By Richard Luthmann
Virginia blogger Paul Boyne remains at the center of a stormy debate over free speech and the boundaries of what constitutes a "true threat." The Family Court Circus Blog author has been jailed in Connecticut for over 17 months, charged with cyberstalking family court judges.
Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe discussed Paul Boyne’s case on a recent episode of The Unknown Podcast.
Free Speech supporters, including journalist Michael Volpe, argue that Boyne's inflammatory rhetoric is being weaponized to suppress political dissent.
Volokh Weighs In: A Debate on the True Threat Standard
Renowned UCLA law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh recently discussed the merits of Boyne's case with Michael Volpe.
In an email exchange, Volpe contended that Boyne’s statements, while controversial, fall under political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment.
"Prosecutors refuse to specify which posts they’re charging," Volpe said. "It’s about chilling dissent, not pursuing justice."
Volpe emailed Professor Volokh:
From: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 7:18 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene <volokh@law.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: ArticleThe arrest warrant starts on page 12 of the document attached. That's the only evidence of any crime. If you see something rising to true threat, that's fine, but there isn't.
Prosecutors have also refused to tell the court which of the blog posts they intend to charge on. That's what Paul means when he says that they haven't provided the evidence.
He's also in jail for almost a year and a half with no trial date even set. If prosecutors had anything, the trial would have happened. This seems to be the perfect case for you to weigh in, and it would be important.
Volokh responded that Boyne’s language complicates the case, making it harder to argue that his speech is purely political. The First Amendment scholar acknowledged the provocative language in Boyne’s posts but asserted that elements of the arrest warrant meet the threshold for a jury to consider them as true threats.
NOTE: The complete Arrest Warrant Application for Paul Boyne is published below.
“Seems to be plenty in the arrest warrant to yield a jury question as to true threats,” Volokh wrote, referencing multiple incendiary statements, including descriptions of specific judges in crosshairs and discussions of assassinations and firearms:
From: Volokh, Eugene <volokh@law.ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2024, 7:18 PM
Subject: RE: Article
To: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>Seems to be plenty in the arrest warrant to yield a jury question as to true threats: Judge Moukawsher “in the crosshair sight of a firearm” (¶ 17); “The judicial vengeance of Judge Moukawsher begs a .50 cal to the head” (¶ 18); talk of “assassinations” and “.50 caliber ammunition” (¶ 5); the items listed in ¶ 6; “is she beginning for a .308 shot to the head thru two panes of window glass from an oath keeper, concealed in the woods behind her house? A quick .50 cal to the head, delivered thru the back window of her car” (¶ 8); “worthy of a .50 cal to the head” (¶ 10); the Molotov cocktail stuff in ¶ 11; “Hunt Deichert!” and related material (¶ 12); “are there enough .50 cals for all the chosen heads in need of redemption?” (¶ 13); and more.
Now maybe you disagree, and I appreciate that your Oct. 28 post at least discussed some of this. But any post that talks about the matter without acknowledging just what Boyne has been saying lacks credibility, in my view.
Eugene
Luthmann doubled down on Boyne as a provocateur who intended to create publicity and awareness but not make a true threat that anyone could take seriously, let alone a sophisticated Judge living 1,000 miles away.
“Paul took no reasonable preparatory steps towards violence. He expressed what was in his imagination based on the public record. Volokh defended speech in cases like People v. Relerford and Mashaud v. Boone,” Luthmann noted. “Why not Boyne? If neo-Nazis could march in Skokie, why can’t Boyne critique judges? This smacks of ThoughtCrime, and Boyne’s Anti-Semitism is the only differentiating factor.”
Luthmann said that Connecticut’s approach is dangerous.
“One of the fundaments of the First Amendment, as I understand it, is the wisdom of the Framers about a basic fact of human society: when words fly, bullets don’t. The core of the First Amendment is the Enlightenment belief that human reason, and not violence, is the answer. Connecticut turns this notion on its head by criminalizing Boyne’s words,” Luthmann said.
Boyne is facing decades in jail for words, not actions. Luthmann says the results of this over-criminalization of speech will be to remove speech from the equation altogether - and with deadly consequences.
“Let’s say hypothetically, we have three dead judges in the State of Nutmeg and a blogger who wrote ‘incitement’ similar to Boyne’s blog. Can that blogger be held vicariously responsible for the deaths? The State of Connecticut is saying YES with the Boyne prosecution. So, if there is no difference in the penalty for words and actual violence, if you are going to pay for decades either way, why bother engaging in words? Why even stop the train at that station?” Luthmann said.
Luthmann says Connecticut is paving the way for Orwellian ThoughtCrime prosecutions and a “Minority Report” world.
