The Unknown Podcast Interview Blows Lid Off First Amendment Showdown, Extradition Fraud, and Judicial Corruption in Connecticut
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
BOYNE VS. LAMONT: CIVIL SUIT EXPOSES GOVERNOR’S OVERREACH
On a blistering new episode of The Unknown Podcast, Paul Boyne delivered a scathing indictment—not just against Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, but against the entire machinery of Connecticut’s legal and political establishment.
Co-hosted by Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe, the episode walked listeners through Boyne’s twin legal wars: his civil rights lawsuit Boyne v. Lamont, overseen by Judge Schuman, and his criminal case State v. Boyne, dragging on under Judge Brown.
Boyne accuses Lamont of acting ultra vires—beyond legal authority—by orchestrating a cross-state property seizure and extradition from Virginia that violated the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act and multiple constitutional protections.
“Ned Lamont’s agents broke Virginia law, lied to the Governor of Virginia, and violated my rights,” Boyne said. “And now he hides behind sovereign immunity like a coward.”
At the core of Boyne’s civil lawsuit is Connecticut’s so-called “stalking speech” law, PA21-56.
Illinois and D.C. have already ruled similar statutes unconstitutional in Relerford and Boone. Boyne wants Connecticut’s version struck down as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
But both Judges Schuman and Brown, he says, refuse to even admit that the constitutional questions exist.
“The court is openly protecting government misconduct,” Boyne said. “That’s not justice. That’s judicial complicity.”
NED LAMONT UNDER PRESSURE: JACK DOYLE’S MISFIRE
While Judge Schuman presides over the civil fight, Judge Brown is handling the criminal case—State v. Boyne. That case, Boyne argues, rests entirely on illegally seized evidence gathered through what he and Luthmann call a blatant violation of the Silver Platter Doctrine.
The state’s lead prosecutor, Jack Doyle, orchestrated an interstate raid on Boyne’s Virginia home in June 2022.
But the warrant was issued by a Virginia judge under false pretenses by Connecticut officials.
“There was a search warrant in Fairfax County,” Boyne explained, “but once they got what they wanted, Connecticut cops took off with my computers without notifying the Virginia court. That’s a violation of Virginia Code §19.2-58. That’s contempt of Judge Saylor’s court order.”
Boyne also confirmed that the materials seized were used as the basis for his arrest and extradition, despite being unlawfully obtained.
“This is textbook Fourth Amendment violation,” Luthmann said on the show. “They handed the fruits of an illegal search from one state to another—on a silver platter.”
The Silver Platter Doctrine, outlawed in Elkins v. United States (1960), prohibits such laundering of tainted evidence. Boyne and his defense team have now cited Elkins, Mapp v. Ohio, and Olmstead v. United States to demand suppression of the entire case.
“The state is prosecuting me with stolen goods,” Boyne said. “And Jack Doyle knows it.”
NED LAMONT UNDER PRESSURE: SCHUMAN’S SHAME
In a civil motion to disqualify Judge Schuman, Boyne outlined what he called “glaring bias, abandonment of office, and betrayal of oath.”
Schuman, according to Boyne, has repeatedly violated the Supremacy Clause and ignored binding case law.
“This judge refuses to acknowledge rulings from fifteen high court justices in Illinois and D.C.,” Boyne said. “It’s as if Connecticut has seceded from the Union.”
Boyne also pointed to Judge Schuman’s refusal to address the impropriety of Governor Lamont’s agents absconding with evidence in Virginia.
“Under Ruggiero, a judge has the inherent duty to act on misconduct regardless of how he learns of it,” Boyne argued. “Schuman is ignoring that duty.”
Meanwhile, Boyne’s filings demand the disqualification of Attorney General William Tong, who represents Lamont in the civil case. Under Connecticut law, Tong cannot appear on behalf of an executive officer whose conduct is under challenge.
Yet Judge Schuman, Boyne says, is letting it happen anyway.
“The whole case is rigged to protect the state,” he said. “This isn’t a court of law. It’s a protection racket.”
NED LAMONT UNDER PRESSURE: KATZ OUT OF THE BAG
Also named in discovery demands is former State Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz, who wrote a January 2022 op-ed in the Connecticut Law Tribune complaining about “anti-Semitic and threatening” blog posts allegedly authored by Boyne.
Katz’s claims were used to justify ongoing surveillance and investigations of Boyne by Connecticut’s Special Operations Unit, according to a June 20 letter by defense counsel Todd Bussert.
Bussert has now demanded full disclosure of Katz-related investigations and communications with law enforcement.
“There’s a mountain of evidence that Katz coordinated with prosecutors and cops to suppress Boyne’s speech,” Luthmann said on the show. “That’s not just unethical. That’s a civil rights conspiracy.”
Bussert’s letter also demands disclosure of threat assessments, secret court investigations, and sealed warrants—some of which reference TheFamilyCourtCircus.com, the world-famous blog at the heart of the case.
Boyne says the blog was political satire exposing family court corruption. The state calls it criminal harassment.
The difference?
“One is protected speech,” Boyne said. “The other is state censorship disguised as prosecution.”
NED LAMONT UNDER PRESSURE: WILL ILLINOIS SAVE PAUL BOYNE?
In a bold twist, Boyne may soon relocate to Illinois to invoke that state’s legal precedent.
“If I live in a state that’s ruled the law unconstitutional, Connecticut can’t enforce it against me,” he said. “That’s Full Faith and Credit. And that’s the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s the Constitution.”
Meanwhile, the criminal trial under Judge Brown is tentatively set to begin jury selection in September. But Boyne isn’t holding his breath.
“They said that last year too,” he said. “There’s no schedule, no discovery, and they still haven’t turned over everything they seized.”
Boyne ended the interview with a clear message to Connecticut’s political and judicial establishment: “You can’t prosecute your way out of a constitutional crisis. I’m not backing down. I’m taking this fight all the way.”
