A 2021 conversation between a domestic violence victim and a victim’s advocate in Connecticut suggests further that Connecticut selectively prosecuted Paul Boyne.
During the conversation, the advocate stated, “stalking is hiding in the bushes.”
The advocate suggested throughout the conversation that electronic communication alone would not amount to stalking.
Boyne was charged with stalking from blog posts in his blog, thefamilycourtcircus.com.
The domestic violence victim described how an ex sent several unwanted text messages, including at least one with her home address, which he was not allowed to have.
In the conversation, the advocate noted that her ex was not living in the State of Connecticut during this period. Boyne, everyone agrees, was living in Virginia when the offending posts were made.
The behavior described in the 2021 is far more threatening and personal than Boyne’s, and yet the advocate insists that does not amount to stalking.
The arrest warrant against Boyne cites nothing but several blog posts. Here is part of it.
“{Judge Thomas} Moukawsher is jewdicial shit worthy of a .50 cal to the head,” Boyne said in one blog post which was flagged in the arrest warrant.
“Is she begging for a .308 shot to the head from two panes of glass,” Boyne said in another offending post.
He is referring to Judge Jane Grossman in that post.
The language is anti-Semitic and ugly, but is it illegal?
Paul did not think so, and on his blog, he cited several US Supreme Court cases which protected him.
For instance, here’s what he said about United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929).
The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.
The most important case on this subject is Brandenburg Vs. Ohio. About this case, Paul stated.
SCOTUS ruled in 1969 that a State cannot trash freedoms of speech and press to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation. Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444, 447. Advocacy of violence or criminal activity is protected under the First Amendment, speech is immune from prosecution, advocacy of abstract ideas and political action hold constitutional protection. “The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of conviction and the government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience.” Id. 457. In simple prose, free expression protects the advocacy of the Second Amendment to remedy the harm of family court inflicted upon society by the chosen ones. Just free speech, so get over it. Present day form family court needs to be eradicated just like a disease.
Brandenburg was also cited by attorney Colleen Kerwick in her amicus brief in his case.
In Brandenburg, the court, “held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is ‘directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action’” according to its Wikipedia page.
Merely suggesting that a bad judge deserves a “50 cal to his head,” doesn’t come anywhere near that.
Boyne also cited US Vs. Cassidy, saying.
USDJ Roger Titus states in U.S. v Cassidy that Blog does not communicate, it exists in cyberspace, readers must seek it; free to ignore it. Offensive, emotionally distressing, vile, distasteful, uncomfortable, are mere descriptors of protected speech. Speech that resorts to exaggeration, vilification, even false statements about officials is a liberty essential to enlightened opinion and proper conduct of citizens of a democracy. Challenging old testament beliefs is a protected right.
It’s clear that everything Boyne wrote was deliberate and meant to be covered by prior US Supreme Court rulings. It’s likely why he told me that after the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) visited his home it was determined that everything on his blog was covered by the first amendment.
His three-part interview is below.
Share this post