www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
JCT: Since the Project Robin Hood raid on Casino Turmel case was
brought up in the Big Five Marijuana appeals at the Ontario
Court of Appeal recently arguing against judges imposing new
criminal sanctions, rather than Parliament, I've decided to to
publish the transcripts of the trial on the biggest gaming house
raid in Canadian, probably world, history. 28 tables/155 dealers.
See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/gambler.htm
19930901
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
against
JOHN TURMEL
***********
PROCEEDINGS
HEARD BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE J.M. BORDELEAU
on the 1st day of September, 1993 at OTTAWA
***********
Charges: S.201(1), C.C. - Two counts
S.202(1)(c), C.C.
S.202(1)(e), C.C.
***********
APPEARANCES:
Mr. A. Marin Counsel for the Crown
Ms. J. Turmel Counsel for the Defendant
Courtroom Number Seven September 1, 1993
TURMEL: Your Honour, this is a series of four requests and one is
to dismiss the charges of gaming house and betting house on the
grounds of autrefois acquit. The other is to dismiss the charges
of betting house - control of monies from betting and business of
betting on the grounds that they fail to state an essential
element. Another one is, in the alternative, to argue the special
plea of issue estoppel to quash all the charges, to prevent a
contradictory judgment, and, finally, possibly, an order staying
the charges on the grounds of prosecutorial abuse of process
which offends the community sense of fair play.
COURT: All right. Didn't all these matters come up before Judge
Nadelle some while ago?
TURMEL: No, they did not.
COURT: Why didn't they?
TURMEL: Because the lawyer at the time didn't think the plea of
autrefois acquit was applicable until the trial and since then,
I've found some recent case law to argue that it is allowable
before the trial.
COURT: All right. I am going to put all of these matters, Mr.
Turmel, over to the trial date that we'll fix and you can argue
all of this before one Judge, otherwise, we'll just have a
succession of motions.
TURMEL: Oh, yeah, but, see, there is no evidence to be adduced
here. Strictly the two the Informations to show they're identical
and that's how the autrefois acquit plea is argued. Now, there is
an injustice here due to the delay.
COURT: All right. We'll set dates that you can argue these all in
great detail. This is a "plea-of-guilty" court. Really, this is
not the forum in which I can start entertaining lengthy motions,
particularly, as you have four and particularly, as well, as you
were given a previous opportunity to present motions in respect
of this matter before Judge Nadelle and you have chosen, for
whatever reason, to not bring all of these motions before Judge
Nadelle and I cannot, this morning, entertain another series of
motions. What I am going to do is adjourn all of these motions to
the trial date and, of course, you will be able to make all of
these motions before the trial actually commences and we'll set
aside enough time for you to do that.
TURMEL: But then the injustice of the delay hasn't been solved.
COURT: Well, then, that is something that you will ahve to take
up with the trial judge because he has jurisdiction to do
something about that. I do not.
TURMEL: Not in the case of autrefois acquit, Your Honour. And
there is no evidence to be adduced.
COURT: Well, that is my decision this morning. So, this matter
will go before Judge Lennox on the 27th of September at 2 p.m.
PRESENTATION TO THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT
STANDING ECONOMICS COMMITTEE BY CASINO TURMEL
The Chair: Our next presenter this afternoon is John Turmel,
representing Casino Turmel. If you would please come forward,
sir, and make yourself comfortable, you have 30 minutes within
which to make your presentation and field questions from the
committee members.
Turmel: Did you say 15?
The Chair: I said 30, and whenever you're comfortable, you may
please proceed.
Turmel: Okay. Well, I do have a submission that I've given
everybody if they want to follow it along, I propose to read it
and digress, and if someone has a question, throw it in, because
I'll be short in my answers and we can continue on. So don't feel
any worry about interrupting.
