Like the famous candies—JUJUBES—which come in different colors, shades, and flavors, they are all soft.
So, too, are the JUJUBES who sit on the bench and argue before them in the Family Courts.
No race, gender, color, creed, national origin, or any other immutable trait has a monopoly on the SOFT-BRAINED fools that administer THE MOST EVIL COURTS IN THE LAND.
And, unlike obesity, school shootings, or fentanyl, the family court problem is not uniquely American.
Our hope is that we can turn the page as far as this publication is concerned. We are in the business of journalism.
This outlet reiterates its condemnation of anti-Semitism in all its forms. However, this condemnation does not include restricting all speech expressing that hatred. We never condone using speech to incite violence against anyone, which is precisely the legal issue at the heart of Connecticut v Paul Boyne:
Did Boyne’s expression of hatred cross the boundary into inciting violence against individual Connecticut Family Court Judges?
Does the prosecution itself create a chilling effect on speech, press freedoms, and expression of political opinion?
Nonetheless, Volpe believes that Boyne’s case is, at its core, about Free Speech. Here is what he said:
A recent search warrant filed by Connecticut State Police Detective Samantha McCord stated in part (mentioning me), “Within the recorded phone interview of Paul Boyne does not deny Volpe identifying Boyne with thefamilycourtcircus.com.”
If Connecticut can’t even prove he authored the blog posts it claims are illegal, the First Amendment be damned – then why has he been in jail, in maximum security no less – for over a year?
That’s a question I posed to State Police Detective McCord, the CT prosecutor Jack Doyle, and Boyne’s court appointed attorneys, Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers of the Kirschbaum Law Group, and none answered it.
Paul is in jail for writing mean blog posts, and while many conservatives profess their commitment to the First Amendment, his case has received scant media coverage.
Locally in Connecticut, the only one to cover it is Ed Mahoney of the Hartford Courant.
Mahoney is a member of the semi secret Connecticut Judicial Media Committee, a collection of judges and media folks in Connecticut who get together to talk about things. What things? No one outside the committee is sure, however, numerous court victims who I have spoken with over the years believe this committee is responsible for pushing the narratives that court critics are “disgruntled”, “crazy” and “conspiracy theorists.”
Mahoney has called Boyne all three; he likes to call him “a notorious blogger.”
Part of the absurd search warrant filled out by Samantha McCord and approved by Judge Maureen Keegan in which Paul’s dislike for Jewish people is considered probable cause evidence a crime was committed. The search warrant allows the Connecticut State Police to search our emails and listen to our conversations, while Paul has been in prison.
I talked more about the “semi secret Connecticut Judicial Media Committee” with Susan Bassi last year. Susan found a similar collection of judges and media getting together in California.
Ed Mahoney, fourth from the top, is a member of Connecticut’s Judicial Media Committee. He’s the only from the MSM in that state to write about Paul’s case. Not surprisingly, he takes a pro judiciary slant.
In both California and Connecticut, these groups are used by judges to slant and cultivate coverage of the courts so that certain stories- like anything happening in family courts- don’t get covered, while the court coverage in general is favorable to judges.
We are here to cover the Family Courts. That means we will newsgather, organize, communicate, and disseminate information relevant to that purpose for mass consumption.
As a first order of business, I would like to use this platform to ask a simple question: What are the boundaries of Free Speech concerning our conversation and inquiry about the Family Courts?
We would acknowledge that many of this outlet’s existing readers are from the Nutmeg State, and some even wear badges or black robes. Maybe we can get some help.
I am genuinely confused by statements made by Joette Katz, a Retired Associate Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Justice Katz is a partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP in Hartford, where she focuses her practice on business litigation. In addition to being a former Supreme Court Justice, she is a retired Connecticut Department of Children and Families Commissioner.
When Joette Katz speaks, the legal world trembles. (PRIOR MANAGEMENT would probably have used a different word).
On December 2, 2022, Justice Katz spoke at a seminar sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) about the role of law in countering antisemitism, discrimination, and bias-motivated attacks against Jews and other religious minorities. She spoke about criminal laws on doxing and assessed their role in protecting the Jewish community. Here are her statements:
Justice Katz spoke extensively about the “True Threat” jurisprudence, citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as the leading case. But Chaplinsky is problematic for many reasons, which I, and many others much more erudite (like Professor Euguene Volokoh), have previously discussed. Here’s what I said:
Boyne’s critics, like former Justice Joette Katz, view the WW2-era SCOTUS case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as foundational in understanding the limits of the First Amendment, particularly regarding “true threats.” Katz highlights that Chaplinsky set a critical precedent by determining that certain forms of speech, particularly “fighting words” likely to incite violence, do not receive constitutional protection.
However, Justice Katz’s reliance on Chaplinsky rings hollow when viewed alongside other Stone Era High Court cases. Korematsu v. United States, which legitimatized the internment of Japanese-Americans, is universally considered a low point in Twentieth-Century American Jurisprudence. The case was formally overruled by Congress under Ronald Reagan in 1988.
A historical artifact from World War II shows the purple triangle that Jehovah’s Witnesses were made to wear in the camps.
Katz’s citing of Chaplinsky related to Paul Boyne raises questions about her selective use of the case to justify legal actions against speech she finds offensive. The Chaplinsky ruling was rooted in the state’s desire to suppress Jehovah’s Witnesses, a powerless and despised group, using their speech as an excuse to curb their religious activities.
Volokh’s expertise would be instrumental in highlighting the unconstitutionality of prosecuting Boyne – a person entitled to press and speech clause First Amendment protections – for statements on his blog that Connecticut judges find offensive. Chaplinsky, Skokie, Relerford, and Mashaud make clear that speech cannot be criminalized simply for provoking offense. Boyne’s case tests the resilience of these principles in an era where online speech is often under increased scrutiny, and governments frequently misuse laws to stifle critics in unprecedented ways.
I would ask Justice Katz to respond and clarify her comments on the state of the law and the True Threat jurisprudence.
Is she right?
First Amendment Legal Scholar, Professor Eugene Volokh
Or are others, like Professor Volokoh, correct when he says that U.S. v. Watts, Viginia v. Black, and Counterman v. Colorado constitute the core of valid SCOTUS True Threat jurisprudence and that Chaplinsky is “constitutionally ignorable”?
I ask these questions of Justice Katz for a good reason. In the Constitution State, when sensitive matters are involved, the unwritten (and sometimes written) rule is KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY.
Justice Katz, you have an open invitation to make your views known and clarified to the readership of this now WORLD-FAMOUS BLOG, many of whom hail from Connecticut. We will publish anything you wish to communicate to the readership. Justice Katz, your voice and leadership are sorely needed in America.
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you
Woo, woo, woo
What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson?
Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey
Joe DiMaggio is dead. But we still have you, Justice Katz, a veritable National Treasure.
And be not afraid, Justice Katz. Your safety and intellectual honesty are secured. We are UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT.
