Journalist Paul Boyne unloads on an unconstitutional gag order and a “First Amendment-free” Connecticut courtroom. He names a judicial cabal that runs the show behind the scenes.
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
Prosecutor’s Gag Motion Sparks Constitutional Firestorm
Connecticut State’s Attorney Jack Doyle thought he could muzzle family court journalist Paul Boyne with a two-page gag motion – but it backfired in spectacular fashion.
Doyle’s Aug. 22 filing in New Haven seeks to ban Boyne from possessing or sharing his own case evidence – even appropriately redacted discovery – with anyone, including the press.
Critics have erupted, blasting Doyle’s move as an “unprecedented gag that shreds the First Amendment.” Even Connecticut’s own constitution guarantees citizens the right to “freely speak, write, and publish,” making the motion all the more outrageous.
On The Unknown Podcast, co-hosts Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe pulled no punches in condemning Doyle’s gambit. Luthmann summarized Doyle’s aim bluntly: the prosecutor “doesn’t want [Boyne] to see his discovery or assist his counsel.”
Volpe marveled at the absurdity: if the state truly believed Boyne’s writings were illegal, “how come me repeating it is allowed?” he quipped, pointing out the inconsistency. Boyne himself, a former satirical blogger, derides Doyle as “Jackaz” and accuses him of covering up judicial corruption with this gag order.
The podcast hosts agreed, calling Doyle’s motion a panicked overreach aimed at silencing a critic rather than seeking justice. Luthmann noted the move is essentially doing what Boyne has long alleged – proving that “the First Amendment doesn’t operate in the state of Connecticut” under this regime.
Now, what began as a niche court filing has exploded into a constitutional firestorm, with Boyne’s case emerging as a national litmus test: can Connecticut muzzle an unpopular voice, or will free speech prevail?
Free Speech vs. “True Threats”: Boyne’s Blog Posts on Trial
Paul Boyne’s legal nightmare stems from a series of incendiary blog posts he wrote lambasting Connecticut judges. The posts were undeniably violent in tone – at one point fantasizing about putting “a .50 caliber bullet” in a judge’s head – but the context was satirical political rage. Does that cross the line into a criminal threat, or is it protected free speech?
On the podcast, Volpe cited the famous Watts case, where a Vietnam War protester proclaimed, “the first person I’m gonna shoot is LBJ,” and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it protected speech. By that standard, Volpe argued, Boyne’s over-the-top rants should be protected too: “If that’s allowed, then [Paul’s] saying someone should put a .50 cal into a judge’s head should be allowed as well.”
In fact, Boyne had even compiled case law on his blog to show his harsh words didn’t meet the legal definition of a “true threat.”
“Nobody believes it’s an actual threat,” Volpe said of Boyne’s posts. The hosts noted that, under First Amendment jurisprudence, only “true threats” or “fighting words” fall outside protection – and Boyne’s writings, while offensive, do not fit either category.
Even Judge Peter Brown, who oversees the criminal case, hasn’t pinpointed any specific illegal threat, instead calling general attention to eight blog posts. According to Boyne, Judge Brown merely pretends a threat exists but “refuses to specify the actual wording” of any so-called threat in Boyne’s essays.
Boyne’s defenders maintain he is actually innocent because his speech, however outrageous, is constitutionally protected political hyperbole.
“There’s way more wrong with the case itself. This should have never been brought,” Volpe declared, criticizing Connecticut’s decision to treat angry blog posts as crimes. After all, no one was truly threatened or harmed – except perhaps the egos of the judges who were skewered online. Boyne has filed motions to dismiss, insisting the state hasn’t met its burden to prove any unlawful threat or incitement.
As Luthmann put it, Connecticut prosecutors are effectively proving Boyne’s point by attempting to censor him: they’re acting as if the First Amendment simply doesn’t apply in Connecticut’s courts.
Lamont in the Crosshairs: Illegal Raids and ‘Stolen’ Evidence
Boyne’s bombshell podcast revelations didn’t stop at free speech. He also dropped shocking allegations of illegal state conduct reaching the highest levels of government.
On air, the hosts read Boyne’s “thunderous rebuke” of Connecticut’s political and judicial elite – from Governor Ned Lamont on down – accusing them of trampling his rights. He claims Lamont’s agents orchestrated a cross-state raid on his Virginia home in June 2022 that violated multiple laws.
“Ned Lamont’s agents broke Virginia law, lied to the Governor of Virginia, and violated my rights,” Boyne recounted, “and now [Lamont] hides behind sovereign immunity like a coward.”
According to Boyne, Connecticut officials finagled a Virginia search warrant under false pretenses, then snatched his computers and files without properly alerting Virginia authorities. This end-run around due process – what Luthmann blasted as a modern-day Silver Platter scheme – means Connecticut built its case on illegally obtained evidence.
“The state is prosecuting me with stolen goods,” Boyne said pointedly, “and Jack Doyle knows it.”
