TURMEL: #12 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. Well, I think the question is fairly straight-forward 
and that is whether or not these premises are kept for gain. That 
was the original question. And if you're prepared...

TURMEL: I see no evidence of any GST-able gain.

COURT: O.K. So that's not something you're admitting.

TURMEL: No. 

COURT: The next matter, Mr. Marin?

MARIN: That's it, Your Honour.

COURT: O.K. Could we move on to the second count? You have asked 
for particulars with respect to the second count. That's been 
given, in effect, Mr. Turmel? Were there any admissions you were 
seeking with respect to the second count specifically, Mr. Marin?

MARIN: No, Your Honour.

COURT: All right. The third count is engaging in the business or 
occupation of betting and I take it your argument is the same as 
for the second count, is it, Mr. Turmel?

TURMEL: Yes, the business of gaming.

COURT: I don't know if we specifically dealt with the fourth 
count, which is controlling the monies for gambling?

TURMEL: Actually, Your Honour, that was an error, and it's 
unfortunate because that's not in the Criminal Code. It says 
controlling monies from this section, the bookmaking section. 
They threw in the word "gambling." They could have thrown in any 
word they wanted. They made it up, and, of course, the indictment 
was challenged but it was viewed as valid even though it is not a 
crime know at law.

COURT: All right. So we'll leave that for the trial court then.

MARIN: Yes, Your Honour. Just one issue that comes up: Is it 
admitted that he is the keeper of the place as per section 
197(a), Your Honour?

TURMEL: I can admit I kept the place but I'm not going to admit I 
kept a betting house.

COURT: I think Mr. Marin, it seems to me, quite frankly, that, if 
you're asking for admission that Mr. Turmel is keeping a gaming 
house, it may as well be a plea of guilty. He is prepared to 
admit that he is the keeper of the premises and the activity on 
the premises you demonstrate to prove whether or not it is 
gambling, but I couldn't expect more than that.

MARIN: All right. So, he is the keeper of the premises.

TURMEL: Yes, that's acceptable. I even admitted in my statement 
that I did rent the place. So it's already there.

COURT: Now, is your admission limited to count number one or does 
it also apply to count number two? The keeper of premises which 
the Crown is attempting to prove is a betting house?

TURMEL: Yes. Count number two also.

COURT: Anything further, Mr. Marin?

MARIN: There will -- obviously number three is intimately tied as 
well with number two, unlawfully did engage in the business or 
occupation of betting.

COURT: Yes, I would think that the fate of both counts will be 
the same, would it not?

MARIN: Yes. So again the keeper of the premises would apply to, 
as well, count three to the extent that that's necessary.

TURMEL: Well, I mean, I don't admit any of it. I mean, I was in 
the business of gaming so I definitely don't admit the business 
of betting. That'll have to be proved.

COURT: O.K. So you admit to being the keeper of the premises 
which the Crown is alleging in one instance, the first count, was 
a gaming house and in the second was a common betting house, and 
the third at which the business or occupation of betting took 
place. Those are the allegations but you are simply admitting to 
being keeper of the premises.

TURMEL: Of the premises, yes.

COURT: Now does it seem to you, Mr. Marin, at this point in time 
that we are dealing with a trial which involves largely expert 
evidence and argument on that evidence, examination, cross-
examination and arguments?

MARIN: Yes, Your Honour. I would tend -- my own feeling of the 
case is that there is much less expert evidence than would appear 
at first lush, because I've identified at least ten areas where I 
am in a position to show gain, without necessarily getting into 
the odds and so on, but simply to show that there is revenue, the 
place was kept for purpose of making money and there are many 
ways to do that, one of which is to bring in expert evidence. But 
I think Your Honour is correct that the evidentiary process of 
the case will be coming down to very few witnesses, actually. I 
have sort of a feel of around three days, Your Honour.

TURMEL: Well, I don't waste a lot of time and I find it hard to 
believe that -- I have never had an Ontario trial take more than 
one day. So I honestly believe that, when you look at all the 
admissions that are there, that they're probably going to walk in 
with one Officer and one expert like they did the last time.

COURT: Can I make a suggestion at this point in time? Could we 
just take a brief recess? If you could just examine the 
admissions specifically to this case that Mr. Turmel is prepared 
to make in conjunction with Exhibit C and the matters that are 
now on record, I am prepared to give the case obviously whatever 
time is required to deal with it, but I would like to have some 
confidence if we have an accurate estimate of time, and if, 
indeed, it is two instead of three days, that's fine, or three 
days.

