TURMEL: #4 Robin Hood Raid on Casino Turmel Trial Transcript

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

[continued]
 
PRESENTATION TO THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT 
STANDING ECONOMICS COMMITTEE BY CASINO TURMEL

The Chair: Kwinter.

Mr. Kwinter: Turmel, I had breakfast with a former classmate of 
yours this moming, and he told me that you were coming and said 
that I would find you very interesting and entertaining, and he 
was certainly ri ght. He also said something you may not agree 
with, but in his words, that you were a genius. From what you 
tell me about your ability to win at poker, which really funds 
all of these operations, just by winning, what happens if you get 
somebody who's better than you are and you don't win?

Turmel: You see, that's not it. The essence of bein g a 
professional is -- l have walked away from games. When they 
opened the games in Comwall, I went for six months, made a huge 
killing. But I walk in there, there's a $50 game, and I look and 
I see one, two, three, four sharks, four pros like myself, maybe 
just slightly not as good, because I have some pretty 
sophisticated mathematical tools, but still winners, guys who can 
expect to grind out. I look at the $25 table where I see only one 
or two sharks, becouse even sharks think the big action's better. 
I'II pick the smaller table because I know I can win more against 
less sharks. So sure, there can be a better player who will come 
up against me, but he can't beat me for very much, even if we 
were head-on. A better player might win 52 toumaents out of 100 
and I might win 48, so the actual difference between skilful 
players isn' t that substantial, but the difference between a 
winner and a loser is.

Mr. Kwinter: The point I was trying to make is that without your 
proposal of having a service fee of whatever it is-

Turmel: Five bucks an hour or something per seat.

Mr. Kwinter: -yes, whatever it is so that you can finance this 
thing, you were able to run this only because you have the 
ability to finance it through your winnings.

Turmel: That's ri ght.

Mr. Kwinter: Now, if you couldn't finance it through your 
winnings and you were at the mercy ofthe John Turmels who come to 
play-

Turmel: You couldn't compete. As a matter of fact, if I don't win 
my case, I will break the Ottawa casino when it opens. Watch out; 
I'll have nowhere else to go.

The Chair: There goes the $150 million in taxes.

Turmel: Unless they bar me. I don't know what your position is on 
barring. In Las Vegas they barred me from two casinos and in 
Atlantic City they had other measures to cope with me. But I 
don't know if you've even contemplated how to cope with card 
counters. Are you going to eliminate my chance to gamble chez moi 
and also bar me from gambling in my home town? So it's an 
interesting problem, but better to have me on this side of the 
table than playin g against the house, because I can win it 
faster.

Mr. Carr: They may run you as an NDP candidate to get rid of you.

Turmel: That's a cheap shot at the NDP, though. But no, I happen 
to be in a unique position where yes, I can use winnings to fund 
that kind of expense and have that large an operation.

But I also notice in Las Vegas that at the poker tables not onlv 
was the house taking five bucks a pot and 150 bucks an hour, but 
the dealers were being tipped one, two, three bucks a pot, and 
that's why the employees make $40,000 a year. That's why I 
reasoned that even if I don't take a rakeoff, the people still 
tip when they win, and guess what? The people are tipping the tip 
pool $50 to $70 an hour, and in a high-stakes game sometimes $150 
an hour.

Now, I don't touch that. All I can say is a pure tip industry 
could be created with poker paying $40,000, $50,000 a year, so 
basically those tips are very valuable. They actually provide 
more money to the dealers than

I provide in salary. I'd say tips are at least as much and maybe 
a little more. So it's not just me having to win it all, 
otherwise the dealers would be eaming 20 grand a year. Actually, 
they're getting double with their tips.

Again, the competition's a kind of nice way, because those who 
serve them better and please the players better and offer nicer 
surroundings are the ones who are going to do better and keep the 
gamblers. So tips are also an important element in funding 
paycheques, and it's not just my gambling.

Mr. Phillips: I appreciate your advice to us on the Windsor 
model. I don't know whether you've had a chance to look at it. I 
think it calls for roughly 12,000 visitors a day-

Turmel: That's large.

Mr. Phillips: -and I think a 20% fee from the province on the win 
plus profits. What's your view on the likelihood of success? I 
don't know whether you've had a chance to look at the model.

