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
ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
against
JOHN TURMEL
T R I A L
HELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. WRIGHT
on Thursday, February 24th, 1994, at Ottawa, Ontario.
THE COURT: Mr. Turmel, are you going to argue the charter
relief yourself, or are you going to have your counsel assist
you in that?
MR. TURMEL: Well, I would expect it won't be argued until
after the trial, and if I lose I'll probably do it myself; if I
win, I'll probably let him do it. So if I win, I would want
everything to be done from this point on as officiously (sic) as
possible. So it really does depend on what happens. I don't
think they're going to be raised necessarily until the trial is
over. I just want to make sure that if I am acquitted, the
question of double jeopardy and these rights, whether they've
been violated or not, does get addressed. But I am pretty
reasonable that it will be depending on a decision whether or
not I do it or Mr. Sagle does at this stage.
MR. SAGLE: Excuse me, Your Honour. I'm sorry for being a few
minutes late. I was in the library.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SAGLE: Your Honour, with respect to the matters we
discussed earlier, first with respect to the matter of
withdrawal, as I understand it, the Crown does have a right and
a duty to withdraw inappropriate charges without leave of the
Court up until the time a plea has been entered. The question
here is whether, in your mind, a plea has been entered.
THE COURT: A plea has been entered.
MR. SAGLE: Yes, so it has been. That's already been
discussed. After that time, I presume it was only with leave of
the Court that they can do that.
With respect to the matter of costs, costs can
be awarded on behalf of the Defendant. The section of the Code
is basically,
"...where, in the opinion of the Court,
the accused has been misled or prejudiced
in his defence by a variation, error or
omissioî iî aî indictmenô oò á counô therein..."
Onå mighô arguå thaô basicallù wå havå beeî misled, basically
thinkinç therå werå threå morå countó iî this¬ anä preparinç foò
them¬ tï finä really¬ aó iô should'vå beeî froí thå beginning¬
thaô no÷ theù werå varyinç thå indictment...
THE COURT: The authority for that proposition?
MR. SAGLE: This is Section 601(5) of the Criminal Code. I'm
reading from Salhaney's Canadian Criminal Procedure.
THE COURT: That section relates to adjournments.
MR. SAGLE: It does say...
THE COURT: The section indicates,
"Where in the opinion of the Court the
accused has been misled or prejudiced in
his defence by a variance, error or
omission in an indictment or count
therein, the Court may, if it is of the
opinion that the misleading or prejudice
may be removed by an adjournment, adjourn
the proceedings to a specified day or
sittings of the court and may make such an
order with respect to the payment of costs
resulting from the necessity for amendment
as it considers desirable."
Thå costó arå clearlù relateä tï thå remedù of
an adjournment.
MR. SAGLE: I agree, Your Honour, and I don't think we need an
adjournment in this case, so I accept what you say.
THE COURT: All right, do you have any further argument on the
issue of costs?
MR. SAGLE: No, I don't, Your Honour.
THÅ COURTº Alì right® Iî relatioî tï thå arå yoõ awarå oæ the
charter relief that Mr. Turmel is advancing? Do you wisè to...
MR. SAGLE: I believe Mr....
THE COURT: ...assist Mr. Turmel in that regard?
MR. SAGLE: I believe Mr. Turmel will be making those
arguments, Your Honour. I have not read the - and I'm not
prepared for it - but he has, and I understand he'll be doing
that.
THE COURT: All right. In relation to the Charter relief, the
body of case law would seem to suggest that an application for
relief under the Charter should be brought with notice. Mr.
Turmel has provided notice, I take it, this morning, to the
Crown of the relief being sought. As well, there should be an
indication of the basis upon which the relief is being sought.
The body of case law would suggest that the application be dealt
with at the outset of trial, or, in some occasions, at the
conclusion of the Crown's case. Before indicating that a
Charter remedy will be considered, I would like to put the
accused or his counsel to the proof of what relief is being
sought. If you could indicate to me the basis upon which the
Charter relief, which is set out in the notice, is being sought.
MR. TURMEL: I guess it all stems from Section Seven, the
double jeopardy...
