I am not a lawyer but though I try to live a peaceful life, have been made very, very busy and have been very, very severely injured on many occasions, over extremely long periods, by unlawful, illegal and criminal activity by the legal profession, H.M. Gov and H.M. Judiciary, for the vast majority of my adult life and as a consequence have gleaned much about how this pus infested Isle we live on operates and it’s so called shepherds, supposedly there to provide the citizen with protection, are in fact the very beasts we need protected from.
I have now examined the charges against Chris Spivey, my first observation being that he seems to have fallen into their trap, as I always did.
Firstly he asserts he has rights. Wrong!
He is, like us all, told we have rights but such are mere words. Here is the rub:
They too have rights and their rights trump ours, they have the right to arrest, to judge and to injure and they will do so.
Our lower rights cease to exist, unless convenient to them or unless subject to individuals who still possess integrity and there are some.
Secondly Spivey makes the mistake of defending himself in so much as to provide evidence of what he is saying is true. No need in my opinion:
The first two charges are that he has “Harassed” the complainer. I can see nothing in the charges to this effect.
The complainer has discovered the defenders Blog and Facebook page.
The complainer may be grieved and vexed but the decision to be so, appears to be theirs. In other words Spivey did not harass (approach) the complainer in charges 1 and 2.
You could post as much material about anyone on-line and should they be offended the remedy is an action for defamation.
Judge Judy herself acknowledges the internet is where you hang out such dirty laundry these days and doing so in itself does not constitute any form of injury requiring remedy.
It appears both this legislation and this action is an attempt to make what are civil proceedings, criminal proceedings as appears to have already been done with the likes of Rusty and Robert.
The individual (complainer/pursuer) is removed and the resources of government put in place, the penalties far more severe.
The 3rd and 4th charges imply malicious emails.
It is for the state to prove firstly that there were sent by the defendant and secondly that the overall intent was malicious.
I think from reading Spivey’s article he, believes the evidence does not fit the alleged crime of the official narrative at Woolwich.
Although not familiar with the details of the case, I am inclined, on initial examination, to agree especially in light of other such cases such as the Boston Bombing where soot is clearly being thrown onto victims as a mere stage effect.
Final question: Where does the buck stop before we get to the judiciary?
Charges appear to be raised by this individual:
I defended myself against charges at work, charges in respect of benefits, charges of no hear no see no say regarding very serious crimes committed against me by said establishment.