YES, CONNECTICUT, MEDIA IS DEAD!

When I was reporting on the need for family court reform, one of my biggest frustrations was the CT Media blackout on the subject.  Advocates would organize major hearings before the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature and The Hartford Courant, broadcast media and other smaller outlets would simply ignore it.  When media did report it, they would mock family court victims, dismiss them as disgruntled or eccentric, and provide misleading information.  Eventually, I learned about the Judicial Media Committee where leaders of print and broadcast media meet regularly with judges and attorneys from the judicial system.  This explained a considerable amount of the media bias I encountered and led me to question whether Connecticut media or any media is trustworthy.  

As it turns out, I am not the only person who is concerned about whether they can trust media.  In a recent Gallup article published on October 2, 2024 the headline stated, "Trust in Media at New Low of 28%".  It also reported that Republican's faith in mass media was at 8%.  Just to get a sense of how it has dropped on average, let me give you the overview.  In 1970 confidence was at 68%, in 1997 it was at 53%, in 2004 it was 44%, and again, as I have stated, currently it is 28%.  In general, Democrats have more trust in mass media than Republicans, and older people have more trust in mass media than young people.  The Gallup article states as its bottom line, "Confidence in the mass media is historically low, with fewer than three in ten Americans now placing trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, fairly and accurately."  Of course, it all depends on how you approach the question.  Apparently, 47% of Republicans watch Fox News regularly.  If so, I'm assuming they trust Fox News considerably more than 8%.  It's just any other media they don't like.

When it comes to the discussion on this issue within the public square, one of the most frequently cited causes of distrust is what the Gallup article referred to as "an increasingly polarized and skeptical public."  How did this come about?  I actually have an answer for that question.  When older folks watched the news say in the fifties and sixties, they would regularly hear both sides of an issue.  By law, the FCC, or Federal Communications Commision, had a mandate to promote competition between media outlets, ownership diversity, local content, and most important viewpoint diversity also known as the Fairness Doctrine.  In support of the Fairness Doctrine the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public..."

As a consequence of the commitment to viewpoint diversity, the American public in the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s had a civil and polite awareness of a broad perspective of opinions.  However, in 1987, as a result of Republican initiatives, the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the media.  Consequently, broadcast news no longer had to consider differing perspectives in reporting the news.  This led to the rise of partisan media such as the conservative Fox News and a slide into an increasingly polarized and extremist media landscape.  

At the same time, there has been the rise of news reporting online via social media, which places individuals in partisan echo chambers through the use of algorithms.  Related to this has been the establishment of a broad range of partisan news websites and radio programs which report massive amounts of fake or misleading news.  Public figures, government officials, elected representatives have no problem making false statements for which there are no legal consequences.  Thus, you have Alex Kelly claiming that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook was fake.

Furthermore, I've read reports of partisan ideologues going online and altering entries in Wikipedia and other databases to match their political agendas. This means that anyone doing online research who wants to get accurate and balanced information about what is going on has to sift through a considerable number of articles, videos, radio and television broadcasts to get at it.  Meanwhile, comment sections which often kept journalists honest, are being cut back or entirely eliminated.  News rooms are being cut back and decimated which means that investigative reporters, fact checkers as well as copy editors who make sure grammar, spelling, and content is correct are gone.  The outcome is sloppy, inaccurate and badly written material.

Another factor leading to public mistrust in the media is the loss of ownership diversity.  As I mentioned, the FCC is supposed to be supervising the broadcast industry to ensure ownership diversity.  However, instead of doing so, according to "Free Press" it has overseen the development of a broadcast industry "where a few powerful and wealthy mega-corporations dominate." In the media industry, around 6 mega-corporations own all of the media including radio, TV, and print. 

The Free Press continues on to state in regard to the FCC, "The agency's failures to address the substantial market power these conglomerates wield has consequences--including the stifling of independent voices and shuttering of local-news outlets--while increasing wealthy owners' influence over public opinion and national politics."  A handout from an online class from lumenlearning.com states, "Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape.  Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.  In many cases, these companies control everything from initial production to final distribution."  

How has the FCC allowed for a Broadcast arena so in constrast to its mandate?  The answer is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which eliminated the limits on ownership of media, which then led to massive media consolidation.  Supposedly the act was intended to increase competition, but instead it did the opposite.  Sort of like the Big Beautiful Bill is actually not beautiful, if you know what I'm saying.  I looked at different lists of companies who now own the entirety of the broadcast industry which tend to vary because each has a different focus.What struck me is that Republicans loudly exclaim that news media is liberal, etc. etc., and as a result only 8% of them trust media.  What I saw is that a good many of the companies that own or distribute the news are conservatives, if not outright Trump supporters and contributors.

Here is some of the research I did on that issue.  Conglomerates such as Fox Corporation, Nexstar Media and Sinclair Broadcast Group affiliated with ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox News are all politically conservative.  In print news, Alden Global Capital which purchased Tribune Publishing (owners of the Hartford Courant) in 2021 and is the second largest newspaper in the United States contributed substantially to the Trump campaign.  Adams Publishing Group originally owned by Stephen Adams are ardent trump supporters.  Lee, Ogden, Horizon, Hearst--all with pro-Trump owners.  Just as an aside, if you were wondering, when it comes to the tech companies, the CEOs of Meta, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Open AI were all substantial contributors to the Trump campaign.  New Media Investment Group which took over Gate house and Gannett in 2019 is owned indirectly by Masayoshi Son, a Korean national who lives in Japan and is also an ardent Trump supporter and contributor to his campaign..  

So how do we get an owner of a major American news outlet who is a foreign national?  In 2013, the FCC relaxed its rules to allow for 100% foreign ownership of a media company if it is deemed to be in the U.S. interest.  This change was widely supported by industry organizations such as the National Association of Broadcasters because it was seen as bringing new sources of capitol into the industry.  While this change is reported to have occurred primarily in 2013, news articles from 1990 are already reporting on the trend and indicating it might be a serious national security risk.   

Seriously, how many of you reading this feel comfortable knowing that foreign countries are possibly controlling the news we have access to?  It is even more alarming because it is hard to track foreign ownership, which I tried to do, because of the Russian doll effect of companies being owned by other companies which in turn are owned by other companies.  What I conclude from the expansion of foreign ownership of news sources is that to American political and business leaders the public interest doesn't matter, national security doesn't matter.  What matters, the only thing that matters, is money.

Not only is there the termination of the fairness doctrine, the concentration of media companies into a smaller group of elite wealthy owners and the expansion of foreign ownership, news sources are now subject to extremely prohibitive financial pressures.  For instance, we have seen how big news has collapsed in the face of Trump's lawsuits paying out huge sums of money for settlements.  Corporate cowardice demonstrated by the  failure to defend these lawsuits means that all news sources, mainstream media, independent media, independent influencers are subect to more pressure to back away from difficult subjects.  