I am the only systems engineer in Canada to have specialized in
the mathematics of gambling. I've been accredited as an expert
witness in matters related to gambling on numerous occasions
before the Ontario and Quebec provincial courts. I was once even
used by the Crown. I have operated Poker and Blackjack games in
the Ottawa area for the past 20 years and was six times
convicted, before finally being acquitted of running an honest
game. All judges said, "He's honest," but six said, "He's
guilty." In April 1989, upon an agreed statement of facts,
Ontario Provincial Court judges Fontana and Lennox dismissed
charges of operating a gaming house against John Turmel and the
found-ins. Under the scrutiny of the OPP and Ottawa police,
Casino Turmel in Ottawa operated legal card games of skill such
as poker, with no rakeoff; blackjack, where they could bank me
back; gin rummy, for over a year and a half.
In December 1991. OPP undercover officer Joe Fotia twice
investigated the blackjack and poker games held in my home and
filed no charges.
Five months later, after I'd started a small blackjack and poker
games room on Baxter Road in Ottawa, with five blackjack and
three poker tables, and employing 14 staff, Cardinal Agency, a
charity casino operator, complained to the police that he
couldn't compete. Of course, I'm not blaming him. He wrote and
said: "How come Turmel can be running casinos and I have to pay
for licences? How does he do it? If he's doing it in some legal
way, I want to do it too, and if he's not, bust him."
Again, Officer Joe Fotia investigated my games of poker and
blackjack 10 times during the months ofJune and July 1992. Again,
no charges were filed.
Five months later, after I'd started a larger casino at the Topaz
entertainment plaza on St Laurent Boulevard in Ottawa, with 20
blackjack tables and six poker tables, operating 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, employing over 100 butler-dealers, Ottawa
police investigated five times in January 1993 and filed no
charges.
Between that point, I did announce at a Toronto press conference
that I was going to expand and start these types of poker and
blackjack clubs in Toronto, Niagara Falls and Brockville. I'll go
into why the American market is important for Niagara Falls and
Brockville.
I'd also point out that Peter Kormos came when he heard about my
wanting to set up in Niagara Falls and examined the operation at
Topaz. So if you want to know as to the professional attitudes
and the quality of it, he's a man who actually came and
investigated, knowing I was coming to his community.
As for why Toronto, I did start a casino in Toronto last year,
early in the year, but the police, in February, threatened to lay
the gaming house charges regardless of the judges'decisions that
had acquitted me. So I chose to shut down and get some legal
opinions, and then I announced I was going to open up again.
Two months later, though, the Ottawa police and the OPP started a
combined investigation. This time, they changed their minds. They
launched Project Robin Hood that's what they called it; in Hull
two years ago they called it Operation Blackjack and they laid
charges. If justice prevails, I'll be acquitted again. As a
matter of fact, the pre-trial is coming up September 27 in front
of the same judge who acquitted me the first time. For the
lawyers in the room, there's going to be one of these rare
autrefois acquit pleas going on before the same judge who
acquitted me last time. So a rarity is happening on September 27.
If I do win, small card casinos won't be stoppable. You're going
to have to face bridge clubs that have money toumaments, you're
going to have to face poker clubs with no rakeoff, and of course
you'll have to face these types of casinos of legal games,
because it seems the focus so far has been on the types of games
that large casinos offer. They cannot compete with the small ones
for several reasons soon coming out. And if I do win, the
province should get ready to handle the increased tax revenues
that we'll generate unimpeded.
The jobs I created paid approximately $40,000 a year with tips,
so they were substantial and people loved them, frankly. This $4-
million yearly payroll represented less than full capacity. At
full capacity, there would have been 150 to 200 Ottawa jobs with
that number of tables I listed. Card players were being bused in
from Montreal four times a week, with more travel agents, one
from the US, planning more tours.
After deductions and taxes, govemment will always reap more than
half of all the money won if it's done by private enterprise, yet
my Canadian model of small and medium mom-and-pop-style casinos,
"Cheers with chips" is how I like to explain it --
McClelland: Everybody knows your name.
Turmel: -- would allow jobs and winnings to stay in the community
rather than have them all channelled to a few large cities.
