First Amendment

Kingston Kommisar Whacky Jacky faces backlash for sweeping gag orders critics call unconstitutional prior restraint in Ulster County Court.

Kingston Kommisar Whacky Jacky’s Gag Crackdown

Ulster County’s Family Court is back in the spotlight, and Judge Jacqueline Racciani—now branded “Whacky Jacky” by watchdogs—is at the center of a constitutional firestorm. Her sweeping gag orders, issued from a courthouse that is legally a public forum, have ignited outrage from civil liberties advocates who say she is trampling the First Amendment with reckless abandon. Critics argue she is running a private courtroom in open defiance of state law, targeting parents, attorneys, journalists, and even observers like advocate Dave Weigel. The Blog’s legal team calls her rulings “prior restraints in robes”—and a threat to every New Yorker’s rights.

Alliant Abuser Daddy Enabled By Rockland Referee Holly Young

Rockland County’s family-court circus is back under the spotlight, and this time the ringmaster is Court Attorney Referee Holly C. Young, whose ex parte restraining order has ignited a firestorm of outrage. Young granted Alliant Cyber executive John “Jay” Stampfl a no-contact order against the mother of his children — over social-media posts and public scrutiny. The order appears to trample constitutional rights, weaponize family court, and shield a powerful corporate figure accused of emotionally abusing his kids. Investigative journalists contacted Alliant executives for comment. Silence. The December 18 hearing now looms as must-watch courtroom theater.

Christopher Ambrose is a Shitty Lawyer

Christopher A. Ambrose, a suspended New York attorney and disgraced TV writer, is now demanding something no American court has ever granted: a lifetime gag order muzzling journalist Frank Parlato Jr. Ambrose wants Parlato banned from ever mentioning his name again, forced to delete years of reporting, issue a public apology, and pay millions. Legal experts say Ambrose’s 109-page filing reads like a wish list for authoritarian censorship, not a federal lawsuit. His past failures, plagiarism scandal, and history of vexatious litigation only amplify the absurdity. Ambrose wants silence. Instead, he’s getting sunlight.

The Indefinablity of Jew: The surge in antisemitism exposes a legal crisis. Without a clear definition, hate-crime protections risk collapse.

The Indefinability of Jew

American law is caught in a bizarre identity crisis: It cannot define what a “Jew” is. As antisemitism soars, prosecutors and politicians sound alarms, but they can’t answer the basic question their laws require. Is a Jew a race? A religion? An ethnicity? All of the above? None? Hate-crime statutes demand clear subject classes—like Black, Woman, Gay, or Muslim. But “Jew” defies every legal box. If we can’t define the protected class, we can’t define the crime. And unless lawmakers solve this definitional black hole fast, America may discover that its antisemitism protections were built on sand.

Criminal Undertones: CT Judge and Cops Accused of Jailing Blogger for Opinions

A Connecticut free-speech case is exploding into a full-blown constitutional controversy. Local blogger Robert Pabich was arrested after posting online criticisms of State Senator Matt Lesser, sparking outrage among civil-liberties advocates who say Rocky Hill police and Judge Jesse Giddings trampled the First Amendment. Officers used a “risk warrant” to seize Pabich’s firearms before charging him with stalking and disorderly conduct—based solely on political expression. Critics say this criminalizes dissent and weaponizes the justice system against unpopular viewpoints. The case has become a flashpoint in the national debate over hate-speech laws, judicial bias, and freedom of political speech.

The Hateful Eight: Connecticut case charges a blogger for speech without identifying the alleged threats. A new test for the First Amendment.

The Hateful Eight: Nutmeg Edition

After nearly a decade of Connecticut officials hunting for a speech crime, prosecutors have now charged a blogger with “true threats” based on eight online posts — but they refuse to say which words crossed the line. The case, led by Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and Judge Peter Brown, raises a chilling question: can the government criminalize political commentary it doesn’t like?
Critics say it’s the latest episode in Connecticut’s long campaign to silence dissent under the guise of “hate speech.” Supporters call it accountability. Either way, the state’s handling of the so-called Hateful Eight may redefine free expression in America’s courts.