“It’s Anti-Enlightenment and Anti-American. But this is the world the WOKE mob wants. Violent, Illiterate, Authoritarian. And the Nutmeg State is the King of the WOKE.”
The Arrest Warrant: A Questionable Foundation
The affidavit supporting Boyne’s arrest cites dozens of posts from The Family Court Circus Blog. Some examples include graphic language about firearms and incendiary devices targeting judges like Elizabeth Stewart and Jane Grossman, and retired Judge Thomas Moukawsher. The posts also reveal personal details about the judges, including home addresses.
The warrant also seemingly refers to former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz, making the full deposition/testimony of Judge Grossman critical in the State’s case and Boyne’s ability to conduct a defense consonant with due process:
21. On April 18, 2022, Judge Grossman provided the following sworn statement:
"I first learned of the threats' against me on Paul Boyne's website, the family circus, on Saturday, January 30, 2021, A colleague, who has also been threatened on this site, monitors the site regularly and called [me at home] to tell me what had been posted about me. I contacted the Chief Court Administrator and the Deputy Chief Court Administrator and the Judicial Marshals. They contacted the state and local police.
Former Justice Katz admitted at a 2022 symposium sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that she “monitors the site regularly.”
Boyne previously said that Joette Katz was “running” his prosecution. The warrant affidavit shows that Katz has been there since Day One.
Paul Boyne's Bombshell: "Former CT Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz is 'Running' My Prosecution"
Critics argue that the warrant exaggerates the intent behind Boyne’s posts. Legal filings reference Supreme Court precedent in Watts v. United States (1969), which protected hyperbolic political speech, and Counterman v. Colorado (2023), which emphasized the need to prove intent to intimidate for true threats.
Boyne’s supporters argue that his rhetoric, while offensive, is satirical and intended to critique judicial corruption.
Religion, Lawfare, and the ADL: Boyne’s Broader Beliefs
In a recent jailhouse interview with Richard Luthmann, Boyne delved into his contentious views on religion and family law. He alleges that the family court system is an anti-Christian construct designed to undermine traditional values.
“No-fault divorce came from the Bolshevik Revolution—a Jewish effort to dismantle the Christian family,” Boyne claimed. He further argued that the family courts are controlled by what he described as a “Jew judiciary,” accusing judges like Kari A. Dooley and Joette Katz of advancing an agenda he sees as corrupt and anti-religious.
Boyne also criticized the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which he alleges has influenced prosecutions against him. He pointed to ADL programs like "Leveraging the Criminal Justice System to Combat Anti-Semitism," calling it an attempt to criminalize speech critical of public figures.
“They’re weaponizing the law to punish people like me for exercising our First Amendment rights,” Boyne said.
A Contentious Defense of Free Speech
Boyne’s legal arguments hinge on constitutional protections for political speech, particularly criticisms of public officials. His filings cite cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), which upheld speech rights even when they carried incendiary implications.
His defense also references Connecticut’s history of judicial overreach. In his habeas corpus petition, Boyne accuses the state of manipulating stalking statutes to circumvent First Amendment protections.
"Political speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of First Amendment values," Boyne argued in a filing. "Criminalizing such speech erodes the foundation of democracy."
Selective Enforcement?
The controversy around Boyne’s detention grows starker when contrasted with recent events. On The Unknown Podcast, Volpe highlighted a viral video in which a transgender activist issued a graphic death threat against Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC). Despite the video’s explicit nature, no charges have been filed against the activist.
“How is that not a double standard?” Volpe asked. “Boyne writes satirical posts, and he’s in jail for almost two years. Meanwhile, someone openly threatens a congresswoman, and nothing happens.”
Luthmann added, “The disparity here shows that the law is being applied selectively to silence certain voices while ignoring others.”
The Role of the Judiciary
Boyne’s case raises critical questions about judicial impartiality. His blog has consistently targeted judges for alleged misconduct, including what he sees as abuses of discretion in family court.
He alleges that Connecticut judges like US District Court Judge Kari A. Dooley are part of a system designed to suppress dissent.
“The judiciary here is a club, not a court,” Boyne said. “They protect each other while punishing anyone who dares to call them out.”
What’s Next for Boyne?
Boyne’s legal team is preparing for hearings in both state and federal court. His supporters hope the case will highlight the risks of overbroad cyberstalking statutes and their potential to stifle dissent.
“This isn’t just about me,” Boyne said. “It’s about whether Americans can criticize their government without being thrown in jail.”
As his case unfolds, it serves as a litmus test for the boundaries of free speech in an era of increasing government scrutiny.
THE FULL PAUL BOYNE ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION
Share this post