By Richard Luthmann
Virginia blogger Paul Boyne, detained in Connecticut for 17 months on cyberstalking charges, continues to argue that his incarceration is an unconstitutional punishment for his outspoken critiques of the state’s judiciary.
In a jailhouse interview with journalist Richard Luthmann, Boyne detailed his views on family courts, the intertwining of religion and law, and what he sees as systemic efforts to silence dissent.
“This is About Free Speech”
Boyne, the author of The Family Court Circus blog, insists his posts criticizing Connecticut judges are protected under the First Amendment. His arrest, he argues, represents an unconstitutional suppression of speech.
“They can’t even point to what part of my blog is supposed to be a threat,” he said. “There’s no dangling participle or run-on sentence that constitutes a crime.”
Boyne’s posts frequently targeted Connecticut family courts, which he accuses of corruption. His rhetoric, often satirical and inflammatory, has drawn sharp criticism from public officials, including former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz.
Boyne alleges that Katz’s public and private advocacy against his blog fueled his prosecution.
“Joette Katz made it clear—she wanted to silence me,” Boyne said. “She’s spoken at ADL [Anti-Defamation League] events about using the criminal justice system to combat speech they don’t like. That’s what’s happening here.”
Religion and the Courts: Boyne’s Controversial Claims
Boyne’s critique of the family court system includes what he calls a “religious dimension.” He argues that the family court model, rooted in no-fault divorce and child custody battles, undermines Christian values.
“No-fault divorce came out of the Bolshevik Revolution—it was a Jewish construct designed to dismantle the Christian family,” Boyne said, referencing historical events he believes influenced modern family law.
He pointed to what he sees as a disproportionate Jewish influence in the family court system.
“When you look at who built these systems and who enforces them, it’s overwhelmingly people who don’t share the values of the Christian majority,” Boyne said. “It’s about eroding the family unit, which is the cornerstone of society.”
Boyne referenced the Gospel of Matthew 19: 1 - 12:
19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Boyne’s assertions about religion and law have drawn criticism for their anti-Semitic tone. Luthmann pressed him on whether his critiques stem from religious bias.
“It’s not about being Jewish,” Boyne replied. “It’s about a system that’s corrupt and unaccountable. The religious affiliations of those running it are secondary to the fact that they’re destroying families.”
Lawfare and the ADL
Boyne also accused the Anti-Defamation League of supporting legal tactics that suppress free speech.
“They talk about ‘leveraging the criminal justice system,’” Boyne said. “What that really means is using the law as a weapon to punish people for saying things they don’t like. That’s lawfare.”
Boyne tied his own case to broader trends in government overreach.
“Look at what’s happening to dissenters across the country,” he said. “If they can criminalize speech under the guise of cyberstalking, they can silence anyone who criticizes the government.”
The Judges at the Center of Boyne’s Case
Boyne’s blog frequently named judges he accused of misconduct, including New Haven Judge Peter Brown. He alleges these judges are part of a “judicial club” that prioritizes protecting its own over upholding constitutional rights.
“They’re not interested in justice,” Boyne said. “They’re interested in maintaining power and silencing critics.”
Boyne’s criticisms extend to federal judges, including Judge Kari A. Dooley, whom he claims have ignored constitutional violations in his case.
“The judiciary in Connecticut operates like an old boys’ club,” he said. “They protect each other at the expense of the law.”
On Bail and “Preventative Detention”
Despite having no prior criminal history, Boyne remains classified as a high-risk detainee. He believes this is part of a strategy to keep him behind bars as punishment for his speech.
“I’ve been sitting in jail for 17 months,” he said. “They know they can’t convict me, so the punishment is the process itself.”
Boyne linked his prolonged detention to a broader trend of using high bail amounts as a tool to suppress political dissent.
“It’s not about flight risk or dangerousness,” he said. “It’s about sending a message to anyone else who might want to speak out.”
A Call for Federal Intervention
Boyne hopes his case will draw attention from national free speech advocates, including Professor Eugene Volokh, a prominent First Amendment scholar.
Volokh has yet to comment publicly on Boyne’s case, though he has been involved in similar cases, such as People v. Relerford and Mashaud v. Boone.
“I’ve cited all the relevant case law—Watts, Brandenburg, Counterman,” Boyne said, referencing landmark free speech rulings.
“If Volokh or anyone else who cares about the First Amendment looks at my case, they’ll see it’s a textbook example of government overreach.”
What’s Next for Boyne?
Boyne’s next court date in New Haven state court is January 3, 2025. His federal case also heads to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He remains defiant.
“This isn’t just about me,” he said. “This is about whether we still have free speech in America. If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.”
Boyne’s fight has garnered attention from some First Amendment advocates, but his controversial rhetoric has also alienated potential allies. Whether his case becomes a turning point for free speech jurisprudence or fades into obscurity remains to be seen.
For now, Boyne is preparing to continue his legal battle—armed with handwritten motions, legal research, and his unyielding belief in the Constitution.
“Land of the Free?”
Boyne summed up his perspective as the call ended: “They say this is the land of the free, the home of the brave. But where’s the freedom in this? Where’s the bravery? It’s all gone.”
Share this post