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. TURMEL: ...and if it has been found that this charge was
a case of double jeopardy, it will have been found that my right
to peaceful assembly and association will have been violated,
and of course my right to gain a livelihood will have been
violated, and if the double jeopardy does stand and I had a
right to play this game, I've suffered an unreasonable search
anä seizure®
I was arbitrarily detained, I was not informed
of the specific offence - it's still not in the indictment - and
of course, I was not presumed innocent; I was presumed guilty.
To not be tried again if finally acquitted:
That definitely fits in with the double jeopardy.
To not be subjected to cruel and unusual
treatment: I think undergoing double jeopardy would be cruel
and unusual treatment. And to be equal before and under the
law: If I have the right to play this game - and it's been
properly established - where other people do the same thing and
are not equally punished or convicted or suffer this type of
attack.
Oî thå basió mainlù oæ doublå jeopardy¬ alì theså rightó havå
beeî violateä anä É thinë thå propeò remedy
would be, if at any point, in your mind, it dawns on the Court
that, yes, this is an identical situation to 1989, there are no
differences, and if you'll take note of the agreed upon
statement of fact that will be presented, you'll notice it
happens to be identical to the 1989 one. The Crown hasn't
offered any new facts whatsoever. I've thrown in a couple of
new ones. But from the Crown's perspective, the facts are
absolutely identical. No change whatsoever. And I would
therefor expect it to be an easy conclusion to be a double
jeopardy and, on that basis, that my rights will have been
violated, and I'd much prefer to be acquitted on the grounds of
my right being violated when one considers the other recourse
that we're going to be pursuing after this, if we have to.
So on the basis of the double jeopardy, all the
others stem, and hopefully that might be reason enough at some
point to be the grounds for the dismissal of the charge.
THE COURT: Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN: I have no response, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right, in relation to the matter of the Crown's
intention to withdraw charges, Mr. Turmel was arraigned, a plea
was taken primarily because of my understanding that that was a
necessity in order for the previous arguments to be made, to be
advanced. No evidence was heard. I'm satisfied that it is
proper in these circumstances that the charges which the Crown
is now indicating to the Court have no basis to proceed should
be withdrawn, and therefore counts two, three and four against
Mr. Turmel will be withdrawn.
Mr. Turmel has expressed a concern essentially
of wishing to establish a precedent. If it's of any comfort, if
the matter were dismissed without any evidence having been
heard, there still would not have been a precedent which would
have been of use to you in the future.
With respect to the application for Charter
relief, there are two concerns: Firstly, the Court is not in a
position in this forum to make rulings to prevent possible
abuses of process or situations of autrefois or the other issues
which were raised, I believe, in November in advance of the act
complained of even occurring.
In relation to the strict application of the
Charter, it would not appear that the accused, to my view, has
advanced a basis upon which the Charter application should be
heard. It is not consistent with the body of case law for a
party to have to deal with or face a Charter application without
knowing specifically what argument and upon what basis that
argument would be raised. Therefore, the application for relief
sought under the Charter, in the absence of an indication for a
basis for what evidence will be heard on behalf of the accused,
in my view, must be dismissed. Any other preliminary matters?
MR. MARIN: No, Your Honour, not until the accused has been
arraigned.
THE COURT: Mr. Turmel has been arraigned, I believe.
CLERK OF THE COURT: Not by myself, Your Honour.
THE COURT: My recollection was that Mr. Turmel was arraigned
in.....
CLERK OF THE COURT: November 15th?
THE COURT: Yes.
CLERK OF THE COURT: I have - enters a plea of autrefois....
THE COURT: All right, if we could re-arraign Mr. Turmel.
CLERK OF THE COURT: Yes, Your Honour.
John Turmel, you are charged that between the
25th day of February, 1992, and the 14th day of July, 1993, in
the City of Ottawa in the said region, did unlawfully keep a
gaming house, to wit, units 107, 102, 103, 104 and 105 at 2335
St. Laurent Boulevard in the City of Ottawa and elsewhere in the
Province of Ontario, contrary to Section 201(1) of the Criminal
Code of Canada.
MR. TURMEL: Pursuant to Section 606(1)(2), I stand mute.
606(1)(2).
THE COURT: All right, then, I'll direct that the Clerk of the
Court enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of Mr. Turmel, in
accordance with the same section.
CLERK OF THE COURT: Could you stand, please, Mr. Turmel? This
is a straight indictable offence; I'll read the accused's
election...
