Between
JOHN C. TURMEL
Appellant
(Defendant)
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
(Respondent)
REPLY
1. In 1989, John
Turmel met the reverse onus of presumption
of guilt and was acquitted of keeping
a common gaming house after
Casino Turmel's Uncommon Gaming House
Rules were judged not to
contravene any of the five sections of
the common gaming house
laws. The Casino Turmel Uncommon Gaming
House had increased to 27
tables staffed by 122 employees grossing
over $3 million in its
last year. Announcements openings in
3 other cities and the
hiring of another 1000 employees indicated
that in another few
years, my Casino Turmel Uncommon Gaming
Houses would have easily
grossed a billion dollars.
2. All that was
destroyed when the Crown chose to abuse of
process of the Court by not following
the prescribed remedy of
appealing that acquittal but by instead
chosing to lay the same
charge again with no new evidence for
a political purpose, that
is, shutting down the the operation while
the proceedings took
place again under the Project Robin Hood
Raid in 1993. Had the
Crown appealed the original acquittal,
I'd have entered the Court
of Appeal an acquitted man. Re-laying
the same charges allowed
them to drag me before the Court a convicted
man. I was robbed of
over a billion dollars with the distinction
that the government
was doing the robbing.
3. What Robin
Hood could have done with that billion will be
of interest as Appendum #1, the Loyal
Engineer's 1997 Petition of
Right to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,
and Appendum #2, the
"Adventures of John "The Engineer" Turmel"
will attest. Who knows
where the Global LETS Network would be
now if I'd been allowed to
legally win that billion and spend it
on my Abolish Interest
Rates project.
4. The matter
has been adjudged by a previous court of
equivalent jurisdiction in whole, not
only in part, which, by
involving the same two parties, offers
the projection of res
judicata in its most direct form as autrefois
acquit. The Court
of Appeal confused "autrefois acquit"
and "res judicata with
"stare decisis."
5. This case involves
the stacking of the deck as the trial
transcripts of the two judges whose acquittals
were contradicted
were not included with the trial transcript
of the subsequent
judge whose conviction was eventually
sustained by the Ontario
Court of Appeal who had been refused access
to the original 1989
indictment by the Crown. "Ambiguity" caused
by the Crown's
omission of the trial transcripts of the
two judges being
overturned "must be resolved in favour
of the respondent Crown
because the principles of "res judicata"
and "issue estoppel"
apply only when an issue was clearly decided
in a previous
litigation" said the Court of Appeal.
It sure helped the Crown's
case to leave the right transcripts at
home and keep things
ambiguous. They win the ambiguities after
causing the
ambiguities.
6. This case involves
three frivolous and vexatious
bookmaking charges being laid and then
withdrawn at the last
moment on the morning of the trial to
engender maximum expense
and waste of time by several defence motions
to quash on the
basis you can't do bookmaking with cards.
7. This case involves
a successful ex parte Crown motion
with incomplete transcripts while I was
only 10 minutes away.
8. This case involves
delays in praecipeing files up to the
Court of Appeal and involves proceedings
taken on those files
while they should already been sent up
to the higher court.
9. This case involves
procedural impropriety by superfluous
admission of evidence of admitted facts.
When the judge concluded
nothing but the date and place had changed,
what was the new
evidence the Crown claimed to be presenting
new evidence of?
Historically, the question of gain was
not "embarassed by the
question of amount," yet, this case is
embarassed by reams of
banking documents and accounting statements
by courts who have
ruled that the large volume of winnings
was somehow relevant.
10. This case
involves an expanded, rather than restricted,
interpretation of Criminal Statutes when
an formerly-acquitted
accused with the complete history of case
law in hand loses to a
Crown Attorney with a dictionary in hand.
11. This case
involves usurpation of legislative authority
when the judge convicted on the basis
of what His Honour thought
Parliament meant to say about gambling
since His Honour had never
stepped into a casino himself. Under Judge
Wright's new gaming
house definition:
"If you're making a living by playing cards at
home, then your
home becomes a place which is kept" for
illegal gain."
12. The Court
of Appeal later varied my probation order to
allow me to do just that:
"There's no difference gambling in a licensed
premises and
gambling in your own house which he's now
prevented from
doing. The condition limiting the
Appellant to
gambling in licensed establishments will
be deleted and
replaced with the condition that he not
participate in
any illegal gambling."
