Joby Weeks, a well-known figure in the alternative finance and cryptocurrency world, has been entangled in a protracted legal battle with the U.S. government and its associated agencies. What began as a federal prosecution related to Weeks’ involvement in BitClub Network—an alleged multi-million-dollar cryptocurrency fraud—has now evolved into a highly unconventional counterattack by Weeks himself. At the heart of this evolving legal drama is Weeks’ recent filing for a default judgment against a sprawling list of government officials, prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement officers.
This article examines the background, claims, and implications of Weeks’ demand for default judgment, illustrating the unusual tactics he has employed in his attempt to assert control over the narrative and legal proceedings.
Background: From Prosecution to Counter-Offensive
Weeks was originally charged in 2019 in connection with BitClub Network, a cryptocurrency investment scheme that U.S. prosecutors labeled a massive Ponzi scheme. Weeks and several others were accused of misleading investors, falsifying returns, and profiting from a deceptive mining operation. While those criminal proceedings progressed, Weeks, who has adopted language and tactics often associated with the sovereign citizen movement, initiated his own legal countermeasures.
Weeks filed a voluminous counterclaim in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where he not only challenged the criminal charges against him but asserted a series of unconventional legal arguments rooted in common law, equity law, and sovereign citizen ideologies. He also named a staggering number of individuals and entities—judges, prosecutors, FBI and IRS agents, clerks, and even the President—as defendants in what he describes as a malicious, unlawful, and groundless persecution.
The Sovereign Citizen Influence: A Framework for His Claims
A close review of Weeks’ filings reveals his reliance on theories that align closely with sovereign citizen beliefs. He consistently asserts that:
– He is a “living man” not subject to the jurisdiction of corporate U.S. courts.
– His name, in all capital letters, represents a separate legal entity (a trust) that government actors have unlawfully hijacked.
– The U.S. government operates as a corporation rather than a legitimate sovereign entity.
– Common law supersedes statutory law when properly invoked by a sovereign individual.
These concepts form the foundation of his demand for default judgment, which he claims is automatically triggered when government officials fail to respond to his notices according to his self-defined terms.
The Postal Rule and Notice of Default
Central to Weeks’ strategy is his invocation of what sovereign citizens often call “the postal rule”—a misapplication of contract law principles suggesting that unrebutted claims become truth after a specified period. Weeks sent numerous “conditional acceptances for value” and “notices of default” to various government officials, demanding point-by-point rebuttals to his claims. This, he asserts, entitles him to immediate default judgment under principles of equity law.
The Basis for Default Judgment: A Multi-Billion Dollar Demand
Weeks’ demand for default judgment spans across multiple legal theories, including:
– RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) violations, accusing federal officials of operating as a coordinated criminal enterprise.
– Violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that government officials conspired to monopolize legal authority in ways that denied him access to justice.
– Kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201, framing his arrest and detention as a criminal abduction.
– Violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
– Breach of Trust, asserting that all named officials have improperly acted as trustees over his personal estate.
Weeks quantifies the total damages at over $22.2 billion, a figure that reflects his belief that every action taken against him amounts to a compounded financial injury against both himself and his alleged trust.
Procedural Complaints and Alleged Misconduct
Weeks also claims that the court itself has engaged in misconduct by failing to properly docket his filings. According to Weeks, documents he physically delivered to the clerk’s office were intentionally suppressed or concealed—violations, he argues, of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which criminalizes the destruction or concealment of court records. This forms part of his broader narrative that the entire judicial process is corrupted by systemic fraud and conspiracy.
A recurring theme in Weeks’ filings is his insistence that the U.S. legal system improperly converted him into a ward of the state at birth, placing his personhood into a cestui que trust—a legal fiction allegedly created by his birth certificate and social security number. By reclaiming his sovereign status as a living man, Weeks claims he has the authority to demand full accounting of all government-held property and funds tied to his estate.
This theory, while debunked repeatedly by courts across the country, is central to his default judgment demand. He asserts that failure to rebut these claims line-by-line within the allotted response period constitutes tacit agreement, binding the government to the financial penalties he seeks.
If granted, Weeks’ demand for default judgment would effectively:
– Nullify all criminal charges against him.
- Declare all government actions against him void ab initio.
- – Award him over $22 billion in damages.
- – Bar the named defendants from holding any public office in the future.
- – Impose liens on the personal assets of every individual named in the suit.
Of course, no federal court has ever accepted such arguments in full. The sovereign citizen legal playbook has been almost universally rejected by U.S. courts, which treat such filings as frivolous and legally baseless.
It is unlikely that the District Court of New Jersey will recognize Weeks’ default judgment request as valid. Courts have long held that self-styled conditional acceptances, sovereign affidavits, and postal rule notices have no legal force in federal criminal proceedings.