Turmel: Only with respect to larpe versus small. I see that if 
there's competition on the American side, all Windsor's going to 
have is that 30% tax leverage, and if they ever eliminated that, 
then people would be staying on the American side. Most people 
who play small stakes will stay on the American side for sure, 
because the tax breaks -- they don't hit you for a $100 win at 
the cage. There's a certain threshold before they hit you with 
the 30% taxes, so small gamblers won't cross the river. This tax 
advantage is really only a lure to the high rollers in Detroit, 
and we all know who they might be. So I just don't think that can 
be the problem.

I think the largeness of the casino is a threat to the casino, 
and if they were rather to start a small strip of pleasant-type 
"Cheers with chips" to get it started with, even if the Indians 
did open, it might still survive, even if one or two go under. I 
think that small would be the way to try, but then again, it's 
not representative of what I'm experiencing in Ottawa or what I 
did in Toronto at all. It's a Detroit market, and it would be 
large and it would bring the same impersonal problems that the 
large ones do. Sure, the hookers would be hanging around the bars 
because there are no grandothers saying, "I don't want my nephew 
hanging around her."

You can't believe how many times you have a whole family at the 
table. I mean, people come and they take a whole table, the whole 
family. So what used to po on in the kitchen now goes on out in 
another setting where there are more people they can socialize 
with. Once people get a taste of it, they're not going to go back 
to the slotmachines too muchand things likethat. 

I think that starting small but spreading out the risk would be 
the better angle. But yet, having experienced no problems 
whatsoever in 15 months -- and you can check with the Ottawa 
police: none -- l would say here's the proof of the pudding that 
small can be done well.

Besides, there have been manv small ones operating well across 
the country, since ever. We've just got to get them out and say: 
"You're legal now. You've been running a game for 20 years." I 
know these games in Ottawa -- l used to go play at them -- with a 
little rakeoff goinp to the guy, he makes a little bit, but we 
could have been busted. Yet he's an ideal candidate to come 
forward, open little shops, have three, four tables, get the wife 
making pasta in the back. They can compete, is what I'm saying.

Instead of having a few large gamblers get into large casinos, 
all sorts of little guys can set up. Literally tens of thousands 
of small entrepreneurs could be out there, you know? The mom-and-
pop operations is where I would like to play. Large ones will be 
available for people looking for high stakes, because I figure if 
there are more tables, there are more likely to be high rollers 
there, so I'd check out there first. But if I know the high 
rollers are going to make an appointment to meet me here, I'd 
rather go have the great pasta too.

I think that the little entrepreneur's really got to be given a 
chance. There's a skilled underground out there right now. If you 
give them permission to come forward and paytheir taxes, they'll 
be right out there and you'll see an expansion that'll go on and 
you'll see competiion.

Five other guys opened up, and I'm sure that if I win my case and 
I reopen, one or two may go under but the others may be okay. Two 
of them are Chinese guys; well, odds are they mi ght prefer to 
win or lose their money with Chinese owners than with me, even 
though I had 30 Chinese dealers. But who knows what reason 
they're going to want to choose to go there? I think they ought 
to have that option.

I've experienced no problems. The industry's ready to go. Just 
wave and we're off.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, I want to thank you 
again, Turmel, for presenting before the committee.

Turmel: Okay, thanks for the opportunity.

The Chair: This committee is adjourned until 10 am tomorrow in 
Niagara Falls. 

The committee adjourned at 1613.
***********

19930902
Ottawa Citizen, Ron Eade
Double or nothing

Self-professed gambler John Turmel also appeared. Turmel faces 
four gambling charges after police closed his casino. Turmel said 
at least five other casinos operate at other Ottawa locations. 

