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

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?

EDMUND H. MAHONY ON PAUL BOYNE'S RETURN TO COURT!

I woke up this morning to another "Hartford Courant" article on Paul Boyne courtesy of Edmund H. Mahony.  It is entitled "Man accused of cyberstalking CT judges refuses to submit to court-ordered competency exam."  I'm going to do a cheating way of writing this article because I'm so busy I can't do the kind of heavily reviewed work I'd like to do.  Instead, I'll give you an example of the kind of critical reading that I do which often ultimately leads to a finalized blog with thorough research. So keep in mind that my writing here is on the draft level.

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.

PAUL BOYNE CASE IS SOLELY A FREEDOM OF SPEECH CASE! SEE INTERVIEW!

 

WHAT'S UP? HOW COME THE RULES ARE DIFFERENT FOR MARIJUANA ADVOCATES THAN FAMILY COURT REFORM ADVOCATES?

Today, activists went to the State Capitol to speak before the Law Committee about the legalization of marijuana.  This issue is not really that interesting to me as much as the issue of freedom of speech.  I am wondering whether people who spoke regarding this issue were required to remove all their pro or con marijuana political statements before providing their testimony.  Does anyone have an idea?

Were they made to feel like they were bad people for having their own opinions on a subject that mattered to them?  It sure would be interesting to know.  

I saw pictures of people walking around with pro-marijuana capes, and I saw folks with very colorful clothing promoting marijuana. Were they at any point required to take that clothing off the way family court reform activists were told to remove their anti-Judge Emons T-shirts?  See the article below for pictures on the law committee audience today:

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-marijuana-voices-20180314-story.html

Please note the videos from the hearings on judicial reappointments where Judiciary Committee leaders forced citizens to remove their T-shirts.  Why do you think there was a difference in treatment?  Is it possible they love Judge Emons more than they love marijuana? That's pretty hard to believe!

See links:  

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/03/connecticut-legislators-prohibit.html

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2018/02/rep-william-tong-violates-public-right.html

Shouldn't these two groups be treated equally?  What's up?

CONNECTICUT LEGISLATORS PROHIBIT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FEBRUARY 16, 2018!

REP. WILLIAM TONG VIOLATES THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

THE ACLU OF CONNECTICUT IS INDIFFERENT TO THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF AVERAGE CT CITIZENS!

Last year, just around this time, Verena Tarrant, in a special report prepared for the Divorce in CT Blogsite, indicated that writer Elizabeth A. Richter was threatened with jail time for refusing to reveal her sources in a blog she wrote in the Eric Foy v. Lisa Foy case.  Further, she was threatened for refusing to disclose the identity of Catharine Sloper who is the proprietor of the "Divorce in Connecticut" blog and has been an outspoken critic of the CT legal system for the last few years.  The full story on this situation is at the link below:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/family-court-attorneys-threaten-divorce.html

When this happened, the first thing Elizabeth heard from advisors was that she should approach The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut and ask them for help.  After all, when the "CT Law Tribune" faced similar restrictions on its Freedom of the Press in a prior restraint action that occurred at pretty much the same time in the same exact case--Foy v. Foy--the "Tribune" received an immediate and supportive response from the Union.  If you look at a posting on the website for the ACLU of Connecticut, it explains how the organization "quickly" submitted a friend of the court brief "written by Legal Director Sandra Staub in cooperation with Quinnipiac law Professor Martin Margulies and attorney Mario Cerame" when the case went to appeal.  For a link to this posting, please click on the link below:

http://www.acluct.org/updates/prior-restraint-order-threatened-press-freedom/

At the same time, Ms. Richter hired Attorney Daniel Klau who was the attorney for the "CT Law Tribune" and who was involved in the appeal of the prior restraint order.  Attorney Klau is also a member of the Judicial-Media Committee which has played such a central role in mediating the relationship between the CT Judicial Branch and the Media.  Some have proposed, including this writer, that through the Committee the CT Judicial Branch has imposed considerable undue influence on the Media and restricted the Media's ability to report on the CT Judicial Branch in a fair and impartial manner.

