Chris Spivey is a dead man walking. Tragic news to his family, Chris Spivey has arrived at the terrible conclusion that the only way the Powers that Be can save themselves is to murder him while he’s in custody at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
Spelt out in crystal clarity in his latest article ’They Shoot Horses Don't They,’ Chris Spivey proves beyond all reasonable doubt that not only is he is a victim of injustice, but he’s also earmarked to be murdered in Prison- in the not too distance future.
Spivey’s harassment conviction is built upon two counts of malicious communication against Lynn Rigby and Lee Rigby’s sister.
The first relates to ONE AND ONLY ONE Facebook message he sent on the 18th of July 2013 in which he was extremely polite and when he got no answer, did not attempt to contact the witness again.
The other malicious communication charge relates to a mock-up of a front page of the Sun newspaper, which was published on his Facebook Page.
(It's interesting to note that “a Matt Taylor” was named in the court's transcript as being the person responsible for posting the mock Sun newspaper front page. It has since been admitted that it was in fact posted by Lisa Pea, a member of Spivey’s administrative team.)
Chris Spivey maintains his innocence on this count claiming, “I DID NOT make this spoof page and never even acknowledged it. The person responsible posted it on my Facebook page that I do not have any dealings with in regard to things that people post on there.”
|Guerrilla Democracy News accepts full responsibility for this picture|
You would have thought the case would have been dismissed on these two points alone, but the miscarriage of justice runs deeper when we learn that the witness statements used to convict Spivey haven't even been signed by those person(s) who wrote them.
Rather than shying away Spivey is maintaining his contention that all the witnesses who testified against him ARE’NT who they claim to be.
“All four witnesses are of easily provable dubious character with clear evidence relating to criminal behaviour.”
Here is what Spivey has to say on the subject:
“Here is the way I see it.
The prosecution fought tooth and nail using one of the country’s top barristers to keep their OWN four witnesses out of court… Why would they do that?
My aherm, aherm Barrister ignored all that I told her as to why the witnesses should appear i.e their witness statements were a tissue of easily exposed lies and as such, were they to be repeated under oath would mean that they would have committed perjury. And in any event, the witnesses are not who they pretend to be.
I therefore knew that if the witnesses were made to appear then the trial would not have gone ahead… The case would have been dropped.
However, the Judge, completely ignoring the rule of law sided with the prosecution – ruling that the witnesses be spared being torn to bits on the witness stand – thus blatantly denying me the right to a fair trial.”
“THE WITNESSES ARE NOT WHO THEY PRETEND TO BE.”
Propabably the most controversial statement to make related to the Woolwich incident is the claim that virtually every personality involved was an MI5 inspired creation - a crisis actor!
Spivey plans to appeal his conviction but in doing so he knows better than anyone that he’s signed his own death warrant.
Over to Spivey who explains:
“An appeal means that the witnesses WILL HAVE TO APPEAR NO MATTER WHAT because the appeal will be held in a Crown Court with a jury and will be based on the above facts.
And like I said, had the witnesses been made to appear then the case would have been dropped, not least because the witnesses – as the Crown fully knows – are not who they claim to be, are of dubious character and have alleged easily provable lies in all four witness statements… Therefore, they now have a real, real crisis on their hands because unlike the trial, they can not drop the appeal hearing and if that goes ahead, then it is not an understatement to say that at the very least, the outcome has the capacity to bring down the government.
Therefore, the only way to stop the appeal going ahead – which they have to at all costs – is if I am dead… Hence the forthcoming prison sentence.”
Sourced from Spivey's Facebook status update.
"Guess who has been asked to appear at the Glastonbury Festival next year?
If I am still alive of course!
If I am still alive of course!
The following is a link to video footage of yesterday's event in London where Dr Nick Kollerstrom handed a letter into the ministry of Justice in protest at the persecution of me and my family by the British Government."
Transcript of the harassment trial of Christopher Spivey 30th-31st July 2015 at Chelmsford Magistrates Court.