I know that in the area of family court reform, Tom Wilkerson, Linda Wiegand's ex-husband sued the Hartford Courant for $200,000 at the end of the case.  This is another reason why the Courant tries to stay away from the issue, because even if we have freedom of the press in the country, major legal fees to defend it can essentially nullify the right .  These factors have all led to a substantial drop in the quality of both print and broadcast news.  As a result, audiences are going elsewhere.  According to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, U.S. citizens are abandoning television news, print news, and online news sites and getting the majority of their news from social media.  Use of social media for news has risen by 27 points since 2013.  This means that advertising revenue goes along with it, making traditional news media considerably more financially vulnerable, particularly local news.  There are many citizen journalists out there on social media doing excellent work.  On the other hand, the same corporations and political ideologues who are buying up national media can also buy them.  So again, you have to be careful who you believe.

In their vulnerable position, local and state governments can put pressure on print media to restrict their coverage simply by threatening to stop putting public notices in their pages.  These public notices provide thousands and thousands of dollars of income to these newspapers.  The loss of revenue if notices are withheld can be considerable.  Many news outlets around the country report being placed under this kind of pressure.  It can actually go either way, government can cut back or expand on these public notices, to the point where they can act as a bribe. In the days when I was doing this kind of research, I observed considerable sums of money going from state government to the state's print media which I think impacted its ability to report honestly about what was happening in family court.  

As a blogger, I have also been subjected to financial and legal pressures.  Even though bloggers have the right to freedom of speech, it doesn't last too long if anyone can sue us and take us to Court over our work. I have reported on my website how I was taken to Court and asked to reveal my sources for some of my articles.  Defending myself from that assault on my rights as a journalist cost me $2,000.  In the face of that kind of attack, it becomes very difficult to get out there and do the work of an independent journalist.  Eventually, I left the field.  Recently, I looked up the domestic violence statistics for the State of Connecticut.  Nothing has changed.  I'd suspect nothing has changed in family court as well.  That's what happens when government, by controlling media, can shut down opposition, and silence its critics.  Note this happened in Democratic Connecticut, not Trump country.

RICH COHEN'S "DOLLHOUSE" ABOUT JENNIFER DULOS FULL OF ERROR!

I was in my favorite place--Barnes & Noble--and saw a table display of "Murder in the Dollhouse: The Jennifer Dulos Story" by Rich Cohen.  Naturally, this interested me for the blog since the Jennifer Dulos story is the paradigm for all the criticisms that I've had about the Family Court System which have been discussed on the 1800 or more blogs on this website. So--what do I think of this book.  I think it is beautifully written in some remarkable ways--its language can be absolutely rhapsodic.  It explains Jennifer Dulos' family, Jewish background, and fabulously wealthy New York upbringing with remarkable insight and detail. 

More specifically, it delineates exactly the nature of Jennifer's husband, Fotis Dulos, abuse and how he became capable of murder in deft literary strokes that catapult you towards the dramatic finish seemingly without effort.  On the other hand, Rich Cohen, who says he lives in Connecticut, doesn't seem to know Connecticut, and gets substantial details wrong when he talks about it.  As a result, as you read this book and see major factual errors, you can't help wondering--what else might be incorrect?

What do I mean by this?  Well, let's take a look at three pages--pages 88, 89, and 90.  Let's start with page 88.  Here Rich Cohen gives a description of Canton, CT where Jennifer Dulos went after she married Fotis Dulos, moving into 10 Sunrise Drive.  As luck would have it, that's not very far from where I used to live for 26 years so I'm quite familiar with the territory. I know exactly when Mr. Cohen gets his facts wrong.  First, he calls Canton "poor" which is simply not true.  Canton is just small, but has an equivalent range of social classes and opportunities as the surrounding towns of Avon, Farmington, Burlington and Simsbury. He states that Canton "is filled with people who dreamed of living...in Farmington, ten miles southeast." Perhaps, but for a much simpler, unexpected reason than he might have thought of. Lots of people in Canton, Avon, and Simsbury want to live in Farmington, because it charges half the taxes of the surrounding towns due to its strong business base. Surrounding towns have a tax base which is largely residential.  Out of all these towns, Simsbury is the one with the most social cache, if that's what Rich Cohen is trying to imply.  

But let's not stop here. There are more inaccuracies.

Rich Cohen says that, "there were neither playwrights nor theatrical productions in Canton in 2004."  This simply isn't true.  There is a theater right in the downtown area of nearby Collinsville and local theater people have put on performances there for years.  A quick internet search provides the following information, "While a comprehensive list of every production isn't available, the Farmington Valley Community Theatre (FVCT) a community theater group that services Canton and Surrounding towns, performed several shows in 2004, including the musical "Anything Goes" and the play "The Curious Savage."  

Over and above that, there are numerous opportunities in the area for those interested in theater, musicals, and even Opera.  There is the Simsbury light Opera Company nearby.  Local adults and children are free to audition for parts in any of their productions.  Furthermore, one of the reasons that I moved to Canton, CT, as opposed to the other towns I've mentioned, is because it is well known as a town that attracts artists and writers. It has a bit of a Greenwich Village funky feel to it.  For instance, there is the Gallery on the Green in the center of town that regularly features local artists.  In addition, at the time when Jennifer lived there (it no longer exists now) there was a Writer's Collective in town that regularly published books including the work of local authors and sponsored public readings. I myself led a few writer's groups while I lived in the town. So to characterize Canton or even the local area as uncultured is simply untrue.  But let's not stop here.  There are more inaccuracies.

Rich Cohen speaks about the Canton High School Cougars high school football team.  There has never been a Canton High School football team called the Cougars.  The Canton High School Football team was called the Warriors until 2022 when it was decided the name was an insult to Native Americans and the team name was changed to the Cobras.  So I'm not sure where Rich got his information from.  

Further, Canton is a small town with a combined middle/high school which means that for decades its graduating high school class was somewhere around 100 more or less.  This means that for the better part it hasn't had enough students to put together a football team.  A google search provides me with the following information, "Canton High School in Connecticut had a football program from 1900 to 1963, then reintroduced it in the 2007 season, nearly 40 years after it was first dropped due to lack of players.  The decision to restore the team was made in the fall of 2006 with the first game played in September of that year.  Even if the game was restored in 2006, it took years to build the team so that it could actually be even a minimal contender on the field.  Meanwhile, as I recall, since I lived there and had three kids, it wasn't football that enjoyed the focus of high school parents and children, it was soccer.  Soccer was big.  How did Rich Cohen not find this out?  All he had to do was ask!

