TURMEL: #10 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 

19931213 
#93-18193
        ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)               
               HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                      against
                    JOHN TURMEL
                    **********
                     PRETRIAL
    HELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. LENNOX  
    on December 13th, 1993, at Ottawa, Ontario.
                    **********
      CHARGE:  S. 201(1) (2 counts), C.C.
               S. 202(1)(e), C.C.
               S. 202(1)(c), C.C.
                    **********
APPEARANCES:
A. Marin, Esq. Crown Counsel
J. Turmel Appearing for Self

[continued]

COURT: O.K. Again, we either have an agreement or we don't with 
respect to certain facts, and my role is limited to try and 
estimate the time that's going to be taken on the basis of the 
evidence that has to be called and the argument that's going to 
be made. The matter of particulars.... 

TURMEL: It doesn't look like there's much left. 

COURT: Well, that was my impression in the first place, and 
that's why I suggested we have this meeting, after the initial 
Motions were dealt with, to try and find an accurate estimate of 
time. Mr. Marin, have you had a chance to look over briefly the 
admissions that were made at the earlier trial in 1989? A number 
of them are particular to the circumstances, I take it, but.... 

MARIN: Well, that's exactly it. I've just looked at it now. Mr. 
Turmel is right that he had indicated to me last week, but he'd 
be looking at the same admissions as '89 and I did ask my 
investigators who are not the same, and they could not locate it. 
This is the first time that I have been provided with what was 
admitted the last time. The location is different, and, I mean, a 
lot of them, the first four, for example, are case specific. 

TURMEL: Well, Your Honour, I happened to have typed up a draft of 
one set for 1993. Perhaps I could just read it and the Crown can 
object if there are any facts that are wrong. 

COURT: Mr. Turmel, my understanding from reading the brief 
disclosure that I was given for the purpose of the pre-trial is 
that, among other things, the police attended with the knowledge 
of yourself and the operators at the premises to make certain 
observations during the course of the investigation into what has 
now become charges. Is that correct? Would you, in the normal 
course, just generally and without speaking of specific 
observations, would you, in the normal course, have any 
objections to their observations going in by way of agreed 
statement of fact? 

TURMEL: No. As a matter of fact, I took Appendix C from the 
search warrant application. I have a copy here. I suppose you 
have one already, eh, appendix C, about 27 pages of facts from 
the investigation, and I've noted just a few things I do disagree 
with, opinions mainly. And virtually the rest I don't believe 
there's a problem. So that, if I am to look through here, do you 
want to go over these few objections? 

COURT: Could you just go quickly through it? 

TURMEL: Paragraph 1.017 where it says, "The sum of $2.50 is paid 
to the dealer." If they were willing to put in the word "tipped", 
I would agree. 

COURT: Instead of "paid"? 

TURMEL: Instead of "paid". If they'll put in the word "tipped", 
I'll agree. 

COURT: All right. 

TURMEL: Where it says, "The dealer is acting on behalf of the 
house", well, actually that's not true. The house really isn't 
involved in any poker at all, so the line there.... 

COURT: I think what you're just telling us, I don't expect 
perhaps for you and the Crown to reach agreement today, but, if 
the only things in issue are the matters you raise, then 
presumably the other matters are matters of admission that you 
are not disputing and that's quite helpful. 

TURMEL: That's why out of the 30 pages there may be five or six 
little things like that that I dispute and other than that I'll 
sign it. 

COURT: All right. Could you tell me what the next one is, please? 

TURMEL: O.K. On paragraph 21... They talk about Sergeant Joe 
Fotia (ph). I would like that advanced to December 1991 when he 
investigated my home undercover, and that date happens to be part 
of the search warrant. And one other thing, at this stage I must 
bring up: Would it be possible to have an examination of the game 
?

You see, they went from February 25th when I was in my home at 
Baseline Road which they did investigate. Then, on February 28th, 
I moved to Baxter Road, which they did investigate. Then, on 
November, I moved to Topaz which they did investigate.

Now, different things changed under different administrations. 
Like, when I was in my home, I covered no expenses; when I was at 
Baxter Road, I covered a few; and when I was at Topaz, I covered 
them all. So there are differences here and I think that I would 
be willing to look at, you know, case A, case B, case C, for 
home, Baxter and Topaz, because they weren't the same operation 
in the three different locations. So could we split that up into 
three different instances? O.K. Well, then, I want that changed 
to December '91 when Officer Fotia came to my home. 

