Skip to content

Judicial overreach

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.

    SHAKA CHEKA

    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.

      Assassinations

        The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents the ultimate form of lawless silencing. But political violence isn’t limited to a bullet from a rooftop sniper — it can also come cloaked in a judge’s robe. Judge David Gold’s arrest warrant against a political blogger shows the same contempt for the Constitution, using state power to muzzle dissent. Free speech, due process, and the rule of law fall victim to ideological zealotry. Whether enforced by rifle or gavel, the message is the same: speak against the establishment, and you’ll be punished. America faces an existential battle for its founding freedoms.

        Ding Dong Dead Moskowitz: Her death reignites debate over GAL immunity, judicial overreach, and Connecticut’s broken family court system.

        Ding Dong Dead Moskowitz

          The death of Emily J. Moskowitz has reignited fierce debate over Connecticut’s family court system. Known both as a veteran attorney and a controversial guardian ad litem, Moskowitz was praised by the judiciary for her service and simultaneously condemned by critics as a symbol of unchecked power and judicial overreach. Central to this storm is the landmark Carrubba v. Moskowitz decision, which granted GALs absolute immunity—a legal shield that many argue enables abuse, corruption, and financial exploitation of families in crisis. As praise and scorn pour in, the battle over Moskowitz’s legacy continues to stir outrage and reflection across Connecticut.