Moving on to page 89, Mr. Cohen seems to have entirely overlooked the fact that Canton is made up of two separate towns combined under one government--i.e. Canton and Collinsville.  As an aside, Canton and Collinsville also share some aspects of town services with Avon, CT.  It's complicated.  Be that as it may, what Rich Cohen proceeds to do is to provide a description of the architecture of Canton as well as its history which is actually that of Collinsville and not that of Canton.  It may surprise Rich Cohen to hear this, but Collinsville has not been subsumed under the name of Canton and is very much its own place as any townsperson could tell him.  All he has to do is pick up the phone to find out.  So when he says Main Street is the road at the center of the town of Canton, he is wrong.  Main Street is the road that goes through the center of town in Collinsville.  Route 44 or Albany Avenue goes through the center of town in Canton.  When Mr. Cohen says, "Canton was once a manufacturing town known for mass-producing axes..." he is wrong.  Collinsville has the axe factory.  Again, a quick phone call or a google search would clarify that point.

On page 90, we again have more distortions and misinformation.  He describes the home where Jennifer Dulos lived with Fotis Dulos--10 Sunrise Drive--as "perched on the lip of a ravine.  One wrong step and it's goodbye."  I drove by that house pretty much every day for that last 26 years and just between you and me that house isn't going anywhere.  It's right at the bottom of the hill and you have to drive downwards to get to it. Further, Mr. Cohen describes the surrounding neighborhood as infested with houses which are "dilapidated" and "ramshackle".  This is simply ludicrous.  I'd really like to see a $400,000 house that is dilapidated and ramshackle.  The hills on Lovely Street which lead up to the Dulos home, the development further up the hill on Queens Peak and leading over to Kingswood in Avon are just about the highest end homes that the Farmington offers.  Far from being lived in by "misanthropes, nature lovers, and criminals on the lam", this area, and again I lived there, consists of corporate executives, judges, lawyer, doctors, successful business people and politicians.  Rich Cohen's comments about the area are just plain wrong

I don't want to keep on going here.  It seems as though my review is only touching upon a mere three pages of this book.  But what a three pages--riddled with error!  There are other inaccuracies I picked out in the book as well which I won't go into, but the one that troubled me the most was the mischaracterization of Hartford as a city overridden by drug gangs and criminals.  His last phrase describing Hartford says it looked "dark and smoky in the distance."  I don't know what day Mr. Cohen was driving around, but I've lived in the Hartford area for over 35 years and I've rarely found it anything but clear and metropolitan looking, except when you have a day of extreme weather which happens in a New England state.  Sure, Hartford has its struggles with poverty and homelessness.  At the same time, it is the insurance capitol of the world with a thriving nightlife.  So what is he honestly talking about?  I don't get it, or maybe I do and the issue of racism is not one I want to get into right now.  

Finally, Rich Cohen pretty much skips the entire family court reform movement which was extremely active in the years prior to Jennifer Dulos death.  There had been several hearings at the CT State Legislative Office building in Hartford where dozens of victims of family court injustice came to testify about the kinds of damaging and destructive processes were in play in family court.  Representative Minnie Gonzalez led the charge in advocating for the reform of the judicial system, starting with more rigorously vetting family court judges, and suggesting the elimination of the controversial Guardian ad Litem (GAL) system which Jennifer Dulos encountered.  

Why doesn't Mr. Cohen mention any of this in any way whatsoever?  

Jennifer Dulos death was culmination of many atrocities which had been committed in family court system immediately prior.  Mr. Cohen talks about the law protecting women from the kind of coersive control Jennifer Dulos faced which was passed in the years after her death.  But again here he gets it wrong, referring to it as Jennifer's Law.  In fact, it was actually called Jennifers' law--the apostrophe after the "s"--because there was another Jennifer--Jennifer Magnano--who was also murdered by her ex-husband in cold blood when she tried to protect her children from his sexual abuse.  The family court system was in massive disarray before Jennifer Dulos arrived to face it, and it still is.  The fact that Rich Cohen doesn't make a single mention of this is simply remarkable.

I'm not saying don't read this book, because there are sections regarding Jennifer Dulos family, her life in New York, and the complex relationship she had with Fotis Dulos which I found extremely informative.  Anyone who wants to be expert on this subject matter definitely needs to read it.  I'd just say double check anything you read with other sources.

IN LEGAL RESEARCH, BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT USING AI!

Just up front, I will tell you that I am mostly a liberal with a few areas of conservatism thrown in for good measure.  What it adds up to is that I have many liberal friends, but also many conservative ones as well.  What with the Trump movement thrown in nowadays, I now have friends who are what I'd call right wing extremists.  Because I am a purveyor of ideas, I'm not the kind who defriends people who have radically different political views than my own. 

It is because of my generally tolerant attitude that a friend recently sent to my inbox an email with what I consider an extremely offensive article about Derek Chauvin, the killer of George Floyd, basically saying the guy was dealt with unjustly and should get a Trump pardon.  The contents were absolutely ugly and racist, but I will spare you that and just give you the headline: "Why Derek Chauvin Will Languish in Prison--Regardless of the Facts".  

This led me to wonder about the issue of whether George Floyd actually used a $20 counterfeit bill.  In my old days, prior to AI, if I typed a question into google, I'd get results including a series of articles most often going from latest to oldest.  Now when I type questions into google, I get a summary of what appears to be the top articles on the subject.  To be honest, I appreciate getting a summary so I don't have to spend time reading the articles in detail.  It saves a lot of work which, I admit, I'm too lazy to do.  But if you are doing legal research, I urge you to be very careful about the results AI gives you.  Because as I found to my chagrin, AI can be inaccurate.  This is a situation you can not afford in you are going to Court.  

As I proceed, I want to let you know that anything I type into this article in reference to how AI responded to me is directly typed from the computer.  I don't want you to think I plagiarized.  I just thought you should get the words straight from the source.  So here goes.  This was my interaction with AI.  First, I typed in my question as follows:

Was the $20 George Floyd used counterfeit?

AI responded:

Yes, the $20 bill that George Floyd used at the Cup Foods convenience store was suspected to be counterfeit.

I was satisfied with that answer for a few days.  But then I thought to ask the question again.  That's when I looked at the word "suspected".  What does that mean, "suspected".  The answer is either yes or no.  When I first looked at the answer, I saw the word "Yes" and stopped reading.  In a more critical state of mind that next day, I was like, what do you mean "suspected" and I wanted more answers. I then clicked on AI's link for further information and found out that there had been no official confirmation from the Minnesota field office of the Secret Service as to whether George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit or not. Huh?  How did AI get "Yes" out of that kind of statement?

Returning to google, I decided to ask a different question because I wanted AI to explain itself.  This was my question:

Why am I getting a wrong answer from AI?  I asked whether George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit.  AI responded "Yes" but reports online indicate authorities don't know if it was counterfeit or not.

This is the answer I received from google:

Here is why the AI might have given you a definitive "yes" when the situation is more nuanced.

