First Amendment Allergic Reaction: CT judge panics over blog posts by and mocking Joette Katz. Rights clash with DEI-driven judicial censorship?
EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION: The hardest part about supporting Free Speech is tolerating the opinions of others that may be distressing and that you do not want to hear, or that, if you were to even discuss, may cause certain segments of the population to think poorly of you.
When we took on the editorial work at TheFamilyCourtCircus.com, we knew the site was dripping with gratuitous and pernicious anti-Semitism. We could have chosen to deny the prior history and existence, pretending it did not happen. But those are the actions of authoritarians: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," as Orwell reminds us.
The answer is not to destroy, but to preserve. The same way that the gates of Auschwitz will hopefully stand forever as the most stark historical reminder of “Never Again,” we should not shy away from unpopular, offensive, or even evil viewpoints or rhetoric. Instead, we should hold them up against the mirror of truth.
The following piece contains some distressing and offensive statements. It also contains topics worthy of discussion about civil rights, the family courts, and institutional failures.
It is in that spirit, the search for truth, that we present this article to the readership.
-Richard Luthmann, Editor
NOTE: This piece is written in the “classical style” of TheFamilyCourtCircus.com Blog and is intended to offend. Reader discretion is advised.
The now-famous blog of the worst kind reports on a near-fatal allergic reaction by Judge Peter L. Brown of Connecticut Superior Court on hearing that blog star Joette Katz attacks blog free speech in her January ‘22 CT Law Tribune OpEd, ‘When is Enough Enough’. Blog aficionados have grown fond of the insane rantings by the self-appointed Nutmeg Yeshiva Queen, her twisted ideals of liberty, errant constitutional interpretations, imperialistic drama, all while her relevance in the world diminishes to that of a senile old lady with lots of stray felines and fleas for friends.
Queen Katz
Joette first appeared in blog crosshairs in 2017, with over two dozen memorable mentions since, causing her painful First Amendment rashes under her alien skin, forcing uncontrollable reactions, lashing out at political prose, labeling disliked criticism ‘anti-semitic’, the default scream in defeat of the chosen who have no standing nor recourse to goy opinion, overwhelmed by the breadth and depth of the marketplace of ideas, in the land of the free and home of the brave.
But the real story is why an impartial judicial authority (sic) had a bizarre reaction to reality of Katz’s opinion on blog. Judge Brown’s reaction betrays how the judge club works to defeat the First Amendment. Hyperventilating, stuttering, rapid heart rate, sweaty palms; something struck a nerve of the DEI judicial puppet, interrupting a mundane discussion on discovery in the nutmeg witch hunt of blog writers. Here is a transcript of the allergic reaction:
ATTY. BUSSERT: So, as an example, former Justice Katz in January ‘22 wrote an op-ed for the Connecticut Law Tribune, and she spoke about particular types of online behavior, and I think a reasonable interpretation of that op-ed is that she’s speaking about Mr. Boyne. The claim was there were blog posts on this Family Court Circus blog that they attribute to Mr. Boyne —
THE COURT: Well hold on, counsel.
ATTY. BUSSERT: — but that —
THE COURT: You– Hold on.
ATTY. BUSSERT: — but– but they don’t —
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on.
ATTY. BUSSERT: — she doesn’t name him.
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, —
ATTY. BUSSERT: I apologize.
THE COURT: — Attorney Bussert. Just give me –
Viceroy Brown
-(judicial panting)
ATTY. BUSSERT: Yep.
THE COURT: — a second. Did you just say that it was presumed or assumed that she was referring to Mr. Boyne when she wrote that piece?
ATTY. BUSSERT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Well, that’s not– With– With all due respect I don’t make assumption at all. I – understand that’s your position. I understand that’s your position.
Judge Brown’s belief is that Joette is writing about someone else, another political opinionist, having nothing to do with the case before his confused bench. The fifth grade department of the now-famous blog finds Judge Brown’s assumption statistically impossible, as Joette’s editorial includes direct quotes from several of her favourite historically archived posts:
“Children are precious, in need of protection from the domestic terrorism of Jew family court judges” from Tippins Is Ripe
“Combat the evil of domestic terrorists per Jewette’s directive, protect the children, shoot a judge, and a lawyer, and a GAL, and a therapist … a few clerks, and the big ‘n*****’ in the black robe who jacks off to the sound of children’s screams.” from Katz Combat
“won’t protect the children, then death to her as well! Have lots of long guns and .308 ball ammunition to fend off her flying monkeys! Shotgun in one arm, AR15 in the other, death to our so called judicial system! If vigilante justice is required, give [her] the mountain justice she deserves. . . If the courts won’t protect, then it is up to the people to administer justice! New ammo is made everyday! Vigilante justice!” from Die Bozzuto
It is obvious to most casual observers that Joette has it in for Blog and its writers, as does the ‘judge club’ where in 2020 the judicial branch produced a 95-page report titled “Paul Boyne Comprehensive Report”, a matter which also came before the allergenic black robed black man:
THE COURT: So —
ATTY. BUSSERT: And —
THE COURT: Hold– Just a second. There’s a report called the ‘Paul A. Boyne Comprehensive Report’?