Unfortunately, when she contacted the ACLU of CT, Ms. Richter received the same kind of run around that so many Connecticut citizens have experienced when they contact the ACLU regarding civil rights abuses imposed on them by the legal system itself.  As one anonymous comment placed on an online website by a member of the CT Coalition for Family Court Reform stated, "It is a shame that the ACLU in this state [has] completely ignored and turned a blind eye to the rampant violation of civil rights, due process and civil liberties plaguing our state's broken and corrupt family, foreclosure, and probate court systems."  This is a state of affairs that continues to exist at this time, much to the disgrace and shame of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut which has a stated mission to fight on behalf of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.

The first step Elizabeth Richter took to obtain help from the ACLU of Connecticut was to explain the problem on the online contact form that the ACLU of CT has available on its website.  In return, on January 22, 2015 Ms. Richter received a letter stating, "Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.  Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you in this matter.  We are a private, non-profit organization with limited resources.  We can only accept a small percentage of the many meritorious complaints that we receive."  Please understand that our inability assist you is not a judgment on the merits of your case.  We simply do not have the resources to help."

Oh, oh, oh, but you see, the ACLU of CT DID have the resources to assist the much bigger, much more mainstream, considerably well funded "CT Law Tribune"!  What about that?

As Elizabeth Richter explained in a response letter dated February 4, 2014, "I cannot afford the kinds of major legal fees that an enterprise such as the "CT Law Tribune" is able to marshal in its defense.  Yet, I am facing an equally serious challenge to freedom of the press and freedom of speech which the "Tribune" is facing.  In fact, what I am dealing with is much more serious, given that I do not have the same level of resources required to protect myself from being punished simply for exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

In her final remarks, Ms. Richter asked, "Did you decide that my concerns aren't important because I am a small guy?  If so, that would be unfortunate.  But I am hearing more and more that his is what the ACLU-CT is like--only willing to defend people who are well connected and politically powerful."

On February 6, 2015, the ACLU-CT intake department responded by saying "Your online submission references an attorney that represents you.  If your attorney would like us to assist in a supporting role, please have him or her contact us."  It further stated, "if your lawyer would like assistance on the matter, please have him or her contact us."

It also stated it could not speak to Ms. Richter about the matter because she already had an attorney  citing Connecticut Practice Book Rule 4.2, "A lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter."  Of course, when Elizabeth Richter was undergoing her divorce, and she was represented by an attorney, this did not prohibit her from consulting with other attorneys for a 2nd or even 3rd opinion about her case, and I don't believe Connecticut Practice Book Rule 4.2 is intended to preclude that option.  Of course, I believe that the ACLU-CT sent her that doggerel to shut her up and get rid of her.

Still, given that the ACLU-CT had advised her to approach their organization via her attorney, Ms. Richter then turned to her attorney to see if she could get him to obtain support from the ACLU-CT.

Thus, on February 19, 2015, Elizabeth Richter contacted Attorney Daniel Klau by email and asked him to request assistance from the ACLU-CT stating, "I have contacted the ACLU and they tell me that they would like you as my attorney to contact them regarding this request...Is this something you think you could do on my behalf?  I would really appreciate it."  Attorney Klau did not respond.

Therefore, after a week had gone by, Ms. Richter resent her February 19, 2015 email again on February 25, 2015 asking Attorney Klau, "Is it possible you could contact the ACLU for me?  Let me know!"

On that same day, Attorney Klau responded by saying "I will definitely contact the folks at the ACLU."

On March 4, 2015, Ms. Richter still had not heard anything, so she sent another inquiry to Attorney Daniel Klau stating, "Tell me, was there any answer from the ACLU?  How does it look?"  Again, there was no response for another week.

Then, on March 11, 2015, Elizabeth Richter received a response from Attorney Klau stating the legal director of ACLU-CT had left and that he was now talking to a Staff Attorney at the ACLU about my case. 

Then again, on Monday March 16, 2015, Attorney Klau stated he was still speaking to the ACLU-CT, in this email stating the name of his contact, Attorney David MacGuire.  He stated that Attorney McGuire "was not familiar with [the] case, so I will bring him up to speed."