The trial began at about 10.20am, and the next 40 minutes consisted of Spivey's barrister asking the Judge to postpone the trial until a Judicial Review application had been processed. Spivey's barrister argued, that the trial would be 'unfair' because he could not 'challenge the witnesses, because they were not there'. The barrister argued that the pictures of the Rigby family, their homes and addresses were not 'private' but already in the public domain and therefore could be downloaded by anybody. He also argued that Spivey, was 'a journalist, therefore he had freedom of expression.' The judge then asked if he could have a copy of the application for Judicial Review and was given a copy by the defence. He noticed straight away that it was not stamped and asked why. The Defence explained that the application for legal aid to pay for the application and legal costs to process such a form had still not been authorised. However it will be lodged either today (30th July) or tomorrow. The Judge said he disagreed with the Judicial Review application because at every court appearance he have always asked why Mr Spivey wanted the witnesses present and he had never received a satisfactory response to his question. He said that he felt that there was enough authority to proceed with the trial, and he would weigh up the hearsay evidence regarding its merits. The prosecution then outlined the case against Spivey, quoting from his Police Statement, "they don't have to read it (the Rigby family)............ I have freedom of speech" The prosecution informed the court that there was ample evidence 1that Spivey's article had caused harm and distress to the family, and either he knew it would or should have known. Spivey had deliberately targeted Lee Rigby's mother and sister, and his comments were more than irritating. He acknowledged that Spivey had freedom of speech, however, section 10. 2 of the Harassment Act informs us that this also carries certain duties and responsibilities. Spivey's comments were 'bizarre' and could have only come from a 'crank' and had caused alarm and distress and this all equalled harassment. The prosecution then read out Lee Rigby's mother’s statement: We were now rebuilding our lives (family).... How her Facebook site was/is private.... The Sun `hoax’ headlines front page.... She read the comments alleging her son was a rapist..... The website destroyed (her) happy memories” Then Lee Rigby's sister`s statement was read out: "Contacted by Spivey via Facebook..... Claimed he had evidence of a hoax.... I Did not accept his `friend’ request` because I thought he was weird...... I looked at his website.... Spivey had published photos of me/family/home ..... I wondered how did he get my children`s names?..... I felt at risk, now may have to move” Mr Amos’ statement was then read out: “I am angry.... He used photos from my Facebook page..... Spivey sent messages.... I answered because I was intrigued.... (I felt) threatened, like I was being accused of being in on the hoax.... He exposing Rigby family fraud.... Spivey said that they will kill you not me, I have a high profile” Mr Vitler's statement was then read out: “Spivey contacted me... He looked like a cheap tattooist for bikers... Photographs (of Spivey) freaked him out... I Felt like someone was watching me” 2The defence barrister then realised that his 'bundle' of documents were different than the Prosecution and Judges. The Judge commented that the management of papers by the CPS had been far from adequate since the start of Spivey's court appearances. DC Coombes then was sworn in to give his evidence, reiterated all the points from the four statements to the Court. Spivey's Barrister then asked about the article regarding the assertion that the soldier was a 'rapist' and it was confirmed by DC Coombes that it was not Spiveys' article. The policeman confirmed with a simple “yes” that in all his investigations all video's, pictures, comments, etc were all taken from the mainstream media or were in the public domain. The barrister then referred the DC to pictures of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral in the bundle. Asking first did he know that they were her funeral pictures? Answer, "I don't know". The barrister said, "Please believe me it was". There were two photos of the funeral one implying a large crowd at her funeral, was photo shopped by the Mainstream Media. The next one that was in the Alternative Media, was of a very sparse crowd. Did he notice Spivey's comments about the pictures? He replied “Yes” The DC also confirmed that Spivey's publication of the families addresses, had not encouraged or incited anybody to commit any criminal activity. The DC also confirmed with a simple "Yes" that Mr Amos contacted Spivey first. The DC also agreed that the witnesses did not have to go on Spivey's website (all four witnesses). When asked why they went on the website? The DC answered "I don't 3know". He was then asked, if the family ever asked Spivey to take posts down? He replied, "No". He then said that the family could have got the posts taken down by an Injunction and this was confirmed by the DC. The Barrister asked why it took over a year for them to complain. The DC replied, "I don't know" The barrister continued with questions such as: "Why did it take the police two weeks from the instigation of the complaint to Spivey's arrest?" "I can't account for why". "In those two weeks before his arrest was the family asking why has he not been arrested yet? " "No" He asked if there had been any assault, or violence, or harassment to the family since Spivey's arrest? The DC replied, “No”. The next day, Friday morning, the DC was back in the dock. Spivey's Barrister informed the court that Spivey was arrested with no search or arrest warrant. The DC confirmed that no other websites were checked regarding the Rigby families material, he said that it was not relevant to check other sites. Spivey then was sworn in. He was asked by his barrister about his background. The Judge asked about his dealings with the Sovereign Independent Newspaper, "how big is it's circulation?" 