MARIN: O.K. Your Honour. If I may just make a comment on the 
fourth count before we take a break because there are some issues 
there as well. The fourth count is a charge of controlling monies 
for gambling related to the offence of engaging in the business 
or occupation of betting. The additional wrinkle for that charge 
is that we would want an admission if possible of the bank 
records showing Mr. Turmel received the money and controlled the 
gains arising out of the activities of the premises. There's a 
number of banks, I understand.

SGT. CLEARY: Your Honour, if I may interject here, there are five 
banks involved. One is the casino employee's fund, which does not 
involve Mr. Turmel. However, there is another bank which involves 
three separate accounts. So the other ones would only involve one 
account in each bank with the exception of one which has three 
accounts.

COURT: Mr. Turmel, are you familiar with the accounts of which we 
are speaking at this point in time?

TURMEL: Yes I am and I have absolutely no qualms about admitting 
that I controlled all those accounts and, you know, and most 
people in the cage will remember there were six accounts, so, 
yes, monies went in and out and I am not denying monies were won 
or lost.

COURT: Anything further, Mr. Marin, with respect to any of the 
accounts?

MARIN: No, Your Honour.

TURMEL: Oh, one last thing, Your Honour. In evidence, in the 
Crown's case there is a piece of literature I printed before I 
started all this. I call it "Operation Blackjack" because that's  
the name they give. I would be willing to include this in my 
admissions. If there is anything in here about the operation of 
the game that they want to use, I will throw this in, also. I 
mean I made it public to the world, I may as well admit it to the 
Court. So there's, you know, a hundred K worth of admissions in 
there that they can also choose to work from. I'm sure they've 
read it by now, so I'm not going to deny anything.

COURT: Does that extend to the fact, Mr. Turmel, that you had 
knowledge of the contents and in fact were the author of the 
document? And are you saying that your operations were modelled 
or that was a blueprint for the operation which gave rise to 
these charges? So, if the Crown wishes to use part of that, then 
you are prepared to have it go in as an admission. Is that right?

TURMEL: Yes that's exactly right.

COURT: All right. Thank you. Can we take perhaps five minutes, 
then, to see if Counsel with Mr. Turmel can arrive at an estimate 
of time? Thank you.


UPON RESUMING:

MARIN: Your Honour, I have spoken to Mr. Turmel in the presence 
of the Officers and we have come to the conclusion that two days 
in light of the admissions. The accused sees this as a one- or 
two-witness case. I intend to call more than two witnesses, but, 
in any event, two days ought to be erring on the safe side and I 
would ask that two days be set aside for the trial.  

CLERK: Mr. Marin, are all of the counts absolute jurisdiction 
offences?  

MARIN: They're absolute jurisdictions.

COURT: They're indictable offences, absolute jurisdiction. Just a 
moment.

TURMEL: Your Honour, I may be able to help by saying that I was 
convicted under one of those 202 sections ten or fifteen years 
ago and it was absolute jurisdiction then.

COURT: O.K. Nothing has changed, Mr. Turmel. Thank you very much.

TURMEL: As a matter of fact, they're going for a heavier 
sentence. They've already put in their request for a heavier 
sentence, past the minimum three months, so it's absolute.

COURT: Thank you. The estimate of time is two days. I have some 
relatively early dates, a number of them, a combination of any 
two days: January 11th, 12th, 13th, 24th, 25th, February 7th, 
8th, 23rd, 24th, 25th.

TURMEL: All good to me.

MARIN: January, Your Honour, is pretty well out. The 24th and 
25th of February.

COURT: Oh, of February. 

MARIN: Yes. In early February, Detective Cleary, who is in charge 
of this investigation, is on a fraud case until the 11th of 
February. So if possible, the 24th, 25th of February would be the 
first suitable dates.

COURT: Now, what I will do for the present purpose is set this 
for courtroom #13 but it may well be that the court actually used 
will not be 13 but another courtroom, but....

MARIN: That's a gamble, Your Honour.

COURT: No. I had some hesitation in stating the courtroom number 
but that is the courtroom.

TURMEL: Gamblers are allowed to be superstitious.

