3 Comments

Counterman v. Colorado makes Paul Boyne's good faith defense clear as day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterman_v._Colorado

The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature.

This Connecticut has not done.

Expand full comment
author

This so clearly falls under political speech. Then, the audio makes it worse. They ignore real threats.

Expand full comment
Jun 8Liked by Michael Volpe

Yup real "threats" as you defined them are made against pretty much any major political or public figure with or without any corruption surrounding their behavior constantly as what occurs in family courts in this nation.

It is an undeniable fact that these judges have aschewed the legal and ethical for profits and ease. There is no evidence that they routinely do their job as required. In fact, there's enough evidence available in a months docket, I would wager my entire income, to indict over 90% of family court judges and ALL family court attornies practicing for over a year.

Corruption and hateful marxist feminist influence is leading men to suicide at record rates. Meanwhile, our children have gender dysphoria and we have courts catering to that psychotic cottage industry as well. As though trafficking us and our children like we don't even have civil rights wasn't enough, they need to take and or mutilate our children without our knowledge or ability to even legally stop it.

These monsters need to be exposed and stopped. Family court needs IMMEDIATE rehaul after countless reports of inadequate civil rights considerations and various other failures by both state auditors and millions of parents. The leaders of these group ignore our voices and our pain. They would seek to stifle any negative speech about them not because they are concerned about their wellbeing, but because they have grown soooo fucking comfortable with being corrupt publicly right out in the open, that they think they can commit multiple civil rights violations repeatedly and violate double jeopardy in order to stifle free speech.

No order in family court should ever be allowed to stifle free speech. No judge should ever weigh or even have the choice of deciding to violate civil rights. Without attornies that have any ethical drive and while knowing attornies are disbarred simply for pointing out judicial corruption, it has become a time that our speech is extremely important.

Without speech, without protest, without a voice - people always end up rioting or resulting to violence. This is the nature of freedom. If you stifle it for personal profit or to cover your buddy's criminal ass, you're inciting violence by history's own immutable lessons. This blog isn't stalking. He wasn't even in the state. It is free speech, that they wish to stifle.

Expand full comment