Playback speed
×
Share post
Share post at current time
0:00
/
0:00
Transcript
1
3

Trump Appointee Judge Kari A. Dooley Blind to Bombshell Katz Email as Boyne Fights CT's 'Inglorious Basterds'

Federal Judge Ignores Evidence Linking Former CT Justice to Boyne’s Prosecution; Katz’s Silence Speaks Volumes
1
3

By Richard Luthmann

For weeks, Virginia blogger Paul Boyne has claimed that former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz was secretly involved in his prosecution for cyberstalking. Boyne, who has been in jail for 15 months, finally filed the bombshell email he believes proves his allegations in federal court.

Boyne alleged the email shows Katz directing Connecticut law enforcement and prosecutors despite no longer holding an official role.

Paul Boyne brought the pork chops, which now marinate on a federal court docket.

Joette Katz Part of Boyne Investigation While a Private Citizen

The emails, dated between March 28, 2022, and April 19, 2022, are part of the Brady discovery in Boyne's case. Handwritten on the email is the language: “Cease and desist to stop uploading. Katz Speak To Only.”

The email string appears to show Private Citizen Katz coordinating behind the scenes with Connecticut officials, including Detective Samantha McCord and Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Staines. The note “Katz Speak to Only” written across the email suggests Katz’s involvement in the investigation.

Former Associate Justice Katz stepped down from the Connecticut Supreme Court on January 5, 2011, in anticipation of assuming the post of DCF Commissioner. She was confirmed by unanimous vote of the Connecticut State Senate on February 4, 2011. Commissioner Katz retired from DCF in January 2019.

On Jan. 14, 2019, Katz joined Shipman & Goodwin LLP as a partner in its Business Litigation Practice Group. She continues to practice law there presently.

Between March 28, 2022, and April 19, 2022, Katz was an attorney and private citizen with no governmental connection.

Joette Katz's position on Boyne's blog is well-documented.

Joette Katz

In a January 2022 article for the Connecticut Law Tribune, she wrote about a blog—widely understood to be Boyne's—stating that it had escalated from "vile, disgusting anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-Black rants to actual threats of violence and death."

Katz further emphasized the dangers of such rhetoric:

"While 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."

At a 2022 Anti-Defamation League symposium, Katz spoke about using legal tools to combat hate speech, even when direct convictions are challenging to secure. Boyne believes that Katz's public advocacy aligns with her alleged private efforts to influence his “silencing” prosecution, thus infringing upon his First Amendment and Due Process rights.

Is Joette Katz Running a Connecticut ‘Inglorious Basterds’ Squad?

The pressing question is, why was former Justice Katz involved in the Boyne investigation as a private citizen?

Also, why hasn’t former Justice Katz been vocal about her activities in this area, as she has been about everything else?

“We in the Nazi killing business, and cousin, business is a-booming.”

Maybe she is a modern-day “Nazi Hunter” running an “off-book” “Inglorious Basterds” operation in Connecticut? Many wouldn’t blame her.

Others would be concerned about a small thing called the Bill of Rights. What can be sanctioned on foreign soil in times of war (or in Quentin Tarantino’s imagination) may not pass constitutional muster on U.S. soil and when targeted against American citizens.

In a famous case involving anti-Semites, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, the U.S. Supreme Court said a person's assertion that speech is being restrained must be reviewed immediately by the judiciary. (More on that below).

What is going on? The public has a right to know, and quickly.

We asked Attorney and Private Citizen Joette Katz questions over a week ago. She still has not answered. We publish them again:

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, October 3rd, 2024 at 2:58 PM
Subject: Allegations of connection to Paul Boyne prosecution
To: jkatz@goodwin.com <jkatz@goodwin.com>
CC: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, emahony@courant.com <emahony@courant.com>

Judge Katz,

I recognize that it is the Jewish New Year. L'Shana Tova. I do not expect a response to this email until next week.

I am an investigative reporter who covers, among other things, the family courts. I have had several conversations with Paul Boyne concerning his unprecedented case. 

Earlier today, my podcast mate, investigative reporter Michael Volpe published this week's THE UNKNOWN PODCAST where I broke specifics about Mr. Boyne's allegations of your direct involvement in his case. He claims he has an email dated April 19, 2022, part of his discovery, that references you. The email, he says, includes Samatha McCord, Brian Staines, Yuri Min, Carl Cicchetti, and others. Relevant to you it says, in sum and substance according to Mr. Boyne - "Katz Speak To Only." 

