TURMEL: #20 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 

#93-18193
             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.
           CHARGE:  S. 201(1)
                         **********

THE COURT:   Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN:   Yes, Your Honour.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. MARIN: 
Q.   When you were asked by the accused concerning the options
that a player has - and I won't go through them all, but I believe
he indicated the split eight and the ability to surrender, and so
on - with these options available to players with your experience
in the industry, what kind of skill would you expect a player would
need to have to know these options and exercise them, and know when
to exercise them?  What kind of skill would you expect a player to
have?
A.   Well, I wouldn't pretend to even guess now many play basic
strategy, or close to it.  To play perfect basic strategy, there
are some players that do that.  As far as card counting is
concerned, there are not many people that are good card counters. 
They're a minority.  In terms of average players playing an average
game, let us say, 90 percent of the time they will make the correct
decision. There are a large number of those people.
Q.   All right.  Having heard the options available to the
regular player and coupling that with the advantage that you've
described to the house in your evidence in-chief, the end result,
in your opinion, sir, who has the ultimate advantage in the
blackjack game, bearing in mind all the options open to a player
that Mr. Turmel put to you?  In your opinion, who has the ultimate
advantage?
A.   Well, I would suggest that the casino always has the
advantage.  Based on Mr. Turmel's questions and assumptions, if one
were to take advantage, if every player that went to the casino
took advantage of the opportunity to bank the game under exactly
the same conditions with the same limits, then there wouldn't be an
advantage.
MR. MARIN:   Thank you.
                         **********