13. Even three
judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal didn't
know that Judge Wright's new interpretation
was that there is a
difference between gambling in a licensed
premises and gambling
in your own house. I can now be raided
in my house but not in a
licensed casino.
14. This case
involves a complete failure to see the
connection between legal found-in losses
and legal keeper
winnings. To Judge Fontana, a found-in
only had to prove Turmel
got none of the money out of his wallet
in any of the 5 illegal
ways. Now there is a new Wright onus that
the found-in will have
to show he did not violate which, unfortunately,
hasn't quite yet
been added to the Criminal Code.
15. This case
involves a complete inability to parse English
and count. All have ruled that Judge Fontana
was not dealing with
all 5 sections when he said he had done
4+1. To engineers, 4+1=5
but all courts have ruled that Judge Fontana
had only dealt with
the four (b) sections on illegal winnings
he had referred to and
had not deal with the (a) section on illegal
gainings he had
referred to.
16. I pointed
out that when Judge Fontana was checking if
there were refreshment sales, he couldn't
be checking anything
under (b). When he asked for evidence
of sales, that evidence
didn't fit under (b). By a process of
elimination taught in any
basic university statistics course, only
section (a) remained and
he was checking for refreshment sales
because he was checking on
what were, historically, illegal section
(a) gainings. Because
history always checked for (a) under commercial
vending. R. v
Lefrancois explains the notion of gain
as an amount paid to a
vendor in excess of his cost which just
does not apply to
winnings out of a pot. Yet all the courts
have since ruled that
he did not deal with (a) when it's quite
logical and obvious that
he did.
17. Then the Crown
argued:
"Even if the word "gain" is held not to be plainly
applicable to
the casino's profits, a purposive
interpretation
of the legislation would point to the
inclusion of
such profits. It is therefore submitted
that it is in
the interests of justice that this Court
examine and decide
authoritatively upon the Appellant's
underlying argument
that winnings directly from
gambling are
not gains under s.197(a)."
In the interests of justice, call his legal
winnings illegal
gainings even if they're not and
uphold his conviction
anyway. Most unusual argument
I've ever heard.
Yet, it looks like it was convincing.
18. This case
involves statistical incompetence by all the
bench and Crown Attorneys except the first
two judges who heard
the best mathematical trial evidence and
who then ended up
contradicted by the judge who didn't get
a math lesson on Mutual
Exclusivity in his trial evidence. That
most lawyers and judges
never get passed high-school math is no
excuse to flub this easy
test in logic. The issue of the unfairness
of the rotation of the
bank they keep referring to has been estopped
by the notion of
Mutual Exclusivity and yet, Crowns and
when they keep bringing it
up, it evinces a complete non-grasp of
the principle of Mutual
Exclusivity. Judges Fontana and Lennox
passed their Mutual
Exclusivity math test. University Math
faculties have yet to
start laughing at the reasoning of judges
and Clown Attorneys who
failed their Mutual Exclusivity tests.
19. All this case
needs to really make the big time is for
the Stamp of Approval of the Supreme Court
of Canada on this
billion-dollar robbery by the State. With
my upcoming application
to the Guinness world record for Supreme
Court appearances by a
non-lawyer, 5 so far, soon maybe 6; for
a pauper, 2 so far, soon
maybe 3; for the first use of a videotaped
memorandum in Supreme
Court, 1984, and for the first indictment
of usury as genocide,
1981, and other related firsts and lasts
and with the exponential
growth of Local Employment Trading Systems
around the world
which, at 2500 branches to date, is doubling
yearly, and the over
200 million savaeble dead babies since
the Supreme Court failed
to grant The Engineer's 1981 injunction
against usury as genocide
of the poor, it would be per incuriam
not to take seriously this
billion robbery of winnings which could
have funded that effort.
Robin Hood could have set up a billion
dollars worth of
LETSystems around the world had I not
been robbed by a clear
abuse of process.
20. The Court
treated The Engineer lightly in 1981 and it
has cost in terms which cannot quite be
imagined. Had the Court
"restricted the banks computers to a pure
service charge and
abolished the interest charge" as genocidal
then, Canada would
have had a national LETSystem in 1981
with, as I argued before
the Supreme Court then, the world soon
following suit. Over 200
million saveable Third World babies have
been needlessly lost by
the delay. That number can never be retrieved.