1.080 where it says, this is now the second last paragraph, "He 
feels he's lost $60,000 to Turmel over the years." Could they 
change "to Turmel" to "at Turmel's", because I certainly didn't 
win it from him. This guy is a poker player and probably several 
people in the room participated in his losings. So I didn't win 
it all and can they put "at" with any objection? Is that O.K.? 

MARIN: Well, I'll note them, Mr..... 

TURMEL: O.K. And then the very last paragraph, "... where he had 
been. Playing recently and he was forced to give part of his 
poker winnings to the house." Actually I would like to change 
that "He'd agreed to pay $100 off a loan per win.' That's the 
truth. You know, people hurt themselves. I let them come in and 
play and if they made a win, give me a little bit. Standard 
practice. I'll admit that for not him, but for everybody. You 
know, if you wanted to keep playing and you made a win, you give 
me a little bit. So he wasn't forced to give part of his poker 
winnings to the house which implies "a rake", is that O.K. ? 

MARIN: He agreed to pay $100 off what? 

TURMEL: Off his loan. Is that acceptable? 

MARIN: I'm going to note them all and.... 

COURT: It may be that the matters that you are raising now won't 
be in dispute at all Mr. Turmel but I think it's fair to give Mr. 
Marin some time to consider them before asking that. 

SGT. CLEARY: What's the issue, Mr. Turmel, that you earlier 
mentioned with regards to Baseline Road? 

TURMEL: You included it in the indictment.  From the 25th of 
February when I was running Poker and Blackjack games in my home 
to July '93. And I know that Officer Fotia investigated my home 
because I saw it in his reports. So they may not want to talk 
about the game in my home but I want to. It was the same game in 
my home as it was at both other places. 

SGT. CLEARY: The evidence that relates to that date, the first 
date you mentioned..

TURMEL: 25th..

SERGEANT CLEARY:.. of November?

TURMEL: Of February, '92. It was just before Baxter Road opened. 

COURT: It's Sergeant Cleary speaking and perhaps what we could do 
is address your remarks through me to Mr. Turmel. It's not quite 
the mode that we use in a Pre-trial but this isn't the forum for 
a Pre-trial normally, either. 

SGT. CLEARY: Your Honour, we don't plan on introducing any 
evidence in relation to the gaming that took place at Mr. 
Turmel's residence. We are introducing gaming evidence of 1141 
Baxter Road, and of 2335 St. Laurent Boulevard, the Casino Turmel 
at Topaz Plaza. 

COURT: I take it, Mr. Turmel, you see some benefit to your 
defence of having the earlier... 

TURMEL: Well, yes, I do, and mainly because there was an 
investigation by Officer Fotia. Officer Fotia did investigate and 
obviously didn't report a crime and, therefore, I would like to 
have Officer Fotia talking about what he saw on Baseline Rd., and 
it's in the right date of the indictment. They should have 
started on the 28th.... 

COURT: That's something I'm sure the Crown will consider. It may 
not be something the Crown would have called, but, if you feel it 
necessary for your defence, it may be something they are prepared 
to admit. 

TURMEL: O.K. Next page. I think there are only three more things. 
The top paragraph, it says, "This has occurred many times to him 
and others every time there was a split pot at the Poker tables. 
Whenever there was an extra five dollars left in the pot, both 
players who had split had to forfeit the five dollars to the 
house or the dealer." O.K.? Now, I don't know how to change that. 
mean, obviously if that's true, I'm guilty. So, if they did have 
to forfeit five dollars to the house, well, I'm guilty. So that's 
not true, I object to that statement that "they had to forfeit" 

COURT: All right If the Crown wants that in evidence, it will 
have to prove that or else state it in some other way that is 
agreeable to you if some transaction actually took place. Is that 
correct? You're not admitting that? 

TURMEL: I'm not admitting that one, no. Next paragraph, where it 
says, second last line, "The other percentage goes to John 
Turmel." O.K. This is the "tip pool." They're talking about the 
tip pool here, where everybody in the room know that I wasn't 
involved whatsoever with the tip pool, and Officer Cleary went 
and told the J.P. and I was taking half of it. So I will not 
admit that I was taking half of the tip pool. They will have to 
prove that one. 