THE COURT:   Sir, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask
you.  I'm a little confused.  You mentioned a figure of .88
being, as I understand it, a figure that 88 cents on every
dollar that's bet would go to the house is a negative
expectation.  Is that...
THE WITNESS:   No, 88/100ths of one cent.  Less than one cent on
the dollar.  Less than one percent house advantage.
THE COURT:   Right, so the .88 is actual percentage?
THE WITNESS:   Yes, and that percentage is predicated upon the
assumption that, taking the rules of play into account, it's
still based on the assumption that every player is playing
perfect basic strategy.  There's no other way to calculate those
percentages unless you make an assumption first.
THE COURT:   Later on, you mentioned a figure of 15 percent.
THE WITNESS:   Yes.  The .88 is the theoretical house advantage,
based on a mathematical calculation.  The 15 percent - well, I
guess the best way to put it is this way:  Out of every dollar
bet, if every player were playing basic strategy, the house
would keep .88 of a cent.  Independent and unrelated to that is
how much, in terms of dollars, the house will keep, and that is
the 15 percent to which I made reference, which is that
percentage that the house keeps of the currency exchanged for
chips at the table.
THE COURT:   Which is the...
THE WITNESS:   15 percent.
THE COURT:   Which is the average actual...
THE WITNESS:   Oh yes, indeed.  Yes.
THE COURT:   Which would, I take it, be a factor of players not
playing correctly?  This would be a factor of player error?
THE WITNESS:   Yes, in combination with the built-in advantages
of the game.
THE COURT:   All right.  Your casino, as I understand it,
doesn't have the U-Bank that we've heard about, or switching the
bank, double down, split, insurance, these other options?
THE WITNESS:   We have splits, double downs, and we have
insurance.  We do not have surrender.  We do not have U-Bank.
THE COURT:   Would the - as I understand from a question Mr.
Turmel asked you about the U-Bank, if it was one-to-one
alternating equally, then the advantage to the house and the
player would be the same, when you include...
THE WITNESS:   Assuming both players were possessed of the same
skills.
THE COURT:   Same skill level.  You mentioned the one that you
don't have is insurance.
THE WITNESS:   We do not have surrender.
THE COURT:   All right, would surrender be an option which would
affect the theoretical or the actual percentages?
THE WITNESS:   Generally, insurance is only an advantage to the
skilled player, knowing when and when not to take it.
THE COURT:   All right, if I went to a casino, it seems to me
that I'd be better off playing poker than blackjack.
THE WITNESS:   I'm not sure about that.
MR. TURMEL:   Depends how good you are at poker.
THE WITNESS:   Again, that goes to the level of skill, because
both games are games of mixed chance and skill.
THE COURT:   But there seems to be an inherent advantage in a
dealer in a casino that would apply to blackjack but doesn't
apply to poker.
THE WITNESS:   Well, I think the fundamental difference between
blackjack and poker is that in blackjack you're playing against
one hand, one dealer who plays according to a never-changing set
of fixed rules.  In poker, you're playing against all of the
rest of the people seated around the table, however many that
is.
THE COURT:   Thank you.  Any questions arising from my
questions?
MR. MARIN:   No, Your Honour.
THE COURT:   Mr. Turmel?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TURMEL:
MR. TURMEL:   Q.   The point made is that
whether the advantage be .8 percent against the player, one
percent, two percent, five percent against lousy players, as long
as they have the right to be the banker half the time, whether they
exercise it or not - if you have the right to be the bank against
me and chose not to, would you say you were still getting a fair
game?
A.   It would be a fair game provided I was possessed of the
same skill level as you.
Q.   Oh, so in other words, the fact that I may be better than
you makes me a cheater?
A.   Not at all.
Q.   Well then, how can you say it's not a fair game just
because I'm better than you?
A.   The opportunity is fair, certainly.
Q.   Well, okay...
A.   But if I am a terrible player and you're a highly skilled
card counter and we're playing...
Q.   I should go to jail?
A.   ...against each other, or vice versa...
Q.   But my point is...
MR. MARIN:   I don't think this witness can say whether or not
Mr. Turmel should go to jail.
MR. TURMEL:   Oh, Okay.  
MR. TURMEL:   Q.   The point is, we have a
situation here where you and I want to play cards.  Let's forget
blackjack with a bank for a minute, because it seems to confuse. 
We want to play gin rummy.  Now, deal alternates all this kind of
symmetry.  I say, are you getting a fair game if we sit down and
play gin rummy together?
A.   Well, my answer is the same whether it's gin rummy or
blackjack.
Q.   Well, there seems to be...
A.   Well...
THE COURT:   Mr. Turmel....
THE WITNESS:   We talk about what advantage the house has.  In
a gin rummy game, there isn't a house.  But the principal is the
same.  On balance, sooner or later, the person possessed of the
greater skill will come out the winner.
MR. TURMEL:   Q.   And does that now render
that a question of unfairness?
A.   It has nothing to do with fairness at all; it has only to
do with skill level.
Q.   Thank you very much; that was the point I really wanted to
establish that wasn't as clear.  The fact that you have to be the
bank, independent of your skill, gave you your fair game.  Not the
fact that you were any good at all.
A.   It's not a question of fairness.
Q.   So whether you're good or not, having the right to be the
bank gave you a fair game against me.
A.   It may be fair...
Q.   It reduced it down to - okay, whether or not you're skilled
or not, giving you the bank reduces it down to a test of pure skill
between you and me.  Another way of putting it.
A.   Well, not entirely skill.  Chance is still involved.
Q.   Well, yes, I mean, chance is always presumed within these
things, but other than that, the normal element of chance that's
not there, now it boils down to the better of us is going to, in
the long run, win the money.  So I just want to establish that it's
okay for me to win your money...
A.   In the passage...
Q.   ...and you still had a fair game.
A.   ...of a long time.  In the short term, anything could
happen.
Q.   Yes, but the point I want to establish is, I have the right
to be better than someone else and they could still walk out
saying, "I got a fair game."  You sat in this game with me and I'm
a card counter, and a strong one, and probably, even if we rotated,
you would lose.  Probably.  You know, over the long term.  My point
is, the fact that you expect to lose against me because I'm a card
counter, or whatever, does that make it an unfair game for you? 
The fact that I'm a better player:  Does that make it an unfair
game for you?
A.   Well, it's not different in any game.  For example, poker. 
A skilled player versus an amateur.  It's the same thing.
Q.   Okay, so my point...
A.   It's got nothing to do with - in my view - the word
"fairness".
Q.   When skill is involved.
A.   To put it a different way, it's got nothing to do with
fairness, but it has nothing to do with being unfair either.
Q.   Thank you very much.  So in other words, the fact that I
may have been better than you did not detract from the fact that
the casino rules allowing you to be the bank gave you and the
others a fair game.  Fair expectation, fair opportunity.
A.   They gave exactly the same opportunity.
Q.   Okay.  
A.   How you exercise it is another issue.
MR. TURMEL:   Okay, thank you very much.
                         **********

THE COURT:   Thank you, sir.
MR. MARIN:   I'm not sure, Your Honour, if you want to take an
afternoon recess, but...
THE COURT:   That would be the decent thing to do.  We'll take
ten minutes.
R E C E S S                (3:27 p.m.)

