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
19940224
#93-18193
ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
against
JOHN TURMEL
**********
(VOLUME THREE)
T R I A L
HELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. WRIGHT
on Thursday, February 24th, 1994, at Ottawa, Ontario.
**********
CHARGE: S. 201(1)
**********
APPEARANCES:
A. Marin, Esq. Crown Counsel
J. Turmel Appearing for Self
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exam. Cr.- Re-
WITNESSES In-Chief Exam. Exam.
FOTIA, Joseph 40 58 61
SHEPPARD, Ronald 78 92 103 & 107
YOUNG, Charles 113 -- --
NESBIT, Harry 115 117 --
**********
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT NUMBER Put in on Page
ONE Blackjack rules. 52
TWO Summary of observations made
by Sergeant Fotia. 58
THREE Undisputed facts from transcript
of December 13, 1993; undisputed
facts between parties; Appendix C. 68
FOUR Lease for Baxter Road location. 69
FIVE Lease for St. Laurent location,
and statement. 70
SIX Articles of incorporation of
Appotive Developments. 70
SEVEN Two statements of Donald Cribbie. 71
EIGHT Witness statement of Kanaan. 71
NINE Witness statement of Scott
Jordan. 71
TEN Spread sheet prepared by
Howard Greenberg.
11 Statement by Garnet Barber. 72
12 Binder of banking documents. 76
13 Report of Penny Cookson. 76
14 Statements of Lily and Lester
Percs. 77
15 Articles of incorporation of
2869748 Canada Incorporated. 77
16 Curriculum vitae of Ronald
Sheppard. 79
17 Formula. 86
18 Summary and printout. 112
**********
1989 Statement of Facts / 1994 Undisputed Facts
IT IS ADMITTED:
That between the 31st day of January and the 24th day of February
1988, John Turmel rented Room 101 at the Bayshore Hotel located
at 2980 Carling Ave. in the city of Ottawa.
/
That between the 27th day of February and the 14th day of
November 1992, John Turmel rented a room at 1141 Baxter Rd.,
Ottawa (hereinafter referred to as Baxter Premises) called
"Turmel's Games Room." That between the 13th day of November and
the 14th day of July 1993, John Turmel rented several units
including 102, 103,104, 105, and 107 at 2335 St. Laurent Blvd,
Ottawa (hereinafter referred to as "St. Laurent Premises), called
"Casino Turmel."
That the sole purpose of renting the room was to enable the
playing of the games of Blackjack.
/
That Mr. John Turmel's purpose in renting the Baxter Premises and
St. Laurent Premises was to enable the playing of the games such
as Blackjack and Poker.
That the cost of the room was $600.00 dollars for the month of
February.
/
That Mr. Turmel had agreed to lease the Baxter Premises for $500
per week and the St. Laurent Premises for $2,500 per week.
That the room had been cleared of furnishings and replaced by
chairs and two professional style folding game tables (purchased
and owned by John Turmel).
/
That Mr. Turmel purchased and personally owned the chairs and
professional style folding game tables of the two above noted
premises.
That alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages were supplied free of
charge to patrons.
/
That food and non-alcoholic beverages were served to the patrons
free of charge.
That invitations were sent by mail.
/
That invitations to attend Baxter Premises and St. Laurent
Premises were sent by mail. Further advertisement was made in the
print media.
That the public at large could not attend, than only
acquaintances of Mr. Turmel could attend for the purpose of
playing games. that if a member of the public attended without
being referred he was turned away.
/
That the public at large was invited to attend the Baxter
Premises and St. Laurent Premises for the purpose of playing
Blackjack with Mr. John Turmel or employees or Poker with Mr.
John Turmel and other patrons.
That John Turmel himself or his employees or at times agents
would act as cashiers.
/
That John Turmel or his employees would act as cashiers.
That John Turmel or agents or employees would be on the premises
on a regular basis for the purpose of playing the game of
Blackjack with individuals who would attend.
/
That Mr. John Turmel or his employees would be at Baxter Premises
and St. Laurent Premises twenty four (24) hours a day for the
purpose of playing games such as Blackjack and Poker.
That no fee was attached to attending the premises.
/
That no fee was sought to enter the premises.
That an individual could buy into the game at $200.
/
That a patron could buy into the games at $200.