19931115
                   NOTICE OF APPLICATION

TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, 19, 1993 before this court at the 
Ottawa courthouse, 161 Elgin St., at 9:30a.m. or so soon 
thereafter as can be heard the motion for: 

1a) an Order pursuant to the special plea of autrefois acquit 
quashing the first two counts of the indictment, keeping a common 
gaming house and keeping a common betting house, on the grounds 
that the Defendant has been formerly acquitted of both charges 
before;

2) pursuant to Section 601(3)(b)(i) and (iii) an Order quashing:

a) the first count of keeping a gaming house on the grounds that 
it fails to state which of the five "acts which constitute the 
offence" I have violated;

b) the last three counts of the indictment, keeping a common 
betting house, being in the "business of betting" and 
"controlling monies from activities proscribed under Section 202" 
on the grounds that they fail to state what is requisite to 
constitute the offence, the essential averment of the recording 
of bets;

3) or in the alternative, an Order pursuant to the special plea 
of issue estoppel quashing all charges to prevent contradictory 
judgments.

4) an Order staying the charges on the grounds of prosecutorial 
abuse of process which offends the community's sense of fair 
play.

AND TAKE NOTICE that in support of such application will be read 
the affidavit of John C. Turmel, the decisions of Judges Lennox 
and Fontana of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division) at Ottawa 
and Judge Bonin of the Quebec Provincial Court at Hull and any 
other such material as this course may permit. 
Dated at Ottawa on Aug. 13, 1993.
For the Applicant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,

                    AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN TURMEL
I, John C. Turmel, who residing at two nine one eight (2918),
The Baseline Road, Nepean, do make solemn oath and state:

As only engineer electrical who specialized,
At Carleton University in course I realized,
Was given only there of all the schools across the land,
Where mathematics could be learned to draw the winning hand.
My fourth year engineering project used computer core,
To work out Poker odds and tactics never known before.
Unparalleled are my credentials in the odds of game,
Courts in Ontario, Quebec wrote "expert" to my name.

1993 CHARGES:

July of '93 saw Ottawa police compel,
The closure of the card casino run by John Turmel.
"You've kept a common gaming house, it's an illegal game.
You've kept a common betting house." The next charge to my name.
The "business of betting" was the third charge to be laid.
"Control of money from the betting" was the last one made.
But only "keeping gaming house" alleges cash for play,
While "betting charges don't apply to cards," the courts all say. 

1989 BETTING CHARGES:

The PILON case in Montreal best said what made a bet,
So different from a gaming contract, "It's not hard to get.
If parties are to play an active role in the event,
If one is author of the win, it's gaming money spent. 
But if event be independent of their active role,
Not gaming contract, it's a bet when they have no control."
Put cash on prize fight, football, hockey, betting is the deed,
But cash on cards or strokes of golf and gaming is the creed.

The LEWIS case explained at the Quebec Court of Appeal
Averment found essential so the betting charge to seal:
"To prove a betting house, ingredient I wish to see,
That bets have been recorded or it is a nullity."
To make a living gaming, the profession that I chose, 
Is demonstratably legit, ask any Poker pros.
The government has always taxed the pros who ever win,
And never have they ever hinted skill at cards is sin.

It's gaming, it's not betting when your cash is on a card, 
And yet they tried to link my cards to booking very hard.
In '89, my games of Blackjack faced a betting charge, 
As were all found-ins at my game. The betting net was large.
The Crown and I agreed upon all facts. A "Stated Case." 
Upon interpretations of pure law they made their case.
They even used me for the expert testimony sought,
No clearer case could judge have had to see if my game's caught.
So judge Fontana ruled that bets do not apply to cards,
He threw out all the betting charges. Found-ins waved regards.
Judge Lennox, on book-making, in the keeper trial for me, 
Heard Crown withdraw the betting keeper charge submissively.

SUFFICIENCY: 

For gaming house, said found-ins' lawyers, "Charges very lame,
They didn't even cite within the name of the game!
On page eight hundred twenty four, right in the Criminal Code,
On whether substance of offence disclosed of crime the mode.

In Canada's Supreme Court was the case of WIS adjudged,
>From specificity of charges, they would not be budged.
They ruled that "When a crime could be committed many ways,
The charges would be "bad at law" without specific "nays."
An abstract charge does never to sufficiency amount, 
You must identify transaction leading to the count.
Description of the crime must have enough to go as far,
To lift it from the general to the particular."

The BINGO case in Manitoba's high Court of Appeal,
Ruled "WIS" applied to gaming with five ways their doom to seal.
With five defences to the five descriptions of the crime,
Accused must know which of the five on which to spend his time.
Particulars cannot correct a charge that's "bad at law,"
This court finds "irreparable" the damage of the flaw."

