By Richard Luthmann

Jailed blogger Paul Boyne has accused former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz of "running" the prosecution against him, claiming that she is orchestrating the investigation in a politically motivated effort to silence him. Boyne, who has spent over a year in pre-trial detention on charges related to his controversial blog, TheFamilyCourtCircus.com, says he has evidence linking Katz to his case.

Boyne’s explosive allegations came during a recent episode of The Unknown Podcast, hosted by investigative journalists Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe.

In a jailhouse interview, Boyne revealed that he had obtained discovery materials, including emails and handwritten notes, suggesting that Katz plays a key role in his prosecution.

“She’s pulling the strings,” Boyne told Luthmann. “Katz is behind this whole thing, and I have proof.”

Joette Katz’s Influence

Photo byRichard Luthmann / Substack

Joette Katz, now a partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP, is a towering figure in Connecticut’s legal world. A former state Supreme Court Justice and Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Katz has long been involved in discussions about the intersection of law and hate speech.

Boyne claims that Katz’s involvement in his case is politically motivated, accusing her of using the legal system to suppress his criticism of Connecticut’s family courts. According to Boyne, one of the discovery emails he obtained from April 2022 references Katz directly.

“It says ‘Katz speak to only,’” Boyne explained, adding that this shows her direct involvement in his case. Boyne believes Katz’s goal is to use his prosecution as a way to stifle his speech, which he argues is protected by the First Amendment.

Boyne’s blog has garnered attention for its aggressive language and accusations of judicial misconduct. His posts have targeted several Connecticut family court judges, and some have interpreted his rhetoric as threatening. However, Boyne insists that his blog is a form of political speech and that he is being prosecuted not for making threats, but for calling out corruption within the judicial system.

Katz’s Public Comments on Hate Speech

Katz has publicly addressed the issue of hate speech and its legal limits. In a 2022 article for the Connecticut Law Tribune, Katz wrote about a blog—presumed to be Boyne’s—that she described as crossing the line into threats. Katz argued that while hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, threats of violence are not.

Photo byJoette Katz / Shipman & Goodwin LLP

“The First Amendment protects many things, but it does not protect threats against judges and public officials,” Katz wrote.

Katz has also spoken about this issue at length during public forums. At an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) panel in 2022, she discussed the challenges of balancing free speech with the need to protect individuals from targeted harassment. Katz emphasized that while offensive speech is often protected, when speech encourages violence or poses a credible threat, it is no longer shielded by the First Amendment.

“We have to draw the line when speech puts people at risk,” Katz said at the ADL event.

Boyne and his supporters argue that Katz’s statements reveal a bias against him and that she is using her influence to push a politically motivated prosecution. They claim that the state’s case attempts to criminalize Boyne’s blog posts, which they maintain are protected expressions of political dissent.

Free Speech or a True Threat?

The crux of the legal debate in Boyne’s case is whether his blog posts constitute a “true threat” or are protected under the First Amendment. Boyne has filed motions challenging the charges on constitutional grounds, arguing that his inflammatory speech does not meet the legal definition of a threat.

Katz, however, has taken a firm stance on the issue. Citing the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Katz has argued that Boyne’s speech falls outside the protections of the First Amendment. The Chaplinsky case established the "fighting words" doctrine, which holds that certain forms of speech—particularly those that incite violence or disrupt public order—can be criminalized.

During the ADL panel, Katz elaborated on this point, explaining that the context in which speech is delivered is critical to determining whether it constitutes a threat.

“It’s not just about the words—it’s about how the person receiving them feels. Would a reasonable person believe that this speech is a serious threat?” Katz asked.

Boyne’s Fight Continues

Boyne remains defiant, insisting that his blog posts are political speech aimed at exposing corruption within the Connecticut judicial system. He believes that the charges against him are part of a larger effort to silence critics of the family courts.

“They don’t like what I’m saying because I’m calling them out,” Boyne said.

Volpe, who has extensively covered Boyne’s case, said the situation raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech.

“The question here is whether harsh political speech can be criminalized as a threat, and what that means for free speech in America,” Volpe said.

As Boyne’s legal battle drags on, his case has become a flashpoint in the national debate over hate speech, judicial power, and the limits of the First Amendment. Whether or not Katz is directly involved in his prosecution, Boyne’s accusations have brought new attention to the role of powerful figures like Katz in shaping the boundaries of free expression.

Boyne’s pre-trial detention has lasted over a year, and his defense team is pushing for a competency evaluation, which Boyne claims is a stalling tactic. He remains determined to fight the charges, asserting that his prosecution is about more than just him.

“This is about free speech for everyone,” Boyne said.

Conclusion

The debate over Boyne’s blog posts and their potential to be classified as "true threats" has placed the case at the intersection of free speech and judicial power. With accusations flying and high-profile figures like Katz allegedly involved, this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of free expression in America.

As Boyne awaits his day in court, the question remains: When does speech cross the line into criminality, and who gets to decide?

Richard Luthmann is a writer, commentator, and investigative reporter with degrees from Columbia University and the University of Miami. A transplanted New Yorker, Luthmann is a National Writers Union member and now living in Southwest Florida.

If you liked this article, please tell Newsbreak to support independent journalists by monetizing their work. Email: creators.monetization@newsbreak.com.

If you liked this article, please consider following me below or commenting. For tips or help, call 239-631-5957 or email richard.luthmann@protonmail.com.