CT State Attorney Jack Doyle wants to ban Paul Boyne from his own evidence.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Boyne says some unpopular things that will offend many. However, he is still entitled to his God-given constitutional rights, including the right to speak his opinions from behind a keyboard and computer screen. Even a minuscule 1% of the U.S. population represents more than 3 million people. When roughly 4% (some 12 million Americans) believe in ludicrous conspiracies like lizard-people secretly running governments, the numbers are significant. In America, we have the right to hold unpopular, even foolish, opinions. The rule of law means the exercise of due process is automatic, not based on popularity. Or at least it should be. The Connecticut case of State v. Boyne has become a modern-day litmus test on this point.
By Richard Luthmann
Doyle Moves to Gag Boyne in First Amendment Showdown
Connecticut’s New Haven State’s Attorney John “Jack” Doyle stunned observers with an August 22, 2025, court motion aiming to gag the defendant in a free speech case.
Doyle petitioned the court for a protective order to deny defendant Paul Boyne any physical possession of discovery materials and to prohibit Boyne from reviewing, sharing, or publishing any discovery content – “even redacted and even with the press.”
This extraordinary request comes as Boyne awaits trial on charges stemming from his online writings; his alleged crime? Publishing blog posts criticizing Connecticut family court judges, which Doyle’s office stretched into a “stalking” charge.
Doyle’s two-page gag bid cites no case law, but does mention Boyne’s alleged prior sharing of case documents on the internet. In fact, state prosecutors complained that on May 14, 2025, some discovery files (including an internal “post-it” note from investigators) wound up published on this World-Famous Blog, TheFamilyCourtCircus.com.
Doyle argues that because Boyne’s camp (the Hound Pound) leaked evidence online once, the court must clamp down to prevent it again. He invokes broad concerns – from protecting witnesses and confidential information to the specter of further leaks – as justification for muzzling the accused.
The twist is hard to miss: this motion to muzzle Boyne comes in a case fundamentally about Boyne’s own speech and criticism of public officials. The state’s move has effectively turned a First Amendment cause célèbre into a battle over gagging a defendant before trial.
Legal analysts note that the U.S. Supreme Court has long warned against letting publicity derail fair trials without careful safeguards – as seen in the famous Sheppard v. Maxwell case – yet Doyle’s approach appears to bulldoze past those constitutional guardrails.
The protective order gambit has triggered an immediate backlash from both the defendant and press freedom advocates.
Prosecutor Jackaz’s Gag Motion: Boyne Slams Push, Decries Cover-Up
Paul Boyne is not taking this gag order push quietly. The 65-year-old journalist – a former editor of this World-Famous Blog – blasted Doyle’s motion as a naked assault on his fundamental rights. Boyne derides State’s Attorney Doyle as “Jackaz,” a moniker mixing Jack with “jackass,” and accuses the state of trying to hide misconduct behind secrecy.
“This isn’t a criminal case,” Boyne declared in a recent interview. “This is a Judaic assault on the Constitution, and Jack Doyle is serving his masters well.”
In Boyne’s view, Doyle’s bid to restrict discovery access and bar media sharing is not about a fair trial at all – it’s about silencing a critic and burying evidence of state malfeasance. He notes that the motion pointedly seeks to block even redacted public documents from reaching journalists, which Boyne says turns the First Amendment on its head.
“Mr. Doyle’s motion…appears to raise serious constitutional questions,” several journalists stated in a letter to Boyne’s attorneys seeking comment, noting it implicates not only the First Amendment’s Press Clause but also Boyne’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to review evidence and assist in his defense.
Boyne argues Doyle is effectively asking the court for a prior restraint on speech – a step courts deem an “intolerable infringement on free expression” except in the rarest circumstances. He points to U.S. Supreme Court precedent and Connecticut’s own constitution (which guarantees every citizen the right to “freely speak, write and publish”) to insist that gagging a criminal defendant, especially one who is also a journalist and blogger, is blatantly unlawful.
In fiery rhetoric, Boyne accuses Doyle of orchestrating a cover-up under the guise of a protective order.
“This is a political hit job,” Boyne said of the prosecution. “Doyle is covering for the jewdiciary [Boyne’s words], not prosecuting crime.”
By trying to choke off Boyne’s ability to share evidence of potential official wrongdoing, Doyle “seeks to shield the powerful from scrutiny,” Boyne contends. He points out that his case has always been about exposing what he calls corruption in the family court system – and now the state’s heavy-handed response seems to prove his point.
Boyne warns that if Connecticut can jail him for blogging and gag him from talking about it, “they can jail anyone.”
The cherry on top is that the standing order in place, signed by Judge Peter Brown, allows Boyne full access to the discovery materials to aid in his defense. Evidently, Doyle delivered a new batch of discovery documents to Boyne’s lawyers on August 1. Boyne says he hasn’t seen them (in violation of Judge Brown’s order), and he’s “asked nicely.”
Boyne says Doyle is trying to tie the disclosures up and interfere with his relationship with his counsel, as well as any help he might provide.
The stage is set for a constitutional showdown: a defendant fighting for sunlight and a prosecutor determined to shutter the blinds.
Prosecutor Jackaz’s Gag Motion: Public Defender’s Silence Under Fire
Adding another twist, Boyne’s own court-appointed lawyer has not yet mounted a full-throated defense against Doyle’s gag motion – and that silence is drawing ire.
Attorney Todd Bussert, the chief of complex litigation for the Office of the Connecticut Public Defender (OCPD), and staff attorney Kelly Billings, Boyne’s current counsel, have so far given no public indication that they will oppose Doyle’s motion in its entirety.
This limbo has alarmed both Boyne and outside observers. In a pointed August 25 press inquiry, a group of journalists pressed Bussert’s office:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Monday, August 25th, 2025 at 12:09 PM
Subject: Press Inquiry: Opposition to State’s Motion Restricting Paul Boyne’s Discovery Access
To: Todd.Bussert@pds.ct.gov <Todd.Bussert@pds.ct.gov>, Kelly.Billings@pds.ct.gov <Kelly.Billings@pds.ct.gov>
CC: Paul Boyne <paboyne@gmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Michael Phillips <mikethunderphillips@gmail.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, juliemholburn@yahoo.com <juliemholburn@yahoo.com>, emahony@courant.com <emahony@courant.com>, ckeating@courant.com <ckeating@courant.com>, hbennett@courant.com <hbennett@courant.com>, jkatz@goodwin.com <jkatz@goodwin.com>Dear Mr. Bussert and Ms. Billings,
We are writing in our capacity as journalists covering State v. Boyne and constitutional law and criminal procedure issues in Connecticut. We reviewed the motion filed on August 22, 2025, by New Haven State’s Attorney John “Jack” Doyle (copied herewith), which seeks a protective order to:
Prohibit Mr. Paul Boyne from taking physical possession of his discovery materials, and
Restrict his ability to review, share, or publish any discovery material—even redacted and even with the press—based on alleged prior disclosures.
https://thefamilycourtcircus.com/2025/05/14/boyne-strikes-back-is-jack-on-crack/
Mr. Doyle’s motion (Mr. Boyne calls him “Jackaz”) appears to raise serious constitutional questions. It implicates not only the Press Clause of the First Amendment, but also Mr. Boyne’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to review evidence against him and assist in his own defense.
Given these concerns, we would like to ask:
1. Opposition: Will the Office of the Public Defender be formally opposing the motion in full, or only in part? Some speculate that you intend to oppose the request to prohibit Mr. Boyne from possessing “appropriately redacted” discovery materials, while not opposing restrictions on online posting. Can you clarify the scope of your opposition? What does “appropriately redacted” mean? By implication, does it also mean that Mr. Boyne’s press activities and contacts are “constitutionally inappropriate” from the perspective of the Office of the Connecticut Public Defender? Is the Office of the Connecticut Public Defender being “strongarmed by the Jews” as Mr. Boyne alleges?
