FIFTH DISTRICT COURT

Notice of Peonage

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT

_

___WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH STATE_

STATE OF UTAH

)

Plaintiff

)NOTICE OF PEONAGE AND

)INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE OF

vs

)Dave Timothy, a man

)

DAVE THOMAS

)Case No. 0615XXX_Defendant

)File on Demand

Winston Shrout, a man, amicus curiae)

Winston Shrouts (as amicus curiae) notice, regardless if deemed in-artfully plead, must be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by bar-admitted attorneys and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond a doubt that Winston Shrout can prove no set of facts in support of [his] claims which would entitle them to relief. [in the nature of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S., 519-521; Richardson v. Flemming, 651 F 2d at 368 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d. 251, (1976); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Alexander v Ware, 714 F.2d 416 (1983); Hayes v Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau, 838 F.2d. 1434 (5th Cir. 1988))]. Winston Shrouts factual allegations in the text must be accepted as true, along with any reasonable inferences that may be drawn there from. [in the nature of Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d. 987 (5th Cir.1983)]. Winston Shrouts petition must not be read too narrowly, but must instead be read liberally so that any inferences may be drawn there from. [in the nature of Bruce v. Wade, 537 F.2d.850 (5th Cir.1976)].

Definition

Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., page 66. AMICUS CURIAE Lat. A friend of the court. A bystander (usually a counselor) who interposes and offers information upon some point of law in which the judge is doubtful or mistaken, or upon a matter of which the court may take judicial cognizance. Counsel in court frequently act in this capacity when they happen to be in possession of a case which the judge has not seen, or does not at that moment remember.

It also applies to persons who have no right to appear in a suit, but are allowed to introduce evidence to protect their own interests. [emphasis mine]

Notice of Interest in Dave Thomas

This is notice that I, Winston Shrout, have an express commercial interest in Dave Thomas, said Thomas having patent rights to certain inventions, and said Thomas having entered into private contract with Winston Shrout in regards to those patents. The commercial interests of Winston Shrout are being injured by the baseless claims of the Washington County Attorney in at least two matters which are impeding the commerce of Winston Shrout, a man. Therefore, in order to protect my own commercial interests, I, Winston Shrout, enter this matter as amicus curiae and present evidence to support my claims, having standing in this matter by the right of mandamus, being an injured third party, the injury being created by the action of a fiction upon a real man, namely the STATE OF UTAH trying to claim some surety-ship of Dave Thomas for the fictional DAVE THOMAS, Defendant. The actions of the Washington County Attorney fall into the definitions of Involuntary Servitude and Peonage, both of which are completely outlawed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America, to which all public officials have sworn an oath to uphold, which include the Washington County Prosecutor and all judges assigned to this case. These actions give rise to Federal Questions of Involuntary Servitude and Peonage which no fiction can overcome.

Acceptance of the Oaths of Office of the Judges and County Attorney(s)

I, Winston Shrout, accept the oaths of office of all Judges and County Attorneys in this matter, the same creating indemnity bonds to guarantee that the public is not harmed by these actors.

Bond of Winston Shrout

Letter of Stipulation and Undertaking: For and on the record, I am not in receipt of any bond of record to initiate the matter or answer the matter regarding Case No.061500329 and associated matters. Therefore, I, the man, Winston Shrout state the following: This is my firm offer to pay any and all costs, lost by the court and the respective citizens thereof, in Case No. 061500329, to be determined by the appropriate officer of the court to indemnify this court and other respective actors. The amount of this undertaking to be determined by the judge of the court and entered by the clerk of the court for this bond to be properly credited, the amount to be filled in and this bond returned to the trustee/maker for the proper accounting crediting payment. The court is requested to respond in ten days of presentment of this bond so that Winston Shrout has thirty days after receipt of the court to enter payment. The intent is to insure that this court and all respective actors are properly indemnified against any potential losses due to this action of Winston Shrout, amicus curiae with any understanding that this bond should issue in lieu of arrest or detention of the Winston Shrout due to said plaintiffs or defendants by any injury pursuant to the general maritime law and applicable statute law in the forum applicable contracts, none of which are to regarded as waived and are specifically reserved.Definitions of Involuntary Servitude and Peonage

The Thirteenth Amendment, which was added to the Constitution for the United States of America in 1864, and consequently accepted and adopted by all of the states (including the Federal STATE OF UTAH a sub-corporation of the UNITED STATES) prohibits involuntary servitude, and the laws against peonage were added shortly thereafter. These positive laws were enacted based on the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights that guarantee that the government cannot deprive a man of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Note should be made that the deprivation cannot be made without due process of law, which would of course preclude deprivation by equity or quasi-criminal by the fictional administrative courts of today, acting for profit and gain in limited liability insurance schemes.

