After 18 Months in Jail, Blogger Paul Boyne Escalates Fight for Free Speech and Court Transparency
By Richard Luthmann
Connecticut prosecutors are running out of excuses in the controversial free speech case against Paul Boyne, former curator of this now World-Famous Blog.
After 18 months behind bars, Boyne is back in Virginia—and on the attack. His latest moves could blow the case wide open.
Boyne Demands Discovery: The Bill of Particulars Fight Heats Up
At the heart of the battle is Boyne’s demand for a Bill of Particulars. He wants State’s Attorney Jack Doyle to specify exactly what statements from TheFamilyCourtCircus.com blog are criminal.
The law requires it, but Doyle refuses to answer.
“I’ve been asking for years,” Boyne said on a recent episode of The Unknown Podcast with journalists and co-hosts Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe. “They can’t point to a single criminal statement. That’s because it’s protected speech.”
Connecticut Practice Book Sections 41-20 and 41-21 guarantee Boyne’s right to know the exact words, time, and place of the alleged crimes.
The law states the prosecutor must provide enough detail for the defendant to prepare a defense.
Paul Boyne’s latest attorney, Todd Bussert, is a seasoned criminal defense lawyer and head of complex litigation for the Connecticut Public Defender’s Office.
Bussert marks Boyne’s latest court-appointed counsel after Boyne fired previous appointees —Alice Powers and Jennifer Buyske, then Denis O’Malley—for what he called incompetence and refusal to challenge the prosecution.
Boyne accused prior lawyers of wasting time, failing to demand the Bill of Particulars, and avoiding critical constitutional issues.
Bussert’s arrival signals a potential shift. For the first time, Boyne has counsel agreeing that State’s Attorney Jack Doyle must produce a Bill of Particulars.
“Todd is the first to acknowledge I’m entitled to know what the hell they’re charging me with,” Boyne said.
Still, the question remains whether Bussert will aggressively challenge the prosecution or follow the same stalled path as his predecessors.
“Without it, we’re shooting in the dark,” Boyne said. “They’re dragging this out because they know the case falls apart once the facts are clear.”
Bussert has not returned requests for comment. His most notorius current client said Bussert likes to keep a “tight circle” and we shouldn’t expect a return call or email.
Boyne Demands Discovery: No Jurisdiction, No Crime?
Boyne argues that forcing Doyle to specify the charges will expose a fatal flaw: New Haven has no jurisdiction. None of the three “victim” judges—Jane Grossman, Elizabeth Stewart, or Thomas Moukawsher—work in New Haven. The alleged threats were published online while Boyne was in Virginia.
“They’ve been venue-shopping from day one,” Boyne said. “If the facts were on their side, they’d turn them over. They won’t because the case is a fraud.”
Boyne, who often indulged in offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric on his blog posts, admits his speech is a harsh reality for some. But he argues Connecticut is criminalizing protected political commentary.
“If they can jail me for blogging, they can jail anyone,” he said.
Boyne also wants depositions of key players, including the judge-victims, State Trooper Samantha McCord, and former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz. Boyne accuses Katz of orchestrating his prosecution to silence his criticism of family court corruption.
An email uncovered in discovery includes the handwritten note: “KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY.” Boyne says that proves Katz directed the investigation behind the scenes.
“This is a political hit job,” Boyne said. “Doyle is covering for the judiciary, not prosecuting crime.”
Boyne Demands Discovery: Transcripts Reveal Stonewalling and Stalling
Meanwhile, transcripts from recent court proceedings show Boyne repeatedly pleading for discovery and the Bill of Particulars.
Instead of helping, his prior court-appointed lawyers—Powers, Buyske, and O’Malley—dragged their feet. Don’t take our word for it, read the transcripts for yourself:
- October 20, 2023 Transcript
- November 1, 2023 Transcript (Arraignment)
- June 24, 2024 Transcript (Motion for Bill of Particulars)
- August 12, 2024 Transcript
- September 9, 2024 Transcript
- January 31, 2025 Transcript
- February 14, 2025 Transcript (Valentine’s Day: BE MINE SAMMY MCCORD)
- March 10, 2025 Transcript
In one hearing, Boyne said, “They don’t know the law. They’re afraid to challenge the court. And that leaves me defenseless.”
Judge Peter Brown dismissed Boyne’s concerns and forced him to appear in person, despite Boyne’s medical issues. Brown also refused to remove Boyne’s ankle monitor, even after Boyne provided medical proof it was causing open wounds and infection.
The defense now faces mounting pressure. The Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Hood looms large. In that case, New Hampshire prosecutors tried to charge neo-Nazi Christopher Hood for hanging a racist banner. The court threw it out, calling it unconstitutional overreach.
“If Hood’s banner is protected, so is my blog,” Boyne said. “The First Amendment doesn’t just protect nice people.”
Boyne Demands Discovery: Time Running Out for Connecticut’s Case
Boyne also filed a civil suit against Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont, challenging his extradition and Connecticut’s stalking law. The lawsuit argues Connecticut’s 2021 changes to the statute are unconstitutional because they allow prosecution of “reckless” speech without requiring intent.
Legal observers agree the state is in trouble.
“This case is starting to look like a train wreck,” one legal commentatort said. “They’ve kept Boyne locked up for 18 months but still can’t say what the crime is.”
Boyne’s strategy is clear. He plans to force depositions, get the Bill of Particulars, and expose the case’s flaws. If denied, Boyne says he’ll appeal—and possibly take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The longer they delay, the worse this looks,” Boyne said. “They know it. That’s why they’re stalling.”
As the next hearing looms, the question remains: Why won’t Jack Doyle just produce the facts?
“If it’s an open and shut case, prove it,” Boyne said. “Unless it’s not—and they’ve just been lying all along.”
The stakes couldn’t be higher. At issue is not just Boyne’s freedom but the First Amendment itself. Even Boyne’s harshest critics now wonder why Connecticut is fighting so hard to avoid a trial.
The solution is simple: give Boyne what he’s owed under the law. That shouldn’t be a problem.
Unless the real crime is what Connecticut has done to him.