COURT: Ten o'clock in the morning in number 13 courtroom, the 
trial will either be held there or in another court of which you 
will be advised at that time. So, Mr. Turmel, at this point, 
could you please stand up?

I'll formally remand the charges you until February 24th, 1994 at 
ten o'clock in the morning, Number 13 court for a period of two 
days. Thank you very much. And Mr. Marin, will you be ordering a 
copy of the transcript?

MARIN: Yes, Your Honour.

COURT: Mr. Turmel, the Crown will have a copy of the transcript 
which will contain admissions made by yourself or indications by 
the Crown as to particulars. That may be of some use for you at 
the trial.

MARIN: I've already ordered it. Thank you.

CLERK: Would you like a copy, Mr. Turmel?

TURMEL: Of the transcript? How much?

CLERK: 55 cents a page.

TURMEL: Yes.

MARIN: You get it cheap.

TURMEL: I know.
**********

940208
AFFIDAVIT

1. On page 7 of the transcript of the Dec. 13, 1993 judicial pre-
trial hearing, after I had introduced the Agreed Statement of 
Facts from my 1989 gaming house acquittal, Judge Lennox asked me:

COURT: Would you have any objections to their observations going 
in by way of Agreed Statement of Facts.

TURMEL: No. This is Appendix C of the search warrant and I've 
noted just a few things I do disagree with, opinions mainly.

COURT: I don't expect 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.

COURT: (page 18) 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.

2. I had been informed by Ms. Breault of the Crown's office that 
the statement of facts would be ready for my agreement by Feb. 2, 
1994. On Feb. 2, she indicated to me that the Crown was not 
preparing a statement for my agreement and was going to rely on 
the transcript of the pre-trial hearing. I pointed out that the 
transcript dealt with only issues that were not admitted and that 
the facts which were admitted had not even been discussed. 

3. When Your Honour stated that you did not expect us to reach 
agreement on that day, the court must have expected us to reach 
an agreement some day. I further submit that the trial judge 
should be given a statement of agreed-upon facts, not a statement 
of disagreed-upon facts. 

4. Considering one of the facts I sought to have admitted in the 
statement was that I had not been called upon by any government 
agency to collect or pay G.S.T. and considering the Crown has 
alleged ten or more Section (a) gains I'm supposed to have made, 
it would would be difficult to defend against those 10 gains 
without knowing what they were and if they bore any G.S.T.

5. That the Crown is reneging on their undertaking to prepare the 
Agreed Statement of Facts is disconcerting at best and sinister 
at worst considering the abuse of process a second "no evidence" 
acquittal would imply.

6. This Affidavit is made in support of a application for:

a) an Order that the Crown complete their undertaking and produce 
a draft of an Agreed Statement of Facts within 3 days; or

b) an Order for the resumption of the judicial pre-trial to put 
any agreed-upon admissions on the record.


#93-18193
        ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)               
               HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                      against
                    JOHN TURMEL
                    **********
                    PRETRIAL II
    HELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE B. LENNOX  
      on February 8, 1994 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: Do you expect to call evidence then that the tips were, in 
fact, under Mr. Turmel's control or are you going to ask the 
Court to infer that from the evidence which is called? 

MARIN: Yes, one or the other, Your Honour. 

COURT: Because if that's the case, Mr. Turmel is absolutely 
right, he will have to be prepared to meet that allegation. 

TURMEL: I mean I'll have to call... I can put all hundred 
employees on the stand, Your Honour. What a waste. I guess the 
question would be; do they have any evidence that I touched the 
tips? 

MARIN: I'm taking notes, Your Honour, of the points raised by Mr. 
Turmel and if at all possible I will notify him, hopefully this 
week - by the end of the week, as to a final... I'm going to 
review again the admissions what Mr. Turmel is seeking and notify 
him through Claudette Breault, who is an articling student for 
our office who has been assisting on the file. 

TURMEL: And can I just bring up point 23 which could also serve 
to focus my defence which is that all monies that I did earn were 
the results of activities of Poker and Black Jack. If the Crown 
will admit that they're looking at my earnings at Poker and Black 
Jack it allows me to restrict my defence to this point or do they 
allege any other sources of income? 

COURT: Well there's that paragraph 20 that causes a problem 
there, I think, because if paragraph 20 isn't admitted then 
presumably it arguably affects 23. So that's something I presume 
Mr. Marin would want to speak to the officer about. 