That during the month of February, 1988, a few dozen individuals
attended to play the games.
/
That over the period, over four thousand (4,000) individuals
attended to play the games.
That a maximum limit was set on a possible at $100 dollars. That
the minimum limit on a possible bet was $5.
/
That a possible Blackjack bet had a maximum limit of $300 and a
minimum limit of $5.
That the game was strictly played on a cash basis with Poker
chips sold by the cashier in denominations of $5, $25, $100,
$500.
/
That the games played with Poker chips which were sold by the
cashier in denominations of $5, $25, $100, $500. The patrons
could pay by cash or by cheque.
That the game of Blackjack being played on the premises was being
played "Atlantic City Style" Blackjack.
/
That the Blackjack game played at the Baxter Premises and St.
Laurent Premises was based on "Atlantic City Style" Blackjack.
That the game of Blackjack offered the player side bets and the
chance to be the dealer/banker.
That the game cards were dealt from a shoe. That the shoe
contained (4) decks of blue cards and (4) decks of red cards.
/
That the game cards were dealt from a shoe which contained eight
(8) decks of cards.
That the game rules were posted on several of the walls were
titled "Turmel's Blackjack Rules." That the game of Blackjack as
played on the premises is a banked game.
/
That the game of "Turmel-style" Blackjack as played on the
premises is a game between a banker and a player.
That although Turmel's rules as posted indicated that "Everyone
may the bank at any time and must be the bank at least once
before playing," that a player had the right to later concede his
option.
/
That although "Turmel-style" rules as posted indicated that
"Everyone may the bank at any time and must be the bank at least
once before playing," that a player had the right t to later
concede his option.
That players would play the game at a main table where the
dealer/banker would be Turmel or his employees or agents.
/
That the players could play the game at a main table where the
dealer/banker would be Turmel or his employees or agents.
That the bank was always kept by Turmel or an agent where there
was one or more players.
/
That the bank was always kept by Turmel or an agent where there
was one or more players.
That at any time, a player could decided to become the
dealer/banker, if he so chose, the player would then leave the
table if at the time there were more than one player present or
stay and the other players would then leave the table. He would
become the dealer/banker (put up the bank) against only Turmel or
his agents or employees.
/
That at any time, a player could decided to become the
dealer/banker, if he so chose, the player would then leave the
table if at the time there were more than one player present or
stay and the other players would then leave the table. He would
become the dealer/banker (put up the bank) against only Turmel or
his agents or employees.
That if other players were present at the time, the main table
would continue playing with Turmel or the Turmel agents or
employees keeping the bank.
/
That if other players were present at the time, the main table
would continue playing with Turmel or the Turmel agents or
employees keeping the bank.
That a player could not be the dealer/banker against any other
player. If a player chose to become a banker, the house rules
were such that he was entitled to bank and deal a shoe of cards
against John Turmel or one of the agents only and play a one-on-
one game in which no other players were allowed to play.
/
That a player could not be the dealer/banker against any other
player. If a player chose to become a banker, the house rules
were such that he was entitled to bank and deal a shoe of cards
against John Turmel or one of the agents only and play a one-on-
one game in which no other players were allowed to play.
That if a player wanted to bank a game against other players,
they could go elsewhere but not in Mr. Turmel's room.
/
That if a player wanted to bank a game against other players,
they could go elsewhere but not in Mr. Turmel's room. That Mr.
Turmel does not control the TIPS bank account. That John Turmel
has not been called on to collect or remit the Goods and Sales
Tax on any financial transaction that took place.
=====
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. MARIN: If I may just see the information Your
Honour, before the accused is arraigned? Thank you. The
information, as it reads, Your Honour, has four charges.
The first charge is a gaming charge. Mr. Turmel is to be
arraigned on that. The three other charges have to do
with betting, and after a very close scrutiny of the
evidence and the related case law, I've come to the
conclusion, Your Honour, that the likelihood of a
conviction under betting is low. Therefore, I've taken
the decision to withdraw the three counts relating to
betting.
THE COURT: That would be counts two, three and four?
MR. MARIN: Two, three and four. So we're to proceed on the
gaming charge.
MR. SAGLE: Your Honour, if I might just make a point on that?