It's been said that gambling would attract drugs, prostitution
and organized crime. I can only point out that though they're
already here -- let's get that straight; they're already here;
this is not going to attract much more than the market's already
handling -- I didn't find them to be problems at my games. If a
guy wants to come doing drugs, he won't have money tomorrow night
to either play or do drugs. You find most people who do play
games of skill aren't the ones who want to be impaired. If you
can get them off those games where they don't need their brains,
like lotteries, bingos, craps, things like that, and get them on
to blackjack and cards, even more reason you're not attracting
people who want to do drugs or alcohol.
As a matter of fact, we have no alcohol, though I must admit in
the past, when I ran it in my home, I had a fridge full of beer.
But since I've gotten larger I've decided the problems with
alcohol are too much and you don't need drunken people losing
their money sorely So it's turned into more of a bridge club
atmosphere by not having alcohol. Whether or not the govemment's
going to allow it, like the big casinos, I have no real opinion
on. If you've got a lot of security guards, I guess it can't hurt
but if you want to do it economically and cheaply, then you don't
need security guards and you don't want alcohol.
So "Cheers with chips" would allow the money and the jobs to stay
right in the community where the money's lost. It's been said
that gambling would attract them. They're already here. I haven't
found it to be a problem. I think this has largelJ been a result
of the large number of elderly players who actually prefer $5nd
$10-maximum poker and blackjack to bingos and lotteries.
I have an 86-year-old man who plays $5 poker. Every Saturday, we
have a busload coming in from Montreal and you'd think it was the
geriatric ward of the city. Literally, it's the same old people
who drive all the way from Montreal by bus to sit down and play
poker with each other for eight hours before driving back. I
mean, it's actually very cute, you know, and it's a nice way for
the employees to make a living.
Believe it, old people can still use their brains at that age,
especially with the games I've designed. Blackack's pretty simple
-- count to 21; most people still can -- but poker, most people
have difficulty playing stud games because you have to watch all
these hands out there and keep track of the cards and it's a
problem. But this most popular game in the world right now,
called Hold'em, has only two cards in your hand and five in the
middle. It's a seven stud. That way, the old people only have to
look at their two cards and the five in the middle and see how
they mesh -- they don't have to do anything else -- and listen to
the betting.
I'm sure you can't see this kind of intermingling between old
generations and young generations, and it's actually quite
wonderful to see. I'm sure you see it in Las Vegas if you visit
the poker pits at the small stakes, and I think we should have
that here too because, frankly, exercising the brain seems to
keep these people sharp. I've seen people at 60 years old -- l
play accordon in old folks' homes. When I was convicted in 1981,
they let me out of jail if I played concerts in the old folks'
homes, and I can say that a lot of people at 60 years old can't
do very much, but these people are bright. When they get a pair
of aces, it's the same rush; try and trap them.
Anyway, because of all these elderly people who do come, it would
be quite difficult for either drug pushers or prostitutes to
approach gamblers in such a setting, where such activities would
quickly be detected and frowned upon. There were no drug or
prostitution charges or allegations in Project Robin Hood.
I've demonstrated that my type of small casino has experienced no
trouble over the last 15 nmonths, much as any bridge director
could attest that bridge toumaments are relatively incident-free.
The presence of cash in no way renders the gambling at bridge any
more detrimenal to the public peace. Similarly, gambling at
poker, blackjack, euchre -- that' s another hot toumament game
coming up soon -- and gin are quite peaceful activities.
As for organized crime, they wouldn't be too intersted in small
operations with profit levels more in tune with small businesses
and, frankly, my profit at the end of all my thing was in the
neighbourhood of about lO%c of the total winnings that came in.
After all expenses and all that kind of stuff. I'll be left with
10% -- it's
20%, but the government takes half. No way in the world am I
making as much as Wayne Gretzky or even a large auto dealer, so
it's not as lucrative as most people think, but still it's an
entertaining and enjoyable way of making a living. I could sit at
the poker table for 20 hours a day and love it and be happy and
pay the rent. Anyway, organized crime, we've had no hints
whatsoever, no pressures, nothing like that.