MARIN: Yes. And 23 definitely is not acceptable to the Crown. 

TURMEL: So, in other words, there is an allegation of other 
sources of income other than Poker and Black Jack. Will I know 
what they are so I can prepare a defence? He did mention ten 
sources of gain and I would certainly appreciate finding out what 
they were and I'd be able to prepare my defence against those ten 
sources of gain. 

MARIN: Well one, I believe, has to do with the tips issue as 
pointed out by His Honour. 

TURMEL: Tips. 

MARIN: And that I'll be able to advise by the end of this week. I 
have nothing else to add. 

TURMEL: Other than tips... In other words I should prepare a 
defence tentatively for a maximum of tips being the only other... 

MARIN: I'm not just saying tips. I'm just saying that he's got 
disclosure of the case and I'm not prepared to go any further at 
this stage. 

COURT: Mr. Turmel I think, probably in the normal Rules of 
Pleadings such as they exist in criminal cases, that's probably 
that you're entitled to and have to rely on and that is that the 
witnesses' list and the witnesses' summary of evidence is the 
evidence from which Mr. Marin will either be proving 23 or 
attempting to prove the contrary of 23 or asking the Court to 
draw inferences. I don't think we can go any further than that. 

TURMEL: But I've gone through them all and I've heard lots to do 
with Poker and Black Jack but I hear no inferences from any other 
source. Now he can't bring up anything he hasn't given me so far? 

COURT: The disclosure, I'm told, is complete. And you have 
remedies if there is evidence called of which you have not been 
given disclosure if they attempt to call that evidence. Was there 
anything else? My concern, quite frankly, here Mr. Turmel and 
it's a limited one at this point because this is a continuation 
of course which is itself unusual of a Pre-Trial and there is a 
trial date set. Is there any other matter which potentially, from 
these documents, affects your defence rather than the Crown's 
case? 

TURMEL: Well, yeah, there's the last one now. I did make a Motion 
yesterday before the Trial Judge, hoping that now that the Crown 
had admitted that the only games in evidence were Black Jack and 
Poker to quash the betting house charges. I mean I've tried to... 

COURT: I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you. I can't re-litigate 
the matter. I'm going to hear the Motion and I'm not going to 
make an Order. 

TURMEL: No, I know. It wasn't really delved into. It was put off 
for the trial but the point is I want to make the Crown 
understand that I've tried to be reasonable and I believe that if 
the Crown is going to continue to be unreasonable about the 
betting house charge, I have 4,500 witnesses here who perhaps one 
of them did see me book a bet. 

Now if the Crown wants to allege that I actually ran a betting 
house, well you know, I can bhe unreasonable too. I don't want to 
be unreasonable and come across like an unreasonable person but 
I'm ready to pass these subpoenas through my printer and just 
merge-file all these names and start serving them and see if 
there's anybody out there who will back up the Crown's allegation 
that I ran a betting house. 

COURT: Did you see any evidence of betting in the Summaries of 
the evidence given to you from the witnesses to be called by the 
Crown? 

TURMEL: The point is we don't have a definition of betting. Maybe 
the Crown does. The Crown alleges they see evidence of betting. I 
don't. Maybe we could agree on a definition at this stage. What 
is the difference between betting and gaming? 

COURT: That's ultimately a matter again for the Trial Judge, I 
think, to determine. Mr. Marin, at this point, do you intend to 
proceed with the betting as well as the gaming house charge? 

MARIN: Pardon me, Your Honour? 

COURT: You intend to proceed with the betting as well as the 
gaming charge? 

MARIN: Yes. I see it, Your Honour, as being a legal issue as to 
what are the elements of the offence. It's a legal argument to be 
based on whatever evidence is presented. I've looked at the cases 
of Mr. Turmel and I believe it's a legal question to see what the 
Code understands as betting and what the Code understands as 
gaming. 

COURT: So factually you don't intend to call any other evidence 
than that disclosed to Mr. Turmel. All of the witnesses will 
state your belief what is included in the summaries presented to 
Mr. Turmel? 

MARIN: That's correct. 

COURT: And you're saying that on the basis of that evidence the 
Court will be asked to conclude that there is, or is not, 
betting? 

MARIN: That's correct. 