The Bingo court opined that "WIS might overrule a lot,
Of cases like the GRISS of betting house that might be caught."
So WILSON case in Manitoba's high Court of Appeal,
Said "WIS applies to varied betting charges too, we feel."

The MILBERG case at Ontario Court of Appeal,
Contained an argument for WIS within the lawyer's spiel.
The case dealt with an "act-of-sex" illegality,
The court ruled "Bawdy house is really one activity."

Before my plea, Defence relied on BINGO, WILSON too,
But Crown cut short a MILBERG sentence to so misconstrue:
"We note respectfully the disagreement we do feel,
In BINGO with the Manitoba high Court of Appeal...."
Defence continued reading line, "`That WIS applies to GRISS,'
And GRISS does not like BINGO deal with acts of games remiss."
Since GRISS is betting house, they don't with BINGO disagree,
It's WILSON's betting house which eye to eye they do not see.
Like act-of-sex, the act-of-booking's easy to be seen,
But same for varied acts of gaming house, it doesn't mean."
Fontana ruled "Though keeper faces course of five to run, 
Like MILBERG, found-ins have to face but definition one."

If first the keeper's tried and loses, automatically,
The found-ins are found guilty with no defence law can see,
But they were first to face the evidences to be met,
So same sufficiency as keeper's charges they should get.

1989 GAMING HOSUE CHARGE:

For found-ins in my gaming house, Fontana lucidly,
Considered each description of the charge so as to see:
"To gain out of a place from sale of food or drink is caught.
To charge an entry fee or take a cut out of the pot, 
To run a game where odds of winning aren't the same for all,
To exclude found-ins from the bank, his game, if such, would fall.
But John Turmel, I cannot order that his games should cease,
None of these things were done to you. Go, found-ins, play in peace."

The insufficiency of the indictment's manifest,
Judge Lennox ordered Crown to "State particulars to test."
He then learned that Fontana had dismissed the charge because,
A game that's even up for all can't violate the laws.
No gaming house exists if found-ins' losses were all fair,
No gaming house exists if keeper won it fair and square.
He asked if Crown alleged another source of funds I'd gained,
Besides the legal winnings that Fontana has sustained.
Without a way to demonstrate unfair I ran my game,
"With nothing new, Fontana's right. Dismiss the charge the same."
With zero chance of overturning judgments crystal clear,
The Crown did not appeal. My legal gaming seemed so near.

1991 QUEBEC RAID:

In Hull in '91, I started card games once anew,
Police in "Operation Blackjack" laid both charges too.

SUFFICIENCY:

My lawyer argued BINGO, WILSON, all to no avail,
The Crown said "In Quebec we've ruled that MILBERG says they fail."
In BILLON-REY case heard at the Quebec Appellate Court,
To quash a gaming charge, Defence to BINGO did resort.
The court thought MILBERG also dealt with games, not sex offence,
And misconcluded "MILBERG challenged BINGO's games defence."

I moved before provincial judge "Like in Ontario,
Please order the particulars of crime. I need to know."
The judge ruled "BILLON REY court says no need to specify,
Unlike Ontario, you'll get no hint at what they'll try."
With trial looming soon ahead, no details did I know,
So writ of Certiorari is the way I chose to go,
To hear my motion on short notice, I asked Superior court,
Justice Frenette said "I will hear the plea you did report."   
He ruled "With BINGO I agree though jurisdiction lacks, 
Still Crown should state particulars so you have all the facts."