As for the compulsive gamblers, the personal neighbourhood touch
also allows for recognition and help to abusers, which larger and
personal casinos cannot do. It's pretty tough for an abuser to
hide the fact when a niece or a nephew is working at the next
table, and if it's in a small town you bet some kin are going to
be working in the casino, so that uncle Jerry can't come and blow
his brains out without Aunt Millie finding out, or the kid
standing up and saying, "Bar him from the casino.'
I can attest that not only have I and other management personnel
spoken with abusers, but so have many of the new friends they've
made. So friends actually speak up and warn people about this
too. No one wants to see them quit the game, but everybody wants
to see them playing at stakes they can afford. I have personally
barred abusers; I have imposed conditions on others.
Some I only buy in once for a set amount, $200, and if they lose
it they're gone. Others are restricted to a certain maximum bet,
$10, $15, $25. Some have fixed hours, "You've got to go home at
midnight because you work in the morning; the wife gets mad if
you come in late," and several may not play unless accompanied by
the spouse. Frankly, that is the ideal solution. When the spouse
comes with the abuser and is sitting at the same table, his
gambling is always under control.
So I've found very few problems in that respect. I do have a
database of 4,500 gamblers who have played with me and through my
doors, and I'd say that I can probably count the abusers on my
hands. Besides, the real abusers make great employees.
The Citizen had a big article about my casino and it mentioned
that this poor guy had to take a job at Casino Turmel when he
lost all his money. The point is, I took He can only play 4
little bit. Tne managementmakes sure that he can't play with his
rent money. So he's got himself a 40-grand-a-year job and he's
under control.
I found, frankly, that those people who did lose control are the
ones who understand the games implicitly and then enjoy being on
the other side of the table. It seems to satiate their desire.
They 're at least in the action, participating in some way. So
all those people out there at Gamblers Anonymous, come see Casino
Turmel. I bet you' ll be a good dealer. I further belieive that
the curse of gambling is, with few exceptions, the acceptance of
cheques and the extension of credit by the house. Problems arise
when the gambler is losing and goes on tilt. If the game takes
his cheques, he could lose all his savings in the heat of the
moment. I will not take a cheque and let a person use funds in
his chequing account unless the players are such high rollers as
to make the transfers of cash impractical. Frankly, in the
second-last month before they raided me, one guy hit me for a
quarter of a million dollars. That's a $300 limit, seven hands,
betting maximum all the way over the space of three weeks.
You need a huge bankroll to sustain those types of limits. But
again, this is the type of action that you just can't do in cash.
You have to pay in cheques, and that's safer too. If I had my
choice, I'd rather it was all done by cheque. Of course the
govemment's happy; they know everything I win, and we're not
going to get robbed. Who needs security?
I didn't put it in here, but you might make a note that possible
total credit might be an answer to the abusers. You know, you
either have a chequing account that's been okayed for gambling,
in some way -- and the banks would love to open a new set of
accounts, right? In that way it can be controlled. There are ways
to control them in the smaller communities that are totally
unavailable in the large, impersonal casinos. Anyway, without
access to their chequing accounts, gamblers can never lose more
than they were prepared to lose when they came to play, and I
found very few problems with that policy.
Worse problems arise if the game extends credit. I've extended
credit over many, years and I've had to write off a lot. I
learned my lesson, as I have no stomach for chasing people who
have evidently hurt themselves. Any hint of strong-arm policies
is eliminated without credit. I therefore will not extend credit,
and again, players cannot lose more than they were prepared to
lose when they came to play.
There are now five other Turmel-style casinos in Ottawa, with
three having opened after the Project Robin Hood raid, so they're
all counting on my winning my case again. Unfortunately, they do
not adhere to my credit and cheque policies -- a little mistake
there -- and I cannot say that those problems will not arise, but
to date their mere unobtrusiveness is an indication that such
industry can be competently and quietly done.
I further believe that the larger casinos cannot compete with the
small neighbourhood games people have access to already. Men who
regularly play poker at their golf or social clubs -- and I would
bet that if any of you guys play poker at your clubs, you'll
understand -- will not be attracted to the large casinos and will
inevitably prefer a setting of their own choosing and games of
their own choice. They might go to the big downtown casino once
in awhile, but most will stay at the neighourhood game.