4Spivey's Barrister then asked Spivey the purpose of his website, Spivey's response was, "to make comments not published in the mainstream media." He asked Spivey to go to the bundle – "What was the purpose of the picture of Prince Charles being told by you to fuck off?" Spivey replied, "To attract attention". He then asked if Spivey ever got any negative comments on Facebook. Spivey confirmed he had. The barrister asked about which subjects received such comments, and gave the example of Rolf Harris. Spivey replied that the comments were made by “organised trolls”. Spivey then stated that everything he writes is sourced, he analyses the evidence and then writes his opinions. His writing style was simplistic in nature, designed for his target audience, which he stated was "like speaking to somebody on a building site" (a previous occupation of his). He admitted to photo shopping photos of Lee Rigby to evidence his opinion they matched up with other persons. He claimed he did not target the Rigby family, there were numerous other websites regarding Woolwich. Spivey was asked if he knew the Rigby's were looking at his site. Spivey replied, "No" Spivey said, "Amos contacted me...... Amos said, Come on big boy". Spivey confirmed that he had never contacted Mr Vitler in any form whatsoever, nor had he contacted anybody to take a picture of Vitler. The Sun 'mock headline' was posted by a Matt Taylor as anybody can post on Spivey's Facebook account. Spivey had been threatened with violence regarding various posts and subjects on Facebook in the past. 5He said: "his website, comments on his articles and his forum pages were only able to be accessed by subscription." The subscription comprised of giving a valid email address. He had moderators who ran his site, he just wrote. The barrister asked how many hits he has had since he has started in 2012. Spivey responded, "10 and half million, and yesterday I had 15,000 hits". The Judge asked, "Could the same people make multiple hits?", Spivey replied, "Yes" Spivey was asked by his barrister, if he actively sought or engaged the Rigby family to view the site? He confirmed that he had not. Spivey said that he only knew that he was alleged to have harassed the family, at the time of his arrest. He never wanted to cause harassment. The Prosecution then questioned Spivey regarding his Facebook account and website, and implied that 'links' posted on his Facebook page were a kind of advertisement for his webpage. The Prosecution suggested that the 'mock' Sun posting on his Facebook page, even though posted by Matt Taylor had then been 'adopted' by him by not deleting it, and asked if Spivey agreed with its content. Spivey replied that he had, "No feelings one way or the other". Spivey was then asked if he had attended the "Two Michaels" Old Bailey Trial, or informed the police, or defence solicitors for the "Two Michaels" that he could help the trial by revealing what he had discovered. Spivey responded, “No” 6 Spivey said his intention at one time was to present all his evidence to a Police Station. The Judge then asked Spivey, "Did you ever consider the possibility that you could be wrong?" Then asking, "did you not consider the hurt caused to the Rigby`s if you are wrong?" Spivey answered that his motive regarding exposing Woolwich as a hoax, was to publicise how anti - muslim feelings were being stirred up in the country, plus he wanted to expose the negative prospect of rewarding of the security services with a multi-million budget to further erode freedoms. The Judge then said this Rigby conspiracy was, "extremely wide". He suggested that MI5 must have got everybody on board from the Old Bailey judge to the witnesses of the murder. Spivey used the example of Pearl Harbour to illustrate that cover ups do occur, in that it is now common knowledge that the Americans allowed this to happen so they could enter the Second World War. The Judge then asked Spivey his views on 9/11, 7/7, Tunisia and the Holocaust. Spivey replied he did not believe the Government narratives on all of these occurrences and he also informed the Judge that his daughter was Jewish. The Prosecution then asked Spivey if he agreed that the death of a son would upset the parents. Spivey confirmed that he agreed. Spivey also agreed that such a death would upset a half sibling and would be upsetting if the death was also violent and unexpected. The barrister then asked Spivey what was the purpose of inviting the sister to make contact. Spivey answered, "To get a story out.... I am a journalist" 7 The Judge then said that the sister had received his request, "out of the blue, and didn't know you from Adam, and don't you think she would check you out as an Investigative Reporter by checking your site.....” The Prosecution then asked how come so many agencies