Boyne cites more exonerating cases in further communication from prison
Anyone who still doubts that he's a political prisoner needs to read this.
Paul Boyne is not a constitutional or first amendment scholar, but in further communications with me from McDougal Correctional Facility in Connecticut, he certainly passed for one.
Before we get to that, let’s review his case. Last July, he was arrested in his home in Virginia and extradited to Connecticut.
Paul A. Boyne, 62, {he’s now 63} of Springfield, Virginia, faces 18 felony cyberstalking charges for alleged online threats targeting three Connecticut judges.
After spending 90 days in a Fairfax County, Virginia jail, Connecticut extradited Boyne on October 19.
Boyne appeared in New Haven Superior Court on October 20, where Justice Eugene R. Calistro issued protective orders prohibiting him from contacting the three judges. With a bond of $750,000, Boyne remains in custody, awaiting his next court date on November 1.
Boyne, who fought extradition from Virginia, said he feared prosecution in Connecticut.
“If I go to Connecticut, you’ll never see me again,” Boyne said. “They’re going to throw me in a hole in the basement of the oldest prison in Connecticut. And the trial might be sometime in the next ten years. And they won’t let me out, and they’re just going to punish me, because it’s a whole bunch of Jews running the entire thing.”
The charges against Boyne stem from a multi-year investigation by Connecticut State Police alleging he operated the contentious blog “The Family Court Circus” from his Virginia home. From late 2017 until Boyne’s arrest in July 2023, the blog, which is currently offline, regularly posted derogatory and sometimes threatening language aimed at exposing the injustices of Connecticut family court.
His crime was writing mean blog posts on his site, thefamilycourtcircus.com. The State of Connecticut shamelessly cited nothing more than blog posts in his arrest warrant.
Paul was extradited from Virginia to Connecticut in October 2023. Connecticut continues to hold him in prison with no end in sight, apparently violating his right to a speedy trial.
Furthermore, he’s being housed in the most dangerous unit, where he’s forced to wear a special color, so every other prisoner knows he’s really dangerous.
I’ve already conducted several interviews with him from prison, and those are below.
Paul is charged with stalking, cyberstalking and more, with the government making the specious argument that his posts were threatening when they refer to judges getting a 50 cal (a type of bullet) and more.
The guiding case for Paul is Vandenburg Vs. Ohio, which was cited by Colleen Kerwick in her amicus brief.
Here’s a summary of Brandenburg.
In the summer of 1964, Clarence Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, gave a speech at a Klan rally. Because of this speech — which included remarks accusing the United States government of suppressing the “Caucasian race” — he was convicted of advocating violence under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute. The syndicalism law made it illegal to advocate "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."
After his initial conviction, Brandenburg agreed to be represented by the ACLU of Ohio. Volunteer attorney Allen Brown took the case and the national ACLU agreed to fund the eventual U.S. Supreme Court challenge.
On June 9, 1969, the Supreme Court held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The court found that the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute ignored whether or not the advocacy it criminalized actually led to imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
Paul’s passing references and suggestions that judges will be killed by fed up litigants seem to fall under the protection of Brandenburg, but it’s not the only case which shows that his writings should be covered by the first amendment.
Richard Luthmann, a former lawyer who writes at This is For Real, cited Counterman Vs. Colorado, in a note.
{Check out my interview with Mr. Luthmann, as we discussed his law career, a bogus conviction, and his current work}
"The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the Counterman decision. "The State need not prove any more demanding form of subjective intent to threaten another."
She explained further that the recklessness standard involves "insufficient concern with risk, rather than awareness of impending harm"
Since no one was ever harmed who was the target of these so-called threatening messages, this seems to be another good case for Paul’s innocence.
That’s not all; Paul cited even more cases in further emails to me from prison.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Michael Volpe Investigates to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.