U P O N   R E S U M I N G:   (3:45 p.m.)
MR. MARIN:   Your Honour, the next witness would've been Marie-
Paul Avanthay.  The purpose of her testimony would've been
simply to enter a distillation of spread sheets, operating
spread sheets, from Mr. Turmel on St. Laurent.  I have a
document in my hand right now, and I've spoken to my friend and
Mr. Turmel, and we've agreed that that can just be filed.
THE COURT:   All right, then, the document entitled "Spread 

Sheet..."
MR. MARIN:   "The Casino Turmel, Topaz," is what it's entitled,
Your Honour, but it's a distillation of the spread sheet.
THE COURT:   All right, the Casino Turmel Topaz spread sheet
will be Exhibit 18.
MR. MARIN:   Yes.  It contains revenues and expenses with net
profit loss.
MR. SAGLE:   Your Honour, I would like to make one comment if
that's going in as an exhibit.
THE COURT:   Yes?
MR. SAGLE:   We are consenting to it being an exhibit for just
what it is.  It's an 18-day period of an entire time.  I
indicated to you earlier that there may be some disadvantage or
advantage to the Crown to having the computers and the software
in order to do this kind of thing.  Another 18-day period may
well have different figures on it...
MR. MARIN:   I agree.
MR. SAGLE:   So this is only one period which they have picked
out of that which we, of course, not having that information,
are not able to manipulate in the same way.
THE COURT:   You do have the information, though.
MR. SAGLE:   Big stacks of typewritten notes, yes.  Nothing you
can - not the flexibility to pick two dates and just, you know,
have the totals run out on a machine.
MR. MARIN:   All right, Your Honour.  In any event, we'll file
this and I'll call a witness who'll be able to shed some light
on that aspect of it.  So there is an 18-day period here listed. 
Constable Young will have some relevant information to provide
to the Court as to why we only have 18 days.  I'd like that to
be the next Exhibit as well as the spread sheets which were
examined.  They should be together.
THE COURT:   The first document is the summary and the second
document is the printout for the 18 days.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 18:   Summary and printout.
- Produced and marked.

MR. TURMEL:   Your Honour, is the purpose of this exhibit to
prove my admission?  You know, I mean, here we are getting back
into tons of paperwork to prove that I won money, when I did. 
I admit it.  So, you know, I hope, please don't go and read all
that, Your Honour.  I mean, it shouldn't be relevant, and why
the Crown keeps loading you with all this information - it may
look like a case, but it still adds up to nothing.  So if
there's any way we can dispense with this with an admission, I'd
certainly like to.
THE COURT:   Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN:   I have no comment, Your Honour.  I'd like to call
Constable Young as the next witness, Your Honour, please.

CONSTABLE CHARLES YOUNG:  SWORN
-------------------------------

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. MARIN:
Q.   Yes, Constable Young, I understand that you're from the
OPP; is that correct?
A.   Yes.
Q.   And I understand that you're one of the lead investigators
in this case; is that correct?
A.   Yes.
Q.   And I understand, sir, that you had some dealings with the
spread sheets that were just entered as Exhibit 18, along with the
final report; is that correct?
A.   Yes.
Q.   Okay, and you've heard Mr. Turmel say that - well, you were
responsible, sir, and correct me if I'm wrong, for channeling the
information to the expert, Marie-Paul Avanthay; is that correct?
A.   Yes.
Q.   What is her expertise?  What is her area of expertise?
A.   She is the assistant controller at the Casino de Montreal.
Q.   Okay.
A.   She looks after the financial set-ups and framework there.
Q.   I understand she was under subpoena and in attendance here
at the courthouse this afternoon.
A.   And is in fact present outside the courtroom, sir.
Q.   Okay.  And the purpose of having her attend would've been
to enter, as an expert, her analysis of the Casino Turmel spread
sheets with the intent of separating the expenses from the gains;
is that correct?
A.   That's correct.  That's an analysis of the spread sheets
that she was provided by myself, which is the spread sheets in its
entirety that we received off the computer from the computer
specialists from the RCMP.  We have no more spread sheets than that
18-day period.  We could not calculate anything more than that 18-
day period.  That's all we have.
Q.   Right.  Now, you heard Mr. Turmel suggest to the Court that
somehow these 18-days were select and that, had another period been
chosen, it may have been more favourable to him.  What do you have
to say in response to that?
A.   The 18 days reflect everything that we have that we can
complete the information and put an analysis on.  If Mr. Turmel
would be willing to provide us with more, we'd willingly accept it,
but at present that's all we have in its entirety.  It's not a
selective thing to show Mr. Turmel in any bad light or good light;
it's just simply all that we have.
MR. MARIN:   Okay, thank you.
                         **********

THE COURT:   Defence?
MR. TURMEL:   No questions.
THE COURT:   Thank you, constable.  Mr. Marin?
MR. MARIN:   Yes, the final witness, Your Honour, is Harry
Nesbit, who's with the Niagara Regional Police, Your Honour.