1991 BETTING & GAMING CHARGES:

Despite the criticisms and the urgings of the judge,
>From the refusal to define, the Crown refused to budge,
And at my trial, "Particulars are sought, I wish to move,
Which definition of the five the evidence will prove?"
Again the judge refused. I faced an ambiguous task,
With every witness every definition I would ask:
"Did you see sales? Did you see rake-off? Did you see a fee?
Were you excluded from the bank or losing unfairly?"
Since each and every witness gave a "No" as their reply,
To each and every question, seems the waste of time was high.
Could not the Crown admit no rake-off and reduce the scope,
And if no fee or sales, with charge, why should I have to cope?
Nevertheless, the judge insisted that I spend our time,
And answer each and every definition of the crime.
In what would seem to be a contradictory retort,
Judge Bonin who presided in Quebec's Provincial Court, 
Where once again I had the charge of gaming house to quench,
Put me in jail for near a month. It may have been the French.
And once again the betting charge was added to my list,
And once again a judge ruled betting charge should be dismissed.
In English, Judge Fontana could distinguish easily,
Between illegal "gain" and what is "winning" legally.
Unfortunately, French contains a great impediment,
Un seul mot "gain" for "gain" and "win." It was not evident. 
If Bonin's right then every Poker game across the land,
Would be a target where the host oft held the better hand.

Pending appeal, my lawyer asked Quebec's Court of Appeal:
"Please grant release because he's not a public danger real.
No sentence should be served for he might be found innocent,
Denial of release is only for the violent."
The judge ruled that I was a danger to society, 
Like crimes with violence, she could not set the gambler free.
With sentence served, there was no gain pursuing my appeal, 
They never could replace the time and so I cut a deal.
I traded found-in charges dropped as proper route to go.
For dropping my appeal then moved back to Ontario.
Judge Bonin had made much of fact that "Though signs everywhere,
Players weren't orally reminded of their banking share."
So now there is a separate U-Bank game used by a few,
And now I offer bank right after each and every shoe.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE : 

In early '92, I opened game on Baxter Road,
A little room for cards with 14 staff to meet the load.
But little did I know that OPP had sent a mole, 
Detective Joe Fotia playing skillful gambler role.
Quite good at cards, he and I played for evenings on end,
He'd have to note that no illegal monies did he spend.
Upgrading nine months later, off to Topaz went the few,
With now more than a hundred people staffing in my crew.

I also tried another game, Toronto was the site.
Despite the judgments given to police, they said one night:
"We're not impressed with what you or your court decisions say,
If you don't stop, you'll find we're going to bust you anyway."
I weighed the risk of records criminal for 50 staff,
A sorry situation, killing jobs makes no one laugh.
When I was forced to fire over 50 friends that day,
I buckled to the vigilante power many say.

LEGAL OPINIONS:

I vowed I would reopen and to start the battle right,
I sought opinions of some learned men of law to fight.
Niagara Falls had Gord McNab, a Counsel for the Queen,
He said "Fontana is correct. No gaming house is seen."
Another Q.C. in the Falls, a judge for ten years too,
His Honour Norman Young said "Here is my advice to you.
The judgment of His Honour Judge Fontana is correct,
It should be followed by the courts" is what I would direct.
If you rely on the opinions of McNab and me,
And that of judge Fontana and of Lennox, you'll agree.
You'll simply open up your game with betting on your cards.
You should enforce your rights and I'll take steps in those regards."
His letter to the OPP said "Though it may be strange,
But when a loophole found ago, the code they had to change. 
I say that he as found such loophole in the law and may,
Continue playing till the legislators have their say."

LATE APPEAL:

Ontario's Court of Appeal, in March of '93, 
Where Mr. Justice Finlayson heard my soliloquy.
"It seems I'm not acquitted to their satisfaction so,
I have appealed my own acquittal. Rare a move I know.
But threatening to raid what's been acquitted once before,
Is vigilante action by police and nothing more.
If they object to rulings by the judges of my court,
They should appeal, though even late, and not to force resort.
So even though appeal is Crown responsibility,
We've made it here. I will consent. Let's take it up and see."
The judge could not help out for an acquittal sealed the deal.
Too bad but only losers have right to file appeal.

1993 RAID:

In May of '93, announcing "Plans to grow won't stall.
Niagara Falls, Toronto, Brockville. Thousand jobs in all.
Unfortunately, the police had other plans in mind,
And it did not include three more casinos of my kind.
Two closely similar casinos opened up like me,
Though difference is esoteric, not easy to see. 
That late appeal was option for the crown, I did exhort,
But choosing tactic of a raid, to force they did resort.