1.  Training Data Limitations:

AI models are trained on vast amounts of data, which includes new articles, social media posts, and other online content.  This data can be biased, incomplete, or contain misinformation.  If the AI's training data contained a strong correlation between the $20 bill and the word "counterfeit" (due to media reports at the time, for example), it might have learned to associate the two even if there wasn't official confirmation.

2. Lack of Context and Nuance:

AI excels at recognizing patterns and generating responses based upon those patterns.  However, it lacks the ability to understand the subtleties of human situations, including the intricacies of legal investigations or the potential for initial reports to be unconfirmed or even inaccurate.

3. "Hallucination" or Generation Plausible Content:

AI models are designed to generate plausible content, sometimes even making up details if they don't have enough information.  This is sometimes referred to as "hallucination" and it means the AI prioritized creating a coherent response over absolute factual accuracy.

4. Evolving Information:

News and investigations surrounding sensitive topics like the George Floyd case are constantly evolving.  Information that seems definitive at one point can be later challenged or proven incorrect.  An AI's knowledge base may not be updated in real-time, leading to responses based on outdated information.

In Summary:

It is important to remember that AI models are still under development and can sometimes provide inaccurate or misleading information, especially when dealing with complex and evolving situation.  Always fact-check information from AI with reliable source, especially for topics with significant social impact.

None of this sounds very reassuring.  

What this means is that you have to be very careful about what these AI summaries are telling you.  Again, I find myself returning to the wisdom and integrity of my pre-technologically informed College professors who advised me always to review my originally sources very carefully, and whenever possible use primary, not secondary resources.  I will admit the concept of AI hallucinating was very, very funny--almost human.  

At the end of its lengthy explanation on why AI can be inaccurate, AI then gave me the following answer to my question regarding whether George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit.  See AI's elaboration on the question below:

What was the actual story about George Floyd's $20.00?

The 911 that led to the police encounter stemmed from a report by a store clerk alleging that George Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to purchase cigarettes.

However, there is no official confirmation from authorities or the Secret Service, whose Minneapolis Field Office investigates counterfeit money cases, as to whether the bill was definitively counterfeit.

The clerk who accepted the bill testified that he believed it was fake because of an unusual blue pigment, but he also thought Floyd might not have known it was counterfeit and even considered paying for the cigarettes himself.

The owner of the store where the incident took place has stated that they had previously called the police about similar issues, and the police had never responded in the past.

I ended that google search, and started a new one.  This time I decided to ask my original question again. Interestingly enough, upon returning to my original question, I found myself still getting the original answer that "Yes" George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit. I pressed on the link asking AI to give me more detail.  AI then quoted to me a CBS News report dated May 26, 2021 stating as follows, "It has been confirmed by the US Secret Service that the $20 bill used by George Floyd to purchase cigarettes at the Cup Foods convenience store was counterfeit...their Minneapolis Field Office investigates counterfeit money and determines its authenticity." When I tried to get back to the response page that stated authorities hadn't yet provided any confirmation, I was unable to do so.

From that time on, as I tried to get at the truth, AI became more and more adamant that, indeed, the bill was counterfeit. On social media, however, I found comments to the effect that the George Floyd $20 bill had never been determined to be counterfeit along with comments stating that the $20 bill had been determined to be counterfeit.  In the end, I wasn't sure if AI was responding to a perceived need on my part to get a Yes answer so it was looking more and more at that kind of data, or whether, in fact, that was the correct answer.  Perhaps you folks can let me know what the story is in the comments below.

To my friend who sent me the original article, I responded no one should be killed over a $20 bill.  Police should have better judgment than that.  I was also reminded of a recent experience I had.  A few months ago, I went into a local CVS. While I was there, I tried to purchase an item at a self-service machine using, you guessed it, a $20 bill.  The machine refused to accept the bill, so I called a sales clerk over to help me.  He took a look at the bill and announced that it was counterfeit.  He made a bit of a display about the bill, holding it up and waving it around so that I became embarrassed.  I ended up using a credit card to pay for my purchases instead.  

Still, I was fired up about that $20 bill because it was humiliating the way the sales clerk had behaved. Immediately, I drove over to my bank, showed my $20 bill to the bank teller and asked if it was counterfeit.  She reviewed it carefully, and then told me it was perfectly fine and not counterfeit.  I was nervous about taking it back after the big fuss the clerk had made, so that bank teller gave me a new $20 and put mine in the till with the others.  I can just imagine how the outcome might have been different if I were a stocky black man like George Floyd.

Returning to the issue of legal research, I again want to emphasize--you must be very critical and observant when you are doing your legal research with the help of AI because AI can be wrong, and you don't want to make a fool of yourself, particularly when it counts and when the lives of your children depend upon you being accurate and credible.

NO MORE COMMENTS

I'm one of these people who loves to review the comment sections that appear after news articles and social media videos.  I just enjoy seeing what people are thinking whether it is bad or good or indifferent.  Often, I find the comments very informative, providing essential context which I wasn't aware of. Not only that, I really appreciate the comments from other countries which require I hit the translate button.  This way I know I'm getting reactions from all over the world from people with a broad variety of cultural backgrounds.  It's great to know that each of us is uniquely individual and sees the world in a different way.  I like that special vision that each person has who contributes a comment.  

Not only do I enjoy looking at other people's comments, I also enjoy contributing mine.  Now I will admit, I get a particular kick when adding my comments to an article or video where the content is totally in opposition to my views.  Is that bad?  I'm not sure.  I'm pro-Israel in the Gaza conflict (OK, OK, don't shoot me!!!) and I'm part of an organization that is pro-Palestine to the extreme, calling the conflict a genocide and using the term ethnic cleansing repeatedly.  Now, before I got into this group, I had no idea they took this position.  But now that I'm there, I've launched a vigorous defense of Israel whenever I see a particularly inflammatory comment.  Today the President of the organization sent me an email saying, in capital letters, STOP! JUST STOP!  

Should I listen to him?  Should I resign from the organization?  Is it wrong to stand in intellectual opposition to a group of people who strongly disagree with me?  Does politeness require that I shut up and leave?  I don't know.  

Recently, I purchased a computer which posts MSN news as the first screen that appears when I open the computer.  MSN has a lot of what I'd call clickbait titles to articles.  Inevitably there are some extremist articles which I disagree with which I just itch to respond to.  I'm like that.  I'm sure you folks have seen this in the many blogs I've produced.  I love to argue and I love to take controversial stands.  That's just who I am.  I was brought up that way by two educators who loved to debate the Vietnam War, among other incendiary topics, at the dinner table.  

Recently, I tried to post a very well written (in my humble opinion) comment in response to an MSN article and Big Brother AI told me it violated community standards.  I couldn't figure out why because in every way my comment was respectful, but no matter how I rephrased my comment to make it as inoffensive as possible, I was unable to post the comment.  This has happened to me a few times before with MSN and it's very frustrating. I then went onto Mother Google and researched what is going on with the MSN comment sections and found all sorts of irate comments about how MSN's community standards have been misused in the opinion of the many people who complained about it.  

