Subject: TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House Supreme Court Bound

From: [email-masked] (John Turmel)
Date: 18 Sep 1996 10:59:05 GMT

TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House Supreme Court Bound
 
     Several people have written requesting the information 
posted over the summer as the case was progressing up to the 
Court of Appeal judgment. Since it is going to the Supreme Court 
of Canada, for them and students back from summer holidays, I am 
going to repost that information in the following topics from the 
Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA):
 
TURMEL: Repost: Robin Hood Gaming House OCA Defence Factum 
TURMEL: Repost: Robin Hood Gaming House OCA Crown Factum 
TURMEL: Repost: Robin Hood Gaming House OCA Crown Factum Analysis 
TURMEL: Repost: Robin Hood Gaming House OCA Transcript 
TURMEL: Repost: Robin Hood Gaming House OCA Transcript Analysis 
TURMEL: Repost: Robin Hood Gaming House OCA Judgment 
TURMEL: Supreme Court of Canada Act and Rules
 
     This information will bring you completely up to date on the 
facts of this unusual gaming house case as I prepare my 
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada 
before Nov. 1, 1996. Within a month, as a draft preparation for 
the Supreme Court of Canada Factum, I will post: 
 
TURMEL: Rohin Hood Gaming House Appeal Judgment Analysis 
     
     Future posts will include the documents for the Supreme 
Court of Canada (SCC): 
 
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Defence Factum
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Crown Factum
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Crown Factum Analysis
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Transcript
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Transcript Analysis 
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Judgment
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Judgment Analysis 
 
     Right now, there's little you're lacking to understand the 
many interesting issues in this case. I do have the trial 
transcripts on disk and could post them next month. It was only a 
two-day trial and is a couple of hundred pages. 
     Then, once my final product has been submitted to the 
Supreme Court and after I transcribe and post the Crown's 
response, we could organize a vote from the Cyber-space Court of 
Public Opinion to second guess the Court in advance and find out 
how many readers would have voted to grant or dismiss the appeal 
themselves? 
 
     Right now, I propose that those interested in this as a game 
with argumentative moves should put themselves in my place and 
build their own case to the Supreme court of Canada. Note that 
the last post before I depart for a month''s preparation are the 
Supreme Court of Canada Act and Rules which I will have to follow 
to build my case. 
     Using those rules as a blue-print, try your hand at building 
one yourself. Believe me, if you learn how construct a motion to 
the Top Court, all the other motions at the bottom levels are 
very similar! 
     They're pretty straight-forward rules and shouldn't be too 
hard to follow. All you have to do is marshal the facts and I'd 
suggest sticking with most facts in my Factum because the Crown 
raised no objections.
     Then, going over the the Judgment of the Ontario Court of 
Appeal, you list your Points of Objection making sure to note 
those Defence arguments which were not dealt with, those which 
were misunderstood, those which were just plain wrong. I like 
leading off with:
     "The learned judged erred in failing to note....."  
     "The learned judged erred in concluding....."  
 
     Then you go into the factums and transcripts and cut out the 
arguments that back up the objections you've raised one by one. 
     When I get back, I'll announce a date to post my: 
TURMEL: Rohin Hood Gaming House Appeal Judgment Analysis 
     Which will include my first draft of the:  
TURMEL: Robin Hood Gaming House SCC Defence Factum
     Anyone else who wants to have their case checked to see if 
it would have passed the Registrar's inspection can post it too. 
I don't expect many to participate in this exercise but if you 
think of marshaling your paragraphs of arguments like you 
marshall your cards in a gin game, it's really not that hard. 
We'll proof each one but best of all, you may raise arguments I 
didn't see, you may say arguments in a better or shorter way, you 
may contribute in many ways. 
     If you think you see an argument the Supreme Court would 
have trouble answering, get it out. Find a point I missed and 
I'll even cite your name to that argument hoping the court asks 
what all the names are in the notes and I can tell them that the 
arguments were marshaled from all around the world and the whole 
world is watching for the results. A little unorthodox pressure, 
wouldn't you say? 
 
     I'd especially any shorter smoother ways to say a sentence 
or paragraph or series of paragraphs. Space is limited and 
there's a lot to say.  
 