Meanwhile, around April 6, 2015, Elizabeth Richter received additional subpoenas for a deposition and hearing in regard to the Foy case, to which Attorney Daniel Klau responded with a Motion to Quash.

Upon being informed of this development, Ms. Richter responded to Attorney Klau with an email on April 7, 2015 asking the following questions, "What do our friends at the ACLU have to say about this situation?  Would they be interested in helping me out with a little moral support, do you think?"

Eventually, the deposition and court hearing was canceled because the Foys came to an agreement on May 8, 2015.  

In mid-June during their open call hours, Elizabeth phoned the ACLU-CT and complained that they had taken no action in her case.  On June 30, 2015, Jeremy Shafer, a paralegal with the ACLU-CT, contacted Ms. Richter by email and stated, "I believe there has been a misunderstanding.  Our January 22nd and February 6 letters to you stated you already had representation, and if your attorney would like us to assist him then he should contact us.  Since he didn't contact us, we were unable to assist."

As you can see, it looks as though there are three possibilities regarding what truly happened here:  1.  Mr. Jeremy Shafer didn't investigate too deeply regarding Elizabeth Richter's case in order to discover what communications had taken place between Attorney Klau and the ACLU-CT; 2.  Someone within the ACLU-CT is lying; or 3.  Attorney Klau is lying.  All these options appear to me to be within the realm of possibility when attorneys are involved.

Following through, on July 1, 2015, Ms. Richter resent to Attorney Klau her April 7,  2015 email which asked Attorney Klau if the ACLU had responded to her request for assistance.   Attorney Klau responded, "The local ACLU has a new Executive Director.  Haven't met him yet.  But he may be interested in the issue of protection for bloggers.  

Later that day, on July 1, 2015 Elizabeth Richter responded to Attorney Klau stating she would like him to proceed with working together with the ACLU to address the blogger issue related to freedom of speech.  After that date, she never heard back from Attorney Klau regarding any additional followup steps he had taken in regard to the ACLU-CT.

It is possible that when Elizabeth Richter chose Attorney Daniel Klau to represent her, an attorney who has spent a considerable amount of time as a member of a Committee that acts to enforce Connecticut Media compliance with the agenda of the corrupt CT Judicial Branch, this could have been a conflict of interest for Attorney Klau.  Conceivably, it could explain his somewhat lackadaisical attitude.

Before I finish here, I did also want to mention that in his June 30, 2015 letter, Mr. Jeremy Schafer suggested that Ms. Richter approach the state legislature to have the law adjusted to support independent bloggers.  Of course, I would have assumed she had the law on her side based upon the American Constitution.  However, should I be wrong about that, it is the mission of the ACLU of Connecticut to work with the legislature on that exact issue.  Specifically, it states on its own website:

"The ACLU of CT defends, promotes, and preserves individual rights and liberties under the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions in state and federal court, the General Assembly and the state's 169 towns and cities."

In regard to freedom of speech the ACLU of Connecticut website states, "We regularly stand up for students and other individuals whose right to free speech under the First Amendment is threatened, whether we agree with their views or not."

So instead of using its organizational might to support Ms. Richter's work as an independent journalist and blogger, the ACLU-CT simply copped out, reneged on its mission, and told her to go do it herself.  How much more ethically and morally bankrupt can you get than that?

How can we understand what has happened here?  First, what this means is that Elizabeth Richter, who continues to work as an independent journalist on behalf of the Divorce in Connecticut website, still remains vulnerable to any other lawsuits that may be launched against her.  Naturally, this has had a very oppressive effect upon her right to express herself freely.

It appears that while media powerhouses such as the "CT Law Tribune" can continue to bully their way around any topic no matter what the truth of it might be, journalists working on behalf of a modest blog such as Divorce in Connecticut still have to tiptoe around and live in fear of what might happen if they seek to exercise their constitutional rights and tell the truth about the corruption going on in family courts around the State. 

Second, we all need to be clear about the fact that the ACLU both nationally and locally is controlled by the powerful and corrupt legal system, and it is an organization that has lost its way, and couldn't care less about the constitutional rights of the average citizen.