MR. MARIN: There's no election; it's absolute jurisdiction of
this court.
CLERK OF THE COURT: Is it?
MR. MARIN: Yes.
CLERK OF THE COURT: Thank you very much.
MR. MARIN: Your Honour, just before calling some evidence, I'd
like to give some direction to the Court from the Crown's
perspective. Firstly, this matter has gone through numerous
pretrials of all forms and a number of issues were narrowed down
both by the Crown and by the Defence and a number of admissions
were made in the process. I have gathered three documents, some
of which the Defence refutes; others are admissions made by the
accused. I also have some comments as to what will be the
remaining issues to be resolved by this court at the trial.
The package that I have, Your Honour, the
accused already has. It is made up, as I've indicated, of three
documents. The first document, Your Honour, is entitled,
"Undisputed Facts as Taken from Transcript Dated December 13th,
1993." There was a transcript of proceedings of a pretrial in
which certain admissions were made.
The second document, Your Honour, is "Undisputed
Facts Between the Parties." These are facts that either Mr.
Turmel has agreed to or wanted to be before the Court and the
Crown has agreed to put before the Court.
The third document is called "Appendix C." It's
part of an information that was sworn to obtain a search
warrant.
So those three documents are before the Court.
Now¬ froí thå outset¬ Youò Honour¬ thå chargå is
a charge of keeping a common gaming house, contrary to Section
201(1) of the Criminal Code. Keeping a common gaming house is
at Section 201 of the Criminal Code. The definition of "common
gaming house" is found under Section 197. So the first point
that the Crown would have to prove in such a case was that Mr.
Turmel was the keeper. That's the first point. The keeper of
the premises, of the place. Now, that has been admitted as part
of the transcript summary which I've put before the Court.
THE COURT: I should ask at this point: Are the three
documents that have been provided to me by the Crown admitted by
the Defence as factual?
MR. TURMEL: Well, Your Honour, there was a problem in the
drafting, and to facilitate it, I did redraft another one which
the Crown should have decided whether they agreed with. Now,
they've indicated to me that the first 19 points, which are
analogous to the statement of facts from 1989, have been
accepted and I'd like to give you a copy, therefore, of the
proposed agreed statement of facts which list the three points,
numbers 20-22, which were divulged at pre-trial, so that if the
Crown has no objection to those three points, then yes,
everything has been agreed upon. The Crown did, in their
undisputed facts, in transcript, admit point 20. The Crown did,
in the pre-trial, admit point 21. And the evidence showed in
the pre-trial that only poker and blackjack were played. So
with those three extra admissions tacked onto the 1989
admissions, we have an agreed upon statement of facts and you
don't need three documents.
THE COURT: Which is 20-22?
MR. TURMEL: 20-22 are the ones relevant to this case, all the
way up to the 19 were analogous to 1989 with the dates,
locations properly changed.
THE COURT: All right, so that if 20-22 are admitted, then all
of the other facts are admitted as well?
MR. TURMEL: Agreed.
THE COURT: Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN: The situation is, Your Honour, is that some of
these facts in this agreed statement of facts produced by Mr.
Turmel...
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. MARIN: ...have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
So if he wants to put them forward, you know, if it's part of
what he likes to put before the Court, I can't agree to
something I find irrelevant.
THE COURT: All right, then let's call the first witness.
Either the agreed statement of facts are agreed or they're not.
I'm obviously not in a position where I can force parties to
agree on facts. I'll return these to the parties.
MR. TURMEL: Now, wait a minute. Is the Crown really sure he
wants to do this? They have 90 witnesses on the original...
THE COURT: Well, we've had months and months for the parties
to discuss and decide if there would be agreed statements. The
matter was put over for that purpose.
MR. TURMEL: Well, I know.
THE COURT: If there's no agreed statement, then let's proceed
with the first witness.
MR. TURMEL: But if this two minutes saves us three weeks - the
point is, the point he's bringing up is that I've asked that
John Turmel has not been called upon to collect or remit GST.
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. TURMEL: And he admitted to Judge Lennox in the pre-trial
that they have no evidence of that...
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. TURMEL: ...but they don't want to admit it is so.
THE COURT: Mr. Turmel, I have no power, without having heard
the evidence, to make any ruling on the facts. Either the
parties agree on an agreed statement of facts or they do not.
