Family Court Blogger argues his prosecution violates the First Amendment
NOTE: This outlet condemns anti-Semitism and all species of hatred. However, this condemnation does not include restricting all speech expressing that hatred.
By Richard Luthmann
Paul Boyne, a pretrial detainee in Connecticut, argues his prosecution violates his First Amendment rights. Boyne, held at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution for over a year, faces 18 counts of stalking and “electronic stalking.”
Three Connecticut Family Court judges claim his blog posts on FamilyCourtCircus.com threatened them and caused them to fear for their safety.
Boyne, 63, insists that the U.S. and CT Constitutions protect his speech and that federal courts must release him.
Virginia resident Boyne was arrested in July 2023 and extradited to CT, where he was held without bail. He says he will file an emergency application to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking an injunction to stop the prosecution and order his release.
Boyne was charged with 18 counts of felony Stalking and Electronic Stalking for allegedly cyberstalking three Connecticut Superior Court Judges who preside over family court matters. The stalking and cyberstalking are limited exclusively to posts Boyne made openly and. notoriously on his blog, FamilyCourtCircus.com.
The case may shape up as a test of free speech protections and the authoritarian trend of Family Courts.
Relying on Dombrowski v. Pfister, a 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision granting federal courts to intervene in state prosecutions that infringe on constitutional rights, Boyne sought relief from the US District Court.
Boyne claimed the State of Connecticut aims to silence dissent about the Family Courts and punish him for his views on Connecticut’s “Jewish” Family Court judges.
He alleges that Connecticut’s judiciary operates like a “Jewish Gestapo,” making it “impossible for anyone to speak against them.”
“This is about silencing any critics of the family court judiciary,” he said. “The actions of the State Attorney fundamentally threaten free speech and political discourse.”
He is trying to convince the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that Connecticut’s actions violate the First Amendment.
Though no judges were accosted, Connecticut prosecutors allege Boyne’s blog posts encouraged violence against them. Boyne often used anti-Semitic language, replacing Judiciary with Jewdiciary, which elevated his posts into a category of hate crimes.
One post reportedly stated, “Is [redacted name] so retarded he cannot recognize that he begs for his lynching…Amazing that a well-regulated militia…has not already popped his skull.”
Boyne insists that though his posts are inflammatory, his speech is protected by the First Amendment.
U.S. District Court Judge Kari A. Dooley
Boyne took his First Amendment argument to U.S. District Court Judge Kari A. Dooley in Bridgeport. She dismissed Boyne’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in June, citing the Younger v. Harris (1971) abstention doctrine, which typically prevents federal courts from intervening in state prosecutions based on the legal principle of comity or mutual respect and recognition between different judicial entities and processes.
“The federal courts are generally barred from interfering in ongoing state prosecutions unless there are extraordinary circumstances,” Judge Dooley wrote.
From Boyne’s Family Court Circus website at http://www.familycourtcircus.com
Boyne argued the judge was wrong.
“The abstention doctrine is not applicable because ‘offended’ Connecticut judges can have anyone locked up for clearly pretextual reasons,” Boyne said.
In Dombrowski, the Supreme Court stated, “We hold the abstention doctrine is inappropriate for cases…where….statutes are justifiably attacked on their face as abridging free expression, or as applied for the purpose of discouraging protected activities.”
In opposition to Boyne’s federal motion for release, the State of CT argued that Boyne could raise his First Amendment argument in state court.
Boyne said that the U.S. Supreme Court held that ordinary defenses a defendant might assert during a criminal prosecution would not provide an adequate remedy at law where bad faith prosecutions would have a “chilling effect” upon the exercise of First Amendment rights.
Boyne represents himself in federal court because he says his state-appointed lawyers “admitted they knew nothing about the First Amendment.”
Acting pro se, Boyne had to file a handwritten Habeas Corpus Petition because he lacks access to a law library, legal books, a computer, or a word processor in jail.
“If I had my laptop for eight hours, I could give the Court everything it needs,” Boyne said.
Boyne argues that these conditions of confinement, coupled with Judge Dooley’s dismissal of his petition without a hearing, violate his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process and Effective Assistance of Counsel.
He points to Article First, Section 8 of the Connecticut Constitution, which states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel.”
Boyne said. “Under the Connecticut constitution, I have a right to be represented by counsel and be heard by the courts. I am being denied that right. I cannot meaningfully advance legal arguments or marshal evidence under my current conditions of confinement.”
Boyne’s legal strategy is to convince the federal appeals court that Connecticut prosecutors are chilling speech by criminalizing the publication of opinion and will deter others from criticizing Connecticut’s judiciary.
The State maintains that Boyne’s speech, which includes his opinion that violence against specific judges for their actions is warranted, constitutes threats outside First Amendment protections.
Boyne’s use of anti-Semitic language and rhetoric that includes discussions of guns and ammo complicates his defense, making it a contentious test of the First Amendment’s protections.
Images from Boyne’s website.
“I believe the federal courts must act to protect free speech,” Boyne said. “If they don’t, it sets a dangerous precedent that allows the State to silence political dissent through prosecution. At that point, the State of Connecticut’s power is limitless. They snatched me from Virginia. Next, it could be you or anyone else.”
Meanwhile, Boyne sits in jail with no trial date in sight. If nothing else, even if the appeals court dismisses the case, the CT judiciary got to punish Boyne with more than a year in custody, which may have been the plan all along.