HARRY NESBIT:  SWORN
--------------------

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. MARIN:
Q.   Yes, Mr. Nesbit, I understand you're a member of the
Niagara Regional Police Force; is that correct?
A.   Yes.
Q.   And how long have you been a member of that police force,
sir?
A.   25 years.
Q.   Okay, and what position do you occupy in that police force?
A.   I'm with the Intelligence Unit.
Q.   And I understand, sir, that you attended a meeting on
February 19th, 1993, some time in the afternoon, in the City of
Niagara Falls; is that correct?
A.   Yes.  The meeting was at four o'clock.
Q.   Okay, and can you tell us who was in attendance at that
meeting?
A.   Yes, the accused, Mr. Turmel, two of his associates, the
mayor of Niagara Falls, the executive officer for the City of
Niagara Falls...
Q.   Yes?
A.   ...a member of the Ontario Restaurant Association, a
superintendent with the Niagara Regional Police Force, and myself.
Q.   Now, what was the purpose of this meeting?
A.   The purpose of the meeting was Mr. Turmel and two of his
associates had a proposal to show or to give to the police officers
in the City of Niagara Falls.
Q.   M'hm?
A.   This proposal was in regards to opening up a poker and
blackjack casino in the Niagara Falls area.  Mr. Turmel displayed
pictures of the one in operation here in Ottawa.  Among the photos
that he had, he suggested that employment would increase in the
Niagara Falls area.  And also, again with the photos, he produced
a statement of - a profit-and-loss statement - for January 1993.
Q.   Right.
A.   I just looked at the photos and I looked at the statement
which had quite a few numbers on it, six-digit numbers, and I
didn't pay too much attention to it, but as we were perusing this
material, Mr. Turmel suggested that the gross from the Ottawa
casino was in the neighbourhood of $600,000.
Q.   For what period of time?
A.   January 1993.
Q.   M'hm?
A.   Also, Mr. Turmel said that he gave out $175,0000 in wages
to 100, or so, employees that he employed at that casino.
Q.   M'hm?
A.   And later on in the - oh, pardon me - he also said that the
employees would probably receive another $175,000 in tips.  Mr.
Turmel, later on in the meeting, suggested that out of this small
operation he would make for himself $350,000 to $400,000 a year. 
Mr. Turmel said that he was a professional gambler and, as a
professional, this was not a whole lot of money.  He compared
himself to professional golfers and hockey players and they receive
more funds than his profession.  And that was just about the extent
of the meeting.
MR. MARIN:   Okay, thank you.
                         **********
THE COURT:   Defence?  Cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SAGLE:  
Q.   Sir, do you have any notes with respect to this meeting?
A.   Yes.
Q.   Did you refer to those today?
A.   Yes.
Q.   Do you have them with you?
A.   Yes.
Q.   May I take a look at them?  They were made at the time of
the...
A.   Right after the meeting, sir.
Q.   Right after the meeting?
A.   Yes.
Q.   In your own writing?
A.   Yes.  This here's another case.
Q.   Sorry?
A.   This here's another case.
Q.   So these are them, starting February the 19th?
A.   That's correct.
Q.   And who are you saying was present?
A.   There, I've listed the names.  Did you want me to tell
you...
Q.   Is this the part, here?
A.   Here's four o'clock
Q.   Yes?
A.   I attended at City Hall...
Q.   M'hm.
A.   ...which is in Niagara Falls.  I had a meeting with "R.K."
Q.   Who's...
A.   That's Superintendent Ron Kisher (ph)...
Q.   M'hm?
A.   ...the mayor, Wayne Thompson...
Q.   M'hm?
A.   ...Mr. Lestik (ph) is the CEO...
Q.   M'hm?
A.   ...and "me" is me.
Q.   Okay.
A.   "Sandeline" (ph) is Mark Sandeline, an associate of Mr.
Turmel's.
Q.   Okay.
A.   Dennis Mazerolle (ph) is also an associate of Mr. Turmel. 
There's Mr. Turmel himself and the president of the Ontario
Restaurant Association.  
Q.   Okay.
A.   I don't know his name.
Q.   And I see next it says, "$175.00"
A.   $175,000, it should be.
Q.   But it says "$175.00"
A.   I missed a zero.
Q.   So you recollect it differently than what your note says.
A.   Yes, I missed a zero.  It's $175,000 in wages, $600,000
gross, and $350,000-$450,000 wages for Mr. Turmel.
Q.   Meaning, I take it, $350,000, not $350.
A.   Yes.
Q.   Are there any other errors in your notes that...
A.   No.
Q.   ...we should look at?
A.   I just missed a zero.
MR. SAGLE:   Okay, I have no further questions, Your Honour.
                         **********

