Syzygy Revolutionary Liberation Gospel
Entrapment and Charges with no Recourse Before a Possible Crime is Committed
This story has its beginning On May 29, 2011 on or about 1:11 PM with a moment of confusion that ends with criminal charges of “theft under $5,000” within sections 322 (d), 335 (1), 348 (2a, 3c) [see below] of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) as claimed by officer #42 of the Vancouver Transit Police. The applicable sections of the CCC are detailed hereinafter following the references after the text of this summary. During a moment of confusion while studying a map, the accused crossed the “Fare Paid Zone” with $2.50 in hand demonstrating intent to pay, but no valid ticket. Seeing the error, the accused upon reaching the bottom of the down escalator turned to go back up the fixed staircase and pay for a valid fare. The attending officer would not allow the return for said valid fare and insisted upon ticketing the accused as guilty of an indictable offence of theft under $5,000, punishable by imprisonment for up to two - 2 years. In this act, the officer turned the incident into a “break and enter” and turned an innocent mistake into a criminal act and indictable offence under the CCC to be processed through the Provincial Courts. This then is really a case or entrapment as the same officer announced that he had to make a quota and that the case could be settled by disputing for a lower fine and an admission of guilt. This kind of behaviour could easily trap tourists not familiar with Vancouver as the same officer asked the accused if they were local or visiting. Anyone who follows the suggestion to pay even a reduced fine instead of disputing it in total is in effect agreeing to be framed as guilty and processed for a criminal record. Along with this was a suggestion to present the proper attitude to the judge, which means, to agree with any analysis the judge makes and passes.
The 63 year old accused then had to submit to turning out valid identification for the officer to inspect and process and ended up with a ticket for $173 CDN for an unintentional accident. The officer suggested that the ticket could be disputed at 2750 Commercial Drive in Vancouver for a fine reduction and an unspoken admission of guilt by paying out approximately $50 CDN. The admission of guilt in such a case is tantamount to admitting to break and enter and theft under $5,000 CDN under the appropriate sections of the CCC, which is punishable by either a prison term up to two – 2 years or punishment under summery conviction at the discretion of the judge. One of the outcomes if guilt is admitted to by paying any find whatsoever, is a criminal record that will impact employment possibilities, access to housing and the loss of Canada pensions for anyone serving any prison time under the new laws passed in parliament in early 2011 that were lauded by many duped people.
The accused understands by this occurrence and by news of past events up to and including the tasering of ten passengers including a valid fare holding passenger (1, 2. ref.) that this is an attack on the poor and working poor who have little other means to go to and fro from the work place, medical appointments, shopping and recreation than on public transit. The accused has also vowed never to use transit for any reason and to use a bike, walk of solicit other transportation when required and is arguing for a boycott on the use of transit by the working poor and unemployed who have been similarly trapped. But for the intention of this document, it will be argued that public transit is not for the public beyond and exercise in public relations. In an earlier article, it was argued that transit is something the rich don't use and the poor cannot afford. (3. ref) In the article, it was stated;
“The solution plain and simple is to use that wonderful new rapid transit system and extend it throughout the city. Cars should not even be allowed in the city unless they are emergency vehicles. Cars should be for the outskirts and for city to city travel only. In the city, there should be a well developed rapid transit system available to everyone. Otherwise, people should use bikes, mobility aids, roller blades, skateboards and walk. This would also help us cut down on our carbon footprint significantly. If cities, like LA are designed with individual cars in mind, then they need retrofitting to make everything easily accessible without cars.
This scenario cannot be realized under capitalism, as they depend on you being greedy and making as big a carbon footprint that you can create in a short a time as feasibly possible. Big oil wants cars, not electric rapid transit. In fact, this is so much the case, that the LA rapid transit system was deconstructed eons ago and massive multi-laned highways and byways were built to accommodate millions of individual cars. LA soon became one of the greatest smog centers on the planet. Now Beijing is doing catch up as China goes car crazy, and China was once closer to socialism.
Due to the financial collapse, there are suddenly far less cars being driven about, but ridership in rapid transit has also fallen off. ”
As stated, rapid public transit is about public relations and this has to be paid for. So how does one raise the capital to pay for the massive investment in tourist advertizing, especially from the airport to Olympic Venues of a bygone 2010 era? It is done through taxes on parking, on gasoline, hydro use in homes and business, and through fining the poor and making them criminals in the process. The person who has been entrapped in the police snare to raise the cash, must dispute any ticket and refuse to pay even a reduced fine; which is a de-facto admission of guilt and appeal to the court of appeal if necessary. This then is just the first step. It would be advisable to consult a Pro-Bono lawyer prior to any dispute and for any court appearance. But at the same time, one must realize that the entire capitalist system from the entrapping and taser toting cop on the rail beat to the top judge of the supreme court and court of appeal is corrupt or corruptible. In the final analysis, it's all about the bottom line of profit pure and simple.
3. Street Cent$, August 6th, 2010, “Rapid Transit: The Rich Don't Use it: The Poor Can't Afford it”, pg 14.
(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent
(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.
For theft under $5,000: “Section cc. 322., every one who is found guilty of Fraud Under $5000 is guilty of an indictable offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment up to two years, or in less serious cases, by an offence punishable on summary conviction. “
(1) Subject to subsection (1.1), every one who, without the consent of the owner, takes a motor vehicle or vessel with intent to drive, use, navigate or operate it or cause it to be driven, used, navigated or operated, or is an occupant of a motor vehicle or vessel knowing that it was taken without the consent of the owner, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused
(a) broke and entered a place or attempted to break and enter a place is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke and entered the place or attempted to do so, as the case may be, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.
(3) For the purposes of this section and section 351, “place” means
(c) a railway vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or a trailer
Right of appeal of person convicted
(a) against his conviction
(i) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone,
(ii) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof or on the certificate of the trial judge that the case is a proper case for appeal, or
(iii) on any ground of appeal not mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii) that appears to the court of appeal to be a sufficient ground of appeal, with leave of the court of appeal; or
(b) against the sentence passed by the trial court, with leave of the court of appeal or a judge thereof unless that sentence is one fixed by law.