Paul Boyne was convicted two days ago on 16 felony and misdemeanor counts related to stalking Connecticut Family Court judges. After the jury delivered its verdict, Boyne was taken into custody. Before being led away, he handed his jewelry, wallet, cell phone, and other personal belongings to my assistant, Zalmy Noodles Jr.

Zalmy later joked that Boyne was “the nicest white supremacist he had ever met.” He eventually located Boyne’s friend Cheryl M, who had supported him throughout the trial. Cheryl is part of a growing movement in Connecticut and elsewhere consisting of individuals who believe they have been treated unjustly by the family court system. Zalmy ultimately gave Boyne’s belongings to Cheryl.

I did not expect Boyne to be acquitted. When portions of his extremely racist, antisemitic, and violent blog posts were read aloud in court, several jurors visibly reacted, shaking their heads and appearing shocked by what they heard. Boyne faced an uphill battle, although his attorney did a commendable job defending him.

In my view, the defense might have benefited from calling a language expert to discuss whether Boyne’s statements reflected the exaggerated rhetoric or slang sometimes used by poor, angry White men online rather than literal threats. An expert witness could also have addressed Boyne’s claim of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which he said developed after he lost custody of his children nearly twenty years ago.

Boyne spent 18 months in jail before trial because his bond was initially set at $200,000, which he could not afford. Shortly after Donald Trump was elected president, the bond was reduced to $7,000 for reasons that remain unclear. Prosecutors reportedly offered Boyne a favorable plea deal that would have allowed him to avoid jail time, but he refused to consider it. Boyne is known to be stubborn, and I suspect he did not want to disappoint his supporters.

Boyne is an elderly man who walks with a cane, but he did not appear afraid of going to jail. I believe he expected to lose the case, despite attending services at St. Mary’s Church while the jury was deliberating.

Superior Court Judge Tracy Lee Dayton, a former federal prosecutor, set Boyne’s appeal bond at $975,000. Boyne has instructed his public defender, Todd Bussert, to file an appeal.

The appeal bond is significantly higher than the $5,000 bond Boyne had while free during the trial but lower than the $1.5 million bond previously set by Judge Peter Brown. That earlier bond appeared to be imposed after Boyne posted the state’s witness list on his blog. Bussert appealed the $1.5 million bond, and on the day the appeal was scheduled to be heard, Judge Brown reduced the bond to $5,000, allowing Boyne to be released. In total, Boyne spent about two weeks in jail during that period.

Boyne and his friend Cheryl are part of a large network of Connecticut family-court litigants who are deeply frustrated with the system, including judges, Family Relations officers, and the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Many connect online to share stories and vent their frustrations.

If anyone in that community were inclined to harm a judge, I doubt they would need encouragement from Boyne’s blog. Individuals who commit acts of violence against public officials typically act based on their own motives. It seems unlikely that someone would carry out such an act solely because of Boyne’s online rants about what he calls a “Jewdiciary” conspiracy.

That said, family court judges have legitimate reasons to be concerned about their names, photographs, home addresses, and even images of their children appearing on Boyne’s blog—especially given the current climate of political violence.

In recent years, numerous public officials have received serious threats. Figures such as Attorney General Pam Bondi, senior adviser Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll have reportedly taken security precautions because of threats against their lives and have moved to military bases. However, those officials attract millions of online critics. It is unlikely that someone like Judge Joette Katz faces that level of online hostility.

Judicial politics plays a role in how judges are assigned in Connecticut. The Chief Administrative Judge in Hartford controls most assignments. If a judge falls out of favor, they may find themselves assigned to courts such as habeas, juvenile, or family court. Family court is considered the worst assignment.

To my knowledge, there has not been violence directed specifically at Connecticut family court judges. Most conflicts, and violence occur between litigants themselves or between litigants and attorneys.

Unlike probate judges in Connecticut, who are elected, family court judges are appointed by the Chief Administrative Judge. I would suggest to legislatures that family court judges, as well as juvenile court judges, should be elected as well. Judges who truly want the position would seek it, and voters would have the ability to remove them if they were dissatisfied. The state could also provide funding for enhanced security if needed.

Connecticut judges earn roughly $200,000 per year, along with health benefits and a full pension upon retirement. When Judge Joette Katz left the Connecticut Supreme Court to lead the Department of Children and Families, she reportedly received both her judicial pension and a state salary from DCF simultaneously—a comfortable financial arrangement for a graduate of UConn Law.

If you wish to contact Paul Boyne at the Whalley Avenue correctional facility, you can find the relevant information through the Department of Correction.

If you have a tip, story idea, suggested correction, or would like help brainstorming a legal issue you are dealing with, you can reach me at: larrylokshen@gmail.com.

If you have sensitive information you would prefer not to send by email, please reach out to arrange another method for sharing it.