I was equally annoyed as they were, and that led me to investigate further what is happening with comment sections affiliated with major print media, Broadcast News, and Social Media.  What I found out is that there are tons of articles on this subject including a separate wikipedia page.   As it turns out, comment sections have been disappearing since approximately 2013.  CNN, The Washington Post, Popular Science, The Boston Globe, The Hartford Courant, NPR, IMDb all have eliminated their comment sections.  Vice Media and MediaNews Group shut down their comment sections around 2016 and 2017, and a more recent shut down of the comment sections of newspapers owned by Gannett publishers took place in 2023.  

Many people think this is a good development.  As Heather Taylor of The Orion put it, "Overall, I believe that moving away from the comment section on news articles is a positive decision.  In times of increasing polarization and distrust of media it is unfortunately a forum for harassment, often behind a shield of anonymity or physical distance."  She continues on to say, "While I have long since learned to ignore my local paper's comment section, there was a time when I couldn't resist scrolling through it.  I was often disgusted by the comments shared, as they were not beneficial to the general public and could quickly turn into ugly arguments marked by personal attacks."  She continued on to talk about how comments were particularly used to harass women, people of color, and members of minority groups.  What Ms. Taylor held up as compensation for eliminating the comment sections is that, "Without distracting comments underneath a news story, the focus will hopefully be shifted to the content of the story itself."  

I certainly am aware that many news outlets have simply shifted their opportunity to comment on news articles to social media such as Facebook.  This puts the onus on moderating the comment on those social media companies rather than the news outlets themselves.  This must have saved them considerable money.  On the other hand, without comment sections how can news outlets be held accountable for the contents of their material.  At one point, The Hartford Courant, my local paper, had a Reader Representative you could speak to if something concerned you regarding accuracy, bias, or format, but that position has long gone with the dinosaur.  

I know publishers were concerned that critical remarks regarding an article could reduce the credibility of that article, which made them even more eager to eliminate the comment section.  On the other hand, perhaps the criticisms were legitimate and not just harassment.  It's something to consider.  Not all people reading and watching broadcast news are ill informed.  Many are only too much informed! Only 25% of comments are defined as toxic, not all of them.  From my experience, the remaining 75% consists of very thoughtful readers.

I do recall when I worked at The Atlantic Monthly once reading internal documents prepared by Senior editors stating that the audience will like whatever we give them.  Could that also be meant to say believe whatever we tell them?  What an attitude.  I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.  Getting rid of the comment section is just sad.  When you cut that intimate bond between journalists and their audience, when you protect journalists from the rough and tumble of the thought marketplace, what you end up with are a privileged bunch of people (and with AI and the downfall of print media there are less and less) off in their ivory towers disconnected from the reasons why they do the writing job in the first place. 

Meanwhile, on social media, places like Youtube the comment sections are alive and well, adding up to the thousands on many videos.  It does make you think if they can do it why can't media and broadcast news manage to do it?  Are they pussies?  It seems to me that media content rises and falls based upon its truth, relevance, and the solidity of its material.  If it doesn't achieve good results, then it should get off the field and be replaced by content that does. So what if some of the comment sections are deep down and dirty. If you believe what you have said, jump on in there and speak for what you believe in.  That's what the free marketplace of ideas is all about. 

Finally, just before I sign off, I want to say that there have been many thousands of comments posted on this website, the majority very respectful, thoughtful, and informative.  In the light of what they could have been, given the research I've done for this blog, I want to thank all of you who have commented while keeping it real and respectful of your fellow readers. 

PAUL BOYNE RELEASED FROM JAIL ON BAIL!

Paul Boyne was released from jail on Thursday, January 16, 2025.  Friends were able to raise the bail money, and after many hours of waiting, he was released and took the first train to Washington, D.C. the first step on his journey back to Virginia. Many thanks go to his public defender, Attorney Denis O'Malley, who guided everyone through the complex process.  

We got some great pictures of Paul happy and delighted to be released, but I have not posted them here since Paul definitely has experienced considerable wear and tear in prison.  It was an extremely cold day, but he was wearing a light jogging outfit upon his release.  Luckily, a friend had brought a winter coat, but things would have been tough without one.  I can't imagine what people are expected to do under these circumstances. 

In the hours that followed, Paul spoke about being locked up in his cell for 20 hours a day, and only being allowed out for four hours per day.  This is the punishment for speaking out in ways the State doesn't like.  Further details are available through independent journalist, Michael Volpe in the link below:

https://luthmann.substack.com/p/paul-boyne-freed-family-court-hostage?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

GOV. NED LAMONT NOMINATES 22 NEW JUDGES!

See Link Below:

Governor Lamont Nominates 22 Jurists To Serve as Judges of the Connecticut Superior Court

KEITH HARMON SNOW, LONG TIME FAMILY COURT ACTIVIST, HAS DIED!

It is with great sadness that I share the obituary for Keith below:

"Keith Harmon Snow

Williamsburg, MA - Keith Harmon Snow, February 14, 1960 - December 8, 2024

After a long journey with his health and a powerful life lived, Keith Harmon Snow died in the early morning hours of December 8th, 2024. Keith will be missed by many.

He is survived by his son Birch Ivo Snow Aronson, age 11, his son's mother, Chaya Leia Aronson, his brother and sister-in-law, James and Michele Snow, his sister Dawn White, and several nieces and nephews as well as an expansive, diverse community of friends and family. Keith was pre-deceased by his mother, Sondra Kay Black and David Harmon Snow.

A memorial service will be held on February 1, 2025, 11:30am to 3:30pm, at the Williamsburg Grange.

For more, please click on the link below:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/gazettenet/name/keith-snow-obituary?id=57222853 

UPDATE ON PAUL BOYNE: BOND REDUCED! ONGOING BIASED REPORTING!

Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant reports that family court activist and blogger Paul Boyne's bail has been reduced.  Apparently, Superior Court Judge Peter Brown has set his bail at $5,250.00 to be deposited with the court, or a $75,000 surety.  Since Paul Boyne is indigent, it is unlikely he will be able to meet this bond.  For a copy of this article, please click on the link below:

https://www.courant.com/2025/01/11/bond-reduced-for-man-accused-of-cyberstalking-ct-judges-he-awaits-trial-on-18-counts/?lctg=D4E5F4D155726419E473E4B87E&utm_email=D4E5F4D155726419E473E4B87E&active=yesP&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.courant.com%2f2025%2f01%2f11%2fbond-reduced-for-man-accused-of-cyberstalking-ct-judges-he-awaits-trial-on-18-counts%2f&utm_campaign=trib-hartford_courant-breaking_news_Dont_Miss-nl&utm_content=alert

Again, this is a freedom of speech case where Paul Boyne is alleged to have written a blog on family court which exposed Mr. Boyne's observations of the corruption of the CT Judicial Branch.  During the course of Mr. Boyne's incarceration, which has now lasted over a year, the reporting on his case in The Hartford Courant has been particularly biased against him.

