Connecticut judiciary

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.

Streeto’s Connecticut Judicial Candy Scandal

In a stunning collapse of judicial decorum, Judge Melissa Streeto of Connecticut’s Superior Court dropped more than just opinions — she delivered “bags of dicks” as gag gifts to her clerks. Literally. The Rockville-based judge, known for her rulings on habeas petitions, left x-rated candy shaped like male genitalia along with affectionate notes on subordinate desks, all while donning her latex beneath the black robe of justice. The Judicial Branch is spinning, with Chief Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto offering weak reassurances while Streeto “self-reports” to the Judicial Review Council.

Judicial Speech Police

In the People’s Republic of Connecticut, free speech now comes with a security review. A shadowy branch within the judiciary—led by DEI apparatchiks like Chief Justice Raheem Mullins and Marshal Services Director O’Donovan Murphy—has redefined citizen dissent as “threats” against judges. Under the guise of “judicial security,” the state now spies on political speech, targeting bloggers and critics with an unaccountable Office of Protective Intelligence. But where are the arrests, prosecutions, or public threat definitions? Nowhere. The speech police are here, cloaked in robes and race-baiting rhetoric, declaring war on the First Amendment—because the judiciary can’t take the heat.