Charlie Staples Unanimous NOT GUILTY after three day Jury trial.

Charlie Staples just got a Unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict after a three day jury trial at Isleworth crown court. I'll talk about it on the show tonight but two parts 1. Protesting in London against COVID regulations and forced or coerced vaccines. (which they dropped as its a constitutional petition right)Show more

2. Beating an emergency worker, where the copper said he bit him. Charlie didn't bite the copper and the Jury agreed. Most importantly the copper was one of six that took Charlie to the ground and were beating him, on the floor handcuffed, they were smashing his head on the road. The police officer then put his leather gloved hand into Charlie Staples mouth, he says to control his head. He said Charlie bit him. Which Charlie strongly denied.

The police officer had switched off his camera.

The public however and peoples journalists had filmed it from start to finish. The Jury was presented with this video evidence. In full unedited. They could see the six officers beating Charlie whilst on the ground and incapacitated. Struggling to breath with the weight of officers on his back.

I advised Charlie from the start, on constitutional petition rights and his right to resist an unconstitutional arrest. An unlawful arrest.

The police must not act in an ‘oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional way’

Charlies closing statement speech to the Jury -
"It is a constitutional right to petition the monarch or monarch in parliament, it is a constitutional right to demonstrate. The police MUST facilitate this right. The police must not act in an ‘oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional way’ towards any member of the public. The Bill of Rights 1688 is in full force. The CPS knew this and discontinued the case against me. The police officer was acting unlawfully by arresting me.

During the trial you heard Police Sargent Richardson state that he put his hand in my mouth as that is what he was trained to do to control a detainee’s head. That being the case my teeth did not make contact with his gloved hand, his gloved hand made contact with my teeth.
…………………………………….
Members of the jury, imagine you on the floor with six officers kneeling on you and holding you down, the lead officer puts his gloved hand into your mouth and then states you bit him. There is no evidence of sustained pressure, no indentations on the gloves, no marks on his hand.
……………………………………..
The charge as it stands is analogous to the police officer punching me in the face and then saying I threw my face at his fist. This you should take as doubt that any bite took place.
……………………………………………
1. can you, members of the Jury, be 100% sure that I bit the police officers finger on purpose? If the answer is no, then I'm not guilty.
2. If you thought it was accidental then there is no "mens rea" [no intent] and therefore I am not guilty.