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?

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

THE FRANK REPORT COVERAGE OF PAUL BOYNE CASE

 

For those of you who are interested in a different perspective on the Paul Boyne case, here are some articles from "The Frank Report" written by independent journalist Mr. Frank Parlato.  I have included the links below.  What I found even more interesting when I read these articles were the comments below them.  So make sure you continue to read the comments underneath the articles because they give you a real insight into the inner workings of family court from the perspective of people who have lived experience and have done a great deal of research. 

Paul Boyne From Jail Says His Lawyers Killed Plea Deal; Judge Orders Mental Competency Test on Jewish Conspiracy Blogger

https://frankreport.com/2024/09/15/paul-boyne-from-jail-says-his-lawyers-killed-plea-deal-judge-orders-mental-competency-test-on-jewish-conspiracy-blogger/

Savior or Cyberstalker? Paul Boyne Still Fighting For Free Speech From Behind Bars

https://frankreport.com/2024/10/28/savior-or-cyberstalker-paul-boyne-still-fighting-for-free-speech-from-behind-bars/

Blogger Paul Boyne Held Without Bail for Posts Suggesting Violence Against Jewish Judges Seeks Release Based on First Amendment

https://frankreport.com/2024/09/02/blogger-paul-boyne-held-without-bail-for-posts-suggesting-violence-against-jewish-judges-seeks-release-based-on-first-amendment/

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.

UPDATE ON PAUL BOYNE!

I just received an update on Paul Boyne from independent reporter Michael Volpe from his substack reporting venue. 

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.

 

98% OF CRIMINAL CASES END IN PLEA BARGAINS, SAYS NPR!

I was saddened when I heard that Paul Boyne is preparing to accept a plea bargain in his case because I'd like to see him defend his rights in open court.  But the Judicial System in this country has essentially eliminated the right of American citizens to go to trial.  Take a moment to read the NPR article on this subject and find out how it happened.  See below:

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice

Of course, if Paul Boyne decides to take a plea, this would be entirely understandable since prosecutors have a team of attorneys, paralegals, and administrative assistants to help them with their case, along with a plush state budget.  In contrast, all Paul Boyne has are two pro bono attorneys. It's an unfortunate situation which has led to many innocent people being locked up in jail.  This is also exacerbated by our for profit jail system which benefits from having innocent people locked up.  For more information on this, see below:

https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

CT LAW REGARDING SEALED CASES

One piece of information that has come out recently about Paul Boyne is that his case has been sealed. I was looking his case up online and when I clicked on the case number for his files (there were three) I received an automatic notice that his case has been statutorily sealed. This made me feel concerned about what was going on.

As a result, I sent an inquiry about this to Paul Boyne's attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Osedach--but did not hear back from them.  I also sent an inquiry to the Hartford Courant journalist--Mr. Edmund H. Mahony--who has been covering Paul Boyne's case, but he said he didn't know anything about it. Just to be sure, I contacted the clerk at the New Haven criminal courthouse to confirm Paul Boyne's case has been sealed and she stated that it has, indeed, been sealed from both the public and journalists.  

Eventually, I read in an article Edmund H. Mahony published today that Paul Boyne has applied for a diversion program.  It turns out that when a defendant does that, his case is automatically sealed. The article is so biased, I'm not going to include the link, but it is easily accessible.  Still, I am breathing a sigh of relief that everything is above board.  Aside from court files from diversionary programs, only court records such as juvenile arrest records and the records of victims of sexual offenses are automatically restricted from public view.

Still, the sealing of court cases is a rather touchy subject in Connecticut.  I can recall that when John Rowland was first running for the office of governor in Connecticut in 1994, the rumor was that he had committed acts of domestic violence with his first wife.  However, it wasn't possible for journalists to find out because his case had been sealed.  Here are some of the links on this situation below:

https://www.courant.com/1994/09/30/domestic-incident-rtdata-withheld/

https://www.courant.com/1994/10/26/closed-divorce-files-not-unusual-among-well-known-people-2/

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_02_09_Rich_EliteEnjoy_Felix_Maguire_2.htm