Mr. Boyne believes a great many things, and you have gone on record about some things that you believe some of those things are harmful and some of his speech is criminal.

I wanted to go on record to ask you emphatically about your involvement with the Paul Boyne case:

  1. Have you had any direct involvement in the investigation or prosecution of Paul Boyne?

  2. Were you consulted by the Connecticut State Attorney’s office or law enforcement regarding Boyne's case?

  3. Can you confirm or deny that your name appears in discovery materials related to the Boyne investigation?

  4. Are you aware of any discussions or communications where your advice or input was sought in relation to Paul Boyne’s prosecution?

  5. Do you believe that Paul Boyne’s blog posts, which have been characterized as anti-Semitic, are protected under the First Amendment?

  6. Have you publicly or privately advocated for using the criminal justice system to combat anti-Semitism, even at the expense of First Amendment protections?

  7. Did you ever speak to investigators or prosecutors regarding Boyne’s blog, TheFamilyCourtCircus.com?

  8. What role, if any, did you play in influencing the decision to prosecute Paul Boyne for his online speech?

  9. How do you reconcile the tension between fighting hate speech and upholding constitutional free speech protections?

  10. Are you aware of any specific threats Paul Boyne allegedly made that would justify the charges against him as "true threats"?

  11. Were you involved in discussions about avoiding a trial where Boyne could potentially cross-examine judges involved in his case?

  12. Have you had any communication with Boyne’s prosecutors, including emails, phone calls, or meetings, about the case?

  13. Have you ever publicly or privately commented on Paul Boyne's case, either before or after it became a legal matter?

  14. Did you have any role in advising or consulting on the decision to delay the trial with a competency claim?

  15. Do you believe the state’s prosecution of Boyne is politically motivated, as he alleges?

  16. Do you support the use of legal tactics such as competency claims to delay or influence the outcome of a trial?

  17. How do you respond to accusations that you are “spearheading” the prosecution against Paul Boyne?

  18. What steps, if any, have you taken to address the claims made by Boyne regarding your alleged involvement in his case?

  19. Do you believe Paul Boyne’s case has broader implications for free speech and judicial criticism in Connecticut?

  20. Would you be willing to testify or provide a statement about your involvement or lack thereof in the Paul Boyne case?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator

What is CT Federal Court Judge Dooley Missing?

The doors of the Connecitcut Federal Court are now shut to Paul Boyne. He will not receive judicial review of his claims that the ongoing Connecticut State prosecution violates the First Amendment.

Connecitcut Federal Court Judge Kari A. Dooley has washed her hands Boyne, even after he submitted the “KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY” email as part of his latest motion for reconsideration with the email evidence attached. Boyne specifically alleges:

DETECTIVE MCCORD CONSULTS WITH JOETTE KATZ, A PARTNER OF SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, EDITOR OF CT LAW TRIBUNE, WHO ADVOCATES ‘LEVERAGING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM’…

Judge Dooley has denied all of Boyne’s attempts to invoke Dombrowski v. Pfister. This case allows federal courts to intervene when state prosecutions are allegedly conducted in bad faith or when special circumstances exist chilling freedom of speech and the press.

CT Federal Judge Kari A. Dolley was a Trump appointee.

In her rulings, Dooley stated that Boyne had not demonstrated the "special circumstances" necessary to justify federal intervention under Dombrowski, instead applying the Younger v. Harris doctrine, which limits federal interference in state matters.

In her latest ruling, Dooley dismissed Boyne's motion for reconsideration, continuing her refusal to grant him a hearing on the evidence that could change the course of his case.

"Petitioner has failed to identify controlling decisions or data that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court,” Dooley wrote. “There is nothing in these documents which would cause the Court to revisit the decision to dismiss this case under Younger.”

Judge Dooley has basically “washed her hands” of Paul Boyne:

“This matter is presently at the Second Circuit, which recently lifted the stay which had been imposed following the filing of Petitioner's multitude of post-judgment motions. Petitioner's recourse is with the Court of Appeals,” the Court’s October 11 Order stated.

