By Richard Luthmann
Paul Boyne, a Virginia-based blogger, former military contractor, and graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, has spent the past 18 months in a Connecticut jail over incendiary blog posts on his site, The Family Court Circus. His words against Connecticut Family Court judges have landed him in hot water, with New Haven State Prosecutor Jack Doyle labeling his posts as true threats.
Boyne, however, calls it free speech and satire. His supporters argue this is a clear case of judicial overreach aimed at silencing dissent.
On The Unknown Podcast, journalists Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann discussed Boyne’s case, and they didn’t mince words.
“Paul Boyne is sitting in jail for kvetching,” Luthmann said. “Connecticut has taken complaining about the judiciary and turned it into a crime. If that’s not Orwellian, I don’t know what is.”
Boyne’s blog routinely criticizes Connecticut’s family court system. It’s filled with sharp accusations, often targeting specific judges for alleged misconduct.
Some of his more inflammatory posts include statements like, “Judge Moukawsher in the crosshair sight of a firearm” and “The judicial vengeance of Judge Moukawsher begs a .50 cal to the head.”
While such language raises eyebrows, Boyne’s defenders maintain it’s hyperbolic and not a genuine threat.
“It’s satire, plain and simple,” said Luthmann. “Connecticut judges are using this as a pretext to punish someone who knows too much and talks too loud.”
Boyne Speaks from Jail: Scathing Remarks on Connecticut’s ‘Pedophile Ring’ and Prosecutor Jack Doyle
In exclusive jailhouse conversations with Luthmann, Boyne expressed his distrust of Connecticut’s system designed to protect pedophiles. He also called Connecticut state prosecutor Jack Doyle the “hatchetman” for the “power that be.”
Controlled by the Democrat Party, Boyne believes that the Connecticut courts, and in particular the family courts, exist in no small part to protect pedophiles.
“It’s by design. Why do you think the pedophiles come [to Connecticut]?” Boyne said. “Everything is designed to protect them.”
Boyne also took aim at prosecutor Jack Doyle, whom he believes is challenging his request for bail reduction and release on recognizance and asking for a bail increase after 18 months of Boyne’s incident-free pre-trial detention.
“Jack Doyle isn’t a prosecutor; he’s a puppet master,” Boyne said. “He’s pulling strings for the judiciary to silence me. He knows I’m not a threat, but he’s playing dirty to keep me in here.”
Boyne didn’t stop there.
“Doyle is a coward,” he added. “He inflates charges, hides behind the law, and pretends this is about justice. It’s about protecting corrupt judges.”
U.S. District Court Judge Kari A. Dooley also faced Boyne’s wrath.
“Dooley is just another rubber stamp for Doyle,” he claimed. “The judiciary in Connecticut isn’t about justice—it’s about protecting their own.”
Boyne saved his harshest criticism for former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz.
“Joette Katz has been gunning for me for years,” he alleged. “She’s weaponizing her influence to turn my blog into a crime scene.”
Emails dated between March 28, 2022, and April 19, 2022, are part of the discovery in Boyne's case.
Handwritten on the email is the language: “Cease and desist to stop uploading. Katz Speak To Only.”
Boyne believes this proves Katz’s improper connection to his cases.
Former Justice Katz has not responded to multiple requests for comment from this outlet.
Boyne’s fiery remarks reflect his frustration and belief that this case isn’t about safety.
“This isn’t about threats,” he said. “It’s about shutting me up because I’m exposing their secrets.”
The Legal Minefield: Jurisdictional Issues and First Amendment Questions
The case against Boyne raises thorny jurisdictional and constitutional issues. A Virginia resident, Boyne is being prosecuted in Connecticut for blog posts he published from another state.
“How does Connecticut prosecute a guy in Virginia for speech?” Luthmann asked on The Unknown Podcast. “This is a jurisdictional mess.”
Luthmann highlighted another complication: Boyne is charged with making threats against three different judges in separate incidents.
“How are they consolidating this into one trial?” he asked. “The jurisdictional gymnastics here are absurd.”
Boyne echoed this sentiment in his conversations with Luthmann.
“This whole case is a farce,” he said. “They can’t even prove jurisdiction. I’m in jail for a speech crime, but the system itself is lawless.”
Constitutional questions also loom large. The First Amendment protects offensive speech, including satire and hyperbole. Courts have long held that only “true threats” fall outside those protections.
To qualify as a true threat, the speech must convey an intent to cause harm, a standard established in Watts v. United States and reaffirmed in Counterman v. Colorado.
“Paul’s speech is offensive, sure,” said Luthmann. “But it’s not a true threat. Connecticut is stretching the law to punish someone for criticizing them.”
Boyne’s New Lawyers: Confidence or Chaos?
Boyne recently fired his court-appointed lawyers, citing a lack of confidence in their abilities. He now has two new attorneys, Kelly Billings and Dennis O’Malley, but his trust in them is already wavering.
“They’re feeding me to the wolves,” Boyne said of his new defense team. “They don’t understand what they’re up against. This isn’t a normal case. It’s a political witch hunt.”
Boyne took issue with their strategy, particularly their focus on bond reduction.
“Their motion is weak,” he said. “They argued I’m not dangerous and can’t afford the bond, but they ignored the bigger issues—jurisdiction and dismissal.”
Despite his reservations, Boyne’s attorneys are preparing for an upcoming bail hearing. The motion for bond reduction emphasizes his indigence and lack of dangerousness. It also notes that Boyne consistently attended court during his contentious divorce proceedings, suggesting he’s not a flight risk.
Luthmann believes getting Boyne out of jail is critical.
“Paul needs to be out to mount a proper defense,” he said. “He’s a difficult client, no doubt, but he’s also the most knowledgeable person about his case. He can’t fight effectively from behind bars.”
A Broader Debate: Free Speech vs. Judicial Accountability
At its core, the Boyne case raises fundamental questions about free speech and government accountability. Boyne’s supporters argue his prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for dissent.
“Paul Boyne is a political prisoner,” said Volpe. “This isn’t about threats. It’s about silencing a critic who knows too much.”
Luthmann warned of the chilling effect the case could have.
“When words fly, bullets don’t,” he said. “If we criminalize complaining, dissent goes underground. That’s dangerous for democracy.”
Boyne himself framed his case as a fight for free speech.
“If they can jail me for complaining, they can jail anyone,” he said. “This isn’t just about me. It’s about whether we’re still allowed to hold our government accountable.”
The Road Ahead
Boyne’s bail hearing, scheduled for January 3, will be a critical test for his defense team. While his lawyers focus on bond reduction, Boyne continues to push for broader challenges to the prosecution’s case, including jurisdictional arguments and constitutional defenses.
As the hearing approaches, Boyne’s case remains a flashpoint in the national conversation about free speech, judicial accountability, and the limits of dissent. Whether he’s seen as a ‘kvetcher’ or a criminal depends largely on how courts interpret his words—and how far they’re willing to go to silence them.
For now, Paul Boyne sits in jail, kvetching—and waiting for his day in court.
Share this post