As you can see, the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch was sealing cases for people it considered privileged has been a major source of conflict in Connecticut.  Eventually, the Hartford Courant sued the Connecticut Judicial Branch demanding that it stop this practice.  The decision in this case is in Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 which affirmed a qualified first amendment right of access to court files. As a result, since that time, it is rare for cases to be sealed or the public denied access to a trial.  See below:

https://casetext.com/case/hartford-courant-co-v-pellegrino-2

To see how that translates into reality, I went onto the Judicial Branch website. In reviewing information provided by the Connecticut Judicial Branch, I found out that Connecticut doesn't have a particular law in place when it comes to sealing records.  However, "a Court can seal a file if the Judicial Authority determines that it is necessary to protect an interest that is more important than the public's interest in viewing the materials or attending the proceedings."  

This also brings forward another question. When a file is sealed, does that mean the trial will also be closed from the public?  Because if you seal the file, the next step is to close the trial to the public.  I don't think that makes sense in every case.

It is also important to note that in order to seal a case, the attorney making this request is required to follow through on a specific protocol detailed by the honorable Michael P. Shea at the link below:

https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sheaConfidentiality%20and%20Sealing%20Documents%20Instructions.pdf

This protocol requires that there is a hearing on the question of whether a file should be sealed.  Do such hearings always take place? It is certainly a question worth asking.  Somehow, and you may think me cynical, I think those steps are skipped and files are simply sealed during hearings without prior notice.

Of course, there is the sealing of individual documents which can take place quite routinely in a case.  For instance, financial affidavits and custody evaluations are routinely sealed in divorce and custody cases.  We saw that in the Michelle Troconis trial where the custody evaluation was sealed.  However, sealing an entire case?  I don't think that happens as often as it used to.  

There is considerable additional information that Judge Shea provides for the legal basis of the public's first amendment right of access to court files in his review of the process.  So make sure you take the time to read it.  

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

 

CAN PAUL BOYNE GET A FAIR TRIAL?

I'm a little out of practice on writing blogs so if I'm not so great writing this one, please forgive me.  However, I happened to see the Edmund H. Mahony article in The Hartford Courant , "Alleged cyberstalker case to go to trial", indicating that Paul Boyne's case is going to trial soon.  I felt I had to step up to the plate and speak out given that one of our own, Paul Boyne, is under attack.  Now, of course, I can hear you all saying--one of our own, what do you mean?  We aren't racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic.  And to be clear, I condemn hate speech of any kind, as I'm sure everyone in the family court reform movement does.

What I mean to say is that Paul is a person whose life was destroyed, as our lives were, by the family court system.  This made him lose his sense of proportion so that he spoke in ways that I'll bet the pre-family court Paul probably would never have considered.  If there is one thing I know about the suffering and pain family court causes people, it is that it can literally drive people out of their minds.  Still, despite the hate speech, despite the suffering and pain, Paul is the most giving person I know.  Over the years, in his work as a family court advocate, Paul has helped a great many people with their cases, selflessly and without pay.  This is why I'm here speaking out on his behalf.  Because any one of us can relate to Paul's situation--being a good, decent, human being and parent, and then damaged to the core by the harsh and cruel treatment meted out by the family court system.

I also believe that Paul Boyne speaks in these shocking ways not because he believes it, but because he thinks it is the only way to break through public complacency in the face of egregious family court corruption.  It is his way of shaking people and saying "Wake up!  Look at this terrible injustice that is going on!" It is very frustrating for all of us who are working for family court reform to deal with the fact that there is such an extensive coverup of the problems.  For example, when it came to the Jennifer Dulos case, the media spoke often about the fact that it involved a contentious and bitter custody dispute.  But they never explained how or why it became that way.  Without such explanations, the public will never know what was really going on.  So why don't we get them?  