Stalking Zealots

A growing debate in Connecticut highlights the collision between online activism and the First Amendment. Critics say certain watchdog groups, including StopAntisemitism.org, blur the line between public accountability and digital harassment by naming and shaming individuals for controversial opinions. Supporters call it justified exposure; opponents call it censorship. With Governor Ned Lamont’s Hate Crimes Council expanding its reach, free-speech advocates warn of state-endorsed policing of thought. The question is simple but profound: when does fighting hate become hating dissent?

FYGA Paul Boyne

Paul Boyne, founder of The Family Court Circus and champion of the constitutional republic, is once again under judicial fire in Connecticut’s “Nutmeg” courts. His crime? Sending an email. Boyne’s polite but pointed message to Judges John Newson and Gerald Harmon sparked outrage among the black-robed elite, who responded not with reason—but with rage. “INAPPROPRIATE,” Newson thundered. In a state where “FYGA” (“F*** You Go Away”) is the unofficial judicial motto, Boyne’s message was treated not as a plea for justice, but as heresy against the sacred cult of Connecticut law.

Shaka Cheka

Connecticut’s court system faces renewed scrutiny after reports surfaced of an internal “judicial intelligence” network operating beyond public oversight. Critics claim the system shields misconduct and suppresses constitutional rights under the guise of confidentiality. Judge Peter Brown’s recent protective order, sealing a 96-page report tied to a high-profile political commentator, has sparked outcry among legal observers and civil libertarians. They argue the order expands state secrecy at the expense of public accountability. The controversy underscores a broader concern: that Connecticut’s judiciary has evolved into a self-policing institution immune from the transparency it demands of others.

JACK DOYLE’S TOOTHPASTE DEFENSE: WE CAN’T PUT IT BACK

Connecticut’s criminal justice system faces new scrutiny after claims that prosecutors bypassed rules of venue and ignored constitutional safeguards. State’s Attorney Jack Doyle has been accused of shifting cases between judicial districts without authority, undermining due process and raising alarms about prosecutorial discretion. Critics argue his reasoning—that errors cannot be undone because “you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube”—is a dangerous precedent that excuses violations rather than correcting them. Now, questions are mounting about how deeply such practices have taken root in the Nutmeg State, and whether judicial oversight will step in to restore accountability.

Arizona Family Court Revolt: Rep. Lisa Fink leads against racketeering, DCS failures, and mourns Charlie Kirk while defending free speech.

Arizona Family Court Revolt: Rep Lisa Fink Takes on Power Brokers and Defends Free Speech

Arizona Rep. Lisa Fink never planned to lead a family-court revolt. A desperate father’s call about “reunification camps” pushed her into battle. “This is not America. This is North Korea,” she said. Fink drafted SB 1372 banning camps, exposing what she calls systemic racketeering in Arizona’s courts. Judges ignore best-interest laws, order costly “therapeutic interventionists,” and silence children’s voices. She’s pushing bills to stop runaway custody orders, fix DCS failures, and support kinship care. Fink also mourns the assassination of Charlie Kirk, vowing to defend free speech. Her crusade now challenges power brokers in law, politics, and culture.

Another Sniper – Dan Rayfield Oregon AG

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield is under fire for a controversial $10,000 fine levied against a South Carolina citizen accused of unauthorized practice of psychology. Critics argue the penalty is an unconstitutional assault on free speech, punishing political expression across state lines under the guise of professional regulation. The case raises alarms about state overreach, misuse of administrative proceedings, and potential violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment protections. With Oregon’s family courts already facing scrutiny, the move deepens concerns about whether elected officials are weaponizing state power to silence critics and chill constitutionally protected speech nationwide.

Judge Boots Black Journalist, Admits Race Was Reason?

An Oregon administrative hearing exploded into a constitutional fight when OAH Judge Jennifer H. Rackstraw booted Black investigative reporter Rick LaRivière. According to an unofficial transcript, Rackstraw answered “Yes” when asked if she was excluding him for being Black and a journalist, then claimed Oregon law required secrecy. LaRivière refused to leave. He demanded a written order to “file an emergency petition with the Federal District Court.” The state moved to delay. Rackstraw shut it down and reset it in person—promising LaRivière “will not be allowed in.” DOJ counsel Rachel E. Bertoni stayed silent on the record as the Star Chamber vibe spread.

