Paul Boyne is a United States veteran and graduate of the elite Naval officer training school Annapolis of Maryland. Paul Boyne has been charged with cyber stalking. Paul’s trial is scheduled for next week in the New Haven Superior Court on Church Street. If convicted Boyne faces decades in prison.

Paul Boyne is a blogger who has been bashing Connecticut family law Judges for years on his familylawcircus blog. The jury will have to determine whether Boyne is guilty of cyber stalking the judges. The crime of cyber stalking, which is also referred to as “doxing” or “trolling” is being tested in State and Federal Courts throughout the country. State courts in North Carolina and Illinois recently found the criminal cyber stalking laws, similar to Connecticut’s laws, unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment.

In the old days a stalker would repeatedly drive by his ex-girlfriends house or call her and hang up. Today most cases involve a perpetrator repeatedly sending threatening electronic messages to the victim. Boyne never sent threatening messages to anyone and never contacted anyone over the internet.

Paul Boyne’s crime is that he espoused, and continues to espouse, a radical theory about the Connecticut family court. Paul believes that the family court, ie., the “Jewdiciary” is controlled by a Jewish and Black cabal of Judges, lawyers, guardians, psychologists, social workers and State employees who persecute White Christians and their children. Paul believes that the death and destruction of this family law industrial complex is the only way forward. Paul cites Shakespeare’s expression “Kill all the lawyers” in support of his ideology. Paul lists the addresses of a couple of the judges on his website. Is Paul’s ideology any more or less radical than the ideology of the KKK or other radical groups on the far right and far left? Paul’s ideology is not as popular as the KKK. Paul doesn’t have much of a following, other than the Judges, lawyers and court personnel who read his rantings. Is Paul’s expression of violence any different than the glorification of violence in Hollywood, rap music and video games, all protected under the First Amendment.

ALEX JONES NEVER PROSECUTED FOR CAUSING OTHERS TO STALK SANDY HOOK VICTIMS

The State of Connecticut never prosecuted Alex Jones who told millions of followers that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Alex Jones had the First Amendment right to espouse his conspiracy theories about pizzagate and Sandy Hook. Alex Jones was sued for negligence for causing people to act on his words and harass parents of Sandy Hook victims. Alex Jones lost his case because he defaulted. A jury never decided whether Jones was the proximate cause of damages suffered by the victims of the people who were inspired by Alex Jones to commit acts of violence.

The First Amendment protects the rights of Americans to espouse all kinds of crazy thoughts and ideas including conspiracy theories, racist theories, communism, socialism, hedonism, etc…. The theory is that the free flow of ideas will promote public debate, a form of public therapy. Some people are angry and vent on line with crazy thoughts. Should the government start locking up people for their thoughts and ideas?

Justice Sotomayor in Counterman v. Colorado, a cyber stalking case similar to Boyne’s in which the conviction of the Defendant was overturned, stated the following: “First Amendment vigilance is especially important when speech is disturbing, frightening, or painful, because the undesirability
of such speech will place a heavy thumb in favor of silencing it. In response, the Court has upheld First Amendment rights in the context of gruesome animal cruelty videos, cross burning, hateful rhetoric in protests of the funerals of fallen soldiers, and computer-generated images of child pornography. The risk of over criminalizing upsetting or frightening speech has only been increased by the internet. Our society’s discourse occurs more and more in “the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet’ in general, and social media in particular… Without sufficient protection for unintentionally threatening speech, a high school student who is still learning norms around appropriate language could easily go to prison for sending another student violent music lyrics, or for unreflectingly using language he read in an online forum. A drunken joke in bad taste can lead to criminal prosecution. In the heat of the moment, someone may post an enraged comment under a news story about a controversial topic. Another person might reply equally heatedly. In a Nation that has never been timid about its opinions, political or otherwise, this is commonplace… Speakers whose ideas or views occupy the fringes of our society have more to fear, for their violent and extreme rhetoric, even if intended simply to convey an idea or express displeasure, is more likely to strike a reasonable person as threatening. Members of certain groups, including religious and cultural minorities, can also use language that is more susceptible to being misinterpreted
by outsiders. And unfortunately yet predictably, racial and cultural stereotypes can also influence whether speech is perceived as dangerous. See A. Dunbar, C. Kubrin, & N. Scurich, The Threatening Nature of “Rap” Music.”

THE SOURCE OF PAUL BOYNE’S ANGER DIRECTED AT THE CT JUDICIARY

Many years ago Paul lost custody, and visitation, of his daughter per an order of New Haven Family Court Judge Gerard Adleman, and possibly Judge Linda Munro. Paul has been very bitter about it.  Family Court Judges at times can lack bedside manners and punish litigants rather than split the baby. Judges are human and make mistakes. The winner takes all approach of some family law Judges can be the source of much public anger. Boyne eventually moved to Virginia and currently lives in his 90+ year old parents basement, takes care of them and writes this blog.  He has continued to write his blog even after his arrest, but now he puts some kind of disclaimer on it warning readers that it is highly offensive.  The State never sought to charge him with additional charges even though his blog continues to this day.  