For instance, in his recent January 11, 2024 article, Mr. Mahony states that Paul Boyne "is accused of 18 felony stalking and cyberstalking charges for years of often racist and antisemitic blog posts that several judges said caused them to fear for their safety."  What he fails to note is that, even though previously, in a private email among friends, a Mr. Ted Taupier was accused of quoting some movie hero in a rant against judges and was jailed for doing so, and even though Paul Boyne has supposedly posted upsetting blogs "for years", thus far no judge has been hurt as a consequence of either of these men's actions of speaking their minds.  So why these judges would fear for their safety is unclear.

Mr. Mahony also states that Paul Boyne has turned down a plea agreement that would allow him to pursue a first amendment appeal of the conviction. Well, he hasn't been convicted. Also, I'm not aware that Mr. Boyne turned down any plea agreement because his former attorneys ignored any plea agreements offered and requested a competency exam instead.  So as far as I know, Mr. Boyne never had the opportunity to say yes or no to a plea agreement.  Perhaps Mr. Mahony can clarify this point for me.  Meanwhile, Mr. Mahony's blank statements, as they accumulate, can have a very damaging impact on Paul Boyne's reputation.  This is unethical in my view.

Journalist Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant then continues on to partly blame Paul Boyne for refusing to cooperate in a baseless request for a competency examination which his attorneys made.  Why should he cooperate?  In what way would such an examination be beneficial to him?  Be that as it may, not long afterwards the judge declared that Paul Boyne was legally competent.  This issue of competency was simply a red herring.  But Mr. Mahony's outrage over Paul Boyne's refusal is laughable.  Apparently, Mahony states in an outraged tone, Mr. Boyne "refused to leave his prison cell" for the psych examination.  Well, why should he?  Just because Mr. Boyne was falsely accused of being mentally incompetent, this does not signify that he should subject himself to intrusive mental health scrutiny.  It is ridiculous for Mr. Mahony to imply that Paul Boyne was somehow at fault for insisting upon maintaining his personal boundaries which he has a right to do.  

Mr. Mahony then said it took weeks to replace Paul Boyne's attorneys.  It is not Paul Boyne's fault that his first attorneys were incompetent.  It is also not Mr. Boyne's fault that it took so long to get new ones.  There is a lengthy list of public defenders and it shouldn't take long to find replacements.  Mr. Boyne is not responsible for the court's administrative incompetence.  

Journalist Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant then talks about the Paul Boyne's family court case which is what motivated Mr. Boyne to become a blogger.  Mr. Mahony defines that situation by stating Paul Boyne "is said by associates to be consumed by what he believes was unfair treatment in his divorce and custody case."  But then Mr. Mahony fails to explain what that unfair treatment might be, leaving his readers in the dark.  I have rectified that failure below by providing a full description of the case at the link below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-boyne-case-paul-boyne-v-heather.html

Paul Boyne's divorce case was an egregious miscarriage of justice which caused lasting damage not only to Paul but also to his children.  This case is a shame and a disgrace for which the CT Family Court system should be held responsible.  Since Mr. Mahony fails to clarify this point, he makes Paul Boyne appear to be unreasonably obsessed--"consumed" OMG!  This is totally unfair to Mr. Boyne and also to the citizens of the State of Connecticut who have a right to know the real story.

Ultimately, this is why I ended up establishing the "Divorce in Connecticut" website because of the failure of media in Connecticut to report accurately on the news related to what is going on in Family Court.  I have to wonder.  Who or what is stopping Mr. Mahony from telling the truth about Paul Boyne in the pages of The Hartford Courant. The Courant may be the oldest continuously published newspaper in the United States, but if it is unable to publish the news fairly and equitably, do we really care any more?

MICHELLE TROCONIS AND THE REID TECHNIQUE!

I have just been looking at the March 6, 2024 Taylor Hartz Hartford Courant article entitled, "Attorneys agree:  Michelle Troconis 'had everything to lose' in interviews with CT Investigators".  According to the article, Troconis underwent three interviews, "The first one at the New Canaan Police Department on June 2, 2019, the second at [her Attorney Andrew] Bowman's office on June 6, 2019, and the third in Bridgeport on August 13, 2019.  These three interviews played a major role in her conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of tampering with evidence, two counts of conspiring to tamper with evidence, and second-degree hindering the prosecution, for which she received a sentence of 14 1/2 years. 

According to Michelle Troconis' second attorney, Jon Schoenhorn, the entire case against Troconis was 90% based upon these interviews. This is why I find it so remarkable that Michelle Troconis' first attorney, Andrew Bowman, a highly regarded professional with years of experience, would even begin to allow them.  According to Hartz, Linda Urso, the attorney for Dulos' former project manager, Pavel Gumienny, stated she would never allow such an interview without an immunity deal on the table. From what I gather, Michelle Troconis appears to have thought she had an informal immunity deal on the table, but that is entirely meaningless as we all know, and any attorney would know that. Hartz again reports that Attorney Schoenhorn commented, "I have no insight as to why any lawyer without either an immunity agreement or a proffer agreement would walk their client into a police interrogation without knowing very much about the offense."  

For those of us who have gone through the family court system, we probably have some very similar questions.  I personally had one of the top family court attorneys at the beginning of my divorce and he literally destroyed my case within the first five months.  This is where you start to wonder whether there is some conspiracy going on or some kinds of back room dealings.  I know it sounds paranoid, but seriously, what else are you going to speculate when a distinguished attorney, i.e. Attorney Andrew Bowman, with years of experience acts like a rooky.  Actually, even less than a rooky because any one of us who have watched "Law and Order" know better than to cooperate in a police interview without some kind of deal or a defense attorney who actually provides a defense.  I actually tend to see Michelle Troconis' complete naivete on that point, or alternatively what you might call a total lack of street smarts, as an indication that maybe she was innocent. 

I'm just looking at my notes regarding these interviews.  For the better part, from what I see, during these interviews, Michelle was not provided with an interpreter. This is a major issue given that cognitive processing and access to memory can be impacted by the language a person uses. Again, the fact that Attorney Bowman did not request an interpreter, which any person on the street would know should have been done, raises significant questions about what the heck Attorney Bowman thought he was doing. 

The first interview was conducted under really horrendous circumstances.  Apparently, she was arrested in the middle of the night at the hotel room she was staying in with her mother and daughter. Upon arriving at the police department in New Canaan, she was asked to undress to be photographed, and then peppered with questions from three to five detectives who sometimes lied about the facts of the case. Taylor Hartz of the Hartford Courant reports that detectives stated they had "found hard evidence of a murder" even though they actually didn't.  They also stated they found a pillow in one of the bags Fotis Dulos tossed out along Albany Avenue with Farber Dulos' blood on it.  In fact, they didn't have any such thing.  