My name is Matt Sagle, by the way; Mr. Turmel has retained me
to assist in the trial of this matter. Until yesterday
afternoon, we didn't realize these charges - we just got a fax
at five o'clock last night saying there's going to be a
withdrawal of charges. This is in spite of the fact that, right
from the very first pretrial, we asked the Crown to withdraw
those charges. We indicated we thought the evidence wouldn't
support them, but we were forced basically to do all the work
and prepare for this trial anyway. I don't know whether it was
error or intent, but certainly they've left us in a difficult
position. We've had a lot of work to do and it's put Mr. Turmel
to a lot of expense. What we'd like to see at this point is
that those charges be dismissed rather than withdrawn. All the
evidence has been gathered and we were certainly told that it
was going to proceed today and we're ready to proceed, and we'd
ask that those charges, rather than be withdrawn, be dismissed.
At the same time, I believe there are provisions for costs to be
awarded in cases where the Crown has acted in such a way as to
cause grievous expense to the Defence. I know it's unusual, but
this is an unusual situation.
THE COURT: All right, do you have any case law to support the
proposition that the Crown is not in a position to withdraw any
charge that it wishes to withdraw or that would confer
jurisdiction on this court to award costs in a criminal
proceeding?
MR. SAGLE: No, I haven't. The fact is, I've not prepared for
that. It was just out of the blue, and I haven't had any chance
to look into it at all. But it seems to me that a dismissal
creates a situation where it's a dismissal on the merits as
opposed to a withdrawal which could be relaid again tomorrow.
THE COURT: I agree with you. What I'm inquiring after is
whether you have any authority for what it is you're asking me
to do.
MR. SAGLE: Well, I don't think that - I believe that you can
dismiss charges. Obviously that's within your jurisdiction.
THE COURT: If there's no evidence. But my understanding is,
subject to being corrected by your argument or case law, is that
the Crown has jurisdiction to withdraw a charge at any point up
until the stage where the accused has entered a plea and
evidence has been heard.
MR. SAGLE: Yes, well, whether the Crown's admitting that
there's no evidence in this case, I think that's what it amounts
to. And I think basically it's, to a certain extent, a mis-use
of the process to force us to defend -to come to this court
prepared to defend this kind of an action, and I think that the
Crown will admit that basically there is no evidence, that we're
in the same position as if evidence was called and you decided
at the end that there was no evidence. And I think the Crown's
in the position, really, of saying that they do not have any
evidence to support that charge, as they haven't had from the
beginning.
THE COURT: Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN: Well, speaking of judicial pre-trials, Your Honour,
we've had at least four or five where Mr. Turmel has represented
himself. It's news to me that he had counsel to represent him
today. I'm not sure exactly who to deal with on the case. But
to respond to what my friend has said, there's been no evidence
heard and the information is still within the property of the
Crown and the charge is being withdrawn. It's done routinely in
courts, as a matter of routine, almost every day. So it
shouldn't come as a surprise.
The issue is the accused faced four charges.
He's here prepared to defend them. The Crown is not withdrawing
all the charges. I'm not prepared to admit there's no evidence
of betting. The issue of betting had to do with the legal
definition. The facts are the same. That has been clear to Mr.
Turmel from the beginning. The issue is whether that, in law,
disclosed both gaming and betting.
Now, the Crown is withdrawing the betting charge
because, in terms of law, in legal interpretation, the gist of
the offence relates more to an issue of gaming than betting. So
it's for that reason it's being withdrawn. From the beginning,
we've never said we had evidence apart from the one disclosed to
the accused as to betting. The position of the Crown has been
that it's a question of legal interpretation. The position of
the Crown this morning is to help focus the Court's attention on
the issue of gaming and not betting. For that reason, the
betting charges are being withdrawn.
THE COURT: Mr. Sagle?
MR. SAGLE: Well, Your Honour, I...
THE COURT: You are going to...
MR. SAGLE: ...I don't want to repeat myself. I do say that it
was clear from the beginning that...
THE COURT: Mr. Sagle, you are going to be representing Mr.
Turmel for the...
MR. SAGLE: I will be assisting Mr. Turmel at this hearing,
Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SAGLE: To be honest with you - I know it's a little
complicated - Mr. Turmel is very well aware of the law in these
matters and in the case itself, but he needs some legal
assistance in the court. We'll be trying not to step on each
other's toes, but I'll be assisting him, basically, and speaking
when it's helpful.
