Looking at the title, I see it says that "Man"--ok, we all know this is Paul Boyne. That's not rocket science. I'm not sure why the "Hartford Courant" has such a hard time saying the name. We family court advocates are saying it and have been saying it for the over a decade we have known him. Is he a "notorious blogger" as Edmund H. Mahony describes him? I don't think so. If I ever mentioned him to the man on the street--and I just did to one of the librarians at the library I'm typing this article in--I'm likely to get a puzzled look and the word "Who?" Paul is only notorious to corrupt family court players. As I say, if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear from Paul because he won't mention you.
So what's new with Paul? He refuses "to submit to court-ordered competency exam". Is there any reason that he should? Everyone who knows Paul is well aware that he may be annoying but he isn't crazy--not according to any legal definition of the term. I believe that obeying an order to cooperate with a psychological evaluation in criminal court would be kind of like being forced to incriminate yourself. That's illegal as far as I know. I mean, they force people to take psychological examinations all the time in family court, but I don't think it is legal in criminal court. Plus, I think when they are talking competency, they aren't talking about being argumentative, they are talking about being psychotic to the point where you can't even have a coherent conversation with your attorney. The fact that the Court has actually ordered a competency exam for a person who writes his own motions and argues his case pro se in Court is actually kind of an embarrassment for the Court. When you do something really stupid like this, it makes you look totally incapable of running a Courtroom.
What has caused this big hullabaloo? Paul has apparently been charged with using "racist and anti-semitic language to promote conspiracy theories about control of the state judiciary." As far as I know, this is not illegal. Is the criminal justice system for real? You may not like Qanon type theories and you may think anti-semitism is distasteful, but it sure isn't illegal as far as I know. So the Court has kept Paul Boyne in jail for fourteen months for exercising his freedom of speech? Is that what this is all about? How silly is that?
It doesn't seem fair to me that the State of Connecticut can jail a person without trial for 14 months and require an amount of bail that he will never be able to meet. Paul Boyne lives on social security at his parents house. Where is he going to run with no money? Couldn't they put an ankle bracelet on him and hold him in house arrest? They sure gave Michelle Traconis a better deal and she was charged with conspiracy to murder!
Digging into the issue deeper, Edmund Mahony states that in his blog "Family Court Circus", Paul Boyne suggested that "violence is a remedy for disgruntled litigants." According to the law, which I just looked up, freedom of speech protects most speech except that which consists of a "true threat", i.e. speech that is intended to communicate a serious threat of violence to a specific person. From what I gather, Paul's statements have been so broad, you can't nail them down that closely. It is important to note that proving "true threat" is not easy. In prosecuting this point of law, the attorney must demonstrate that the speaker has some understanding that the statement is threatening. The speaker must be aware of the effects of their speech. The speaker must also know that the threat can be carried out. How the recipient responds to the statement is also a factor.
More specifically, "the Supreme Court ruled in Counterman v. Colorado that the speaker must have a reckless state of mind to be considered a true threat. This means that the speaker must have consciously disregarded the risk that their statement would be perceived as threatening." I obtained this information from AI on google. From what I can see, this is a pretty high standard. I also looked at an affidavit and application for a search and seizure warrant in Paul's case which was used to seize his electronics. Listed among the grounds for this warrant, I did not see any condition which would rise to the level of a true threat.
Perhaps I need to continue investigating, but at this point, this is my conclusion. In fact, what I see in the warrant is the desperate attempt to invade the contents of an independent journalist's private electronics in order to fish for some evidence of something incriminating. I don't think that is how the law is supposed to be used.
Mahoney goes on to report that there is a standoff between Paul Boyne and his attorneys. According to Mahony, "Boyne's public defenders asked the court to order the competency evaluation a month ago..." All I can say to that is, why in the world would they request a competency evaluation or call into question Paul's competence if they are truly representing him. In fact, it is my understanding that Paul was in the final stages of a beneficial plea deal when his so called attorneys derailed the agreement with this request for a competency exam. This is not an unusual situation for the Court system in the State of Connecticut, i.e. to fake that a person has a defending attorney simply because they have a warm body next to them. Clearly, this is not the case when it comes to Paul.
Mahony makes the point that Paul's attorneys are upset with him because Paul insists that a "former associate justice of the state Supreme Court" is behind the case against him. From what I understand, there is concrete documentary evidence of this fact. So if Paul's public defenders are using that as the basis for claiming he lacks competence, that's kind of silly.
Apparently, when Judge Peter Brown asked Paul Boyne whether he was going to cooperate with the psychological evaluation, Paul asked Judge Brown why he should. Judge Brown said, "I'm not going to argue with you." Perhaps this is because he actually doesn't have a legitimate legal argument. You may be annoyed that a pro se attorney asks you as a judge for the legal basis for your decision making, but you are legally required to provide one, or some semblance of respect for the process should lead you to provide one.
At the end of this hearing, Paul Boyne's attorney, Jennifer M. Buyske, bemoaned the fact that there has been a breakdown of communication between his defense attorneys and Paul. Boy, I wonder why!
There isn't much more to respond to in this Edmund H. Mahony article. Mr. Mahony quoted people who said Paul Boyne is "consumed by what he believes was unfair treatment in his divorce and custody case." Given Paul's committed and dedicated advocacy for family court reform during the course of a decade, it might make sense for a responsible journalist to find out what was involved in the Boyne case. Why has it brought up major concerns for Paul and many others over the corrupt and unethical practices of the CT Family Court System. Why not investigate this question? In 2013, approximately 80 current and former litigants provided testimony to the CT State Legislature regarding the horrific and abusive practices of family court. Paul Boyne's actions do not arise out of a vacuum. This freedom of speech case is not complete without a full investigation of the motivations behind Paul Boyne's actions. The fact that it has not been done thus far is simply a disgrace.
Finally, "not long ago [Paul] suffered a head injury in a prison dispute." Let's get real. Paul was attacked by fellow inmates. Our prison system can't even keep prisoners safe who have not been convicted in a court of law and who are innocent before being proven guilty. That's just bad. As citizens of CT, we should be ashamed that this kind of injustice is taking place in our state, the birthplace of the constitution. I'm sorry this may not be as well written as some of my other blogs, but I hope all of you see that it comes from the heart, and with great sympathy for a writer who has been silenced for speaking his mind as I have been many times during the course of writing this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment