shareholder in WINSTON SHROUT, Settlor and Beneficiary of WINSTON SHROUT 

401643573 (hereinafter Affiant) makes this Plea in Bar and Demand for Written Bill of 

Particulars with a subsequent True Bill in Commerce. 

Affiant, over the age of twenty-one (21) years, competent to testify with firsthand knowledge 

does answer SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Case No: 3:15-CR-00438-JO to wit: 

1. As to Plaintiff's item number "l.", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that Winston SHROUT [sic], or any variation thereof, is a resident of Hillsboro, Oregon, and 

Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 11
2. As to Plaintiffs item number "2.", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "WSSIC" [sic] exists, and Affiant believes that not any such evidence exists. 

3. As to Plaintiffs item number "3.", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that the assumptions in item 3 exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

4. As to Plaintiffs item number "4.", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "SHROUT" [sic] nor "WSSIC" [sic] exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does 

exist. 

5. As to Plaintiffs item number "5", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that 

SHROUT [sic] received any pension payments, and Affiant believes that no such evidence 

exists. 

6. As to Plaintiffs item number "6", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that 

SHROUT [sic] "devised and participated in a material scheme and artifice", and Affiant believes 

that no such evidence exists. 

7. As to Plaintiffs item number "7", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that 

SHROUT [sic] "produced fictitious financial instruments", and Affiant believes that no such 

evidence exists. 

8. As to Plaintiffs item number "8", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that 

SHROUT [sic] participated in these assumptions, and Affiant believes that no such evidence 

exists. 

9. As to Plaintiffs item number "9", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence that 

SHROUT [sic] participated in these assumptions, and Affiant believes that no such evidence 

exists. 

10. As to Plaintiffs item number "10", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that SHROUT [sic] participated in these assumptions, and Affiant believes that no such evidence 

exists. 

11. As to Plaintiffs item number "11 '', denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that SHROUT [sic] participated in these assumptions, and Affiant believes that no such evidence 

exists. 

12. As to Plaintiffs item number "12'', denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that SHROUT sic] participated in these assumptions, and Affiant believe that no such evidence 

exists. 

13. As to Plaintiffs item number "13", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 

2 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 11
14. As to Plaintiff's item number "14", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic], "with intent to defraud as to a material matter", exists, and 

Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 

15. As to Plaintiff's item number "15", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believe that no such evidence does exist. 

16. As to Plaintiffs item number "16", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "with intent to defraud as to a material matter", exists, and 

Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

17. As to Plaintiffs item number "17", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

18. As to Plaintiff's item number "18", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "with intent to defraud as to a material matter", exists, and 

Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

19. As to Plaintiff's item number "19", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

20. As to Plaintiff's item number "20", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "with intent to defraud as to a material matter" exists, and 

Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

21. As to Plaintiff's item number "21 ", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

22. As to Plaintiffs item number "22", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] committed any of the alleged acts, and Affiant believe that no 

such evidence does exist. 

23. As to Plaintiff's item number "23", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence of 

any "factual allegations" existing, and Affiant believe that no such evidence does exist. 

24. As to Plaintiff's item number "24", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "received gross income", and Affiant believe that no such 

evidence does exist. 

25. As to Plaintiff's item number "25", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

26. As to Plaintiffs item number "26", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "received gross income", and Affiant believe that no such 

evidence does exist. 

3 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 11
27. As to Plaintiff's item number "27", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

28. As to Plaintiff's item number "28", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "received gross income", and Affiant believe that no such 

evidence does exist. 

29. As to Plaintiff's item number "29", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

30. As to Plaintiff's item number "30", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "received gross income", and Affiant believe that no such 

evidence does exist. 

31. As to Plaintiff's item number "31 ", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

32. As to Plaintiff's item number "32", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "received gross income", and Affiant believe that no such 

evidence does exist. 

33. As to Plaintiff's item number "33", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that "Introductory Allegations" exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence does exist. 

34. As to Plaintiff's item number "32", denied answers Affiant. There is not any evidence 

that WINSTON SHROUT [sic] "received gross income", and Affiant believe that no such 

evidence does exist. 

35. As to the following: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF 

OREGON, PORTLAND DIVISION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WINSTON SHROUT, 

SUPERSEDING INTIDCTMENT, 18 USC 514(a)(l), 18 USC 514 (a)(2), 18 USC 514(a)(3), 26 

USC 7203, THE GRAND JURY CHARGES, Winston SHROUT, SHROUT, BILLY J. 

WILLIAMS, STUART A. WEXLER, RY AN R. RAYBOULD, Affiant denies that they exist. 

There is not any evidence that said 'fictions' exist, and Affiant believes that no such evidence 

does exist. 

36. Affiant notices that alleged (no Notice of Appearance filed into the Court) 

cause of action without notice to Winston Shrout constitutes a 'star chamber' proceeding. 

Winston Shrout was denied due process oflaw under the 4th and 14th amendments to the 

Constitution of the United States of America as in this 'star chamber'. 

37. Since a TRUE BILL [sic] was issued by this GRAND JURY [sic], Winston Shrout, a 

Real Party in Interest, 3rd Party Interest Intervenor under Injury, Sole Shareholder in WINSTON 

SHROUT, Settlor and Beneficiary of WINSTON SHROUT 401643573, is entitled to DEMAND 

FOR WRITTEN BILL OF PARTICULARS and a TRUE BILL IN COMMERCE as at this point 

Winston Shrout has absolutely no knowledge of the nature and cause of this INDICTMENT 

4 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 11
[sic], the whole of the process being done behind 'closed doors'. Winston Shrout as Sole 

Shareholder in WINSTON SHROUT, Settlor and Beneficiary of WINSTON SHROUT 

401643573 makes this: 

LAWFUL DEMAND FOR WRITTEN BILL OF PARTICULARS 

Be it known and remembered by all to whom these presents come and may concern: 

This is a Lawful Demand for a Written Bill of Particulars. All parties take notice the above 

named Winston Shrout, hereinafter Demandant, is herewith submitting this timely Lawful 

Demand for a Written Bill of Particulars to the named Respondent(s) and their fellow agents and 

principals presently known as Billy J. Williams, dba BILLY J. WILLIAMS [sic], Acting United 

States Attorney, BAR# unknown, Stuart A. Wexler, dba STUART A. WEXLER [sic], USDOJ 

Tax Division Trial Attorney BAR# unknown, and Ryan R. Raybould, dba RY AN R. 

RAYBOULD [sic], USDOJ Tax Division Trial Attorney BAR# unknown; 

The Demandant is herein requiring that this Bill of Particulars be fully answered, 

responded to and presented to the Demandant in the timely manner specified below so that the 

Demandant may ascertain the particular nature and cause of the accusations being made against 

the Demandant; 

This Demand for a Lawful Bill of Particulars is being made within the jurisdiction and 

venue of the above court, as is proper according to due process of Law. As is required in Law, 

all questions herein made to the Respondent(s) must be answered true, correct, and complete, 

and not misleading, and with full awareness of the penalties for bearing false witness. Failure to 

answer, plead, or otherwise perfect the Record in Law in response to all said questions will 

be deemed as an abandonment of prosecution by the Respondent(s) to lay, evidence, and 

prove in Law before this Honorable Court any purported right or claim against the 

Demandant; 

The Demandant is without sufficient knowledge as to the nature and cause of the 

purported accusations made and being made by the Plaintiff( s) in this matter so as to make a 

response to any pleading or a defense to the ongoing unlawful persecution of the Demandant in a 

foreign and strange venue of unknown and purported law. It appearing that Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff's, hereinafter Respondent(s), intent is to prosecute against Demandant using fictional 

entity WINSTON SHROUT, Respondent(s) are noticed that WINSTON SHROUT and any 

derivative thereof is the proprietary copyright/trademark of Winston Shrout. Notice is given that 

to bring action against WINSTON SHROUT or any derivative thereof is illegal and unlawful. 

Winston Shrout is a Secured Party and has a perfected security interest and priority claim against 

WINSTON SHROUT or any derivative thereof [see official case file for 3:15-CR-00438-JO]. 

Take notice that failure to acknowledge the Demandant by Demandant's rightful 

Christian appellation, Winston Shrout, is prima facie evidence of bad and malicious prosecution 

of an unlawful criminal nature on the part of Respondent( s ); 

The Respondent(s) must respond and answer these particular questions presented in the 

reasonable time often (10) days, as is usual and customary in due process of Law unless said 

Respondent(s) are using stall and delay tactics to avoid this demand. Respondent(s) may make a 

good faith written request showing a bona fide need for more time than ten days, and with a 

5 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 11
showing of reasonable facts in support as to why more time should be allowed, the Demandant 

may allow Respondent(s) to respond within an additional time. Otherwise, failure to respond 

within ten days from receipt of this Demand will result in a default against the Respondents(s). 

Questions for the Bill of Particulars 

Parties: 

1. In Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO, hereinafter "Case", what is the name and mailing location 

of the real party in interest? 

2. In Case what is the name and mailing location of the injured party? 

3. In Case what is the name and mailing location of any agent for real party in interest? 

4. In Case what is the name and mailing location of any agent for injured party? 

5. In Case what is WINSTON SHROUT? 

6. In Case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter USA, a corporation? 

7. In Case is UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION, hereinafter USDC, a legal fiction? 

8. In Case is USA dealing only in fiction and only with legal fictions? 

9. In Case is USDC a for profit and gain corporation, profiting from use or sale of GSA 

bonds? 

10. In Case what is the name and address of the bonding agency for USDC/Case? 

11. In Case ifUSDC is, in fact, a corporation where is the public record ofUSDC registered? 

12. In Case is USDC the same entity as the District Court for the United States of America? 

13. In Case does USDC have a constitution/contract with the people of Oregon state or any 

state of the Union of States? 

14. In Case is USDC a limited liability corporation? 

15. In Case is USDC a legal fiction entity, 14th Amendment person, individual, commercial 

strawman, or juristic person created by the federal government? 

16. In Case does USA/USDC have a privity relationship with WINSTON SHROUT? 

17. In Case does USA/USDC have an aggregate relationship with WINSTON SHROUT? 

18. In Case is WINSTON SHROUT a surety, liable party or otherwise business partner of 

USA/USDC? 

19. In Case has Winston Shrout entered into any contract with USA/USDC knowingly, 

willingly, and for certain and fair consideration, that would controvert non-surety status 

to WINSTON SHROUT? 

20. In Case has USDC/Respondent(s) done a Uniform Commercial Claim search to 

determine any priority claim on WINSTON SHROUT or any derivative thereof? 

21. Since the USDC is corporate in nature and operates in bankruptcy, who is holding the 

bond in Case, and what is the contact information for the bonding entity? 

Venue: 

1. In Case, hereinafter "Case'', what is the place of controversy? 

2. In Case is place of controversy Oregon state or USA? 

3. In Case is USDC under the control of USA? 

4. In Case what is the metes and bounds description of USA? 

6 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 11
5. In Case is Oregon state under the control of USA? 

6. In Case if answer to Venue: 5. is yes, where is the evidence that people of Oregon state 

contracted with USA to subject people of Oregon state which was admitted to the Union 

of States post Civil War [circa 1865] to military or other control of USA? 

7. In Case is the venue of USA in equity? 

8. In Case does the venue of USA include the physical body of Winston Shrout? 

9. In Case if answer to Venue: 8. is yes, where is the evidence that Winston Shrout is in 

equity with USA? 

10. In Case does USDC sit in Oregon state? 

11. In Case does USDC lie in USA? 

12. In Case does USDC sit in equity in USA? 

Jurisdiction: 

1. In Case where is the contract between Winston Shrout and/or WINSTON SHROUT with 

USA/USDC to establish jurisdiction of USDC? 

2. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., who is the creator of the WINSTON 

SHROUT trust? 

3. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., who is the trustee of the WINSTON 

SHROUT trust? 

4. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., what/where is the cestui que trust of 

the WINSTON SHROUT trust? 

5. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., who is the naked owner of the assets 

of WINSTON SHROUT trust? 

6. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., who/what is operating as the usufruct 

of WINSTON SHROUT trust? 

7. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., is contract consentual? 

8. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., is contract applicable to Winston 

Shrout? 

9. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., who has priority claim to title of 

contract? 

10. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., was there full disclosure of contract 

to all parties? 

11. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., was there threat of force, coercion, 

duress, or threat of arms? 

12. In Case if such contract exists as in Jurisdiction: 1., was contract void of fraud and 

deception? 

13. In Case does Respondent(s) have power of attorney for USA? 

14. In Case if answer to Jurisdiction: 13., is yes has Respondent(s) gotten power of attorney 

for USA by proper procedure? 

15. In Case if answer to Jurisdiction: 14., is yes, what is the evidence of the attorney/client 

contract? 

16. In Case is Respondent(s) acting in public policy rather the 'law'? 

17. In Case upon what grounds does Respondent(s) assert subject matter jurisdiction? 

18. In Case upon what grounds does Respondent(s) assert in personam jurisdiction? 

19. In Case upon what grounds does Respondnt(s) assert in rem jurisdiction? 

7 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 7 of 11
20. In Case does Respondent(s) assert a Bill of Attainder (Bill of "pains and penalties") 

against Winston Shrout? 

21. In Case upon what premise does Defendant(s) assert standing to sue as against Winston 

Shrout/secured party of WINSTON SHROUT or any derivative thereof? 

22. In Case what is the enabling act and date for 26 USC 7203 and where can it be found in 

the Statutes at Large publications? 

23. In Case is Respondent( s) bound by Uniform Commercial Code statutes? 

24. In Case is Respondent(s) bound by United States Code? 

25. In Case what is the organic act that created USDC? 

Right of Action: 

1. In Case what is the right of action of Plaintiff? 

2. In Case what is the jurisdiction for the right of action of Plaintiff? 

3. In Case can USA, a fiction, possess a right of action? 

4. In Case can any legal fiction possess a right of action? 

5. In Case can any legal fiction possess a right? 

6. In Case can Winston Shrout/secured party possess a right? 

7. In Case does USA, a fiction not as a real party in interest, assert a lien right to sue? 

8. In Case, if the answer to Right of Action: 7., is yes, from what source does the lien right 

arise? 

9. In Case does USA assert an equitable lien right? 

10. In Case, ifthe answer to Right of Action: 9., is yes, from what source does the equitable 

lien right arise? 

11. In Case do all parties possess statutory right of action? 

12. In Case do all people under military venue of USA possess statutory right of action? 

13. In Case does the corporation known as the Internal Revenue Service have a right of 

action as a real party in interest? 

Cause of Action: 

1. In Case what is USA cause of action? 

2. In Case can a legal fiction be injured? 

3. In Case is USA injured? 

4. In Case does agent for WINSTON SHROUT or naked owner and/or beneficiary have 

standing to sue for damages based on injury to the estate? 

5. In Case without testimony of a real party in interest does Respondent( s) establish a cause 

of action? 

6. In Case without cause of action does Respondent(s) establish a right of action? 

7. In Case without cause of action does Respondent( s) establish a claim upon which relief 

can be granted? 

8. In Case does the corporation known as the Internal Revenue Service have a cause of 

action as a real party in interest? 

8 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 8 of 11
Procedure: 

1. In Case did Respondents(s) follow correct procedure? 

2. In Case did Respondent( s) exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing Case into 

a tax supported court known as the USDC? 

3. In Case does Respondent(s) impede commerce of Winston Shrout by 'arrest' of US 

vessel, WINSTON SHROUT, which is sole property of Winston Shrout? 

4. In Case does Respondent(s) act in proper procedure in public policy. 

5. In Case ifRespondent(s) admits to violation of Procedure: 1, 2, 3,and 4, does 

Respondent(s) know that the remedy for Winston Shrout is prosecution under the laws of 

commerce? 

Conclusion 

The foregoing Demand for a Written Bill of Particulars is not to be construed as 

'discovery', a traverse into any matter, an appearance in Respondent's purported jurisdiction or 

venue, a waiver of any lawful rights, or in any way a motion or joinder to the referenced matter 

or to any unlawful tribunal, nor discovery to the merits of the matter. 