of the State have got it all wrong regarding Lee Rigby. Spivey responded with, "My job is for the good of the people". The Prosecution then asked about the personal comments regarding the picture of Lee Rigby's family home and also about Spivey's' comments about the allegations of rape. The Judge asked about Spivey's comment, "9 times out of 10, I am usually right" in relation to the rape comments. The Prosecution then asked about his research for his topics. Spivey informed the court that all material used is in the public domain. Spivey confirmed that he is an internet campaigner because all our freedoms are being taken away. Spivey also confirmed that he had a Press Card and he was registered and that there was a Code of Ethics. Spivey then left the dock. The Prosecution then began his summing up: "....abundant evidence regarding the Lee Rigby family.... (That caused) alarm and distress... would have known or should have known it would cause alarm or distress" The Prosecution stated that there was definite targeting by Spivey. Informing the court that since the cases of harassment in 2001 and 2004, the "effect of publishing does not have to be direct".... You can be found guilty even if you say, "don't tell the person this".... "In terms of Freedom of Speech, Spivey has crossed the line...." 8 "He was/is an obsessive conspiracy theorist who thinks he is free to act in this manner with impunity." The Defence then summed up. The prosecution to prove their case had to prove Spivey was wrong in his opinion of the Woolwich incident. There are difficulties with "big events", where people question the facts, the example he used were the Moon Landings. People can analyse the same evidence but come to different conclusions. The picture of the Rigby family at Christmas was freely available to the public. The home address was sourced by means of Companies House. The person who took the picture of Mr Vitler was never traced by the Crown to seek his motive. There was no evidence on Spivey's computers when checked by the Police, nor that he had encouraged or incited anybody to do anything to the four witnesses, plus there was no evidence of the targeting of these individuals. Spivey had written about the whole Woolwich incident, the Rigby story was just a small piece in his essays. The Barrister stated the legal test for Spivey was, "was he aware he should not have done it". Giving the example of the Rapist accusation which was removed the next day by Facebook. The Defence stated that fourteen months had passed from the first post about the Rigby`s to the date of Spivey's arrest. No action was taken to take down Spivey's publications. Spivey has never been asked by anybody to "please take it down" to the present day (31st July). Lee Rigby's mother did not indicate in her statement when she first 9saw Spivey's website, and how many visits she made over this 14 month period when the articles were up. Again the test for Spivey was whether he knew he was harassing anyone. Mr Amos in his statement never indicated that Spivey had "overstepped the line" and he was going to tell Mrs Rigby. In the same way the sister was never asked, "When did you view it?", and how many times over this fourteen month period. Spivey had not asked anybody to, "Go and sort them out", although he acknowledged that Spivey had contacted the sister, "only once". The website was for his opinion only, he is a journalist not a "nut job". Spivey's comments on the mainstream media give an alternative opinion which are all his own views and assertions. After Spivey's barrister finished his summing up, the Judge immediately delivered his summing up of the case and gave his verdict. Spivey, in the Judge’s opinion, in the 'Reasonable Person' test, had harassed the two family members of the Rigby family. There had been, "a course of conduct to those people, likely to cause distress... (Spivey) should have known" In the interest of Justice there was no reason for the Rigby family to attend court in his view. In the Judge’s opinion the website and Facebook account was the real issue, not Woolwich. Then he stated that Spivey considers himself a journalist, who questions stories from the mainstream media and by, "just looking at photos can say 9/11, 7/7, Pearl Harbour, Tunisia did not happen, and Lee Rigby was not murdered or was not real". The Judge then said, "All in the (Woolwich) case have been seriously misled by MI5.....a massive conspiracy" “He (Spivey) thinks, "without a shadow of a doubt, I am right, and 10everybody else is wrong". The Judge then said it is not for him to take a view regarding Woolwich, the test for him was just regarding the harassment of the two Rigby family members. He then said that Spivey was "a journalist with no code of ethics to speak of." He debunked public figures and others, in his view in a "very unpleasant manner". He had made personal, and unattractive remarks about the Rigby family and was guilty. The Prosecution then said that Spivey had planned this harassment over a long period, it was 'high end'. The court costs to Spivey would be £3,980. He produced a Restraining Order for the Judge to order the take down all offending material on Spivey's website by 12 midnight on the 31st of July. The Defence was then asked by the Judge to prepare a pre-sentence report as custody was an option. He also informed Spivey, that if he took the whole site down, then this could be used in mitigation when sentencing him on the 27th August.