Judge John M. Newson met Boyne’s request with disdain.
“Who is this person that he should address the great and powerful judiciary?” Judge Newson recoiled in front of his keyboard on a Sunday afternoon. “The gall of this man, that he should speak and not go quietly to the gallows!”
Luckily, the Connecticut court elite have a motto and rallying cry for such occasions: FYGA (Fuck You Go Away).
Head FYGA in Charge
Here is what Paul Boyne had the audacity to email to Nutmeg’s high and mighty:
Just a few notes to clue you in on the drama played in your court by various state actors to defeat the rule of law and crush First Amendment protections.
1. The underlying nutmeg ‘stalking’ law passed in 2021 is the exact wording struck down in 2017 by Illinois Supreme Court in People v Relerford, same wording defeated by DC Court of Appeals, en banc, in 2023 in Mashaud v Boone, the law struck by the DC City Council for being facially unconstitutional. Fellow nutmeg jurists Clark, Elgo, Alvord,JJ even cited Relerford in State v Billings. [Note: Law Professor Euguene Volokh widely discussed and submitted amicus briefs in both Releford and Boone.]
First Amendment Legal Scholar, Professor Eugene Volokh – FYGA’d by Nutmeg?
2. Your colleague Gold,J issued three arrest warrants in July ’23 for me based on facially unconstitutional law.
3. SA Jack Doyle and your colleague Eugene Calistro conspired to ‘mark off’ my properly filed return of property motions filed in February 2023. No court order, no notice, just denial of redress. Clerks in New Haven conspired to defeat redress rights as well, failing to docket two other 54-33f motions. Even David Gold in Hartford directed disposal of a motion filed there by ordering the clerk Tim B. to deliver the filed motion to Jack in New Haven. Redress denial is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
White FYGA
4. State Trooper McCord and Jack Doyle conspired to remove property seized under a Virginia search warrant from the state without court order. Court order and state law requires seized property held until further order of the court … the issuing court, a jurisdictional thingy. Nutmeg state agents broke the law of Virginia. VA Code 19.2-58. Such action in violation of Judge Saylor’s warrant and state law, stripped the Circuit Court of jurisdiction over an unreasonable search, a 4A issue. Jack Doyle and Samantha McCord concealed the violation of Virginia law in application to Gold,J to search seized property, which Samantha executed form Property Seized Under Search Warrant, citing an unnamed warrant dated 28 June ’22, executed on 30 June, which is Judge Saylor’s warrant of Virginia; pretty much perjury by a sworn law enforcement officer in conspiracy with Jack, a commissioner of the court, a bar member, subject to rules of professional conduct. Of course, Gold,J knew the property was seized without a Connecticut warrant as he is the only judge that signed search warrants on the case brought to him by Jack Doyle. Nutmeg violation of Virginia law defeats Article IV.
FYGA Lover
5. Jack played the governor in CJS application for UCEA demand warrant, concealing the violation of Virginia law by two CSP troopers, contempt of Fairfax County Circuit Court orders, disregard for Judge Saylor’s orders contained in the search warrant. Governor Lamont committed fraud on the Governor of Virginia by failing to disclose the misconduct of executive agents, the fraud involved in Gold’s warrants, and the concealment of material facts in affidavits signed by McCord and Doyle.
Dumb FYGA
6. The case citing Moukawsher as victim is filed by information for GA10 Groton, but I was arraigned in GA23, which is a due process, statutory error by Jack Doyle and arraignment judge Calistro,J; which remains uncorrected. Jack stated he told New London SA Paul Narducci to stand down on the case, as it was Jack’s baby, which stripped the Groton/New London courts of jurisdiction by conspiracy in deprivation of rights of two state’s attorneys both subject to the professional rules of conduct. Jury trials to be held in district crime is committed. You had a case before you that was stolen out from under Judge John Newson of New London, by misconduct of Doyle & Narducci, two persons under direct regulation of judicial authority.
FYGAs 4Life
7. On a technical note on the 7% cash bond rule. You dropped my three bonds from $250k to $25k each, which by rule, each being less than $50k were automatically eligible for the 7% option, but my lawyers were incompetent thinking the total was controlling, which it is not. I asked you for the 7% option but you denied it, which voided the rule, where no discretion is provided to deny. I learned this all from bondsmen after I finally made bond in January ’25, where Brown,J ordered the 7% citing he felt it was ‘fair’, which is merely judicial argle bargle as the 7% is AUTOMATIC on individual bonds less than $50k, just equal protection. Point being, the court and its attorneys cannot get simple 7% bond straight, the public has no hope the court will protect First Amendment. BTW, the paperwork for posting the 7% cash is improper, the form makes the messenger who brings the cash to the courthouse liable for the bond if skipped. I informed Joe DelCiampo and his forms manager to fix it as it is in violation of law, but they refused.