Case No. 0615XXXX Has No Basis In Fact

The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled in Bailey v. Alabama, 219 US 219, at page 243, as follows

The act of Congress, nullifying all state laws by which it should be attempted to enforce the service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation or otherwise necessarily embraces all legislation which seeks to compel the service or labor by making it a crime to refuse or fail to perform it. Such laws would furnish the readiest means of compulsion.

The act of Congress is codified presently in 42 USC 1994, Peonage abolished, and 18 USC 1581, Peonage; obstructing enforcement; formerly Revised Statutes 1990 and 5526.

The Bailey Court addressed state law that failure to keep a promise to discharge a debt made by contract is prima facie evidence of fraud where fine and imprisonment can be imposed upon the convicted charged party. Likewise in civil matters, for example as to a driver license with the STATE OF UTAH, any traffic citation is taken as prima facie case one of injury to this government based upon the promise that the traffic codes would be obeyed. The Driver License is prima facie evidence of such promises made. However, under what is peonage (quoted below) of the Bailey Court ruling, altered to meet the driver contract subject matter one who is not in a commercial activity, and is therefore a traveler, though contracting to meet promises made, and subject like any other contractor to an action for damages for breach of that contract, can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance or a continuance of the service (see last sentence of what is peonage). Under such restriction, a court action for breach of a driver contract requires a verified action for damages, which means the action must be based upon a sworn complaint of injury which must be proven. A mere traffic citation is insufficient evidence of injury to anyone. Thus, the Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted applies and the City and County Courts of the STATE OF UTAH are under a duty to acknowledge this as the court has no authority to compel anyone to pay a fine or otherwise through the presumption that the traffic citation provides the readiest mans of compulsion for the transfer of interest to ones labor (The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. 15 USC 17) in the form of order to pay a fine or imprisonment.

In this instant matter, the STATE OF UTAH has presented no verified claim into the court. Dave Thomas has constantly and consistently requested that the Plaintiff present a verified charge into the Record, but at present neither the Plaintiff nor the Attorney for the Plaintiff has brought any such verified charge into the case.

Yet, Dave Thomas, a man, neither a surety for DAVE THOMAS, nor a co-business partner with DAVE THOMAS, nor a debtor to DAVE THOMAS, nor anything of a like kind, has been seized by goons, acting as police officers and dragged against his will into unlawful imprisonment, involuntary servitude and peonage, in full view of this court and with its knowledge and consent. Dave Thomas suffered broken ribs, twisted fingers, twisted neck, the beating of his already broken body, deprivation of life saving medication, sleep deprivation by the constant harassment of the prison goons, thermal deprivation by turning on cold air and refusing to provide adequate covering and blankets, and generally torturing an old man who was in a serious medical conditionand they did it with full knowledge of their acts!

It is the belief of this man, Winston Shrout, amicus curiae, that Dave Thomas would have ended up yet another dead corpse who died of unknown causes in the Purgatory Jail, had not Winston Shrout spent a day making phone calls to the Governor, Attorney General, and every agency phone number he could find, and literally raised Hell that a man was being tortured and was nigh unto death for the abuse and refusal, with knowledge, by the prison goons of the life saving medication needed by Dave Thomas.