     This kind of information should be of value to all gamblers 
under Canadian jurisdiction. You never know when you yourself 
might need to use this kind of guerrilla legal knowledge for the 
real punishment in gaming house raids is never the small fine but 
always the criminal record and the lawyer's fees to avoid that 
record. 
     The best example is the game I was running in 1993 in 
Toronto casino with 8 Blackjack tables and 3 Poker tables. 
Because of my former acquittal, they didn't raid me. They told me 
to get out of town. When was the last time you heard the sheriff 
telling the criminal to keep his loot and get out of town? If I 
didn't, they would raid, acquittal or not. I took my last week's 
$100,000 profit and closed down. 
     Another fellow who had just that very week-end opened a 
similar but flawed copy of my game did not close down and two 
weeks later took the pie I had ducked. After $23,000 in legal 
fees for 3 days of professional defence with 7 more days to go, 
he gave up, changed his plea to guilty and was fined $25,000! So, 
the real punishment for getting busted for gambling in Canada is 
paying a lawyer unless you know how to do-it-yourself. 
 
     The hundreds of hours I have spent in preparation of 
numerous motions and trials would have cost many tens of 
thousands of dollars. Of course, I've had phenomenal experience 
in hundreds of court motions but I found it to be easy from the 
start. I made a lot of mistakes but I usually found that that 
judges often ignored technical flaws if it was an interesting 
argument. And mine were usually David vs Goliath cases where many 
judges bent over backwards to give my complaints a hearing for 
just that reason. 
     The major point is that do-it-yourself turns the tables on 
the Crown in attrition tactics. Now, the Crown is spending money 
on the case while you are not and often, like in the case of my 
Ontario found-ins, when the Crown was faced with another barrage 
of motions after I had been appointed agent for some gaming house 
found-ins, the Crown withdrew or stayed the charges rather than 
get into a costly fight over a $50 fine. 
     If the Crown does use attrition tactics, a 10 day pre-trial 
hearing, then it becomes impossible for most to defend unless 
it's in person. That's why it's so important to be able to defend 
yourself and that's why I've never ever again paid a lawyer after 
going broke myself after my first bust in 1977. 
 
TO LURKERS: 
     Many lurkers are only lurkers because they're worried about 
their spelling and the rude comments which often are induced from 
nasty people. Now, with spell checkers, spelling isn't usually a 
problem but a lot of people have forgotten many of their grammar 
rules. 
     I think it is the height of non-democracy to embarrass
someone out of presenting their opinion and do not tolerate it. 
If people would ignore spelling errors in public, more lurkers 
could be lured into offering their opinions. You don't need 
impeccable vocabulary to have a well-tuned brain. If you see a 
move that I haven't, I'd ask you to speak up. I myself will 
simply correct any such errors before I quote anyone. They look 
good from then on and learn from the experience. I personally 
feel wounded every time I see someone snidely correct a spelling 
error in public. It's losing another lurker who won't join in 
conversation anymore. 
     There is a great value if I should pull this off. It would 
introduce an era of "No-rake-off" poker casinos to the world. Ask 
anyone what they liked best about Casino Turmel and it's always 
that there was no rake-off. 
     Some people have mentioned the erosion of gamblers' rights 
in Canada with the Turmel ruling that lawful winnings can now be 
prosecuted as professional gains. I may be the first prosecuted 
under this new interpretation but I'm sure I won't be the last. 
     So I'm off the Atlantic City for a few weeks of Poker and 
some time to polish off the manuscript of the Turmel Holdem Poker 
Point Count System. I usually start at the $10/$20 game and as my 
bankroll doubles, I move up. I've always had to go home before I 
made it into the $50/$100 game though. 
     So if you're in A.C., you can usually spot me at the Taj or 
the Trop in the 3 or the 8 seat with a chair full of paperwork 
beside me so stop and say hi. You might even decide to see how many 
minutes it takes for you to learn my system with the best 
tutoring possible. 
 
--
John C. "The Engineer" Turmel, Leader, Abolitionist Party of Canada
111-1505 Baseline Rd. Ottawa K2C 3L4 Canada, Tel/Fax:613-723-2739
All TURMEL topics to newsgroup: can.politics
Abolish Interest Rates