The Court can
simply end the growth of their slab of
responsibility by proper
censure for the Crown's abuse of process
and any aid in helping
Robin Hood get the billion back so I can
devote it to my Global
Abolish Interest Rates Project.
21. With the Internet
Court of Public Opinion having been
kept up to date with the posting of all
transcripts of the
Project Robin Hood Raid proceedings so
far, don't bet you won't
soon be seeing Robin Hood doing a "Comedy
Court" skit on "Evening
at the Improv" if the Court doesn't take
this one seriously.
22. This case
involves of the violation of the following
rights contained within the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms:
Section 2: to peaceful assembly
and association;
Section 6: to gain a livelihood;
Section 7: to not suffer double
jeopardy;
Section 8: to not suffer unreasonable
search and seizure;
Section 9: to not be arbitrarily
detained;
Section 11a: to be informed of the specific
offence;
Section 11d: to be presumed innocent;
Section 11h: to not be tried again if
finally acquitted;
Section 12: to not be subjected
to cruel and unusual treatment;
Section 15: to be equal before and
under the law.
23. This is one
shameful episode in Canadian jurisprudence
and does not merit the stamp of approval
of the Supreme Court of
Canada. The comedy of errors belies its
seriousness. This case
will bring disrepute to the administration
of Canadian justice in
Canada as law students start to study
the free transcripts of
proceedings available on the Internet
relating to these rare
legal principles.
24. Again, everything
Judge Lachappelle did not let them do
to Rothman in Montreal v. Rothman Realty
LTD (1965)RL214,41CR372
(QUEMunCt), they have successfully done
to me:
"The accused was acquitted of operating a rooming(gaming)
house without a permit on
a certain date. A second prosecution
was commenced before another
judge covering a different date
in a different year and the
accused pleaded autrefois acquit.
There had been no structural
change in the building
(rooming/gaming house) but
the prosecution contended that
since the offence was a continuing
offence it was entitled to
lay the second charge.
Charge should be dismissed. The accused had already been
acquitted of infringing the
by-law and the second prosecution
constituted an unlawful attempt
to revise the judgment
previously rendered without
following the prescribed remedy of
an appeal.]
"The city replies that the complaint being for quite a
different date and year,
the plea autrefois acquit cannot
receive any application since,
for a continuous infringement,
there is a liability to the
penalty for each day during which
the infringement is continued.
At first glance, this argument appears correct. When an
infraction is committed,
each day constitutes a new infraction
and no plea of autrefois
acquit can be entertained when a
different date is alleged
but indeed, the ruling must be
entirely different when an
acquittal has been obtained on the
essential basis of the existence
or non-existence of a right.
If it is true that no permit is required (it is legal),
the date mentioned in any
future complaint is irrelevant and
would render a plea of autrefois
acquit useless and the
Defendant would never know
any peace and could be tried every
day in the year and placed
in jeopardy for the identical
offence whose merit has been
judicially adjudged.
It appears from the above-stated considerations that the
rules laid down for a plea
of autrefois acquit are far from
applying entirely in a case
of infringement of a by-law.
Call it autrefois acquit or res judicata and it would be
illegal and against public
order to attempt to revise the
judgment rendered by one
judge before another judge thus
making an appeal without
following the prescribed remedy set
by law.
Notwithstanding the fact that a judgment which has
finally decided the issue
when the basis of the existence of a
right has been pleaded as
an exception, the City is still
allowed to meet such a plea
by proving that subsequent
modifications have created
a new status preventing the
judgment so alleged from
receiving application.
It was admitted that no structural changes had occurred
since the last judgment and
consequently the court upholds the
plea of autrefois acquit
and the complaint is dismissed.
As to the very merit, the building in question is in fact
an apartment house, not a
rooming house."
25. Punishment
for a surprise new criminal interpretation is
not just.
Dated at Ottawa on Dec. 9, 1996.
For the Appellant:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
111-1505 Baseline Rd.,
Ottawa, ON, K2C 3L4,
Tel/Fax: 613-723-2739,
Email bc726@freenet.carleton.ca
TO:
THE REGISTRAR OF THIS COURT:
AND TO:
Trevor Shaw,
Of Counsel for the Respondent
Robert E. Houston, Q.C.,
Burke-Robertson,
70 Gloucester St.,
Ottawa, ON, K2P 0A2,
Tel/fax: 613-236-9665/235-4430
Ottawa Agent for Counsel for the Respondent