Skip to content

Family Court Circus blog

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.

    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?