THE COURT: All right. In the absence of any authority for
what it is that you're asking me to do, I am not inclined to
either - I'm not sure I have any power, in light of the Crown's
indication that they wish to withdraw the charge, and I'm not
aware of any inherent power within the Court to award costs.
Unless you're in a position where you're able to provide some
authority for what it is that you're asking.....
MR. SAGLE: There will be a situation, I think, when we're done
with this matter, Your Honour, that there's going to have to be
a recess. The Crown's requested us to go over other matters
with them. Perhaps I could have half an hour and I might find
something...
THE COURT: When is the recess being requested? At the outset?
MR. MARIN: Well, simply, Your Honour, I'm not sure what to
expect from the Defence perspective. We've been going through
numerous judicial pre-trials where Matt Sagle has not been
there. The accused has made a number of admissions,
commitments, that I'm about to file. Do these admissions still
stand? Do they not stand? The issues have changed? I'm not
sure what to meet now. I assessed this as a three-week-long
trial. In view of the admissions, it became a two-day trial.
Now Matt Sagle arrives today out of nowhere, and I would like to
know where we stand. Are we back to a three-week trial, a two-
week trial, a two-day trial? I mean, those are things, before
I start the case, that I'd like to know what to expect.
THE COURT: All right, if a short adjournment is being
requested, then, before the outset, that will give you an
opportunity, if there is authority, to find it and bring it to
court.
MR. SAGLE: I'll see if I can do that, Your Honour. With
respect to what Mr. Marin has said, my appearance here makes no
difference to what has happened at the pre-trials. Mr. Marin
has made certain undertakings at the pre-trials to do certain
things, and they're not completed. I believe there are pre-
trial motions set here for this morning, which Mr. Turmel will
be handling, which relate directly to those. It may be resolved
by meeting with Mr. Marin, and maybe not.
THE COURT: I have read the materials that have been filed and
there is one issue which does raise some concern and that is the
issue of disclosure. There's a motion which indicates that it
was returnable yesterday in Number Seven Court. I take it that
matter was not proceeded with yesterday? In Mr. Turmel's
affidavit, he does indicate the failure to provide what is
termed as "electromagnetic disclosure," which I take it is
business or computer records which have been requested and not
provided. I wonder if Mr. Marin can provide some light on that.
MR. MARIN: Surely, Your Honour, because there's no need to
discuss this, the accused or his counsel, in private. The
information I have from my investigators, Your Honour, is that
everything that was seized by way of - that was seized and was
on computer disk or hard drive, or that type of form, has been
reproduced on hard copy and disclosed to the accused. Now, that
runs counter with what he's claiming. It becomes an issue of
fact. I'm prepared to produce evidence on that. He's alleging
that some of it was withheld. The Crown's position is that none
of it was withheld. That's one issue.
The second issue is that he's requesting to have
the information in the form it was seized as opposed to a hard
copy of it. I'm not sure how far the disclosure requirements
go, Your Honour. It's an interesting question. If Your Honour
accepts, or if my friend concedes that full disclosure was given
in hard copy, then there's no prejudice to the accused in not
giving the information in soft copy, or in computer form. The
police, quite frankly, have some concerns in giving the
information in software version, giving disclosures to that
medium, because it's part of a computer program that ran,
according to the Crown's case, an illegal operation. So to give
disclosure in soft copy, or in software, would also disclose the
program and would also disclose what was seized as being a part
of the illegal enterprise, and, for that reason, they do have
some concerns. That is the Crown's position in that respect.
MR. SAGLE: Your Honour, I understand Mr. Turmel requested the
soft copy, the information, for several reasons. One is to be
able to do the income tax work that's required at the end of the
year for all his employees. And secondly, because if you have
a soft disk with this information on it, you can look through it
and evaluate it and take information out of it and examine it
for preparation for trial much easier than - I mean, I think the
stack is this high of hard copy papers, small print, difficult
to use, while the Crown, of course, has the actual computer
disks to use, and it's quite an advantage. But certainly the
main reason he was requesting it - second reason, at least - is
to be able to use it for legitimate purposes. The reasons for
not producing it don't stand up. They're not reasonable and
they're not - the Crown doesn't need to retain that. If they're
trying to have the Defence at a disadvantage, that's certainly
what they've achieved.
