Jack Doyle’s House of Cards Collapses Under Constitution and Common Sense
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
BOYNE STRIKES BACK: CRIMINALIZING SPEECH — THE STALKING CHARGE THAT CAN’T STAND
Paul Boyne’s latest appearance on The Unknown Podcast was no ordinary interview. It was an indictment of Connecticut’s judiciary, of rogue prosecutors, and of a system now weaponized to crush dissent.
“This isn’t a criminal case,” Boyne told hosts Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann. “This is a war against the Constitution, and Jack Doyle is leading it.”
Boyne’s alleged crime? Publishing blog posts criticizing Connecticut family court judges.
That was enough for Doyle—Senior Assistant State’s Attorney—and CSP Trooper Samantha McCord to claim “stalking.”
But as Boyne noted, the statute used is facially unconstitutional when applied to speech, a fact recognized in People v. Relerford and Mashaud v. Boone.
Connecticut courts, too, have long held that “stalking” cannot sweep in protected speech.
“It’s a malicious prosecution,” Boyne said. “This is state power enforcing a private agenda.”
That agenda, according to Boyne, traces back to Steve Ginsburg, ADL political operative and author of the law.
“This is a rabbinical court masquerading as secular justice,” he said. “It criminalizes political opinion.”
The stalking law’s vague language, combined with Connecticut’s refusal to follow Boone and Relerford, has created a tool of censorship, not safety.
“This is textbook unconstitutional overreach,” Luthmann said on the show.
BOYNE STRIKES BACK: EXTRADITION FRAUD AND A GOVERNOR’S BLUNDER
Boyne’s arrest in Virginia, based on speech targeting actors in Connecticut, was illegal on its face. Why? Because Connecticut had no jurisdiction.
“Jack Doyle tricked Ned Lamont,” Boyne said. “The demand warrant Lamont signed had no legal basis.”
Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, Connecticut must prove the conduct charged is also criminal in the asylum state—Virginia.
“But Virginia doesn’t criminalize protected blog posts,” Boyne pointed out. “There was no crime here.”
Federal prosecutors had twice passed on the same speech—once in 2017, and again in 2022. But Connecticut went forward anyway. Lamont, according to Boyne, failed to investigate the jurisdictional issue.
“That’s a 14th Amendment violation,” he said. “The warrant is void.”
What’s more, no court in Connecticut has addressed the jurisdictional overreach. Instead, Judge Gold approved warrants based on misstatements and omissions.
“Gold was never told that the crime didn’t exist in Virginia,” Boyne explained.
The abuse of the Extradition Act and the failure to disclose material facts during warrant applications, Boyne argues, constitutes prosecutorial fraud.
BOYNE STRIKES BACK: WARRANTLESS SEIZURE, FEDERAL CRIMES, AND COVER-UP
The most egregious violation might be what happened to Boyne’s property.
According to filings, Trooper Samantha McCord and Virginia State Police Trooper Michael Sponheimer conducted a 5:15 a.m. SWAT-style raid in June 2022.
They seized Boyne’s computers—without a valid Connecticut warrant—and absconded with the property across state lines.
Virginia law (§19.2-58) prohibits removal of seized property from the Commonwealth without court permission. That never happened.
“This stripped the Fairfax County Circuit Court of jurisdiction,” Boyne said. “The case should have ended right there.”
To make matters worse, VA Commonwealth AAG Phil Figura admitted the illegal removal in open court on July 8, 2022. Yet no court ordered the property returned.
And no judge—including Calistro, Harmon, or Brown—held anyone accountable.
“This is a cognizable federal crime,” said Luthmann. “It’s 18 U.S.C. § 241—conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law. They are all on notice.”
Boyne submitted evidence showing his motions to the court were inexplicably “86ed” by Jack Doyle and Judge Calistro. Boyne’s previous attorneys admit someone got “talked to.”
Internal affairs in Virginia has since confirmed misconduct by Trooper Sponheimer.
But McCord and Doyle continue to prosecute the case in Connecticut.
BOYNE STRIKES BACK: ADA VIOLATIONS, RETALIATION, AND THE STRUGGLE TO STAND
While Connecticut attacks Boyne’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, they’re also targeting his body.
Boyne is 70, in poor health, and disabled. Yet Judge Peter Brown ordered him to wear an ankle GPS monitor over the advice of his doctor, violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
When Boyne requested an ADA accommodation, including a wrist device or smartphone tracker, the state refused.
The company providing the ankle monitor—Sentinel—confirmed alternatives exist. Still, Connecticut judicial officers insisted that changing the device would “fundamentally alter the program.”
“They don’t care about federal law,” Boyne said. “They care about control.”
When Boyne emailed probation officers about the painful strap, instead of loosening it or allowing remote inspection, they ordered him to travel hundreds of miles for a hearing.
Boyne refused. His punishment? Another court summons.
“They’re using the monitor as a leash,” Volpe said. “This isn’t supervision. It’s retaliation.”
Boyne’s attorneys, including Complex Litigation Chief from the CT Public Defender’s Office, Todd Bussert, are now on the record acknowledging systemic due process violations and ADA non-compliance.
But the court has done nothing to correct the abuse.
Bussert hasn’t returned requests for comment on the Boyne case.
According to attorneys who know Bussert, he’s “old school” and does his talking in open court.
Boyne says Bussert’s had a “talking to” by the CT judicial powers that be “that don’t celebrate Easter.”
BOYNE STRIKES BACK: TIME TO HOLD JACK ACCOUNTABLE
Paul Boyne’s story isn’t about guilt or innocence. It’s about whether constitutional rights still mean anything in the Nutmeg State.
Jack Doyle’s refusal to follow case law, misuse of federal funds, and repeated deceit in affidavits amount to serious misconduct.
His co-conspirators—Judges Gold, Brown, Harmon, Calistro, and Keegan—rubber-stamped every violation.
“This demands federal intervention,” Boyne said. “The remedy is disbarment for Jack. The solution is 18 U.S.C. § 241.”
As Volpe and Luthmann concluded on The Unknown Podcast, Boyne’s case is now the test: Will the Constitution protect the dissenter—or will the system protect the machine?
Because if they can do this to Paul Boyne, they can do it to anyone.
