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?