THE COURT:   Re-examination?
MR. MARIN:   None, Your Honour.
THE COURT:   Thank you, sir.
MR. MARIN:   That's the Crown's case, Your Honour.
THE COURT:   Is it the intention of the Defence to call any
witnesses
MR. SAGLE:   Well, Your Honour, I think we may wish to make a
motion for directed verdict and I understand we may have to make
an election at that point.  I'd like to be able to review the
evidence that's been put in, and the statements and admissions,
to make sure there's nothing I think that is missing, or just
touch up on a few points, just in case there's something.  My
guess is we'll not be calling evidence, but what I'd like to
suggest is that we look at this stuff overnight and probably
make a motion in the morning, first thing, for directed verdict. 
If I have to call evidence, it should be no more than one
witness.  And then, after that, we'd be ready for summations.
THE COURT:   That's fine.  We'll recess, then, till tomorrow at
ten o'clock.
                         **********

19940225
#93-18193
             ONTARIO COURT (PROVINCIAL DIVISION)               
                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
                           against
                         JOHN TURMEL
                         **********
                         T R I A L 
                        (VOLUME FOUR)
         HELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. WRIGHT
     on Friday, February 25th, 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.
                         **********
                       E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT NUMBER                                     Put in on Page
19                 Casino Turmel Blackjack
                 Procedures.                        66

THE COURT:   Good morning.  
MR. MARIN:   Good morning, Your Honour.
MR. SAGLE:   Yes, Your Honour, I believe Mr. Turmel's going to
commence this morning.
MR. TURMEL:   Yes.  Now, you will note, Your Honour, yesterday,
upon my plea, that I stood mute.  There was a reason I stood
mute and it's not explained in Section 606, but if you would
take a look at Section 601 in the annotations - I believe it's -
 I hope it's the same - where it says - it's talking about the
Wilson case in the annotations.  Maybe I can just read it.  My
copy says - and of course I have the Martin's - my copy says
that,

"Where the accused refuses to plead and
stand mute, that although a plea of not
guilty is entered, the accused has never
actually pleaded and therefore does not
require leave to raise an objection to the
indictment in the course of the trial."

So, in a sense, considering I haven't really
pleaded in the eyes of the Court, the opportunity, I believe, to
reopen or re-examine or even have heard the pre-plea motions
that I had filed, still exists.  Now, the reason I raise this is
that I believe this Court was misled back on November the 15th
when the Crown told you in argument against a motion for a
special defence of autrefois acquit, that he'd identified ten
areas of gain, and, at that point, you rightly said, "Well, if
there's evidence of such gain, autrefois acquit certainly
doesn't apply because it's different from the 1989 case.  Now,
I believe in my last motion record - and I don't know if this
file contains this motion record, which was to be heard today -
there were some complaints about the Crown's failure to complete
undertakings made during the pretrial.  For instance, the
undertaking to produce a witness list, and such witness list was
not produced until Monday of this week, a paring down of 90 to
20.  And then again it was pared down just yesterday, once more,
and that was - so evidently that undertaking was not completed
by the Crown and, in the affidavit to that record motion, I do
point out what points in the pretrial transcript those
undertakings were made, as well as the autrefois acquit motion
where Mr. Marin did tell you he'd identified these ten sections
of gain.  Now, yesterday, during all the course of the evidence
that was given - I mean, I have ten fingers and I didn't see one
finger go up as to one example of an A Section gain, let alone
ten examples of anything.  Which therefore would have to belie
the statement that the Crown had identified ten sections of gain
when it used it as a defence against the autrefois acquit plea
on November the 15th.