If there's not an agreement, I can't force people to agree.
MR. TURMEL: Well...
THE COURT: If there's no agreement at this point, we should
start the trial.
MR. TURMEL: But, I do admit the point he's talking about is
point 21, about the GST...
MR. MARIN: What about that point? Sorry?
MR. TURMEL: Is that the point that you raised? You said there
are some points that are a problem, you know? Which points?
There aren't many. Why don't you tell us which problem there
is? Perhaps it can be fixed so that we can have an agreement.
THE COURT: Well, perhaps at some point during the day there'll
be a break and you can discuss it, but I think enough time has
been spent. We should start with the trial.
MR. TURMEL: Okay.
MR. MARIN: Could I just ask one question, Your Honour, of the
accused...
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MARIN: ...so I can get one point? These, what I have
here, are things that were previously on the record, admitted by
the Defence, right? So is the Defence wanting me to go a little
further? That's one thing. Or is the Defence reneging on all
the previous admissions on the record? That's what I'd like to
know, because we've set two days aside to do a three-week trial,
and two days on the basis of this.
THE COURT: I appreciate that, but if the parties aren't in
agreement...
MR. MARIN: All right, I'm just seeking clarification from the
accused here...
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MARIN: ...to see whether he's reneging to these, because
if he is, obviously it's not going to be a two-day trial.
MR. TURMEL: Well, Your Honour, being a good bridge player,
I've learned not to renege, and if the Crown wishes to renege on
point 21, which they admitted in the pre-trial, why should I be
more reasonable? Point 21: Judge Lennox explained to him that
just because he has no evidence of no evidence doesn't mean he
can't say there was no evidence. There was an absence of
evidence of GST; it's all the admission I ever wanted. I don't
understand what's objectionable in it.
MR. MARIN: The Crown is not challenging Mr. Turmel's assertion
about the GST.
MR. TURMEL: So that's undisputed. We can sign the papers.
THE COURT: The facts are agreed?
MR. TURMEL: It's the only one, Your Honour. He doesn't
dispute it, but he doesn't want to agree to it.
THE COURT: Well, you both understand I have no power to force
either of you to agree to anything.
MR. TURMEL: Well, he can have a three-week trial with a bunch
of witnesses he doesn't know how to handle or he can sign the
paper and we go on with just the legal issues.
THE COURT: I'm here for the trial of this matter. I'm
prepared to proceed. If the parties are not prepared to
proceed, I am.
MR. MARIN: I'm prepared to proceed, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right, call the first witness.
MR. MARIN: I would ask for an exclusion of witnesses, Your
Honour.
THE COURT: There'll be the usual order excluding all
witnesses. Any witnesses in this matter will remain outside and
will not discuss the case with any other witness. If both
parties could ensure that their witnesses leave the court at
this time.
MR. TURMEL: Your Honour, in case I'm wrong, is it point 21 the
Crown is bothered with that's preventing our agreed-upon
statement here? We really aren't sure.
THE COURT: Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN: No objection to point 21.
MR. TURMEL: Well, which point do you have an objection to?
MR. MARIN: These are pre-trial discussions...
MR. TURMEL: I'm prepared to drop the points he thinks he'd
like to prove. So which of the three last points doesn't he
want me to...
MR. MARIN: They've already been considered. The second
document that's before the Court, called "Undisputed Facts
Between the Parties." That's before the Court. What the
accused is doing now has already been canvassed. This is what
the Crown is prepared to agree upon. If he wants to - about
point 21 - I have no issue...
MR. TURMEL: Well then I'll agree to that last complete
statement of facts, then.
THE COURT: All right, then the three documents that were
provided are agreed, plus the addition of 21, which I recall had
to do with GST; is that correct?
MR. TURMEL: Actually, 20 and 21 were both admissions by the
Crown.
MR. MARIN: Pardon me, I'm just..... On the basis of that,
Your Honour, I was hoping to make a short opening statement to
help both...
THE COURT: All right, I'd like to clarify what 21 was. I
don't have that document.
MR. MARIN: I believe the accused is saying that he's not
paying GST; the Crown is saying that we're not in a position to
challenge that assertion.
THE COURT: So that's not disputed.
MR. MARIN: That's right.
