constitutional rights

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Double Standard of Family Court: Enforcing Support, Ignoring Custody

By Michael Phillips | The Thunder Report & Father & Co. On June 30, 2025, the Maryland Supreme Court issued a sweeping, unanimous decision in In the Matter of the Marriage of Houser, affirming that parents cannot waive child support—even by mutual agreement—because child support is a right of the child, not a bargaining chip between parents. The ruling makes one thing clear: when it comes to financial obligations, the court has no hesitation asserting its power in the name of the child’s “best interest.” But here’s the question no one in the Maryland judiciary dares ask: If child support is a right that cannot be waived because it belongs… Read More »The Double Standard of Family Court: Enforcing Support, Ignoring Custody

Parental Religious Opt-Outs: Mahmoud v. Taylor and the Battle Over Books, Rights, and Belief in America’s Schools

A legal firestorm is brewing in Mahmoud v. Taylor, now before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake: the right of parents to shield their children from public school lessons that clash with religious beliefs. What began as a dispute over LGBTQ+ storybooks in Maryland has exploded into a national fight over the First Amendment, diversity in education, and parental control. As the Court weighs whether public schools can deny opt-out requests, the decision could ripple across classrooms from coast to coast. It’s a defining moment in the clash between faith and curriculum—and the next landmark in America’s culture war.