Jewish Holiday Hatchet Job: Oregon OAH Ambushes Family Court Watchdog

The Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) chose the eve of Rosh Hashanah to unleash a crushing 200-page Notice of Hearing on family court watchdog Jill Jones-Soderman. The founder of the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC), Soderman has long exposed judicial misconduct and systemic abuse. Now, Oregon regulators accuse her of “unlicensed practice” for sending a watchdog letter—an amicus-style filing constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause. Critics call the OAH blitz a sham, a weaponized bureaucracy shielding corrupt courts. Court watchers are mobilizing. The fight isn’t just Soderman’s—it’s America’s.

Bergen NJ Banana Republic: Bandy Lee vs. the Family Court Cartel

In Hackensack, a courtroom erupted as Dr. Bandy X. Lee, Yale- and Harvard-trained forensic psychiatrist, stood pro se against Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca’s gag order. With Guardian ad Litem Evelyn Nissirios accused of running a “child slave trade,” the fight was no ordinary custody squabble. Legendary constitutional attorney Bruce Fein watched from the gallery, while activist Dave Weigel and his Family Court Fraud Warriors broadcast the spectacle. Dozens of reform advocates filled the room, demanding justice. Dr. Lee’s stand against judicial corruption isn’t just about Bergen County—it’s a battle for the Constitution, family integrity, and America’s soul.

Assassinations

The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents the ultimate form of lawless silencing. But political violence isn’t limited to a bullet from a rooftop sniper — it can also come cloaked in a judge’s robe. Judge David Gold’s arrest warrant against a political blogger shows the same contempt for the Constitution, using state power to muzzle dissent. Free speech, due process, and the rule of law fall victim to ideological zealotry. Whether enforced by rifle or gavel, the message is the same: speak against the establishment, and you’ll be punished. America faces an existential battle for its founding freedoms.

Timely Fashion

Connecticut’s criminal justice circus has collapsed into the absurd. Judge Peter Brown, instead of addressing constitutional violations, now demands legal arguments over the meaning of “timely fashion.” Prosecutor Jack Doyle, earning $215,000 a year, can’t even file charges in the correct district, yet insists due process rights simply “expire.” Brown, described by critics as a “trained ape for his masters,” repeatedly refuses to specify the supposed criminal speech at issue. Protected political expression is rebranded as “stalking,” and the judiciary plays along. The case now hinges on semantics, not law—proof of a judiciary independent of justice itself.

Boyne’s Connecticut Justice Fraud

Connecticut blogger and journalist Paul Boyne has become the unlikely face of America’s First Amendment fight. Prosecutor Jack Doyle’s two-page gag motion to muzzle Boyne ignited a firestorm, barring him from publishing his own discovery. On The Unknown Podcast, Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe shredded the move as unconstitutional overreach. Boyne accused Governor Ned Lamont’s agents of staging an illegal raid and claimed ex-Justice Joette Katz secretly pulled strings. His lawyer, Todd Bussert, offered only a half-hearted fight. Boyne calls it “pretend justice” — a system that tramples speech and proves Connecticut no longer honors the First Amendment.

Pretend Justice Exposed

Connecticut’s so-called “justice system” is rotting from within, and Jack Doyle is Exhibit A. Paid $215,000 a year, the New Haven State’s Attorney pretends to be a prosecutor, pretends to be a lawyer, pretends to honor the Constitution—but in reality, he’s a puppet for political bosses and outside agendas. Critics say Doyle has weaponized the courts to muzzle speech, crush dissent, and protect the powerful. From illegal warrants to gag orders, from family court tyranny to free press crackdowns, Doyle plays the role of sovereign protector while trampling the very rights he swore to uphold.

Prosecutor Jackaz’s Gag Motion Ignites Constitutional Firestorm

State Attorney John “Jack” Doyle’s August 22 motion against journalist Paul Boyne has set off a constitutional firestorm. Doyle wants to ban Boyne from possessing or sharing discovery—even redacted—with the press. Critics call it an unprecedented gag that shreds the First Amendment. Boyne, once editor of The Family Court Circus, labels Doyle “Jackaz” and accuses him of covering up judicial corruption. Even Connecticut’s own constitution promises citizens the right to “freely speak, write and publish.” Now Doyle’s bid to silence Boyne has become a national litmus test: can America tolerate unpopular voices, or will Connecticut muzzle them?