COURT: All right. Do the first two sentences in the paragraph 
cause any difficulty in terms of an admission?

TURMEL: No, that's no problem at all. Salary, things like that.

By the way, one other thing: On the third line, where it says, 
"plus one percent of the tips, could that be changed to "one 
share?"

COURT: O.K. Again the Crown can take that under advisement.

TURMEL: All right. Because every employee got one share of the 
tip pool pro-rated on hours. Of the hundred percent, I didn't 
take fifty. So if they can make that "one share," then Mr. K's 
statement is correct, except that the fifty percent went to me, 
that wasn't.

Paragraph 1.090, fourth line, last word, "They had to tip the 
dealer." O.K. I object to the word "had." They "could."

COURT: O.K. So you're saying that you're position is, if that was 
made an option of the players, the players could tip the dealer 
and that would be satisfactory to you?

TURMEL: Could tip. That's right. As long as -- well, it's 
admitted later in other of his statements that there were times 
when there were no tips.

COURT: And, if the Crown wishes to prove an obligation, then they 
have to prove that through evidence. 

TURMEL: Yes. O.K. Paragraph 1.092. "That they need these tips to 
pay the rent and expenses." O.K. Well, I object to both those 
two. I paid the rent personally, and expenses at Topaz. The 
dealer's tips, I never touched. That would have been stupid. 
1.093, Oh no. There's the proof. Third last line, "With the 
exception of two winning pots where there were no tips." So 
obviously it wasn't forced. But, anyway, I thank God he did 
mention it at that point.

I do believe I found nothing else objectionable in their 
statement. So, not only do I grant everything I agreed upon in my 
'89 statement, but everything except those few objections should 
make this rather easy at this stage.

COURT: Mr. Marin, is that of some assistance? You may not have 
had a chance to review Appendix C recently but it seems to me 
there are a number of factual matters that are clearly admitted 
by Mr. Turmel that should serve to limit the issues and shorten 
the time required for trial. 

MARIN: Yes, absolutely, Your Honour.

COURT: And, Mr. Turmel, you have a copy now of an Agreed 
Statement of Facts that you specifically prepared for this 
proceeding, is that right?

TURMEL: Yes. I changed a few of the words, kept it identically 
numbered so that it would be virtually -- well, there's a reason 
for wanting to keep it identically numbered. And I could provide 
the Crown with -- I can give him this one. I have it on my 
computer. 

COURT: O.K. And is it safe to say then the matters that are not 
admitted by the Crown, you would required proof by them if they 
don't agree to those statements?

TURMEL: Yes, but, of course, first I'd like particulars. I don't 
know what all th is evidence means, until they specify what -- 
they promised particulars two months ago, and then they were 
screaming Section (a) a month ago. I still want it officially on 
the record. What section is the Crown using in the gaming and 
what section is he using in the betting definitions? And I 
remember in '89 when I said I would like particulars, you just 
turned to the Crown and said," "Go ahead" and she did. So I'd 
like particulars now so I can prepare and know which particular 
sections to defend against.

COURT: Mr. Marin, are you in a position to specify?

MARIN: Your Honour, there is just one thing I would like to 
clarify. My friend of the accused had raised the issue of 
insufficiency of the Information before. That has been decided. 
All right. So I just want to make that clear. The Court has 
already ruled on whether it is particular or not. But, be that as 
it may...

COURT: I thought that was a Motion to quash.

MARIN: For lack of sufficiency, and I believe the Court found the 
Information to be sufficient in every respect, and so the Court 
did not order particulars at that time. But, if I may say this, 
that I have had the opportunity to indicate it before on the 
record and lost with time, I believe , and I can do it now.

The common gaming house charge, the first count on the 
information, section 201, the offence is to keep a common gaming 
house which is the first count. The Crown is relying on the 
common gaming house definition found under Section 197(a). All 
right?  There are five ways in which common gaming house is 
defined. It is "kept for gain to which persons resort for the 
purpose of playing games or" and then there are four alternative 
ways that consist of a common gaming house. The Crown is relying 
on the (a) definition of "common gaming house." 

