As you know, Paul Boyne has now been sitting in jail for over a year because he posted what the Connecticut judicial branch considers offensive articles on his blog www.thefamilycourtcircus.com. Apparently, Paul's case was going to go to trial in September 2024, but it has been canceled. Volpe speculates that the reason is that the state's case against him is so weak.
From what I understand is that there was a plea deal in place on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 which would have allowed Paul to plead guilty and the state would have accepted time served as punishment so that Paul could have walked out a free man. However, at that point Paul's attorneys allegedly intervened, refused to proceed with the plea deal and claimed that he was incompetent.
Anyone who knows Paul is aware that this is nonsense. As Michael Volpe states, "If you listen to any interview, you know he's plenty competent. He's prepared to help with his defense, but his court appointed lawyers have been phoning it in from the beginning. Now, they are suggesting he's incompetent." Throughout the years, Paul Boyne has advocated for family court reform, provided emotional and legal research support to litigants, written articles for his ongoing blog, as well as been a good friend to many. You may not agree with his views, but the idea that he is not competent is just silly.
Recently, as a self represented party, Paul Boyne submitted a federal motion for injunction to the federal courts. Could he have done this if he weren't competent? He was forced to write the motion by hand because the prison doesn't have computers or typewriters. His court appointed attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers of the Kirschbaum Law Firm--have refused to assist him in his federal court filings. Apparently, one reason they gave for refusing to assist him is that they don't know anything about the first amendment.
This is beyond ridiculous.
On the other hand, as a person who was subjected to numerous accusations--which were found to be false, fyi--that I was incompetent myself in family court, I am curious as to how they are going to go about this. What foolish mental health professional would be dumb enough to take this on? What parameters are they going to use? Welcome to the therapeutic state everybody!
*Again this is an update from Michael Volpe's reporting venue on substack. For more detailed analysis than I am able to provide, please refer to his substack account.
Followup:
I did have a chance to speak to Paul Boyne today about what happened. He explained to me that this week they were supposed to start jury selection for his case. However, Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers weren't prepared to proceed with trial. They hadn't submitted any lists of witnesses, sent out any supoenas or prepared a list of exhibits for the court. In essence, they had done nothing. Instead, they spoke to the judge in chambers without Paul present and agreed to request a competency evaluation instead. Later, Alice Powers went to speak to Paul and informed him of their intentions.
Upon arriving in open court, his attorneys submitted a verbal motion to the court, but they didn't bother to submit a written motion. This gives me the impression that the move to examine Paul for competency was an off the cuff motion to obscure the fact that the attorneys weren't prepared. The grounds they provided were that Paul Boyne considered Joette Katz, former head of CT DCF, as part of the reason for his arrest. Also, they stated he had suffered a concussion, which did occur when he was attacked by another inmate. However, the doctor who examined him at the time did not indicate the concussion interfered with Paul's competency.
Another interesting fact Paul Boyne shared with me is that Kirschbaum Law, the firm his attorneys are associated with, is not contracted with the New Haven Judicial District public defender to provide services. It is contracted with Hartford and Waterbury, but not New Haven. I consider it a very questionable practice to provide services without a proper contract.
As a point of interest, I did look up whether it is legal for a judge to order a defendant to have a competency evaluation in criminal court. Apparently, it is legal. Apparently, "a court in Connecticut may order a competency exam for a criminal defendant if there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime and the request for an exam is justified." Justification for such an exam would be 1. the defendant appears delusional or incoherent; 2. the defendant has a mental disease or defect; 3. the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against them; 4. the defendant is unable to assist in their defense. Number two appears to me to be unusually broad--like any kind of mental disease or defect? Any? Wow.
It does appear that the attorneys here are not acting in Paul Boyne's best interests when they nullify an advantageous, though unjust, plea deal in favor of a competency exam. This has led Paul to question whether Alice Powers and Jennifer Buyske of Kirschbaum law can continue to represent him legally since they appear not to be acting in his best interests.