Judge Dooley didn’t see any merit of Boyne’s claims supported by the email from the Connecticut State Police.

“Petitioner does not identify any controlling law the Court overlooked, although he attaches what he describes as new evidence of the prosecutor's bad faith in bringing the charges against him. Aside from Petitioner's rhetoric, there is nothing in these documents which would cause the Court to revisit the decision to dismiss this case under Younger. At this juncture, it is unclear whether Petitioner is unable or unwilling to accept the Court's rulings,” Judge Dooley’s Order stated.

Boyne, who has repeatedly tried to get his case dismissed under the Dombrowski v. Pfister doctrine, argues that the email is clear evidence showing bad faith and governmental overreach. He believes his prosecution is a targeted attempt to silence his free speech after criticizing the Connecticut family court system on his blog, TheFamilyCourtCircus.com.

“The fact that this email shows Katz directing communications with law enforcement while no longer being a judge is a game-changer,” Boyne said from prison. “They’ve been trying to shut me down because of what I’ve said about the corruption in Connecticut’s courts. But this email shows that Katz is behind all of this. And Judge Dooley still won’t listen."

Boyne’s frustration is understandable. The document appears to show Katz coordinating behind the scenes with Connecticut officials, including Detective Samantha McCord and Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Staines. The note “Katz Speak to Only” written across the email suggests Katz’s involvement in the investigation.

Despite the potential significance of this evidence, Dooley dismissed Boyne’s claims without holding a hearing. Boyne’s requests for subpoenas to compel Katz and the other officials involved to testify were also denied.

“I have a right to make my case,” Boyne said.

“Bad Faith” and “Special Circumstances”

Luthmann and Volpe, co-hosts of The Unknown Podcast, have covered Boyne’s legal battle extensively, and they were quick to criticize Dooley’s decision.

Connecticut Federal Judge Kari A. Dooley: “Legendary”

“The fact that Dooley won’t even give him a hearing on this email is shocking,” said Luthmann. “You’d have to be as blind as Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder not to see what’s happening here. She’s going to be a legend for all the wrong reasons.”

Michael Volpe, a journalist whose communications with Boyne have been cited by Connecticut investigators, expressed concern over the potential chilling effect this case could have on free speech and press freedoms.

“They’re using my conversations with Paul to establish probable cause in a search warrant,” Volpe said. “It’s a blatant attack on both free speech and press rights. All of our recorded conversations are on my website and YouTube—there’s no need for a search warrant. It’s a fishing expedition to justify the state’s actions.”

Despite being outspoken on other issues, including advocating against hate speech and promoting legal action against offenders, Katz has refused to comment on Boyne’s allegations of her involvement in his prosecution. Her silence is particularly striking, given her public condemnation of Boyne’s blog in 2022.

“If Katz is so vocal about using the law to fight hate speech, why won’t she speak on this issue?” Luthmann asked. “Her silence is deafening. It’s almost like she knows what’s in that email, and by not addressing it, she’s admitting it. She can’t have it both ways.”

Many say Katz’s silence speaks volumes.

“The Boyne supporters I’ve spoken to are frustrated by Katz’s refusal to address the allegations. She is always quick to speak out on other issues,” Luthmann noted. “But when her name gets linked to a case that could reveal serious misconduct, she’s nowhere to be found. ”

What’s Next For Paul Boyne?

Judge Dooley’s refusal to reconsider Boyne’s motion, even with new evidence, leaves Boyne’s fate in the hands of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Deborah Ann Livingston, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

The appellate court recently lifted a stay on the case, but for now, Boyne remains in jail, awaiting his chance to be heard.

“This isn’t just about me anymore,” Boyne said. “This is about the First Amendment, and whether we can criticize the government without being thrown in jail for it. The courts need to take a hard look at what’s going on here because this isn’t justice. It’s censorship.”

As the case moves to the Second Circuit, the stakes have never been higher—not just for Boyne but for free speech advocates nationwide. If the courts ignore the potential governmental misconduct at play, it could set a dangerous precedent for how dissent is treated in the United States.

Boyne’s message remains clear: “I won’t stop fighting. They can keep me here as long as they want, but I won’t be silenced.”


Loading...

Share

Leave a comment

Discussion about this podcast