THE COURT: And that's the only other issue? Mr. Turmel?
MR. TURMEL: Yes, as far as I know. I don't even know what...
THE COURT: With that clarification, then, the three documents
that I've been provided by the Crown are admitted?
MR. TURMEL: Yes. I say it's unfortunate they couldn't have
been drafted into an agreed-upon statement of facts. You have
60 pages of evidence now to take a look at.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MARIN: All right, Your Honour, just in terms of a brief
opening statement, the charge is Keeping a Common Gaming House,
and part of the package that's before the Court, Your Honour,
the accused admits being the keeper of the premises. He admits
being in the business of gaming, the games being blackjack and
poker. So what's left to prove is the place is a common gaming
house. Now, that's defined at Section 197 of the Code. Okay,
there are five disjunctive ways in which that can be
established. The Crown's already indicated that it is
proceeding on the first definition. That is, that a common
gaming house means a place that is kept for gain to which
persons resort for the purpose of playing games. That's 197(a),
under Common Gaming House.
So the 197(a) is the way the Crown is
proceeding. Now, what is left from this, Your Honour, is,
"...kept for gain to which persons resort for the purpose of
playing games." So the Crown must prove that games were being
played. The accused has admitted - "game" is defined as well in
Section 197 - the accused has admitted that poker and blackjack
are games within the meaning of the Criminal Code. That is,
games of chance or mixed skill and chance.
All right, so what's left, Your Honour, is for
the Crown to prove that the place was kept for gain. So it's my
submission to the Court that in view of the admissions that are
before the Court, that is the element that remains for the Crown
to prove. Now, it's again my submission that much of it - there
will be legal argument as to what "kept for gain" means. I'm
aware that the accused takes a different interpretation of those
words. The Crown takes an opposite interpretation of those
words, and it really will boil down to a legal determination by
this court.
The evidentiary basis the Crown intends to lead,
to then argue that the accused actually has kept the place for
gain, is an evidentiary basis to establish that the place was
run like a business, that expenditures were made to ensure that
it would flourish, and that in fact the place did flourish.
The premises were leased exclusively by Mr.
Turmel for the purpose of establishing a common gaming house.
He spent money on promotion, food, drink, to attract a
clientele. And that, by all accounts, he profited and
benefited, gained substantially from his investment.
So the Crown will be leading, for example,
evidence of the leases, costs of some expenditures. The Crown
intends to call a witness who's one of the operators of the
Montreal Casino to indicate what the industry standard is when
running a casino, what are the profit or the gains that are
expected to be generated from the running of a casino, according
to some common rules of play that were in force at Turmel's
Casino.
The operation - an 18-day period of operation of
the casino was closely analyzed, and that data will be
communicated to the Court, but it's the Crown's position that
legally the definition of "kept for gain," the Crown does not
have to prove the gain, but as long as the real object and
purpose of keeping the place was to generate gain, that is
sufficient, but that the Crown is in actual position to prove
gain and will attempt to convince Your Honour that such gain did
occur at the Turmel Casino.
That is my submission, Your Honour. In view of
the admissions and the discussions that have taken place between
the Defence and the Crown intends to establish by calling
witnesses.
Now, there are a number of witnesses, Your
Honour, that were police witnesses, who were involved in raiding
the premises, involved in gathering evidence at all levels. Mr.
Turmel has gotten full disclosure and there are no police
witnesses apart from the two investigators that I may call at
the end. I haven't made that determination either. Your Honour
will not hear from those witnesses, as there's no issue with
continuity of items, and so on. As well, the Crown will be
relying on some bank accounts that were controlled by the
accused and the money flow into and out of those bank accounts.
The documents are here. My friend, as well, and the accused,
have had disclosure of those documents and I don't believe that
there's an issue that four out of those five bank accounts were
in fact controlled by Mr. Turmel. There's one left that is part
of the agreed statement of facts, the "tips" bank account - that
is the employees' tips bank account at a certain bank - that was
not controlled by Mr. Turmel, and we take no issue with that.
There are some bank personnel on hand this
morning. I believe Mr. Turmel does not require to hear from
them either, as far as the tips account. It's seven out of
eight accounts, rather. I said four out of five; it's seven out
of eight. I apologize to the Court. There were five banks
involved.
