Judge Peter Brown

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.

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.

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.

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.

First Amendment Allergic Reaction: Judges in the Mist

In Connecticut’s twisted judicial theater, Judge Peter L. Brown nearly choked on the First Amendment—triggered by blog posts and Joette Katz’s authoritarian musings. The blog that drives judges mad, The Family Court Circus, has long skewered Katz, a former justice turned censor-in-chief. Her 2022 op-ed, “When Is Enough Enough?”, drew fire for labeling satire as criminal “threats.” Now, a courtroom transcript reveals Judge Brown’s allergic meltdown over the blog’s political speech, exposing the fragile egos and coordinated efforts of Katz, Gold, Bozzuto, and their DEI-infused judicial gang to weaponize the courts against free expression. The First Amendment’s enemies wear robes.