FYGA Queen
8. On a drama note, the judicial branch created a 96 page report on me, back in 2020. A secret stasi agency inside the Branch monitors free citizens in exercise of First Amendment rights, usurping investigative powers denied by separation of powers doctrine, an independent judiciary now fully independent of limitations of law. You should get a copy. Judge Brown won’t let me nor the public have it, in derogation of First Amendment rights to scrutiny of matters in a public forum. You are part of a very sinister judicial mafia.
King FYGA
There is grave public concern as to the misconduct of the judicial branch, attorneys, prosecutors, all in a concerted effort to defeat First Amendment protections of ‘we the people’. Real courts of the more perfect Union have all inherent power and duty to act in the face of impropriety, judges hold cause under Canon to protect court integrity, uphold public confidence therein, support the Constitution by Article VI oath, but in the cases of State v Boyne, all is cast to the wind. Just wanted to let you know you were played.
pb
Obviously, statements such as Boyne’s could not be tolerated. That Boyne would have the audacity to electronically launch these words as the Nutmeg judiciary! This is the same type of distasteful and prohibited speech-like behavior for which he stands accused. It is insolent and seditious, terrible and most terrible.
In Nutmeg, such speech deserves only one response: FYGA, to wit:
Anyone attempting to communicate directly with a judge, any judge, about a case outside of proceedings in court is inappropriate. If your lawyer believes that something happened on your case, then he can file the appropriate motion in the appropriate court and argue it in a public courtroom. Do not send any further direct communications about your case.
Hon. John M. Newson Administrative Judge – New London County Presiding Judge – Criminal
FYGA Appropriate
New London Judicial District Courthouse 70 Huntington Street New London, CT 06230 Judge’s Secretary:(860)443-5363, ext. 4056 Clerk: (860)443-5363
Judge Newson let it be known that the rule of FYGA reigns supreme in Nutmeg.
In Nutmeg, FYGA now replaces even Sic Semper Tyrannis. Boyne explains the phraseology:
George Wythe was Th. Jefferson’s law teacher at William&Mary. George came up with Virginia state motto in 1776, Sic Semper Tyrannis, which is shortened version of the Latin saying “Death Always Unto Tyrants.” Still the state motto. So if ‘we the people’ opine a pubic official a tyrant, being public opinion, protected under the First Amendment, then the state motto implies death, perhaps creating fear, emotional distress, bed wetting, ‘stalking’ and the like … all protected expression exercised in name of self-governance of a free and sovereign people.
For Nutmeg schoolchildren, the nation’s founding documents will soon be rewritten by judicial fiat. Textbooks will contain the judicially-sanitized version of events.
The Declaration of FYGA
FYGA King George III
Next, the law itself must be sanitized. There can never have been impermissible and ghastly “blog posts” regarding matters of “public concern” (Terrorizing The Terrorists | The Family Court). And silly you, the process has already begun:
We next address the defendant’s contention that the free speech provisions of the Connecticut constitution require the state to prove that the defendant had a specific intent to terrorize when threatening speech is directed at public officials. In support of this claim, the defendant relies on the text of article first, § 14, of the Connecticut constitution, which provides that citizens have a right “to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances … by petition, address or remonstrance.” The defendant contends that his e-mail regarding Judge Bozzuto was a “remonstrance” within the meaning of this provision and, therefore, it was constitutionally protected. We disagree.
FYGA Rich
Without additional analysis explicating the term “remonstrance,” we find it difficult to reconcile the defendant’s claim that the purpose of his e-mail was “to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances” with his contention that he did not intend for Judge Bozzuto to receive the e-mail. In any event, article first, § 14, of the Connecticut constitution expressly guarantees the right to apply to government officials for the redress of grievances only if the redress is sought “in a peaceable manner ….” A statement that is a true threat would, ipso facto, not be one seeking redress in a peaceable manner. Accordingly, we conclude that the constitutional framers did not intend to protect the right to seek redress from a public official by way of a “remonstrance” when the speaker was aware that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the public official would interpret the “remonstrance” as a serious threat of violence. We conclude, therefore, that § 53a-61aa (a) (3) is constitutional under the state constitution as it is applied to threatening speech directed at public officials. State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149, 179–80 (2018).
But how is Nutmeg to sanitize and revise? They have already announced that they will leave that to the real brains behind the operation.
FYGA Brains
The plan for New Nutmeg will be wholly successful, if experiments elsewhere are any indicator.