Prosecutors have talked about how there were many contradictions and inconsistencies in Michelle Troconis's interviews with detectives. On the other hand, given how many threats and lies the detectives attacked Michelle with, is that so surprising?  According to Attorney Mark Sherman, a criminal defense attorney in Stanford, "Police can say whatever they want and there are no consequences."  Taylor Hartz of the Hartford Courant reports further, "Police are allowed to lie to suspects during interrogations to gather evidence..." I can imagine that if you have any mental health disability or physical problem such as a lack of sleep or are under a great deal of stress, with people aggressively attacking you verbally, lying to you and tripping you up verbally, you could end up saying all sorts of off the wall remarks.  

(As an aside, it is worth noting the point Taylor Hartz further makes that lying to anyone under 18 during a police interrogation in CT was made illegal in 2023. Slowly, but surely, people are waking up to the fact that these tactics are simply no good.)  

So when these investigators were lying and misrepresenting facts to Michelle Troconis, what were they doing? They were implementing The Reid Technique, a method of interrogation developed by John E. Reid in the 1950s and currently used as a standard in police departments around the country. (Yes, I know, a 74 year old technique). 

This technique is notorious for the fact that 29% of wrongful convictions in criminal cases were the result of false confessions elicited by The Reid Technique. In fact, what is interesting about The Reid Technique is that the first time the technique was used, it elicited a false confession. This took place In 1955, in Lincoln, Nebraska, when John Reid was able to get a suspect, Darrel Parker, to confess to killing his wife.  Even though Parker recanted his confession the next day, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.  However, later on, another man confessed to the crime.  Parker sued the state and received $500,000 in compensation.  

Despite this miserable failure at the start in the use of this technique, Reid continued on to write a book on his approach which was published in 1962 entitled "Criminal Interrogations and Confessions".  Miranda warnings, made the law in 1966, were actually instituted in order to respond to the abuses of the Reid Technique.  

Substantial parts of the Reid Technique have been called into question. For instance, the implication that a police officer can determine guilt or innocence from body movements like fidgeting has been debunked.  Further, studies done on the application of the Reid Technique indicate that police are no better than anyone else at determining whether a person is lying or not.  In connection to what Michelle Troconis experienced during her interrogations it is worth noting the following reported by CBC News in January 28, 2003, "Abuses of interrogation methods [i.e. Reid Technique] include officers treating accused suspects aggressively and telling them lies about the amount of evidence proving their guilt.  Such exaggerated claims of evidence, such as video or genetics, have the potential, when combined with such coercive tactics as threats of harm or promises of leniency, to cause innocent suspects to become psychologically overwhelmed."  

Given Michelle Troconis was being threatened over access to her daughter, she was being told she was the most hated woman in America, she was being lied to and grilled under conditions that compromised her mental capacity to cope, then the fact that her responses were inconsistent would make perfect sense. So why didn't her attorney, Jon Schoenhorn put The Reid Technique itself on trial?  Other civilized Western nations have stopped using it.  Why are we still using it here in Connecticut when it has been so discredited and there are many other more effective approaches?  Is there a sort of joy in bullying and railroading people we don't like into jail regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent?

After Michelle Troconis' conviction, in an article published in the Hartford Courant on July 5, 2024 Taylor Hartz quotes Detective John Kimball, one of the lead interrogators in Michelle's case as saying, "I am sure with 100% certainty that she has additional information that could help us determine what happened to Jennifer and where she is located."  At the same time, during her trial, Kimball admitted to "using ruse style tactics" against Michelle. Given the history of The Reid Technique, I think it is laughable for him to speak with such confidence.  100 percent.  Really?  Detective Kimball said that the ultimate goal with Michelle Troconis was to get at the truth.  Yet he relied upon a flawed, old fashioned technique with a long history of error when it comes to ascertaining the truth.  If he actually cared about the truth, why did he use it?

I can't say that I think much of Michelle Troconis.  How foolish could she be to think that she Jennifer and the kids were all going to be one big happy family in Farmington.  But did she conspire to commit murder, tamper with evidence, and hinder the prosecution?  I'm not sure.  The fact is that she was no where near the crime when it occurred.  Pavel Gumienny, on the other hand, was in the local area where the crime took place. Unfortunately, the electronic data in the vehicle he drove seems to have had some glitch so it wasn't possible to track his movements.  Law enforcement said at the time that there is no way to tamper with that data.  However, I've looked it up in google and, in fact, you can tamper with it according to the articles I read. 

So what am I saying?  I don't know.  It is ironic that a mother gets killed in a domestic violence incident and none of the men charged in the case have yet been brought to trial and convicted, but we have the woman, by gosh!

THE BOYNE CASE: PAUL BOYNE V. HEATHER BOYNE 2007

To be honest, I have only recently taken the time to look at the Boyne case to determine what is the basis for blogger Paul Boyne's anger towards the CT Family Court system.  I did not assume his case was the initial motivation because there is so much wrong with the CT Family Court system, you can become enraged by its actions without ever being a party to a case.  Nonetheless, as I found out, Paul Boyne did have a very difficult family court case which could be the basis for his ongoing anger and disillusion.  

The Boyne divorce took around two years from November 2, 2005 to June 25, 2007 which is pretty standard for contentious divorces, although clearly a whole lot of action took place post-judgment both in Connecticut and New York.  FYI, I'm going to just write down my ongoing impressions of the decision in this Boyne case as they occur to me.  As I've said before, I can't do the fine tuning I'd prefer to do in my written work because of my current life circumstances.  So I hope you will cut me some slack for that.

The first point I noticed is that there is a "Memorandum of Decision" in this case. This means that the case went to trial on October 3-4, 2006 and again on November 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007.  At the trial, according to the Memorandum of Decision, "The parties presented testimony and introduced documentary evidence.  The Court, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits and proposed orders" drew conclusions and formulated orders applying to custody and financial arrangements post divorce.  Given that all of this testimony and documentary evidence came before the Court, what is striking about this Memorandum of Decision is how little of this evidence made its way into the decision.  If I didn't know better, I might think this Memorandum of Decision is actually a Memorandum of Understanding or some kind of agreement between the parties because it is written more like an agreement.  

In fact, a later custody decision in New York state includes some discussion of the Memorandum as an agreement with Paul Boyne insisting it is not an agreement. I mean, I get that.  Some so called agreements are forced upon the parties.  However, this document is not referred to as an agreement, but it still reads like one.  How, you might ask?  It does not have the backup evidence from testimony and documentation which would ordinarily be used as the basis for the judge's decision.  Also, it doesn't have the kind of explanations for how the law applies to the decisions made in the Memorandum of Decision that you would ordinarily expect. For me, this is a major red flag. 