ATTY. BUSSERT: Yes.
THE COURT: And who’s the pur– Who does it appear to be the author of this report?
ATTY. DOYLE: I can address that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
So this the– the– the question I have right now, can someone tell me who is the author of the ‘Paul A. Boyne Comprehensive Report’ from September of 2020? Does anybody know who wrote that report?
ATTY. DOYLE: I do, your Honor. I’d be happy to answer that if you like. The Connecticut Judicial Branch Judicial Marshal Services authorized that– authored that report.
THE COURT: Okay.
The judge club started investigating Blog and its contributors before 2016, Lisa Tutty’s FBI raid arranged by Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto occurred in 2017, a comprehensive report by judicial marshmallows created in 2020, leaving no one wondering of whom Joette was writing in her January 2022 op-ed, published the same month her synagogue pal Judge David Gold signed a search warrant to Blog hosting company to identify source of free speech. Her op-ed sounds like she dictated the probable cause of free speech to Detective McCord. Now, three years on, thousands of pages of State disclosure, the black robed black man refuses to believe Joette is attacking protected Blog speech, she being the architect of ‘stalking speech’, failing to recognize the op-ed as the chosen’s battle plan, starting with her proclamation:
“I know that it’s not always easy to draw the line between a true threat and a statement that’s simply alarming because of its violent and offensive language, I feel confident in stating that the threats made in the blog cross the line and are dangerous.”
Nowhere in First Amendment jurisprudence is there a ‘line’ to cross or is there a degree of dangerous that moves political speech on matters of public concern into the criminal realm by viewpoint discrimination, while advocacy of violence remains advocacy. Speech is protected for purpose predating the founding, being the essence of self-governance, a necessary expressive form to shame and intimidate offending public officials into more honourable service to the citizenry.
But once Katz, Greenblatt, Ginsburg, Gold, and others who celebrate Christmas Dinner at Chinese restaurants, decide goy has too much to think, the knives come out, state machinery hijacked to effectuate a kosher agenda, shredding the Constitution and all its pesky amendments; chosen power runs Corrupticut beyond the rule of law.
Jester Jackaz
Joette makes a fuss over peaceful protests of 6 January 2021, but does not ascend her bully pulpit to malign BLM’s national destruction, does not whine about babies in Gaza killed with U.S. weapons by hand of her cousins, nor does she use the Law Tribune to criticize billions of dollars provided to a coke snorting jew in a green t-shirt hell bent on destruction of Orthodoxy. Her Worshipfulness is pretty one-sided, with very thin skin, flexing muscles of ADL.
Joette goes off the rails in her psychotic break from constitutional reality by confusing political prose, resting in cyberspace, to the physical act of burning a cross in her black neighbor’s front yard. Joette’s twisted mind applies a criminal conduct and intent to political speech, in other words, if you say something to upset Queen Katz, then it was your intent and therefore you are a criminal, where a dyke trooper and a jew judge will arrange your arrest on Joette’s directive, while her misunderstanding of Virginia v Black suggests she is off her meds … again!
But in Joette’s view, the threats in the blog are absolutely intended to incite imminent violence against the judge club, if not by the speaker, then by a third party.
Paul Boyne
Alas, after a decade of blog, Queen Katz’s wishes go unfulfilled, no incited lawless actions materialize on cause of political prose resting in cyberspace, sought voluntarily by the interested reader; Joette simply fabricates reason to punish goy speak that is non-kosher food for thought; Holohoax!
Joette’s game has Old Testament roots, applying viewpoint discrimination, labeling disliked political opinions ‘threats’, creating criminal conduct from protected speech, similar to Moses getting a promise of land to justify killing Canaanites, where all who oppose the no bacon ideology are dispatchable ‘enemies’ … pretty old world, but look who Joette hangs with. Advocacy of violence is protected per Brandenburg v Ohio, to her great disgust, she prefers labeling goy opinion ‘clear & present danger’ a concept tossed by SCOTUS when she was in high school. Perhaps babies in Gaza are in ‘clear & present danger’, but Zionists don’t care, label the babies ‘enemies’ to justify slaughter by scripture! Nebuchadnezzar is probably rolling eyes at Queen Katz & pals.