The problems with big casinos are immediately "evident. The
August 24, 1993, Ottawa Citizen article entitled, 'Angry'
Horsemen Rein on Casino Hearing Parade," points out that if the
Chippewa Indian tribe in Detroit opens a casino, the Windsor
casino will not be viable and a large investment will fail. On
the other hand. If several small, Turmel-sized casinos were about
to be put in operation, one or two might go under but not the
whole industry. There's no need to put all our eggs in one
basket.
I further believe that the proposed Windsor casino test site will
in no way be indicative of what would actually go on, since it
seems to be the case of it being run by Americans for the
American market. I bet the ratio of people familiar with guns who
visit Windsor from the murder capital of the USA will be far
higher than that for Ottawa.
I'd further point out the awesome potential of money bridge
toumaments. Such a tournament was recently held in a US casino
and has the potential of'being the all-time largest gambling
game. Now, I host -- I've got it here -- the annual Canadian Open
Hold'em Poker Championship, which last year had over $80,000 in
prize money, and I believe that such purses will be dwarfed by
the purses created by large bridge tournaments.
I've been holding these tournaments for about eight years now.
Last year, we had entrants from the United States, Quebec,
Toronto, Winnipe g, the east coast. This is a large tournament
now, and as long as I don't take a rakeoff, even if I don't have
my permanent Casino Turmel setting, I can still run it in a hotel
like I always used to oripinally. I'm sayinp it's just a matter
of time, as long as I don't take a rake and make a profit. Of
course, I always come in the money, so you know -always," no -- I
usually come in the money in these tournaments, so I'll organize
them as often as I can. As long as I don't make any profits and
the winners cover the tab -- l've had these investigated by the
police and pronounced fine, so like Benny Binion, who owns the
world series of poker in Las Ve gas, John Turmel owns the Canada
championship here, and I don't intend to give it up as long as I
have the wherewithal do it once a year.
Anyway, I think that bridpe is coming and I just might decide to
try and host one of these massive tournaments. Being from
Toronto, you must be aware of these 5,000-person bridge
tournaments that take place down there. There are 5,000 people at
a bridge tournament seeking master points, simple recognition.
Just imagine it. If everybody put up $100 into the pot, or $200
like we do at poker, you'd be looking at a half-million-dollar
prize and now people would really have a thrill. As long as
there's no rake going to the house, this is going to be
explosive.
This kind of activity can't be stopped. People are always going
to choose to use their brains. As a matter of fact-a short one-
minute digression-I wrote a poem when I was thrown in jail about
10 years ago on this problem. I was sitting in a jail cell, they
gave me a pen and paper and I wrote:
Here I sit, broken hearted.
Came to play, but was soon parted
>From my friends that I do know,
Enjoy this game as I do so.
Now I languish here in jail,
Puzzled by my need of bail.
I don't know why they oppose
My wish to gamble, no one knows.
I don't hurt them. Why bust me?
It isn't their game, now I see.
They allow bingos or tickets bought
But never, never a game of thought.
Bingos bore me, lotteries too.
Give me poker, blackjack, backgammon too.
I prefer thought, exercise my brain,
Playing lotteries would drive me insane.
So I choose to make use of my mind
And pity those who won't in kind.
So I'm in here and they're out there,
Yet still I choose to think, to dare.
By the way, I was convicted.
Anyway, money bridge is going to be big. Just ask any of your
bridge-playing friends if they wouldn't love a bridge toumament
where everybody puts in $100. It's coming.
Now the reason Canada will have great initial success in luring
American gamblers, and I found this, is because they're taxed 30%
of their winnings right at the casino, whereas here gambling
winnings to non-proessionals are treated as a non-taxable
windfall and they get to keep it all.