COURT: So, Mr. Turmel, you're of course welcome to call whatever 
witnesses you require. 

TURMEL: Yeah, but I mean I don't want to be unreasonable. 

COURT: No, but it seems to me that Mr. Marin is probably correct 
in that ultimately whether or not what is established in evidence 
constitutes betting will be a matter for the Judge to define and 
to interpret by the application of the law to the facts which are 
established. You can subpoena obviously whomever you wish for 
whatever purpose as long as it's relevant but on the basis of the 
disclosure I was given it seems that the thrust of the Crown's 
case is clearly gaming. Sometimes in the Pre-Trial process we try 
to make an assessment of the evidence and I would think that you 
are at a relatively low risk in terms of betting and I'm sure 
that's your view also and I don't... 

TURMEL: Yes. Except that I've had some sorry events happen to me 
in the past that didn't seem logical. 

COURT: Well we can't simply circumscribe this so it becomes an 
academic exercise or a mathematical exercise. A trial is 
something more than that, it's am organic process and if the 
Crown wishes to maintain that charge and attempt to argue that it 
exists on the facts, you have the facts and the question is 
whether or not that the facts established constitute betting. 

TURMEL: Well it's just that it seems that the evidence seems 
clear from the Pre-Trial that it's cards and, you know, the case 
law seems clear that cards are gaming not betting. 

COURT: I'm not going to disagree with you, Mr. Turmel, but I just 
don't think we're in a position... You've tried now by a Motion. 
You had a Motion before, I think, before Judge Nadelle. I think 
these matters are matters that are left for trial and, quite 
frankly, on my view of it it's best left for trial, if you will, 
at the end of the Crown's case. If at the end of the Crown's case 
you believe that there is no evidence of betting then that, 
without wishing to give you legal advice, is probably the 
appropriate time to bring a Motion with respect to that count, 
not at the beginning but at the end of the Crown's evidence. 

TURMEL: Well if you will remember though in 1989 and 1991 those 
charges were dismissed because of a lack of evidence and 
autrefois acquit would apply if it's a lack again which has got 
to be done before the trial. 

COURT: Well I'm not going to dispute legal issues with you. I 
think it's best left for the Trial Judge and, quite frankly, I 
don't see the Crown maintaining the betting charges any 
particular obstacle to your defence the way that I understand it, 
I think it would be an exaggeration to start subpoenaing the 
witnesses that you have who actually attended the premises, the 
4500 people. 

TURMEL: Well I know, I know. I could if I wanted to be 
unreasonable but I just think it's unreasonable that the Crown 
doesn't sit down and look at all this case law I've presented of 
cards and gaming. 

COURT: But I think what we can conclude from today's hearing is 
that in terms of a mutual Agreed Statement of Facts, or 
separately produced, that those points that are common are 
clearly agreed. You have offered other admissions that Mr. Marin 
may be in a position to accept and, as I understand, he said he 
will advise you of that or attempt to do so in the course of this 
week. 

TURMEL: And I'm free, I suppose when he starts to present proof, 
to interject and admit it at the trial? 

COURT: No question. 

TURMEL: Okay. 

COURT: No question. All right. Thank you very much then. 

TURMEL: Thank you.


AFFIDAVIT

1. Over the preparation period, the Crown has failed to meet the 
following undertakings:

a) to dispense with unnecessary witnesses;

b) to produce an Agreed Statement of Facts;

c) to disclose 10 areas of Section (a) identified;

d) to correct the Undisputed Facts from the Transcript;

e) to reconsider disputed admissions.

2. At my Dec. 13, 1993 judicial pre-trial, in order to shorten 
the time for trial and dispense with unnecessary witnesses, I 
entered the Agreed Statement of Facts prepared by Nicole Cote, 
Crown in 1989 case which necessitated calling only three Crown 
witnesses. To similarly expedite this trial, I offered Mr. Marin 
at least the same admissions in a new draft of an Agreed 
Statement of Facts with reference to this case. I also admitted 
to the 30-page Appendix "C" of the Search Warrant with less than 
10 disputes or corrections for any admissions therein which may 
be sought by the Crown. The transcript details the discussion of 
only disputes and not admissions. I also entered a 30-page 
document titled Operation Blackjack for any admissions found 
therein. Though Mr. Marin had mentioned perhaps needing three 
weeks for the trial, at the end of the pre-trial hearing, on page 
40 of the transcript, he stated: 

"We have come to the conclusion that two days, in light of the 
admissions. The accused sees this as a one- or two-witness case. 
I intend to call more than two witnesses, but, in any event, two 
days ought to be erring on the safe side."