In any legal document there is the surface intention, and then there are all the unspoken issues and political machinations which remain underneath the surface.  Whenever you get a legal document that is not in conformity to other similar documents, there is something wrong.  So right away I have concerns about what is going on in this case.  Of course, I can't go beyond the documents to speculate what that might be.  I've had people get angry at my work because I strictly limit myself to the evidence at hand. I don't listen to gossip or speculation and I'm not moved by a lot of razzle dazzle.  This is not the intention of my work.  I'm interested in finding the problems and pointing out where further investigation might be helpful.  

Here is one area in the Paul Boyne case.  The Memorandum of Decision states that Paul Boyne is an engineer and that he has had 11 jobs in 16 years.  I would like to know why.  What is going on here?  Is there some background factor which has led to frequent job changes such as challenges in his area of employment?  Does he have some kind of personality disorder which makes him a difficult employee?  All of this should have been investigated.  The Memorandum of Decision also states that Paul Boyne had "substantial mood swings."  Who said that?  His estranged wife?  It would be standard in a divorce case, for both parents to take psychological evaluations to determine their mental health status.  If Paul Boyne had bipolar, which this observation seems to hint at, then the Court should have ordered an examination.  If the Court ordered such an examination and Paul Boyne refused to take one, then that should be mentioned as well.  All these kinds of details are very helpful when it comes to a later Court, and there were many in this case, making any kinds of determinations.  

The Court continues on to say that when it came to the proceedings, "the defendant's hostility was palpable."  Why?  What was going on that Paul Boyne, right at this early stage of what came to be a multi-decade critique of the CT Family Court, felt such hostility to the point that some Family Court vendors resigned and didn't want to be part of the case?  Whatever it was is not said. I know that on some level, by not explaining, the Court doing that universal gesture of circling a pointer finger around the ear and implying we have a crazy person here.  But that kind of action is not helpful to the successful resolution of a Court case and now we can see the final results of doing so in the current cyberbullying case against Paul Boyne.  

If there is a problem, the Court has to say what it is, put a name to it, otherwise we are all left guessing and my radar is saying this is the kind of ADA case which violates federal law.  If Paul Boyne had a disability it needed to be addressed.  But we don't know, do we, because of how the memorandum is worded.  

Moving on, the custody arrangement in the Boyne case is extraordinary in that it gives Heather Boyne sole custody of the parties' four minor children and states that "The defendant shall have no visitation with the minor children, except at the discretion of the Plaintiff and initiated only by the Plaintiff."  These are extraordinary orders and would never be put into place in the present day.  Not only are such orders illegal now in Connecticut, but they are also illegal in New York where Paul Boyne appealed the case.  

Upon reviewing these orders, the New York state Court observed, "There is no order of protection of which this Court is aware--a circumstance confirmed by counsel this date--which prevented the father from contacting the mother to request or arrange for visitation.   Nor has the father alleged that the mother rebuffed or otherwise denied any such efforts."  Still, these are profoundly humiliating orders for any divorced parent placing total control in the hands of one party.  The wisdom of doing any such thing at any time is questionable as subsequent Court decisions have stated.  

The remainder of the Memorandum of Decision in the Paul Boyne case pretty much hands over most of the marital assets to the mother, i.e. 1. All educational accounts for the children are placed under mothers control; 2. Paul is required to quitclaim the marital home to his ex-wife; 3. Paul is asked to give his ex-wife $80,000 from his IRA; 4. Joint mutual funds go to the ex-wife; and 5. Paul is ordered to pay his exes attorney $15,000.  These are tremendous financial burdens which must have come along with the fees Paul owed to his own attorney which must have been considerable.  

Then Paul, on top of all that, was ordered to pay around $750 or so per week for the next 7 years.  That pretty much wipes him out financially is my best guess.  On top of that, the judge added an extra provision stating that "it is hereby further ordered that all of the obligations of this judgment are in the nature of support and shall not be dischargeable by either party in the event of a bankruptcy filing." All of them?  That is an extraordinary ruling! 

Further, the Court ordered Paul to guarantee these payments with a $500,000 insurance policy with the ex-wife and children as beneficiaries, and also to obtain a bond to cover these costs for the first year post divorce.  Meanwhile, what we have is a guy who has changed jobs 11 times in 16 years.  The Court acknowledged that in making its decision it was going on the basis of "earning capacity" rather than actual earned income.  Paul had only earned $41,000 in the three years leading up to the decision.  Still, this seems to me to be balancing an extremely heavy financial burden on a very fragile foundation. I say this recalling Paul's job instability and references to his mood swings.  All of this needed to be addressed in order to conclude the case in a realistic manner which would provide a pathway for both sides to regain their financial and emotional stability after the divorce.  This is the goal, not to burden either party so greatly that he or she is never able to recover.

The orders in this case, both custody and financial, strike me as extreme and impossible for Paul Boyne to follow through on successfully.  The better part of wisdom would have been to establish Court orders post judgment which were achievable for the parties involved.  I would expect some mention in the custody order of what steps Paul Boyne could have taken in the future in order to make it more equitable. I would have thought some mention of options for reducing child support and alimony if Paul were unable to get a job after reasonable attempts to do so.  Of course, more deeply, I would have expected some report by a professional evaluator as to what Paul Boyne's true earning capacity was. To me, this issue was not open and shut, given Paul's employment history.

There are many mysteries in this case. So much is left unsaid and unreported.  I will note that one GAL in the case stated that "she felt she was in fear of her safety by [Paul]" but best guess if she is dead today, this is not by Paul Boyne's hand and that was almost 20 years ago.  I've known this accusation of "fear of safety" by family Court vendors to be directed towards anyone who disagrees with them or who is smart enough to expose their flaws. I don't know what to make of it.  But so far, no one has died because of Paul Boyne.  I do think that the CT Judicial system has got to stop beating around the bush, jailing and legally persecuting people regarding issues the public is not fully informed about because Judges use the process of writing up decisions to conceal rather than reveal.

HARTFORD COURANT: PAUL BOYNE COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL!

An October 31, 2024 "Hartford Courant" article by Edmund H. Mahoney reports that blogger Paul Boyne has been found competent to stand trial.  See below:

"A man accused of cyberstalking for tormenting judges with malicious blog postings was found competent to stand trial Thursday and fired his public defenders for questioning his mental fitness.

The decision by Paul Boyne to discharge his two court-appointed lawyers puts his case, with its first amendment implications, on hold.

Boyne has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that his arrest should be dismissed because it violates his free speech rights. He has been in custody, unable to post bond, since his arrest 15 months ago on 18 felony stalking and cyberstalking charges."

For the rest of this article, click on the link below:

https://www.courant.com/2024/10/31/man-accused-of-harassing-ct-judges-found-competent-to-stand-trial-fires-lawyers/?clearUserState=true