Failure by Respondent(s), singularly or collectively, to timely and completely respond to 

this demand will be construed as an unlawful act by each or all Respondent(s) to willfully 

withhold full disclosure of the nature and cause of the purported accusations Respondent(s) is 

instituting, or have already instituted, in the referenced matter, and will make it impossible under 

law for the Demandant to meaningfully enter into any joinder of issues with Respondent(s) as 

regards to the merits of Respondent's accusations or purported indictments. 

Failure to provide a true, correct, and complete Bill of Particulars shall be construed as a 

failure to prosecute, a request to dismiss, and constructive intent by the Defendant(s) and all 

related co-Defendant(s) to enter a no/le prosequi by tacit procuration. 

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES 

Any attempts to block, dismiss, or 'rescue' the Respondent(s) from answering this Demand for a 

Written Bill of Particulars will be dealt with in the commercial venue, not in fiction. This case 

has allegedly been generated by a "True Bill" by an alleged Grand Jury. Demandant, Winston 

Shrout, was never informed of said Grand Jury hearing and hence had no opportunity to speak 

nor appear in his proper person to refute or rebut any claims which might have been made. Since 

the "star chamber" type hearings have long been outlawed in our justice system, this is/was an 

unlawful act. But of necessity, since the genesis of the indictment is from a true bill, then it is a 

natural right that this Demandant would issue this "bill" to correspond to the previous "bill" to 

determine the nature and cause of that original "bill". If it is found that this alleged "true bill" is 

in the form of a Bill of Attainder, then this would be a treasonable act against the organic 

Constitution for the united States of America and would be returned to the nearest US Army 

Provost Marshal for action in a Courts Marshal to include all named parties to include the 

members of said Grand Jury. 

9 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 9 of 11
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT/NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE 

TO PRINCIPAL 

True Bill in Commerce for Injury to Winston Shrout 

For the injury of Case No: 3: 15-CR-00438-JO is with the remedy/True Bill in Commerce. 

For the injury against the WINSTON SHROUT estate is with the True Bill in Commerce. 

For the injury/false allegation/penal sum of nineteen (19) counts at Two-hundred fifty thousand 

($250,000) dollars per count is with the remedy. 

$250,000 

x 19 

$4,750,000 

Sum Total: $4,750,000 

+ $14,250,000 

$19,000,000 

$4,750,000 

X 3 punitive 

$14,250,000 

Demand is now made for Officers of the USDC, DOJ Attorneys, et. al., jointly and severally to 

pay over to Winston Shrout as Sole Shareholder in WINSTON SHROUT, Settlor and 

Beneficiary of WINSTON SHROUT 401643573 the amount ofNineteen million (19,000,000) 

in functional currency other than the Federal Reserve Note, preferably the United States Note or 

Treasury Reserve Note. 

Surety: 

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: any and all bank accounts, any and all bonds and securities, any 

and all properties (such as but not limited to the US Federal Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, i.e., 

Mark 0. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse), and any and all properties under control of the USDC/DOJ 

Attorneys, et. al.. If the above mentioned assets are not sufficient to cure the True Bill, then the 

private possessions of Officers of the USDC/DOJ Attorneys who are all benefitting from 

this action under "benefit of office" are to be seized to satisfy the True Bill. Excluded are any 

property needed for basic survival. 

I, Winston Shrout, on my own unlimited commercial liability do state that I have read the above 

PLEA IN BAR AND DEMAND FOR WRITTEN BILL OF PARTICULARS AND TRUE BILL 

IN COMMERCE, and do know the contents to be true, correct, complete and not misleading, the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

10 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 10 of 11
wiflS(oil Shrout, Sole Shareholder in WINSTON SHROUT, Settlor and Beneficiary of 

WINSTON SHROUT 401643573 

3/~s/;b Date 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Be it known that on the date of March .,a 5 , 2016, that a copy of this above was served at the 

place of business to the following: 

Billy J. Williams, US Attorney, Bar # unknown 

c/o US District Court, Mark 0. Hatfield US Courthouse 

1000 SW Third Avenue, ste 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Hon. Winston Shrout 

UN Charter Control Numbe 

Immunity and Authority G~ltfJIC~' D~ ... ~lW 

11 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 23 Filed 03/25/16 Page 11 of 11