Man with Wacky Views Absent from his Kidnapping Trial After Airbnb Holdover

Man with Wacky Views Absent from his Kidnapping Trial After Airbnb Holdover by Matthew & Russell Lee, Patreon Substack 111 CENTRE ST, May 11 – A defendant who asserts that he is a sovereign citizen, not subject to the court systems, is on trial essentially in absentia for kidnapping and other crimes in 111 Centre Street. On May 11, his defense lawyer objected to the prosecutor having used the word "sovereign" in his opening. Can an appeal be expected?   Inner City Press was there, initially with a half dozen ADAs in the audience. Jurors looked on wide-eyed as they were told of the victim being whipped by the side of a knife. But only once they left were there arguments about sovereign citizenship, and other "wacky views," being prejudicial. From the earlier thread in front of the jury: ADA tells jurors that the defendant was squatting in an AirBnB, fighting eviction virtually in housing court - then moved in with victim in Washington Heights. ADA: Once defendant moved in, he told the victim that he'd had a child - then invited the mother and child to move into the victim's childhood bedroom. She stopped paying rent, so he would get evicted again. But he tortured her and stole her money  ADA: You will hear from the victim's co-workers, who saw the bruises on her face and took her to NYU Langone. You will see video of her going into her apartment building on Friday and not coming out until Monday, without her phone  ADA: The only call the victim made that weekend was to JPMorgan Chase, asking to transfer money to the mother of the defendant's child. Her doctor will explain the bruises, some newer than others, some consistent with a sharp object: a kitchen knife  ADA: The NYPD had to take down the door of the apartment to arrest the defendant. A chunk of the victim's hair was found in the bedroom. You will hear how he tried to tamper as a witness with the mother of his child, in a jail call.  ADA: You will be convinced, you should find him guilty. Thank you. Justice Kathryn Paek: Defense? Defense lawyer (client is NOT at defense table) Can we have a sidebar? [They huddle to side the bench away from the jury box]  [Sidebar ends]  Defense lawyer: Alright. You all said you could follow the law. The prosecution is going to try to provoke sympathy and anger, about a domestic dispute. The client is not sitting in the courtroom. He may not appear for this trial at all.  Defense lawyer: You may ask why he is not here. You are not permitted to draw any negative inference. He has a right to not be here. You cannot say, if he were innocent he'd be here. He is presumed innocent, never mind the empty chair. This is not a whodunit  Defense lawyer: The prosecution wants you to believe my client restrained her by threatening to use deadly physical force, force that is readily capable of causing death or serious injury. You have to look at HOW the object is used ADA: Objection! Sustained.  Defense lawyer: He only used the dull, flat side of the knife to whip her. It is bent to the side. I concede that the sharp side of a knife can be deadly. But the dull side? It becomes a blunt weapon, causing minor injuries  Defense: This was a single weekend- it cannot constitute a pattern of behavior. Count 6 is endangering a child - his own infant. But during that weekend, the child was in a separate room, not in the room where the altercations or physical disputes alleged occurred  Defense: Also on robbery, using the dull side of the knife takes it out of the statute. They must show that physical force was used during- ADA: Objection! Justice Paek: Sustained. Defense: The injuries occurred before the transfer to the mother's CashApp  Defense: I understand my opening statement is a bit technical. This trial is unique in that we do not disagree that there a terrible series of events in that apartment. But I ask that you hold the prosecution to its burden. Their evidence won't do the trick  [All of the prosecutors in the audience just left. Inner City Press is alone in the (large) gallery. Even the defendant is not here.] ADA: We have some stipulations    After more than half a dozen stipulations, the jury was excused. Justice Kathryn S. Paek told the lawyers to return at 9:45, saying that the defendant must come in - or, rather, be brought in - to say, I don't consent, I don't waive. But it appears the jurors will never see the defendant before they vote on the case.    Proceedings in the afternoon may be pushed back as defense counsel appears before Justice Thompson for a juvenile defendant approved for electronic monitoring. His name was said in open court, but we voluntarily do not publish it here. More, however, to come. *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com