COURT: Which is kept for gain?

MARIN:  That's correct.

COURT: For the purpose of playing games?

MARIN: And I come on this judicial pre-trial to get admissions on 
the nature of the games played. Secondly, the issue of gain, and 
I have identified at least nine or ten areas of gain through the 
evidence that I was going to lead at the trial. The third element 
would be the place and I believe that there can't be an issue 
there. So it's really the game and whether there is gain. I mean, 
it really boils down to something quite simple in my view, Your 
Honour.

COURT: My understanding would have been and correct me if I'm 
wrong: Those are the matters that were litigated previously. I 
don't know if Mr. Turmel is in a position or would wish to admit 
those. I had thought -- Mr. Turmel?

TURMEL: Yes, Judge Fontana did rule that there were no sales and 
Section (a) did not apply. So I'll admit that.

COURT: I'm sorry, you're admitting what?

TURMEL: That Judge Fontana said section (a) does not apply.

COURT: O.K. I had thought that the way that this trial was to 
proceed, quite frankly, with respect to the factual elements was 
that almost everything would be admitted, but that you would 
probably be required to call an expert to testify with respect to 
the question of whether or not what was taking place in fact was 
a game, whether or not the premises were being kept for gain for 
the purpose of playing games. Now, it seems to me are you asking 
for admissions in respect of those matters now?

MARIN: Yes, Your Honour.

TURMEL: I don't understand what's lacking yet. I mean I admit the 
games. I admit everything about the games. 

COURT: Well, we could go back to the first point which is whether 
or not you are prepared to admit that the specific games, 
Blackjack and Poker, are in fact games of chance or mixed chance 
and skill?

TURMEL: They're admitted in there we were playing those games.

DET. YOUNG: Your Honour, if I could inject here, I am Detective 
Constable Young with the Ontario Provincial Police, Anti-Rackets 
Gaming section. The main focus, we would say, rather than going 
on Section (a), 197(1)(A), our main focus of our investigation is 
197(1)(a), but we are not restricted under 197 to keep our 
evidence to 197(1)(a), but  that is the thrust of our 
investigation.

TURMEL: Oh, I thought they were restricted to the sections that 
they claimed. 

DET. YOUNG: We are restricted to the section or the definition 
and in 197 under the Code under part VII is the definition by 
which they can offend 201(1) of the Criminal Code, which is 
keeping a common gaming house. However, they are totally open as 
far as the violations concerning the sub-sections. We are not -- 
if we go under section 201(1), that's the  charge, keep a common 
gaming house, and, by that, we are unlimited in the definition 
under 197.

TURMEL: And I though particulars were to limit them.

COURT: Yes, my understanding, too, at the elementary level, the 
purpose of the particulars is to enable the defence to know the 
charge that has to be met and in the normal course of events, 
although the broader definition gives rise to a potential 
liability, once the particulars are offered, then normally, the 
scope of the prosecution is limited to the particulars provided. 
I understood that was part of what we were doing.

DET.YOUNG: And the focus of that is 197(1)(a), Your Honour.  

COURT: That's something that the trial judge would have to 
ultimately to determine but I understood, in terms of 
particularization, that, Mr. Marin, you were indicating (a) as 
being the definition.

MARIN: That's correct, Your Honour.

COURT: All right. So there is an admission with respect to the 
games. What was the next point, Mr. Marin, you were requesting?

MARIN: The aspect of gain, Your Honour, "Kept for gain," that the 
premises were kept for gain.

TURMEL: Well, actually, I was saving this for last, but, I mean, 
we now have the particulars for the gaming house, Section (a). I 
would like to take a moment and see how all this evidence we have 
been discussing now deals with the betting house charge. I mean, 
therein likes the most ambiguous of all that have to face; with 
again no particulars there and no evidence there, and I think, 
before we get into the deepness of Section (a) which is a 
legitimate attack I accept, I'd like to go on to the spurious 
sections, the betting house which had no evidence in '89 and have 
no evidence now and could really facilitate the case if we 
dropped the spurious charges.

I unveiled a chart showing a list of the two sections with all 
nine subsections and Marin's jaw dropped. He was totally 
unprepared for any discussion of betting house particulars. I bet 
he didn't even know betting house had so many different ways of 
being committed. 

