A sovereign citizen child abductor berated a judge as a “talking parrot” and a “master propagandist,” claimed she was a “live woman” and engaged in “rude and offensive behavior” until a judge charged her with contempt.
The woman’s wild courtroom antics were revealed in a scathing judgment released by NSW District Court Judge Andrew Haesler last month after she pleaded not guilty to child abduction in August.
The woman’s chaotic trial at Wollongong District Court was plagued by “rude and offensive” behavior towards prosecutors, court staff, witnesses, the judge and jury, including attempts to approach a juror while his own son was giving testimony.
The behavior became so bad that Judge Haesler charged her with contempt of court and took her into custody before a guilty verdict was returned.
The Crown alleged the woman, who cannot be identified, took her eight-year-old son from a care worker during an access visit to a park in Wollongong.
She was alleged to have given the social worker a “statement and notice” marked with her fingerprint for “identification,” stating in the document that she was a “sovereign living being of this earth” who rejected “commitment to the courts.” and their crowns (sic)’.
On the first day of the trial, she refused to plead guilty.
Instead, she only responded to “a living woman” or “(her name)…not her legal fictional name” and stated that she was a “living woman…not a legal name.”
A sovereign citizen child abductor berated a judge as a “talking parrot” and a “master propagandist,” claimed she was a “live woman” and engaged in “rude and offensive behavior” until a judge charged her with contempt (image from archive)
On other occasions he insulted Judge Haesler by calling him a “barking dog,” a “talking parrot,” and a “master propagandist” and talked about him.
In considering her contempt, Judge Haesler stated: ‘Judges should not be insensitive.
‘Sometimes words are said in the heat of the moment. Words that we immediately regret,’ he wrote in the sentence.
«Here the words were used deliberately. They did not repent.’
Judge Haesler declared that he decided not to take the “bait,” calling the woman’s insults “pathetic and lame.”
“Responding to them with force or indignation would have added fuel to the fire,” he continued in the sentence.
‘They did not undermine the integrity of the court as an institution. The jury realized this. They laughed at the accused, not at the court.
Continuing her strange behavior, the woman asked inappropriate and “not permitted” questions to the called witnesses.
Each witness had to be asked to leave because she used her presence on the stand to “make insulting statements, presentations and comments,” Judge Haesler said.
This included the woman’s teenage son, whom she “molested” while he was trying to testify.
“When her son said something, she spoke over him,” the ruling states.
“At one point his son told him, ‘Just ask the questions, brother.'”
The Crown called two of the woman’s adult children, but an equipment failure forced the court to turn to the prosecutor’s phone.
He proceeded to guide his adult son with “opinions that supported his actions” instead of asking questions.
The infuriating exchange prompted Judge Haesler to declare: ‘Ladies and gentlemen, it is disgraceful. Now he is having a private conversation with his son on the prosecutor’s phone… none of this is relevant.’
Judge Haesler said the woman then tried to approach the jury and ask if they could listen to the conversation.
Despite his warnings, he continued, prompting one juror to “shudder and look away” when security was called.
“He tried to leave the courthouse saying he couldn’t be there until the jury returned,” the ruling states.
“I had the sheriffs stop him from leaving.” He called the sheriffs ‘Ninja Turtles’ but eventually calmed down.
The woman also requested that the process be postponed so that witnesses could be summoned even though the trial was almost over and the process should have ended months earlier.
His continued interruptions culminated in Judge Haesler ordering his arrest and charge of contempt of court.
Judge Andrew Haesler ordered the woman’s arrest and charged her with contempt of court.
Realizing this, the woman said, ‘Okay, okay. No, no, no. That’s not going to happen.
‘It seems I’m under arrest. “I am detained,” she continued, according to the sentence.
‘I do not give my consent. I do not give my consent… to be detained as a living woman who has reached the age of majority.’
As she was led out of court, Judge Haesler addressed the jury.
‘I have certain powers. “She could have exercised it on Monday, but she has the right to a fair trial despite her own behavior,” he said.
Even after being charged with contempt of court, the woman did not relent.
She went on to accuse Judge Haesler of not treating her fairly during the trial and accused him of behaving “outrageously” after her arrest.
In her closing speech, the woman admitted she was being “brazen” as part of a “performance.”
“It was difficult to determine how deliberate or artificial that action was, but her persistent disobedience continued with her refusal to engage with me when she was charged and given details of the contempt,” Judge Haesler said in his ruling.
After a guilty verdict was returned, the woman made one final comment to the jury: ‘Thanks guys. See you…next time you’re in (trouble) I hope people stand up for you.’
His sentence must be handed down on December 18.
Judge Haesler’s sentencing ends with a blunt assessment of the woman’s judicial antics.
‘The woman decided to represent herself. (She) chose not to seek legal advice or any guidance from me on how to conduct her trial,’ the ruling states.
‘She chose not to listen. She chose to obstruct the trial. She chose to proceed on the basis that New South Wales laws did not apply to her.
‘His actions were deliberate and considered.
“She was, in every respect, ‘the author of her own misfortune.'”