Introducing Brian Wightman ( ) who is the 35 year old Tasmanian Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Environment, Parks & Heritage.

This young man, with his whole life in front of him, is now in the HOT SEAT because of what happened in the Court of Petty Sessions at Devonport on Friday the 9th of December, 2011 when Constable Steven Andrew Jones tried to prosecute Mark Elvin Sharman for “assaulting Stephen Craig Karpeles a public officer in the execution of his duty by hitting him in the chest and shoulder area with his chest”, under section 34B of the Police Offences Act 1935 that carries “a penalty not exceeding 25 penalty units or (-) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months” … which Mark strongly denies.

I flew down to Tasmania, the day before, and Mark and I put together 4 documents, in readiness for the appointed time to appear in court. Those documents were: (a) a PUBLIC NOTICE; (b) a CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT; (c) a 78B NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER; and (d) an AFFIDAVIT.We went into the township of Devonport and posted the 78B NOTICES to all the Attorney-Generals around Australia (which is correct procedure) and had the AFFIDAVIT witnessed by a Justice of the Peace. On the Friday morning, I rehearsed Mark as to what to say and do when he was called forward by the Magistrate ….. which Mark did superbly and kept his cool, at all times.

When Mark was called forward he said, “I have four documents to give you. The first is a PUBLIC NOTICE which says Australia is a Common Law Jurisdiction and I have the Right to Trial by Jury. The second is a CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT and the third is a copy of the 78B NOTICE which I have already posted to all the Attorney Generals. And this is an AFFIDAVIT for when I have my Trial by Jury.” Hopefully, it won’t be too long before we get the Court Transcript because what Magistrate Michael Brett did was quite incredible. He said he would not deal with the matter until the afternoon and told Mark to come back at 2:15 PM. The mind-blowingly arrogant and contemptuous-of-the-law thing he did was to say to (I’m not sure who… maybe his assistant or the clerk or the security person) “Collect those papers and dispose of them.”. That is astounding! …. a so-called Magistrate ordering the DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED IN COURT which INCLUDED and AFFIDAVIT signed by a Justice of the Peace.

In the CRIMES ACT 1914 (Cth) section 39 “Destroying evidence” carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The CRIMES ACT 1900 (NSW) section 138 “Stealing, destroying etc records of any court or public office” carries a penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

(I haven’t yet found the offence in Tasmanian legislation… but it must be there, somewhere). There are a multitude of offences this “Magistrate” Michael Brett committed on that day … and he MUST BE CHARGED WITH THOSE OFFENCES. When we came back at 2:15 PM, Michael Brett was a bit better behaved and, when Mark again CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, he actually asked to read Mark’s copy of the CHALLENGE document because the first copies Mark had tabled were DISPOSED OF. When he read it, he handed it to the Police Prosecutor who also read it before handing it back to Mark. Neither of the them said anything and Michael Brett continued on with his KANGAROO COURT …. a “Kangaroo Court is a court which acts unfairly or dishonestly or disregards legal rights or disregards legal procedures”.

“Magistrate” M. Brett allowed the Police Prosecutor to put Stephen Craig Karpeles in the Witness Box and tell his story. Then Michael Brett asked Mark if he wanted to cross-examine Stephen Craig Karpeles and Mark said, “The AFFIDAVIT I gave you this morning contains the basis of my defence to go to a Jury. I do not consent to Summary Jurisdiction.”… in fact Mark said, “I do not consent to Summary Jurisdiction” every time Michael Brett spoke to him. Of course, “Magistrate” M. Brett didn’t have Mark’s AFFIDAVIT, did he!?

“Magistrate” M. Brett then proceeded to say he found Mark “Guilty” and then went into dialogue with the Police Prosecutor as to setting a date for “Sentencing”. When Michael Brett asked Mark about a suitable date, Mark said it had to fit in with the treatment he was receiving….. I was sitting next to Mark in the Public Gallery part of the Court and said, very audibly, “He is receiving CHEMOTHERAPY.”. I should say that Mark’s voice, all the way through the charade, was soft and weak, as one would expect from this seriously ill man, but he stood his ground at the “Bar Table”, in the morning, and, in the afternoon, from the Public Gallery. A date of (I think) 27th January 2012 was set.

So, we left the courtroom and, when we went to lodge an Appeal in the Registry of the Devonport Court, we were told we had to go to Burnie to do that … so, we got into Ray Escobar’s car and (observing the speed limits) drove to Burnie and put in the initiating form for the Appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania on “ALL GROUNDS”. The lady, there, gave mark a date of 30 January 2012 to be at the Burnie Court House for a video-link to the Supreme Court in Hobart. She also said she would contact the Devonport Court to “have the files sent over”. So, that’s the happenings in Tassie.

NOW, because I’m sending this email to Brian Wightman MP, Attorney-General of Tasmania, and attaching copies of those 4 documents, we’ll see what he is going to do. Of course, he must CHARGE MICHAEL BRETT with many, many offences from Commonwealth and State CRIMES ACTS. It’s only right that this young man, Brian Wightman, should be allowed to perform his DUTY OF CARE to protect the People of Tasmania and the rest of our Nation so that they “can exercise their rights in court in safety” (as, also, is the duty of the Sheriffs, incidentally).

So, we’ll give Brian Wightman a chance to investigate the Devonport Affair and lay his charges against Michael Brett ….. but that won’t take long.

Yours sincerely,John Wilson
Chairman, Australian Common Law Party

One comment

  • Kurtvonstalheim

    Not suprised but don’t hold your breath for a prosecution.

    Incidentally the charge is destroying evidence (Criminal code Act 1924, S.99)

    On the other hand you may care to look at S.92 of the same Act

Leave a Reply