The Bailey Court ruled as follows, at pages 242-243:

The contract exposes the debtor to liability for the loss due to the breach, but not to enforced labor. This has been so clearly stated by the court in the case of Clyatt, supra [1974 US 207 (1904)], that discussion is unnecessary. The court there said:

The constitutionality and scope of sections 1990 and 5526 present the first questions for our consideration. They prohibit peonage. What is peonage? It may be defined as a status or condition of compulsory service, based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master. The basal fact is indebtedness. As said by Judge Benedict, delivering the opinion in Jaremillo v. Romero, 1 N. Mex. 190,k194: One fact existed universally; all were indebted to their masters. This was the cord by which they seemed bound to their masters service. Upon this is based a condition of compulsory service. Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this implies simply a difference in the mode of origin, but none in the character of the servitude. The one exists where the debtor voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor. The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of law. But peonage, however, created is compulsory service, involuntary servitude. The peon can release himself there from it is true, by the payment of the debt, but otherwise the service is enforced. A clear distinction exists between peonage and the voluntary performance of labor or rendering of services in payment of a debt. In the latter case the debtor, though contracting to pay his indebtedness by labor or service, and subject like any other contractor to an action for damages for breach that contract, can elect at any time to break it, and no law or force compels performance or a continuance of the service.

Information by an Eye Witness

Dave Thomas, an eye and ear witness to the proceedings against DAVE THOMAS, has informed me that he has constantly and consistently requested that the attorney for the Plaintiff read the charges and certify them for the record. Dave Thomas has told me that the attorney for the Plaintiff has refused on every such request (and the courts own video tapes of the proceedings will confirm this) to read any charges into the record and has not certified any charges at all.

Dave Thomas has informed me that the James L. XXXX, acting as JUDGE JAMES L XXXX, has entered a not guilty plea for DAVE THOMAS, over the objection of Dave Thomas, the only contributing beneficiary to DAVE THOMAS and thus the only equity holder in any of the products, proceeds, fixtures, and the like in the DAVE THOMAS, when in fact Dave Thomas had consistently offered a guilty plea upon proof of claim by the Attorney for the Plaintiff, that there were any verified charges which could be rightfully presented as a debt against DAVE THOMAS.

It is the belief of Dave Thomas, that the James L. XXXX and the Brock ZZZZ #6XXX are in contempt of court for continuing to press fraudulent claims over the objection of Dave Thomas in regards to his property.

It is obvious to any reasonable man, that the unwarranted arrest, subsequent imprisonment, extortion of testimony, deprivation of rights, deprivation of food, deprivation of sleep, deprivation of life saving medicines were all done contrary to law.

Habeas Corpus

Winston Shrout, seeing the unlawful incarceration, peonage and involuntary servitude, supplied James L. XXXX with a Habeas Corpus which he avoided. James L. XXXX is in violation of his oath of office in this matter for suspending the Great Writ and denying Dave Thomas, due process purposefully and with deceit. The Petition for the Writ is still pending with James L. XXXX who has forfeited his bond/oath of office.

Case No. 061500329 Is Flawed Beyond Repair

This case, if it ever had subject matter jurisdiction, is now flawed beyond any reasonable repair. Aside from failing of consideration and holding a man to a fictional surety, the parties in this matter have violated so many due process issues, that it is not within the ability of this amicus curiae to enumerate them all.

The Court on its Own Motion

In the interest of justice and holding the courts and its actors to the established standards of American Jurisprudence, this Court, on its own motion ought to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

No Other Remedy

This amicus curiae sees no other remedy for Dave Thomas, than to swear out criminal charges with the US Attorney General against the actors in this instant matter for peonage, involuntary servitude, extortion of testimony, torture in the form of beatings, broken ribs, twisted arms and legs, wrenching of the head and neck, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, exposure to cold, deprivation of life saving medications, constant taunting, threats of death, insinuations of murder, and the like. May God have mercy on their souls.

Verification

I, Winston Shrout, amicus curiae, on my own unlimited commercial liability do affirm that I have read the above NOTICE OF PEONAGE AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE OF Dave Thomas, a man, and do know the contents to be true, correct, and complete, and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and do believe that the above enumerated acts have been committed contrary to law.

____________________________

_______

Winston Shrout, all rights reserved

date

Certification of Post

I, Winston Shrout, over the age of twenty-one years, competent with first hand knowledge do say, that on the _____ day of _______ month, 2006, that I did post a copy of NOTICE OF PEONAGE AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE OF Dave Timothy, a man, to the below listed party, first class post, postage prepaid.

Brock ZZZZ #6XXX123 MainAnytown, Utah 84770

____________________________

________

Winston Shrout, all rights reserved

date

Winston Shrout

c/o PO Box 4043

Hillsboro, Oregon

non domestic

Winston ShroutPage 6 of 6