Cringing jurors, judge called ‘barking dog, parrot, master propagandist’: Inside wild court antics of sovereign citizen child kidnapper

A sovereign citizen child kidnapper berated a judge as a “talking parrot” and “master propagandist”, claimed she was a “living woman” and engaged in “rude and offensive behaviour” until a judge charged her with contempt. The woman’s wild court antics were revealed in a scathing judgment published by NSW District Court Judge Andrew Haesler last month after she pleaded not guilty to child abduction in August. The woman’s chaotic trial in Wollongong District Court was plagued by “rude and offensive” behaviour towards prosecutors, court staff, witnesses, the judge and the jury – including attempts to approach a juror while her own son was giving evidence. The behaviour grew so bad that Judge Haesler charged her with contempt of court, remanding her in custody before a guilty verdict was returned. The Crown alleged the woman – who cannot be identified – took her eight-year-old child from a care worker during an access visit at a park in Wollongong. It was alleged she handed the case worker a “statement and notice” marked with her thumbprint for “identification” – asserting in the document she was a “living being sovereign to this land” who rejected “engagement with the courts and their kronies (sic)”. On the first day of the trial, she refused to enter a plea. Instead, she would only respond to “a living woman” or “(her name) … not her legal fiction name” and asserted she was a “living woman … not a legal name”. At other times, she insulted Judge Haesler by referring to him as a “barking dog”, “talking parrot” and “master propagandist” and spoke over him. In considering her contempt, Judge Haesler stated: “Judges should not be thin-skinned. “Words are sometimes said in the heat of the moment. Words that are immediately regretted,” he wrote in the judgment. “Here the words were used deliberately. They were not regretted.” Judge Haesler stated he chose not to rise to the “bait”, calling the woman’s insults “pathetic and bathetic”. “To respond to them with force or outrage would have added ‘fuel to a fire’,” he continued in the judgment. “They did not undermine the integrity of the court as an institution. The jury saw through them. The laugh they had was on the accused, not the court.” In a continuation of her bizarre behaviour, the woman asked improper and “disallowable” questions of witnesses called. Each witness had to be asked to leave because she used their presence in the witness box to “make assertions, submissions, and insulting remarks”, Judge Haesler stated. This included the woman’s teenage son, whom she “badgered” while he was trying to give evidence. “When her son did say something, she talked over him,” the judgment states. “At one point her son said to her: ‘Just ask the questions, bro’.” Two of the woman’s adult children were called by the Crown but an equipment failure meant the court had to rely on using the prosecutor’s phone. She proceeded to lead her adult son with “opinions supporting her actions” rather than ask questions. The exasperating exchange led Judge Haesler to declare: “Ladies and gentlemen, it’s embarrassing. She’s now having a private conversation with her son on the prosecutor’s phone … none of this is relevant.” Judge Haesler said the woman then attempted to approach the jury, asking if they could hear the conversation. Despite his warnings, she continued, leading a juror to “cringe and look away” as security was called. “She tried to leave court saying she could not be there until the jury returned,” the judgment states. “I had the sheriffs prevent her leaving. She called the sheriffs ‘Ninja Turtles’ but eventually calmed down.” The woman also sought to have proceedings adjourned so she could subpoena witnesses despite the trial almost ending and the process needing to have been completed months beforehand. Her continued interruptions culminated in Judge Haesler ordering she be arrested and charged with contempt of court. As she realised this, the woman said: “OK, OK. No, no, no. That’s not going to happen. “It seems that I’m under arrest. I’m being detained,” she continued, according to the judgment. “I do not give my consent. I do not give my consent … to be detained as a living woman who has come of the age of majority.” As she was removed from the court, Judge Haesler addressed the jury. “I have certain powers. I could have exercised them on Monday, but she is entitled to a fair trial despite her own behaviour,” he said. Even after being charged with contempt of court, the woman did not let up. She continued to accuse Judge Haesler of not treating her fairly during the trial and accused him of behaving “outrageously” following her arrest. In her closing address, the woman conceded she was being “cheeky” as part of a “performance”. “It was hard to determine how deliberate or contrived that performance was, but her persistent disobedience continued with her refusal to engage with me when she was charged and given particulars of the contempt,” Judge Haesler stated in his judgment. After a guilty verdict was returned, the woman made a parting shot at the jury: “Thanks guys. See you ‘round … next time you’re in (trouble) I hope people stand up for ya.” She is due to be sentenced on December 18. Judge Haesler’s judgment ends with a blunt assessment of the woman’s court antics. “The woman chose to represent herself. (She) chose not to seek advice from lawyers or any guidance from me about her conduct of her trial,” the judgment states. “She chose not to listen. She chose to obstruct the trial. She chose to proceed on the basis that the laws of NSW did not apply to her. “Her actions were deliberate and considered. “She was, in all respects, ‘the maker of her own misfortune’.”