64 year old Virginia resident Paul Boyne is on trial for his life. He is charged with 18 felony counts of electronic stalking of Connecticut family court judges. He could get locked up for years. The State of Connecticut sent State Trooper Samantha McCord all the way to Fairfax County, Virginia to serve a search warrant on Paul Boyne with the assistance of 3 law enforcement agencies and almost 20 law enforcement officers.

The emails between law enforcement referred to “legal loopholes” and “work arounds” in order to drag Paul Boyne to the State of Connecticut. This was not a case of hot pursuit. Paul Boyne did not kill anyone and move the body to Virginia. State and Federal law enforcement had known about Boyne’s blog for years, yet declined to press charges on First Amendment grounds. Boyne’s case started to get traction when his case was handed over to Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney Richard Coangelo, who resigned in disgrace for a public scandal in which his cohorts were indicted by the Department of Justice. Boyne is fighting for his life in the New Haven Superior Court, where his multiple cases from different jurisdictions were all combined for one trial. New Haven recently saw the resignation of its police chief Karl Jacobson, in disgrace after admitting to stealing money from an informant’s fund which he used to support his $4 million gambling addiction.

New Haven’s Chief Prosecutor Jack Doyle, who is in court trying to convince a jury to lock up Boyne, was intimately involved in the logistics of complying with procedural laws when a suspect is dragged across the country to be prosecuted by another State. Extradition laws are usually reserved for the most violent of criminals. In the City of New Haven on any given day there are thousands of violent guys walking around with outstanding arrest warrants that the cops have no time to pursue. Go to the CT judicial website arrest warrant lookup and type the last name “Brown” and you will get 262 outstanding warrants for guys with the last name Brown. The only time these guys named Brown get busted is when they get pulled over for a moving violation in their vehicles or when they get caught crashing a Kia they just stole from Westville. New Haven is famous for its pizza as well as the birthplace of the Kia Boyz, guys who break into Kia with a screwdriver and drive like maniacs throughout the City with the cops powerless to stop them. If the cops chase them the Kia boyz cause major accidents resulting in death. The New Haven police would rather spend their limited resources chasing a 64 year old guy living in his parents basement in Virginia who posts pictures of family court judges, DCF workers, family court lawyers and law guardians in cross hairs. Do the cops actually believe that the Paul Boyne blog will insight a groyper to hunt down a family court judge? Paul Boyne doesn’t have millions of followers. Paul Boyne is an Internet nobody. Paul Boyne is no Nick Fuentes. Paul’s biggest readers are the family court judges and court staff who read his rantings.

Doyle and Boyne’s lawyer Todd Bussert spent the entire first day of trial on 2/25/26 examining State Trooper Samantha McCord and whether she followed proper procedure in arresting Boyne in Virginia. Jack Doyle’s name is all over the police reports as having been involved in the warrant applications and yet Judge Brown would not allow Bussert to call Doyle to the witness stand to testify. In his motion to suppress Bussert rips into Doyle as a prosecutor who has abused his power in the past, in a recent murder case State v. Parris, in which the Connecticut Supreme Court concluded: “we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury’s verdict would have been different in the absence of prosecutorial impropriety. Therefore, the defendant has established that the prosecutorial impropriety deprived him of a fair trial in violation of his due process rights. As a result, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on the murder charge.” Jack Doyle has been a New Haven prosecutor for decades and is paid upwards of $200K a year, plus is close to retiring with a full pension. Prosecutors have a special duty as “ministers of justice” rather than merely advocates, requiring them to seek justice, act with integrity, and ensure fair trials rather than just secure convictions. Jack Doyle should know how to conduct a fair trial and should not be reversed on appeal for “prosecutorial impropriety.”

Boynes case has exposed “judicial impropriety” that will never get a chance to be addressed by the Connecticut Supreme Court. During jury selection State’s attorney Jack Doyle left the State’s witness list on Boyne’s desk before Boyne and his attorney arrived in Court. Boyne arrived first and took a picture of the list and disseminated it to bloggers who were writing about his case. The bloggers posted the list online and reached out to a few people on the list of 70 individuals. States Attorney Doyle told Judge Brown he was going to seek to increase Boyne’s bond because Boyne should not have publicized the list, without citing any legal authority, as the list was not ordered sealed. Doyle then withdrew his request. You have to wonder whether Doyle set up Boyne, knowing he would copy the list. Judge Brown said he would increase Boyne’s bond anyway and raised it from $7K to $1.5 million, and ordered that Boyne not have access to any documents in his case. Boyne was locked up in a bright colored jumpsuit to distinguish him from the other inmates due to his high bond. The other inmates wondered whether Boyne was a serial killer. Boyne’s attorney Todd Bussert filed an immediate appeal expressing complete outrage at Judge Brown’s order. Judge Brown scheduled the next hearing two weeks out to February 17th, to consider lowering the bond. The Appellate Court scheduled a hearing for February 17th to address Brown’s increase in the bond, which was clearly improper. On February 17th Brown dropped the bond to $5K. Boyne was back out with an ankle bracelet. The Appellate Court declined to review Judge Brown’s increase in bond because Boyne was out of jail and found that the issue was “moot.”

Is Boyne’s blog any different from the far left and far right bloggers of the world wide web. Should the State criminalize every violent rant on the Internet. Kanye West posted that he was going “death con 3 on the Jewish people.” I’m a Jew. I feel threatened by Kanye West. I believe he is stalking me. I demand that the State’s Attorney’s Office of the State of Connecticut employ 18 law enforcement agents and three law enforcement agencies and serve search warrants and extradition warrants on Kanye West in his mansion in Beverly Hills. Not so far fetched under Connecticut’s “electronic stalking law.”

When you add racist rants to a crime you are committing in Connecticut you get charged with a “hate crime” felony rather than a misdemeanor. Does this make any sense? You are basically being punished for your racist thoughts. Some people were raised to hate other people for the color of their skin. Should the State of Connecticut punish people for being raised by bad parents or in a bad environment or in the echo chamber of a racist Internet community? Every groyper should be arrested. The politically correct argue that hate crime laws deter crime that is motivated by racism. People who are at a point in their life where they are committing violent crime could care less about hate crime laws.

First Amendment expert Mario Cerame was in the Courtroom with Paul Boyne all day waiting to be called to testify. He was never called. He had filed an amicus curie brief, a “friend of the court” brief on First Amendment issues in the Boyne case. The United States Supreme Court recently issued a big First Amendment decision in stalking cases in the case of Counterman v. Colorado. Mario was the only attorney who cited this case in his brief. The First Amendment motion to dismiss submitted by Todd Bussert didn’t mention this case, nor did Judge Brown’s decision denying the Motion to Dismiss. Counterman unfortunately muddied the First Amendment waters in the area of “stalking by speech” more than clear up the law. The Judge and lawyers working on the Boyne case unfortunately are not experts in First Amendment law. According to the amicus curie brief filed by Cerame, Boyne’s attorney Bussert has refused to talk to Mr. Cerame about Boyne’s case, yet Boyne’s prior public defender agreed to talk to Cerame. Why would Bussert not speak with Cerame about the First Amendment aspects of the Boyne case? It makes no sense.

If you have a tip, story, suggested correction, or wish to make a tax deductible financial donation to this website, or need assistance brainstorming a legal problem you are having with your nemesis, please reach out to the following email:

larrylokshen@gmail.com