I mean, I'd like to know what particulars they have on the 
betting house when one considers that there happened to be nine 
different ways I can violate the betting house. Under the (a) 
section, I can enable bets, encourage bets, assist bets. Who 
know? Maybe I did. Under the (b)s, I can receive, record, 
register, transmit, pay bets. The point is: I don't know yet what 
the particulars of the betting charge are, and before we get into 
what I consider the legitimate case, I would like to deal with 
the illegitimate charges first, if you don't mind, get 
particulars of betting house.

COURT: I guess it was at an earlier pre-trial you suggested that 
the Crown may wish to go only on the first count and not proceed 
on the betting house? Is that your position?

TURMEL: Well, not, I'm not saying that they would prefer. I'm 
just saying that the last three charges are spurious and can be 
argued so, but let's see if they have any evidence on it when you 
consider in '89 they had no evidence of betting house when they 
charged me with it, and now again, they have charged me with 
betting house once more, and again, I point out there is no 
evidence of betting house. So I think the best way to show there 
is no such evidence is to ask for particulars. Does he have any 
recording slips of bets? Does he have any telephone calls of 
bets? You know, I mean, which of these particulars or which of 
these definitions have I violated? I don't know yet and I believe 
there are none and that could really clean up the indictment 
considerably to get rid of these ones.

COURT: Mr. Marin, with respect to the betting house charge, did 
you intend to proceed on the betting house charges?

COURT: Yes and I presumed we were still on common gaming house 
and I presume that the answer is that the "kept for gain" is not 
admitted, and then we moved to the other charges but I would 
still like to have an answer on common gaming house. 

TURMEL: Well, I will. I promise to come back to that one in much 
more depth once we get rid of the...

MARIN: The common betting house, the Crown is proceeding with 
that. It's essentially the same evidence as used in common gaming 
house. My friend has full disclosure of all the evidence and all 
the statements. 

TURMEL: Well, I have lots of case law that says common gaming 
house and common betting house aren't the same, and he says he's 
going to use gaming house evidence to prove a betting house.

COURT: Mr. Turmel, does that cause you concern? Your view, I take 
it, from the beginning is that whatever this is, it could not be 
considered a common betting house. 

TURMEL: That's right. Well, yeah, it does cause me concern 
because it serves to confuse. The last thing I want is a 
situation where people who aren't gamblers have a chance to be 
confused about the difference between betting and gaming, and, if 
we could settle that before we go into a Judge, he'll be able to 
devote his exclusive attention to no "red herrings." See, first 
of all, I have a definition of "betting" but I don't think the 
Crown does, and I think that it could pretty well be easily 
established in just a few moments, and I am saying here now, I 
could pull out the Pilon case which stresses that betting is on 
outside considerations, horse races, Pro-Lines, things you don't 
control, and gaming is betting on things you do control. Very 
simple distinction by the Pilon case established and the Marbella 
case, and I have four or five others explaining the difference 
between gaming and betting which the Crown did have and I thought 
might have read.

Now, the Crown thinks there's evidence of bookmaking at my place 
and I'd like to hear -- I don't see any evidence of bookmaking in 
anything I read so far. I see evidence with respect to Blackjack 
and I see evidence with respect to Poker. Both games have always 
been treated under the gaming house laws, have never been treated 
under the betting house laws, and that's the reason why it was 
dismissed, sorry, withdrawn in '89 and dismissed in '91. (in 
Quebec) And not only that, now that they threw in two more 
bookmaking sections.

If one realizes that the business of betting -- well, no, no, I'm 
in the business of gaming and I admit it. I'm a professional 
gambler. I'm in the business of gaming. And yet, they are 
attacking me under the business of betting because they don't 
have a definition of "betting" versus "gaming." I don't think 
it's fair that I have to go into a Judge with three "red 
herrings" and only one good one which could serve to confuse the 
issue when there's zero evidence now, as there was zero evidence 
in '89 and '91 of betting, and I think we should clean that, 
that's the number one criteria to make this the true issue. Is 
this a gaming house or not? Because there was no bookmaking going 
on that I knew about.