These are explosive charges: interstate law-breaking, evidence laundering, and extradition fraud. Boyne has responded with a federal civil rights lawsuit (Boyne v. Lamont) to hold the Governor and others accountable. He argues that Connecticut’s “stalking” cyberbullying law – under which he’s charged – is blatantly unconstitutional, and that officials had to cheat and lie to apply it to him.
Both Illinois and D.C. struck down similar statutes on First Amendment grounds, but Connecticut’s power brokers refuse to concede, Boyne noted. Instead, they doubled down with heavy-handed tactics. Co-host Luthmann summed it up: Connecticut authorities “handed the fruits of an illegal search from one state to another – on a silver platter” to nab Boyne.
Such tactics, outlawed in Elkins v. United States (1960), show a pattern of prosecutorial overreach. Boyne’s narrative portrays a justice system so desperate to silence him that it steamrolled state lines and constitutional limits. Little wonder he calls Connecticut’s prosecution a “weaponized vendetta” – and little wonder this podcast episode has officials from Hartford to New Haven sweating.
“Pretend Justice” Exposed: Katz’s Shadow and Bussert’s Dilemma
Who does Paul Boyne blame for this Kafkaesque saga? He names names. Chief among them: Joette Katz, former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice. Boyne alleges that Katz and her allies – a “kosher cabal” of politically connected insiders – pull the strings behind the scenes.
In his view, Connecticut’s justice system is “rotting from within,” staffed by pretenders who mouth oaths to the Constitution while acting as enforcers for the powerful. Katz’s name surfaces in a mysterious email discovered in Boyne’s case file.
During the podcast, Volpe recounted a bombshell detail: a Connecticut state trooper’s note instructing investigators to “Katz Speak To Only.”
This cryptic directive led Boyne to believe Katz was running an off-the-books investigation into his blog. If true, it’s the kind of shadowy meddling that makes a mockery of due process – a true “pretend justice” system.
Luthmann and Volpe were floored that the defense hasn’t pounced on this.
“You’d think something is amiss with ‘Katz Speaks To Only,’” Volpe said, imagining how Boyne must feel seeing that order. Yet incredibly, Boyne’s own public defender refused to even question Katz about it.
“God forbid he might zealously represent his client and make a few people mad,” Volpe quipped caustically.
That public defender is Todd Bussert, a seasoned attorney appointed to defend Boyne. In Boyne’s eyes, Bussert folded under pressure from on high. After Doyle’s gag motion, Bussert filed only a half-hearted opposition – he fought for Boyne’s right to possess the discovery, but agreed to a ban on posting it online.
This split-the-baby stance left the podcast hosts stunned.
“He did okay by calling out Jack Doyle as a liar in paragraph 2. But that could have been done in Crayola,” Luthmann said. “Not opposing the gag makes no sense. If [Bussert] thinks [any part of this gag] is constitutionally viable, he’s lost his fastball. Maybe that’s why he left private practice.”
Why would a top defense lawyer concede such ground? Boyne has a controversial theory. “Paul’s belief is that Todd…got talked to by the Jews,” Luthmann relayed bluntly, explaining that Boyne sees a clique of influential figures – “the ‘judiciary’ in charge of Connecticut” – who pressured Bussert behind closed doors.
In Boyne’s telling, this covert pressure came from the same network protecting Katz, whom he explosively claims was “running like an old Nazi kill squad” to target dissidents. (Boyne’s rhetoric can be as incendiary as his blog, and the hosts took care to note this was his allegation.) The upshot, in Boyne’s view, is that defense attorneys chose their careers over their clients, avoiding moves – such as subpoenaing Katz – that might anger the powers that be.
The latest Paul Boyne Segment on The Unknown Podcast has cast a harsh light on what Boyne calls Connecticut’s “pretend justice.” He paints a picture of a rigged game where judges, prosecutors, and political kingpins work in concert to punish critics and shield the connected. The hosts expect him to come on the show live in the coming weeks for an interview.
“You’re not allowing him to assist his counsel…Jack Doyle’s trying to cover up something,” Luthmann argued, noting how denying Boyne full access to evidence hampers his defense.
That “something,” Boyne suspects, could be explosive: perhaps the 80-page secret report on him that Connecticut judicial marshals compiled, or Joette Katz’s hidden hand, or even, as Luthmann mused, “Governor Ned Lamont himself.”
One thing is certain: Paul Boyne is not staying silent. After 18 months jailed as a “domestic extremism” suspect, he’s now taking his case to the court of public opinion – and doing so with a vengeance.
“This isn’t law,” Boyne declared of the campaign against him. “It’s control. And it’s time for them to pay.”
The stage is set for a First Amendment showdown in the Nutmeg State, and Paul Boyne is daring Connecticut’s establishment to choke on the Constitution. The battle lines between free speech and “pretend justice” have been drawn.