I expected the prosecution to take one day as one of those days 
was surely slated for the Defence.

3. On page 21 of the Dec. 13, 1993 pre-trial transcript with 
respect to the sources of Section (a) gain alleged, Mr. Marin 
stated:

"I have identified at least nine or ten areas of gain through the 
evidence that I was going to lead." 

4. Mr. Marin entrusted Ms. Breault, an articling student with the 
Crown's office, with the negotiating and drafting the Agreed 
Statement of Facts. On Feb. 7, 1994, the Crown submitted one 
document titled "Undisputed Facts from the Transcript" which 
erroneously stated I had admitted to controlling "all" bank 
accounts including that of the dealers' tips. 

5. The Crown also submitted a document titled "Undisputed Facts 
between Parties" based in whole on the Crown's 1989 Agreed 
Statement of Facts but with several deletions. In 1989, Ms. Cote 
had sought to have me admit rather than have to prove: 

Fact 11 that gamblers had attended to play;

Fact 17 that Blackjack is a banked game;

Fact 18 that gamblers could refuse their right to play the bank;

Fact 19 that the bank was always kept by me or my agent when 
there were one or more players;

In 1994, the Crown has chosen to dispute those former mutual 
admissions.

6. On Feb. 8, 1994, upon my motion to resume the pre-trial, I 
mentioned that Officer Cleary, on page 38 of the Dec. 13 pre-
trial transcript, had stated:

"There are five banks involved. One is the casino employees fund 
which does not involve Mr. Turmel."

Mr. Marin noted the error. 

7. On page 10 of the Feb. 8 pre-trial transcript when I pointed 
out the deletions of what the former Crown had thought to be 
essential elements, Judge Lennox pointed out that having to prove 
essential elements that would have been admitted could weaken the 
Crown's case. Mr. Marin undertook to review whether he was going 
to concur on the admission of those essential elements or take 
the time to try to prove them at trial.

8. The Agreed Statement of Facts I had originally drafted sought 
an agreed admission that that there were no commercial GSTable 
transactions. On page 14 of the Feb.8 pre-trial transcript, the 
Crown did admit Fact 21 in my draft that I had participated in no 
GSTable transactions but this was never added to the Undisputed 
Facts.

9. On page 19 of the Feb. 8, 1994 pre-trial transcript, it says:

TURMEL: So, in other words, there is an allegation of other 
sources of income other than Poker and Blackjack. Would I know 
what they are so I could prepare a defence? He did mention ten 
sources of gain and I'd certainly appreciate finding out what 
they were and I'd be able to prepare my defence against those ten 
sources of gain.

MARIN: One of them has to do with the tips issue as pointed out 
by His Honour and that, I'm going to look into by the end of this 
week and I have nothing else to add.

10. On Feb. 16, Ms. Breault faxed me the amended drafts of the 
two documents. Unfortunately, none of the undertakings were met 
and no witnesses had been dispensed with.

11. On Feb. 17, 1994, I asked Ms. Breault to disclose a list of 
the witnesses the Crown was going to call. She indicated the 
witness list that I had been given was sufficient. I pointed out 
it had over 90 witnesses and asked if she intended to subpoena 
them all. When she admitted that the Crown was not going to be 
calling all the witnesses, I explained that I wanted a list of 
only the witnesses the Crown was going to call and I wasn't 
interested in those witnesses the Crown was not going to call. I 
couldn't seem to communicate that Mr. Marin's comment about the 
admissions lessening the time necessary for trial was an 
undertaking to inform me of the witnesses to be dispensed with. 

12. On Feb. 18, 1994, at a meeting with Mr. McDougall who was 
representing Mr. Marin in another matter, it was impressed upon 
him by all those present that if 90 witnesses were on the list, 
90 witnesses would have to called for the defence to use the full 
complement of witnesses on the list received. He was strenuously 
urged to have Mr. Marin deal with that undertaking. I further 
enumerated the other undertakings that had not been fulfilled in 
the preparation of the Agreed Statement of Facts and the 
identification of the ten alleged Section (a) gains. 

--
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