Since Saturday, with hundreds present, headaches would have made,
They picked a quiet Tuesday morning to begin their raid.
They didn't close the other games, on me their final laugh, 
As they're now booming enterprise while taking on my staff.
Of other games the Crown is trying argument to sell:
"They must know how to run Turmel-style better than Turmel."
They didn't charge the staff or found-ins wanting only me.
I happened to be out of town. I thought I'd wait and see.
They wanted me to come to Ottawa so they could charge,
Me with all four offences cited. I remained at large.
A warrant issued cross the land told all police "Arrest,
And make the gambler dangerous with deck of cards your guest."
No fugitive be I for was official their demand,
Two hours later I gave up myself into their hand.

The next day at my hearing over 60 dealers came,
Protesting loss of jobs they know are legal just the same.
The Crown requested three conditions if I wished release:
"The thoughts of running games you should immediately cease;
A thousand dollars bail in cash, the next you have to face;
And keep away from Topaz Club where gaming crime took place."
I pointed out "I've never run from legal tests before.
There is no need for bail to keep me around to fight some more."
I further asked if playing Poker at my home is fine,
"Or does my running Poker game go cross the gaming line?"
When Crown could not respond the Justice of the Peace did say,
"Accused is well-known in community. No cash he'll pay;
I will not be restricting him from running gaming too;
But stay away from Topaz is the one thing he should do."

1993 CHARGES:

Again, the gaming count is framed in way the very same,
Again they didn't even cite the name of the game!
Was problem with the Poker or the Blackjack games I ran,
I haven't an idea why I ended in the can.
And once again my games of cards face charge of making book,
Not only one but three new betting charges to their hook.
With no paraphenalia for booking found to date,
The Crown says use of cards at games must betting indicate.
"Controlling betting money" is illegal all agree,
Convictions of the bookies is proof anyone can see.
But the "control of gaming money" is seen to be right,
At every Poker game occurring everywhere and night.
The "business of betting" is what makes a man a crook,
But "business of gaming" isn't even in the book.
Without essential element of "no control" to show,
The betting charge is nullity, it's "ab initio."
With people in the lurch and over hundred jobs at stake,
A legal eagle was my choice the move in court to make.
He got a date to try to quash the counts one week away,
And trial within another week, the start of legal fray.

PRE-PLEA OPTIONS:

Before I plead, I'll ask the judge, "Determine nullity. 
Eliminate the betting charges. Quash them speedily."
The next move deals with gaming house though betting too applies,
It stops a Crown who won't give up and tries and tries and tries.

"Res judicata" is defence when court ruled once before,
Where parties had a judge with jurisdiction settle score.
But only at one's trial does plea "Res judicata" play, 
Allowed should be another way to speed up judgment day.

Another possibility is "autrefois acquit,"
Where an acquittal once before is judged before a plea.
The same place and same time were thought to matter to the plea,
But they have no effect on many crimes you'll soon agree.

Issue estoppel's another plea that can be brought,
When issue's once before determined, no more debate is sought.

A stay of the proceedings is to stop process abuse,
When judge concludes the prosecution's has no excuse.

ANALOGOUS HOUSE CHARGE:

When Montreal charged ROTHMAN Realty, similar the case,
"You've kept illegal rooming house," the charge he had to face.
Though judge found "They're apartments and not guilty of the crime,"
The next year charge of rooming house was laid another time.
He pleaded Autrefois Acquit, "Let not the court be fooled,
There were no changes structural in house since last you ruled."
The Crown objected "Rules of Autrefois Acquit" do state,
It's always been restricted to such crimes with the same date."
Judge Lachapelle said "Then acquittals wouldn't recompense,
For situations where the date is of no consequence,
Since Crown could have him in the court anew day after day,
Though rooming house does not exist, initial court did say.
The city may prove subsequently alterations made,
For plea of Autrefois Acquit to fail to make the grade.
But for this house the Autrefois Acquit should be applied,
The structure once acquitted once again cannot be tried.
The only way the Crown has open if it's wrong, they feel,
Is challenge the original decision by appeal."
So as his structure found protection from ruling before,
So too the structure of my gambling house asks nothing more.

In CARRIER, a pamphlet was accused a second time,
Though once before a court acquitted pamphlet of the crime.
Again the judge said "Autrefois Acquit should be applied,
The pamphlet once acquitted once again cannot be tried."

--
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