So again, those witnesses are all on hand. Some
of them have been admitted directly, some of them have been
admitted inferentially, but I don't expect that what I've
outlined so far as not being challenged by the Defence is being
challenged by the Defence. For that reason, the accused having
full disclosure of the documents, they'll simply be filed as
required through various witnesses.
MR. TURMEL: Your Honour, the point I wish to make about the
witnesses is that there should be no challenges to the Crown's
witnesses. All the facts admitted were the same. In 1989, 19
facts were admitted, but yesterday the Crown indicated to me
that all 19 were admitted again. Nothing else was added to the
agreed statement of facts, so that if you do take a look at the
first undisputed facts between the parties at your disposal
there, you'll notice that except for - I think it may go up to
about 15 points - the Crown, in a letter to me yesterday,
announced that they were accepting all of the points that had
originally been made in the 1989 agreement of facts. So that
you are now faced with an identical statement of agreed facts as
you had in - as there was in 1989, and the Crown has restricted
itself to Section A, and just for that reason I can make one
point: That Section A does say that it is illegal - and I have
a little chart here for my purposes - Section A does say that it
is illegal to keep a place kept for gain for the purpose where
people resort to the purpose of gambling.
Now, what kind of a place is kept for gain where
the people do not resort to gambling? And we see that there are
all sorts of games, the sales, and it just so happens that,
historically, we do have 18 cases which can show that in all
cases of the use of Section A, it had to do with commercial
transactions through the gamblers, so that Section A has been
formally historically restricted to gains out of operation of
the place, rather than gain out of operations of the game,
because if Mr. Marin were correct, that gains out of operation
of the game were also a contravention of the A Section, you
wouldn't need the B sections. So I just want to point out that
there were no commercial GST-able transactions alleged by the
Crown, and even if there were any other kind of monies accrued
to me from the operations of the game, unfortunately the Crown
should have picked one of the B sections, either that I
indirectly profited from the games, or I had an edge from the
games, or I excluded people from the bank, or I charged a fee to
get into the games. But at this stage of the game, I would hope
that the Court would restrict the Crown to presenting evidence
which deals with Section A, which - and I would point out Judge
Fontana's decision on page four, which you may have in front of
you, I believe, where he was very clear. He said, on page four,
seven lines from the bottom,
"The evidence from the principal witnesses
was that refreshments were available but
there was no charge."
Two lines down,
"There was no fee."
Another line down,
"There was no rake-off."
Now, if we now turn to page, I believe, seven,
we now see that Judge Fontana says,
"'Commoî gaminç house§ ió defineä iî fivå waysº One....."
All right, then he says,
"The operation...."
And this is right in the middle,
"...on the evidence alleged by the Crown,
and accepting the testimony presented on
behalf of the Crown...the
operation...clearly does not fall into the
first four categories; that is, a place
kept for gain, or where a bank is kept by
one or more, or where there's a rake-off,
or where there's a fee."
Iæ we'rå goinç tï catcè him¬ it'ó oî thå fiftè one.
Now, I go back again to the examination of the
evidence. Judge Fontana said,
"Therå waó nï chargå foò thå refreshments¬ nï sales..."
And he now concludes on page seven,
"The place was not kept for gain."
And I think that Judge Fontana's - now, the only
reason we are here this morning, Your Honour, is you're aware
that the Crown misread Judge Fontana's decision and were under
the mistaken impression he had only dealt with Section B. And
the transcript for our motion for autrefois acquit will show
that you yourself pointed out to the Crown that Judge Fontana,
right here on page seven, had dealt with Section A when he said
the place was not kept for gain. My only point in this
submission is that he came to that conclusion based solely on
the fact there were no commercial transactions, as every other
judge in Canadian history has treated Section A. And I'm
prepared, with my 18 cases, to show that Section A has
historically been from gains of the operation of the place and
not out of the operation of the game, and that is how Judge
Fontana treated it. And given you have the identical statement
of facts, I would only hope that you come to the same conclusion
that because there were no sales of any kind, the place was not
kept for gain, and let us avoid the B Section arguments that
have to do with gains of chips. So on that basis, that's pretty
well all I'm going to have to add for quite a while. I'll let
Mr. Sagle take over for the rest of the day, I would expect.
THE COURT: Thank you.
--
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__ --> |