MR. MARIN: The response to that, Your Honour, is that the
income tax issue is not before this court. My friend has raised
it. My information, from my officers, is that they've been in
touch with the authorities and allowed them access to be able to
gather all the information required to process whatever income
tax requirements Mr. Turmel has to meet at this time of the
year. So there's no prejudice in that sense. That's what I've
been told. So it's not a matter for this court, but I simply
wanted to put the Crown's position on the record because it's
been raised.
The second point raised, my friend says, was to
allow easier preparation. I've voiced some concerns here that
my friend does not share. Nonetheless, I don't think Your
Honour has the power to compel the Crown to provide disclosure
in a way which would allow the accused easier preparation. If
that's the nature of the motion, it's not founded in law.
That's like saying, well, the Crown has to put tabs on every
binder that they submit to the Defence and they've got it
printed on 14-pitch character letters, as opposed to 9-pitch, to
make it easier to read. If that's the argument that's being put
forward, my submission, The Stinchcombe, Rules of Disclosure,
don't go that far. And if it was as simple as that, Your
Honour, as putting a couple of tabs in a binder, that's fine,
but I've voiced some concerns that the police have, from their
perspective, having seized what is alleged to be part of an
illegal business.
THE COURT: Mr. Sagle, is the purpose for which the disks are
required anything other than what you've indicated?
MR. SAGLE: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Are there any other preliminary matters that have
to be dealt with at this time?
MR. MARIN: There's a number that are contained in the motion
record, Your Honour, that frankly, I believe, are resolvable
between parties. I've already faxed a note to the accused's fax
machine yesterday afternoon, indicating a number of concessions
that preoccupied him. I believe that the others can be
addressed by taking a short recess. A lot of them are things
that we don't need to preoccupy the Court with, quite frankly.
THE COURT: All right, what I propose to do, then, is to take
a short recess of one half-hour, and no more, for the purpose of
allowing the Crown to review with Mr. Turmel and his counsel the
issues which have been discussed leading up to today; secondly,
for the purpose of allowing the accused to prepare, as
requested, on the two issues which were raised at the outset;
thirdly, in relation to the matter of disclosure of the computer
records, while I don't see any reason why the documentation in
the form, as requested by Mr. Turmel, could not have been
provided to him, I do not believe that the Court should visit a
consequence on the prosecution for failure to provide the
disclosure in a particular form if the issue relates only to the
preparation of T-4 forms, which is certainly a legitimate
purpose, but something outside of the scope of the jurisdiction
and purpose of this proceeding, and for the purpose of
simplicity of use. If there was some other legitimate reason,
then there might be a consequence which the Court could
consider. For example, if it were alleged that the disks were
not consistent with the paper disclosure which has been
provided, and that has not been suggested in any way by counsel.
Therefore, we'll rise for one half-hour.
R E C E S S (10:21 a.m.)
U P O N R E S U M I N G: (10:50 a.m.)
CLERK OF THE COURT: Court is now reconvened; please be seated.
MR. TURMEL: Your Honour, he's just on his way down now. Your
Honour, I would just like to add one point, if I may, on that
previous argument about the withdrawal versus the dismissal.
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Turmel?
MR. TURMEL: If you'll remember correctly, at the autre fois
acquit, the Crown argued that such pre-pleas could not be made
because the Crown had withdrawn the charge in 1989, and that was
because they were allowed to withdraw it after they'd started
the case. I do believe you arraigned me at the previous trial,
and therefore I had been put in jeopardy, and my attorney has
prepared a defence and hence I do not think that - I do believe
that the Crown needs your permission to withdraw at this stage,
now that I've been put in jeopardy, and I would hope that you
would not allow them to do so and certainly give me some sort of
a decision which would preclude another charge like this in the
future. If they get to withdraw it now, they'll be able to do
it to me again, and it'll be another six, seven times in court
before we clear this mess up. So on that basis, I would hope
that you do not let them withdraw, do not consent.
Oh, and while Mr. Sagle isn't here, I do have
one other thing: A notice of release - some recent case law
says that if you're going to complain of charter rights, you
have to do it before the trial, at the beginning, to give the
judge fair notice that they're going to be brought up, so I have
here a notice of the rights violations that I'm going to expect
to raise if at some point these proceedings are ended in my
favour.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURMEL: Just to get it on the record that he'd been given
notice.
--
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__ --> |
