Skip to content

Connecticut stalking case

Boyne’s Connecticut Case Collapsing: Illegal raids, stolen evidence, judicial misconduct, and massive First Amendment violations.

Boyne’s Connecticut Case Collapsing Under Constitutional Rot

    Paul Boyne’s First Amendment nightmare is finally exploding into public view. The 70-year-old Virginia father and Annapolis grad now stands accused of “stalking” Connecticut judges with nothing more than words — fiery blog posts known as the “Hateful Eight.” For that speech alone, Connecticut slapped him with 18 felony counts, jailed him 17 months, raided his Virginia home illegally, and strapped a failing ankle monitor to his leg. Prosecutors used stolen evidence, sealed warrants, and media gags. Judges looked the other way. Former Justice Joette Katz allegedly pulled strings from the shadows. And now, the entire prosecution is collapsing under the weight of its constitutional rot.

    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.