2. Constitutional Grounds: Do you plan to raise constitutional objections under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, in addition to the Connecticut Practice Book provisions cited in the state’s filing?
3. Press Clause Concerns: Does your office recognize Mr. Boyne’s right, as both a criminal defendant and a journalist/blogger, to publish matters of public record—especially filings obtained from the Clerk’s office? Do you recognize his right to associate with other members of the press? Our understanding is that under Connecticut law, every citizen has the right to “freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects” (Conn. Const. art. I, §§ 4–6). This state guarantee, combined with the First Amendment, makes any gag order on a criminal defendant like Paul Boyne highly suspect. Courts may only restrict speech if the State proves a specific, imminent threat to a fair trial. Prior restraints—orders barring speech before it happens—are considered the most intolerable infringement on free expression. In short, Connecticut law strongly protects Boyne’s right to speak with the press and publish his views. Are we wrong? Does the Office of the Connecticut Public Defender disagree?
4. Discovery Rights: How do you reconcile the State’s demand to deny him access to discovery with his Sixth Amendment right to review evidence in preparation for trial and aid in his defense
5. Broader Implications: Does your office view this as part of a troubling trend of prosecutorial attempts to silence defendants who are also public critics of the judiciary and state actors?
6. Personal Prosecutorial Animus: Is Prosecutor Doyle upset about the art in the May 14 article? Does he realize that Mr. Boyne is no longer an editor of the World-Famous Blog and has not been for some time?
https://thefamilycourtcircus.com/2025/02/21/under-new-management-world-famous-the-family-court-circus-blog-richard-luthmann-leads-a-bold-fight-free-speech-and-exposing-corruption/
7. Joette Katz Involvement: Has former Justice and Commissioner Joette Katz, given her past oversight of DCF and influence in Connecticut’s legal establishment, had any involvement, consultation, or behind-the-scenes role in the strategy to restrict Mr. Boyne’s speech or discovery access or in Mr. Boyne’s case overall? Have you investigated the “KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY” note in the discovery? Did Justice Katz break the law, and if so, are you pursuing a dismissal of the charges on this basis? (NOTE: Justice Katz is copied hereto, but she never responds to our media inquiries. But she knows all about the RICK ROLL!: https://luthmann.substack.com/p/boyne-demands-discovery-connecticuts)
We would appreciate your comments for publication, as this case raises urgent questions about press freedom, due process, and the integrity of Connecticut’s criminal justice system.
We expect to go to press soon. If we don’t hear from you by press time, we will incorporate your statements into a follow-up.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
So far, Attorneys Bussert and Billings have not publicly answered these questions. They have not responded to media emails, and no objection to Doyle’s motion had been filed as of the time of this writing.
The perceived hesitance from the defense table is fueling Boyne’s outrage.
It also raises the stakes: if the public defender sides more with Doyle than with his own client’s First Amendment claims, it will lend credence to Boyne’s claim that Connecticut’s establishment is circling the wagons against him.
The silence is deafening – and, to Boyne, damning on a constitutional level.
Prosecutor Jackaz’s Gag Motion: Mystery of Justice Katz’s Silent Role
Looming over this case is the shadow of former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz – and questions about her behind-the-scenes involvement. Boyne has long suspected that Katz, a powerful figure in Connecticut’s legal sphere, is the invisible hand driving his prosecution. Now, Doyle’s gag motion and the state’s overall zeal to muzzle Boyne have renewed scrutiny of Katz’s role.
The defendant points to a peculiar discovery tidbit as a smoking gun: an email-turned-exhibit containing a handwritten instruction “KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY.” Boyne claims this cryptic note proves that Justice Katz was pulling strings, directing investigators to report exclusively to her about the case.