COURT: O.K., Mr. Turmel. Again, I come back to my mandate in this 
proceeding. All I really have before me is an Information. I'm 
not entitled to go necessarily into the evidence or require 
evidence evidence at this point. If the Information and the count 
on the Information is valid on its face and the Crown says it's 
going to proceed with it, then I presume it's going to proceed 
with it.

TURMEL: Well, shouldn't the Crown be exposing what evidence they 
have of my enabling bets, or my encouraging bets, or my assisting 
or receiving or recording or registering or transmitting or 
paying bets?

COURT: The material that's before you in terms of disclosure 
should contain all the evidence upon which the Crown intends to 
rely , and if there is no evidence of betting, then you may have 
much less concern about that count than you would otherwise. But 
I can't go any further than that, I don't think, except to ask 
Mr. Marin, since we are discussing the second count, and there 
has been a request for particulars, what is it specifically that 
you're alleging under section 197 for the common betting house? 
What activities? Is it a) or b) in terms of the definition? 

MARIN: Again, Your Honour, this is the situation where the Crown 
will be relying on (a).

COURT: That's enabling, encouraging or assisting to bet between 
themselves or the keeper? 

MARIN: That's correct, Your Honour. Yes.  

COURT: All right. don't think I can go any further than that, Mr. 
Turmel. If the evidence isn't there, then, from your perspective, 
that's a good thing and if it is, then the Crown is entitled to 
call it an rely on it.

COURT: The question was whether or not the premises were being 
kept for gain, I think, Mr. Marin?

MARIN: Yes, Your Honour.

TURMEL: O.K. Well, 

COURT: I think, Mr. Turmel, again, perhaps, unless there is a 
need for particulars, then you....

TURMEL: No, this is going to be pretty good. Now I brought along 
a little graph because I assumed we'd be dealing with Section (a) 
because that's what it said. Can I put it here for a moment?

COURT: Now the point is: Section (a) says "a place kept for gain 
to which persons resort fort the purpose of playing games," O.K., 
"of gambling," I put here.

TURMEL: Now the point is: What kind of a place "kept for gain" 
operates  to which persons do not resort for the purpose of 
gambling? Well,  obviously, if you have parking, entry fee, coat 
check, dinner,  drinks, food, smokes, photographers, video tames, 
all these  things can make the house money independent of whether 
there is a  game there or not. 

Now, obviously, we've got four ways when it's a game of finding 
the game illegal but the mere fact of bringing gambling, whether 
it be a legal game or not, into this environment makes this a 
gaming house under Section (a) because it's a place "kept for 
gain" to which persons resort for the purpose of gambling. 

Now, for the moment, let's shut down every game in my casino. No 
Blackjack games, no Poker games. I now say to the Crown: What 
kind of gain have I made when they are not coming there to 
gamble? So the (b) section deals with the gambling, the (a) 
section deals with the house.

I think the Crown blew it today. I think this is a big mistake. 
The fact is I have a letter there from Judge Young, former Judge 
Young, who explained in one of my o0pinions that the gain out of 
the house is different than the gain out of the game. 

I'm saying here the Crown has now restricted themselves to 
accusing me of making a gain out of the place, like they 
originally thought I was charging for the cigarettes, and they 
found out after the raid I wasn't, and they originally thought I 
was taking half the tips -- mind you, that would be a rake-off 
under the gaming section -- and they found that I wasn't. 

I'm saying right now I don't see any evidence taking out the game 
that there was any (a) section gain possible. If you shut down 
the Poker and Blackjack, there was no GST-able commerce going on 
and that's why my statement of admissions for '93 says that the 
Government didn't ask me to pay or collect GST or anything in my 
place. No GST-able gain and now the Crown has the problem of 
coming up with evidence of a gain which would be illegal when the 
game is there not when the game isn't there. And the best way is 
an analogy. 

Imagine they changed the laws, tighter laws in the country. We 
have a place kept for gain for which persons resort for the 
purpose of dancing, or fencing or sewing or singing. If you bring 
a choir into the place, it's illegal, but if you don't have a 
choir in the place, it's not illegal. Well, it's the same kind of 
thing. These gains are not illegal under normal circumstances and 
become illegal when gambling is brought in and now that they've 
alleged there's none of the illegal games being played, I don't 
think they have anything left. So I don't know what the Crown 
wants to do with this now but I think they're dead.

--
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