My first reaction when I heard that Paul was going to trial is--how can he possibly get a fair trial? He is going to be on trial for attacking the very system that will stand in judgment on him.  His attorneys are officers of the very court system that he has been villifying.  Isn't there a major conflict of interest going on here?  I certainly think so.  There has been unfairness in Paul's case from the start.  This is a free speech case.  It is a case about the exchange of ideas, and how those ideas can be expressed.  For goodness sake!  What is he doing in jail for a whole year? Paul has no money.  Where is he going to go?  How would he flee? You may think his words are hateful and disgusting, but since when do we put people in jail for expressing their thoughts?  Here in America, how is that right under any circumstances?  Well, he insulted judges.  So what? Is there a section in the constitution stating that we cannot insult judges?  We can insult every one else, but not judges?  

The state argues that, apparently, in his blog posts Paul "identified them (judges), their homes, and even the cars they drive" and "suggested that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled family court litigants."  Yet they acknowledge that in all the time that Paul Boyne has been writing these blogs there have been no incidents of violence as a consequence.  It would be a good exercise to investigate whether other blogs around the country which also demonize certain people or groups have ever resulted in outbreaks of violence.  Just because people speak about violence in ways that prosecutors admit are vague and nonspecific, this doesn't automatically mean that the outcome will be violence against a person or persons.  The other question I ask is whether this particular kind of speech has been ruled illegal by any CT State Statute.  If prosecutors or judges or anyone else considers Paul's blog postings dangerous, it is their option to work on passing legislation to make it illegal so that Paul could have a specific law to rely on when he makes decisions on how to write his articles.  Without such legislation, we are at risk of silencing free speech simply because whether someone's written work is or is not bullying or hate speech depends upon the decision of a jury.  Meanwhile, you have to sit in jail waiting for your case to be adjudicated.  

I also want to make an objection to the term "cyberbullying" in regard to Paul.  Cyberbullying is when a person goes after his target on social media and via email and texting.  Paul is a blogger with a website posting his political and social viewpoint.  If you don't like it, don't go there.  With cyberbullying you are being attacked and a person is going after you.  If you go to read Paul's work, that is your choice.  When state prosecutors and journalists contextualize this case in a manner that is not in accordance with the facts and make deceptive choices in language that do not apply, this greatly misleads the public.  This is wrong.  

Another reason I'm sympathetic to Paul is that, as a blogger here in Connecticut, I have also had attorneys threaten to take me to court.  I was once threatened with jail if I didn't not reveal my sources in an article I'd written about a case.  One attorney went to the West Hartford police department and filed a formal complaint that I was blogging about family court cases. I have been illegally ordered out of the courtroom and threatened with security for no other reason than that I was sitting quietly in support of one of the parties. At another time, I cut and pasted an attorney's bio onto my blog which happened to include the fact that this attorney lived in West Hartford. It was information that came from the law firm's own website.  Nonetheless, they contacted me and told me they were considering suing me for "incitement to violence" for posting the information.  I immediately took it down because I do respect people's privacy.  However, from the beginning of my work as a blogger I have been well aware of the fact that I was taking on this task at my own risk.  It has not been easy and I've experienced a great deal of trauma and anxiety as a result. 

I may have more to say about this topic.  I have many difficult things going on in my personal life and so I may not have the time.  But one thing I will say is that we in the family court movement have repeatedly asked for an investigation of the family court system in regard to its failure to obey the law.  Unfortunately, there appear to be no vehicles for self scrutiny in place for the family court system.  This is pretty ridiculous given that I get asked for my opinion of the services I receive all the time--please hold for our quick survey--you know what I mean.  But family court seems to feel that they are above accountability.  That's pretty sad.  Apparently, in going after Paul Boyne state prosecutors have been investigating him scrupulously for five years. Imagine how many resources were tied up in that investigation.  I can't help wondering if, instead of going after Paul Boyne, legal professionals had invested that same energy and intelligence into investigating family court, Jennifer Dulos would be alive today.

THE ROLE OF SOME JEWISH PEOPLE IN FAMILY COURT ABUSE. HOW CULPABLE ARE THEY?

In a recent inquiry, one reader asked the following question, "Elizabeth, why do you promote an anti-semite like Paul Boyne? Your father was a Holocaust survivor. Shame doesn't begin to describe what you should feel." That is a good question for Elizabeth, although Cathy will be the person on behalf of the "Divorce in Connecticut" blog to respond, particularly since she formulated the "bigotry free" policy that is fundamental to this blog.