In Boyne’s narrative, Katz – who once oversaw the state Department of Children and Families and remains an influential legal insider – orchestrated his arrest and prosecution to silence his harsh criticism of family court corruption.
The press is taking these allegations seriously enough to demand answers. In the August 25 inquiry, journalists asked Boyne’s public defender point-blank whether Justice Katz had any consultation or “behind-the-scenes role” in the strategy to restrict Boyne’s speech or discovery access.
They inquired if Bussert’s team has investigated the “KATZ SPEAK TO ONLY” note and whether Katz’s involvement, if proven, might constitute misconduct warranting a dismissal of charges.
Tellingly, the email inquiry CC’d Joette Katz at her current law firm email – yet Katz has remained silent, never responding to media questions. Her silence only fuels the speculation.
Is a former Supreme Court justice quietly aiding the prosecution of a blogger who routinely lambasted her judiciary colleagues?
Boyne and his “Hound Pound” of supporters suspect as much, dubbing this saga a state-sanctioned vendetta. Katz’s name never appears in Doyle’s official motion, but Boyne insists she’s the phantom puppeteer in the wings. He notes that Katz was intimately familiar with his outspoken blog and its allegations of judicial misdeeds.
To him, it’s no coincidence that Connecticut unleashed an aggressive cross-border arrest (with questionable warrants) and is now attempting an unprecedented gag order – all to shut down a persistent critic.
Without any denial or clarification from Katz, the court of public opinion is left to wonder about her influence. The unanswered questions cast a pall over the case: If a revered ex-justice is indeed involved in suppressing a dissident voice, what does that say about the rule of law in Connecticut?
The lack of transparency from Katz and others in power only bolsters Boyne’s claim that this prosecution is less about justice and more about protecting the establishment at all costs.
Prosecutor Jackaz’s Gag Motion: Our Take
State Attorney “Jack” Doyle’s latest maneuver isn’t just an overreach – it’s a frontal assault on core American principles. In our view, this gag motion is Doyle’s attempt to shred the Constitution to cover his backside.
Let’s call it what it is: a shameful bid to strip a defendant of his voice, his evidence, and his right to expose public wrongdoing. Doyle took an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet he’s swinging a chainsaw at the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments in one go.
He wants the court to bless a prior restraint that censors a man before he’s even convicted, under the flimsy pretext of “protecting” the process.
We are not buying it.
This is Connecticut, not North Korea. Not yet, anyway.
The government doesn’t get to decide what a defendant can say about public records or prevent him from seeing the evidence against him. Doyle’s job is to pursue justice, not to play thought police or hide the state’s dirty laundry.
By trying to gag Paul Boyne, Doyle broadcasts a clear message: he fears what his own evidence might reveal. A prosecutor confident in his case would welcome sunlight, not desperately petition to keep documents under wraps—the motion reeks of panic and an apparent cover-up instinct.
Equally troubling is the complicity of silence – from the Public Defender’s Office that should be defending Boyne’s rights with zeal, and from the power brokers like Joette Katz who lurk silently on the sidelines.
Connecticut’s justice system looks increasingly like a club of insiders protecting their own, the Constitution be damned.
Here at the World-Famous Blog, the Hound Pound doesn’t mince words: Doyle’s gag order ploy is an affront to the First Amendment and basic fairness. It underscores exactly what Boyne has been saying all along – that this prosecution is less about an alleged crime and more about punishing a critic.
If Doyle succeeds, it sets a grotesque precedent: officials in the Nutmeg State can jail you for your “unapproved” and “unauthorized” internet statements, then gag you from telling anyone about the injustice. Such tyranny cannot stand.
The eyes of the nation are now on this case. Will Connecticut’s courts entertain this Jack-booted attempt to obliterate a citizen’s rights? Or will they remember their duty to uphold the Constitution, even when it’s inconvenient for the powerful?
We urge every reader, every patriot, to pay attention. When a prosecutor shreds the Constitution in broad daylight, it’s not just Paul Boyne’s freedom on the line – it’s everyone’s.