Now, the reason I'm raising this now is that I
just simply want to let Your Honour know that the autrefois
acquit plea may still be within your realm of operations
considering I technically haven't pleaded yet, as well as the
special plea of issue estoppel, which is another one that may be
considered before the plea is entered.  And of course, if one
wants to consider that the plea has been entered, we'll have to
raise the issue of res judicata.
THE COURT:   Mr. Turmel, I don't want to cut you short, but
rather than have you embark on a lengthy argument, I agree with
you.  At the time that your motion was denied, I think
specifically I indicated that it was premature, and you don't
need to satisfy me that you are still entitled to raise the
special pleas if the facts fit the case.
MR. TURMEL:   Well, then...
THE COURT:   But in terms of the procedure and your right to
raise those defences or special pleas, I think that's implicit
in the decision that was made in November.
MR. TURMEL:   Okay, so at this stage, I just believe I have to
prove or show Your Honour that there were no such ten alleged
Section A gains, and I do - I have here nine cases, and I do
believe Mr. Sagle has a case book with another eight or nine
cases of - I mean, there are so many cases that we could share
them and both be allowed to make these points - but I have here
some of these cases, and these are the ones, my favorites, some
of the case law, all dealing with Section A.   And if we can
just run through them, I've underlined the relevant portions for
change, so you don't have to be told where to go.
On page 291, you'll notice, in the middle of the page, 

"The real question involved in this
submission, therefore, turns on whether or
not the receipt by the club of monies for
refreshments in the manner above set out,
proves a keeping of the club premises for gain."

Now, that's a pretty clear one.  When Judge
Fontana said, "No refreshments sold, was not kept for gain," I
think that this judge here would've agreed that Judge Fontana
was correct in that interpretation of Section A.
If we move on to the next page, page 293, where
it's underlined, it says,

"...as to whether a place is kept for gain
if, from the game, money is paid in
payment for refreshments."

That's considered kept for gain.  And if one
turns to the next page, page 294, down in the underlined area,
it says,

"In the .... case, a lunch counter, where
patrons could buy meals, soft drinks,
tobacco and cigars."

And at the top of the next page, it says,

"The Appellant therefore was properly
convicted of keeper of a common gaming
house kept for gain."

So that case has several references to the fact
that keeping a premises for gain or the gain derived out of
operation of the premises have in this case been restricted to
the sale of refreshments.  And again, I'd point out that it's
exactly the same as Judge Fontana found. 

Now, if we will move on to page eight -
actually, I've also numbered the pages myself at the top so that
you can just, instead of looking at the page for their thing.... 
It's very small.
THE COURT:   At the bottom, okay.
MR. TURMEL:   Yes, it's small, but...
THE COURT:   Page seven?
MR. TURMEL:   Page eight.  The underlined area.  Now, this is
from Cherry and Long, another old famous case.  I mean, these
are old ones I looked for because I assumed that the intent of
the law, 1924, that the intent of the law would've been
established a long time ago, considering I've been charged with
gaming house eight or nine times and I've never faced the A
Section until this charge.  Never before have I ever faced an A
or been told in advance.
Now, at the bottom you'll notice, underlined
again, it says,

"As to whether a place is kept for gain,
if money is paid in payment for
refreshments."

So the same thing again:  Refreshments.
Now, if you move along to page 11, this is the
James decision from 1903.  I believe this is the granddaddy of
virtually all the other A Section decisions because so many of
them quote James. That's because it is rather clear.  It's about
the keeper of a cigar store.  So on page 11, my enumeration, you
have a statement, last few lines of that paragraph where it
says,

"Whether the profit made by the Defendant
out of the sale of cigars to the players
who frequented the place for the purpose
of playing games of chance under
circumstances set out render the Defendant
liable as keeping a place for gain."

Now, on the very next page, page 12, mine, 198
of theirs, at the very bottom, it points out the Crown's
contentions.  The Crown contended that the profit made out of
the sale of cigars alone was sufficient to constitute a keeping
for gain.  So again, it's referring constantly to profit from
sales.

If you turn to page 13, mine, 199 on theirs, the
very next page, you'll notice the underlined portion where the
judge says,

"Did the profit out of the sale of cigars
render him liable as keeping a place for
gain?  The place in question was a room or
place kept to which persons resorted for
the purpose of playing games? Was it kept for gain?
--
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