The Feds once looked into arresting Paul Boyne but declined on First Amendment grounds. Former Chief Administrative Judge Patrick Carroll III looked into arresting Boyne in 2020 or so, after other judges complained about Boyne, but Carroll declined on First Amendment grounds.  The Judges went to the legislature in 2021 and convinced legislators to make some changes in the cyber stalking law to make it easier to bring a case against Boyne, even though the CT Constitution has been interpreted to have broader First Amendment protections than the Federal Constitution.  Connecticut is known as the “Constitution State.” Around this time retired Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz wrote a letter in the CT Law Tribute arguing Paul was not protected by the 1st Amendment and should be arrested. Katz’s name comes up on Boyne’s police paperwork, apparently working behind the scenes to get Boyne arrested, according to Boyne.

Chief Administrative Judge Patrick Caroll was replaced by Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto.  There was some communication between these Chief Judges and former Chief State’s Attorney Richard Colangelo, who was forced to resign in disgrace for political corruption. He was never indicted by the Feds nor arrested by the State while his non law enforcement cohorts were all indicted by the Feds and eventually got convicted.

A warrant for Boyne’s arrest was signed and the CT police worked with the VA police to arrest him at his parents house in Virginia.  The process of an out of state arrest is not simple, and requires the two agencies to follow numerous procedural laws.  The State has still not turned over all the discovery with regard to the details of the arrest, which prompted Judge Brown to issue an order to show cause, with the case at risk of being dismissed before trial if the State doesn’t comply.  The State and Boyne’s attorney Todd Bussert from the Public Defenders Office are still fighting over discovery compliance, on the eve of trial.

LOCAL MEDIA IGNORING BIGGEST FIRST AMENDMENT & BOND REVOCATION CASE IN CT HISTORY

Paul Boyne’s case in New Haven Superior Court has not been widely publicized. The Hartford Courant has been posting a few articles, but the New Haven Register and the New Haven Independent have been silent, which is odd as Boyne’s case is the biggest First Amendment case to hit the State of Connecticut involving cyber stalking.

After Boyne was arrested he was incarcerated because he couldn’t afford a very large bond that was put on his head. Boyne spent about a year in jail until his bond miraculously got reduced to $7K a week or so after Donald Trump was elected President in 2024. Paul moved back to Virginia with an ankle bracelet.

Judge Peter Brown was assigned to handle Boyne’s case. During jury selection State’s attorney John Doyle left a 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 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 Whalley Avenue jail in a bright colored jumpsuit to distinguish him from the other inmates due to his high bond. The other inmates must have 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, but stated that the hearing would be cancelled if Brown sprung Boyne before the 17th. On February 17th Brown dropped the bond to $5K. Boyne was back out with an ankle bracelet. The State filed paperwork today arguing that Boyne’s appeal is “moot” because Boyne was released from jail. No harm no foul. No harm no foul? Are you kidding??? The Constitutional rights of the Defendant were just trampled all over the place without any recourse as the judge is protected by judicial immunity. Democracy is dead in the Constitution State.

PAUL BASS GOES BROKE FOR WOKE!

Raising a defendant’s bond from $7K to $1.5M under such circumstances is without precedent. Bond is not to be used to punish a defendant. See Bussert’s legal brief below. Judge Brown should be recused from presiding over Boyne’s trial. Imagine what will happen to Boyne if he is convicted. Judge Brown is African American. Could you imagine if Judge Brown were Caucasian and raised the bond of an African American defendant in such a manner? There would be riots in New Haven. The New Haven Independent would be all over that story. The “progressive” “woke” New Haven Independent is run by Yale grad Paul Bass and is largely financed by a member of the large billionaire Pritzker family, not Thomas Pritzker, who recently resigned from his position due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein. The billionaire Pritzker family also indirectly supports Larry Noodles, as Larry Noodles would have nothing to write about if Paul Bass didn’t run the New Haven Independent, and was just some boring reporter for the New York Times, or a laid off reporter at the Washington Post.

Paul Bass recently referred to the bus services in New Haven as “New Haven’s Apartheid Bus System” because the Yale Shuttle and the City buses are not combined. According to Paul Bass, Apartheid occurs when the Yale Shuttle picks up White Yale students while the City bus picks up blue collar African Americans and both buses follow similar routes. Mr. Bass is an old school bleeding heart liberal, and is getting older by the minute. Paul would be all over this story if Mr. Boyne were Black and was being prosecuted for producing a racist violent rap album. Because Mr. Boyne is a member of the far right, Mr. Bass won’t go near this case. This case isn’t about Mr. Boyne’s racist and Anti-Semitic rantings, which I would never defend as I am a proud self absorbed Jew, just like Paul Bass. This is about defending the First Amendment, which I learned about in law school, and which Paul Bass should have learned about in the Yale journalism school.

The most famous First Amendment case of all time addressed the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, in a neighborhood mostly populated with Holocaust survivors. David Goldberger, the attorney for the ACLU who represented the neo-Nazis, wrote the following about the case: “If the government can prevent lawful speech because it is offensive and hateful, then it can prevent any speech that it dislikes. In other words, the power to censor Nazis includes the power to censor protesters of all stripes and to prevent the press from publishing embarrassing facts and criticism that government officials label as ‘fake news.’ To this day, the case still brings up difficult feelings about representing a client whose constitutional rights were being violated but who represented the hatred and bigotry that continues to erupt into America’s consciousness. I remember being attacked repeatedly as a traitorous Jew. And I remember the anxiety that I would be attacked physically. At one point I asked an off-duty Chicago police officer, who was a personal friend, to accompany me to a speaking engagement (in civilian clothes) where extremely hostile members of the audience were expected to be present.”

“For God, For Country, For Noodles, For Yale and For the Coming of Moshiach speedily in our Day!”

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