Writ of Praecipe
Winston Shrout
c/o 123 Main
Anytown, Utah state non domestic
united States of America
without the UNITED STATES/STATE OF UTAH
Fifth District Court
sitting in Washington and Iron county, Utah state
Petition for Writ for Habeas Corpus
In re: Restraint of Liberty by James Jones, dba CEO ABC BANK, and Bill Brown, dba Successor Trustee,
[28 USC 1746 (2)]
Winston Shrout, without the UNITED STATES/STATE OF UTAH
c/o 123 Main, Anytown, Utah state non domestic [28 USC 1746(1)]
vs.
James Jones and Bill Brown, Respondents
123 State Street, St. George, Utah 84770 [28 USC 1746 (2)]
Judge: _________________________ Case Number: XXXXXX
submitted by: Winston Shrout, Real Party in Interest, who is presently unlawfully restrained of liberty by
said Respondents, said restraint being committed unlawfully upon the soil within Washington county, Utah
state.
PRAECIPE TO CLERK OF THE COURT
Comes now Winston Shrout, a man, without the UNITED STATES, not a UNITED STATES/STATE OF
UTAH citizen, and a Real Party in Interest in this instant matter, appearing specially under “restricted
appearance” (Rule E 8 of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims) exercising
his right to petition the general government for redress of grievance guaranteed from the days of the Magna
Carta and subsequent guarantees of rights including the Constitution for the United States, a remedy
provided by the extraordinary writ for habeas corpus, the Great Writ for Liberty, which is within the
collective heritage of the people of the united States of America and England. Petitioner asserts in fact
that his liberty has and is now being restrained by James Jones, d/b/a CEO ABC BANK and Bill Brown,
d/b/a Successor Trustee, legal fictions, operating for profit and gain in a limited liability maritime insurance
scheme. Winston Shrout has exhausted his administrative remedies in this matter, and there is no plain,
speedy or adequate in law remedy available. The actions of by James Jones and Bill Brown, operating for
profit and gain in a limited liability maritime insurance scheme, are ultra vires.
1. The history of the Great Writ is encapsulated in the statement that: Every person restrained of his
liberty under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the
cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered therefrom when found unlawful.
2. The term “liberty” means Freedom, exemption from extraneous control, the power of the will to
follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual
without restrain, coercion, or control from other parties. The term “liberty” includes and
comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment.
3. The Great Writ can be used for judicial review of administrative processes or judicial processes.
4. The Great Writ can be used as the first action for collateral attack on administrative or judicial
processes.
Winston Shrout Page 1 of 2
Writ of Praecipe
5. The Great Writ is used to determine the nature and cause of restraint by Respondent.
6. The Clerk of Court is noticed by way of the ancient Writ of Praecipe (Writ of instruction to the
Clerk of Court) to take notice of the attached Petition for a Writ for Habeas Corpus, Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Notice of Hearing originating from Petitioner.
7. The Clerk of Court is noticed to serve the Writ for Habeas Corpus on the Respondents by
whatever means is provided by the practices of the court, without delay.
8. Petitioner notices the Clerk of Court that no public official is liable for civil action for obeying a
Writ for Habeas Corpus or order of discharge made thereon.
9. Petitioner notices the Clerk of Court of Article 1 sec 9 of the Constitution for the united states of
America. [Habeas corpus.] The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires it.
10. Petitioner has no knowledge of rebellion or invasion in the united states of America, and this Writ
for Habeas Corpus poses no threat to the public.
11. Petitioner has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in law.
12. The Petitioner notices the Clerk of Court by way of the ancient Writ of Praecipe to take special
notice that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ for Habeas Corpus makes the Clerk of Court
knowledgeable of the wrongs mentioned in 42 USC 1985 and unless it can be shown in writing by
the Clerk of Court that the conditions exist as prescribed by the Constitution for the united states
of America, that is, that due to a national or state rebellion or invasion the Great Writ, Writ for
Habeas Corpus, has been suspended, it is the duty and obligation of the Clerk of Court the issue
and deliver the attached writ for habeas corpus without delay. Failure to do so would create a
dishonor of presentments of Petitioner to the court for the right of petition for redress of grievance,
a denial of due process giving rise to a federal question. Failure to do so would establish the Clerk
of Court in non-feasance of office in fact, and would be a tort against Winston Shrout.
________________________________ ___________
Winston Shrout, lawful man, Petitioner date
Winston Shrout Page 2 of 2