Two chartered flights of gamblers used to leave Ottawa for
Atlantic City every month; now there are none, with American card
players coming this way. Or they were: They must still be going
to the other five casinos, because they've hired all my dealers,
so word's spread anyway. That's true; most of my dealers have
found employment with the other five casinos in town. A lot of
people in town think it's unfair that they're just using me as a
test case, and I think they have a real weak case too. Keep an
ear out on the media and see if they cover it well.
Now there are none of these, and if the quiet, sociable nature of
the Canadian model I offer were to be better known, it would beat
the more familiar American model hands down. Spinoffs in the
tourism industries have surely been well documented by other
submissions to this committee,
For these reasons, I would recommend the immediate licensing of
mini-casinos allowing the playing of poker with a small service
fee. I pick up the rent just because I'm good, but a house ought
to be able to charge $5 a seat to pay for the lights. I'm forced
to not take a rakeff and just pay the bills with what I win as a
player, but I'm good enough to usually win between three and four
units an hour.
Just think about that if you find a $100 game and you're playing
50 hours a week. I can pick up the rent, but if I have only one
table, I may not find a $100 game. If I have 10 tables in my
place with 100 gamblers, out of there you'll get 10 or 11 people
capable of playing at the high stakes, allowing me to pick up the
rent.
I would recommend the licensing of small poker mini-casinos, card
casinos, and allow poker with a little service fee, blackjack or
any other lawful games. All those honest underground poker games
that have been running illegally in every Canadian city for as
long as I'm sure anybody can remember should be allowed to come
out into the open, register their wins or gains and pay their
taxes. As a matter of fact, if you would come to me and say,
"I've been convicted of running a gaming house three times, but
the judge always said it was an honest game but I broke the law,"
I'd call that a recommendation. There are a lot of people out
there who've been in the industry, who've been running honest
poker games, like myself, who have criminal records. I've finally
found a way to do it right, I hope. I'll prove it again.
All these games are honest. The gamblers will police the games
themselves usually. Therefore you could sprout an instant
industry almost ovemight in every small town, so that, again, all
the benefits of the money staying in the community would be
there. Everywhere you could comfortably situate a billiard table
should be a candidate for a poker or blackjack table: clubs,
restaurants, racetracks. I think lots of gamblers would enjoy
being able to have a poker game at the racetrack, being able to
place their bets, like a keno runner, on the horses on the track,
with the screens up there. I think the racetracks would be
popular casinos.
Just like Circus Circus draws the people with the families in
Vegas and other places have their attactions, I think the
racetracks would be really solidified by adding a small or even a
mid-size casino within their midst. I think people would stay
there. I think they're just ideal situations. I don't think they
should worry at all, as long as they're allowed to obtain
licences on their own. It can only help their industry. There is
already a large, talented underground industry out there, ready
to sprout into existence beside any larger models with which to
compete, and I don't think the larger models will compete.
Finally, government shouldn't be involved in which games players
want to play or gamble at. Whatever the players choose should be
marketable, and the guy who finds the way to market it in the
most pleasant way is going to be the winner. I think it should be
left up to private enterprise, and short of leaving the policing
of cheats and things like that to the police, really I think
these things could pop into existence almost overnight.
Again, any large ones you set up could be liable for large
tumbles when the competition in other states do finally open up
everywhere or if your neighbours across the border simply allow
small casinos to go too. You have to have small casinos so that
some will get knocked out, the rest will survive; otherwise, it
looks like there could be some big falls, and I predict Windsor
will be a big one if those Indians open their casino.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a very entertaining
presentation. Very seriously, you offer some interesting ideas.
Our time is quite limited, but I suspect that if we're giyen an
opportunity to ask questions, you will have a lot to say in your
responses.
Turmel: I'll be quick.
The Chair: Oh, will you? That's great, sir. I wouldn't want to
imply that you 'd go on at length.
Turmel: I ran in 33 elections with a one-minute constraint on
average questions.
The Chair: Again, in all fairness, I offered 30 minutes, and we
don't have a whole lot of time, but maybe because you're the last
presenter today, we can offer just a little extra time. We'll
start with Mr. Duignan.
Mr. Duignan: We don't have any questions at this time.
--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-756-1325 USENET: can.politics
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
