Recently, Karen Riordan filed papers asking the Connecticut Family Court to throw out her judgment of divorce against disgraced Hollywood writer Christopher Ambrose. The basis of her motion – Connecticut Family Court Judge Gerard I. Adelman “poisoned” the original proceedings with judicial fraud, bias, prejudice, dishonesty, impropriety, lack of impartiality, and misconduct. If successful, Riordan would go back and have a new trial.
Riordan claims Judge Adleman committed serious First Amendment violations, including the rights to free association, free expression, and religious freedom. She says Adelman was remarkably biased and “prejudiced by predetermined beliefs and viewpoint discrimination defeating [the] right to a fair trial.”
The papers further claim the divorce decree is replete with evidence of misconduct and “constitutional violations executed under color of state dissolution law.”
Riordan claims she should be given special solicitude because she is a pro se party “unskilled in the science of law” and qualifies under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the help of an “advocate.”
Riordan musters the most compelling evidence supporting her claims is a recently-released June 2022 Affidavit of Michael A. Sponheimer, Jr., Senior Special Agent, Virginia State Police. The Affidavit supported the search of premises and effects belonging to Paul Boyne, the website Family Court Circus’ administrator. It was recently released under a Freedom of Information Law Request.
The Family Court Circus blog has been a stone in Judge Adelman’s and Connecticut Family Court’s shoes for a while. Boyne has struck such a nerve even an anti-Paul Boyne webpage has been established, calling him “a hate-filled anti-Semitic, racist, & defamatory exploitation of our constitution.” StopPaulBoyne.com tags Boyne’s Family Court Circus blog as “Cyber-Abuse Hiding Behind the First Amendment.”
Paul Boyne believes his activity is the legally-protected opinion and criticism of public officials. On its home page, the Family Court Circus blog says:
“The Family Court Circus … nasty criticism and rants of THE WORST KIND, against the most evil court in the land and the monsters who control it.”
The Affidavit ensured that Boyne’s activities were marked as legally “threatening.” It details the efforts of Connecticut Law Enforcement to take Boyne out, in cooperation with their Virginia brethren, at the apparent behest of a veritable “Who’s Who” of Connecticut Judges: Coleman, Nash Sequino, Hernandez, Bright, Heller, Pinkus, Bozzutto, Adelman, Murphy, Munro, Wetstone, Suarez, Emons, Williams, Albis, Ficeto, Grossman, Allard, Moukawsher, and others. Boyne also has choice words for select government attorneys, private attorneys, appointed attorneys and guardians ad litem, and other court personnel. It does not appear that Boyne missed many Connecticut jurists with his “nasty criticism and rants.”
Several Judges gave unequivocal impact statements. Judge Jane Grossman said she was distraught and Boyne’s website has “changed the way she thinks about work and home” since Boyne, in an article called “Judge Grotesque,” describes shooting her through the windows of her home by someone hiding in the woods behind her house.
In Judge Adelman’s statement, Boyne’s blogging, including an article called “Adelshit,” was harmful and criminal, “advocating physical violence, laced with bigoted threats, against specific attorneys and judges.”
Are Boyne’s published words First Amendment-protected free speech or criminal threats of violence? When you line up over twenty judges against you, you can be assured it will be found to be the latter.
To be fair, Boyne did write about Judge Gerard I. Adelman (and others), conjuring images of Shakespeare’s most famous rebel follower of Jack Cade in Henry VI, Part 2 (“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers “):
In specifics, the world would be a better place had a modern-day Dick The Butcher popped Attorney Reuben Midler, Attorney Michael Meehan and Judge Donna Heller preventing them from destroying the Dulos family. Properly lined up, a single .50 cal would have done all three at once. Dick The Butcher would have been righteous in employing a meat cleaver to severe the head of Judge Barry Pinkus prior to Baby Aaden being tossed off the Middletown Bridge. Dick The Butcher would have a chop fest with the judiciary committee. Handing up a nice fillet of Representative Rosa Rebimbas…. Nice sausages, rich in fat, from the ground up Senator John Kissel. I shadow architect of statutes designed to hide GAL fees from the IRS. Some dark offal for the wolves from the putrid Eric Coleman, cock sucker to the great white paedophiles of the state. And what say the Old English Butcher with regard to the jews, dykes and queers in black robes? Fine meat pies with gravy from Bozzutto, Adelman, Murphy, Munro, Wetstone, Suarez, Emons, Williams, Albis, Ficeto and the like?’
The Affidavit and Warrant rely heavily on Judge Adelman’s statements, allowing Virginia Law Enforcement to kick down Boyne’s door, arrest him, and seize his computers, which Boyne claims “mysteriously” found their way into the custody of Connecticut law enforcement on a Virginia charge.
Concerning Riordan’s claims that Judge Adelman was “traumatized” by Boyne and the Family Court Circus blog, the Affidavit is telling. It says:
Judge Gerard Adelman provided a statement that he “has serious concerns about this blog as it repeatedly calls for someone to kill me. Almost every entry speaks about a .50 caliber bullet to my head.” Judge Adelman believes the blog is written by Paul BOYNE as he has direct knowledge of BOYNE. Judge Adelman presided in a Connecticut Regional Family Trial Docket for BOYNE’s divorce. Judge Adelman’s last in-person interaction with BOYNE was around 2013-1014 when he found BOYNE in contempt of court for unpaid support for his wife.
The Affidavit says Boyne specifically singled out Judge Gerard Adelman:
A post on the website, dated May 1, 2022, again identified Connecticut State Superior Court Judge Gerard Adelman and read:
Jefferson opines that when the people become inattentive to public affairs, judges become wolves. Not even a pack of hungry wolves would abuse children to the jew extent of the family court, who must fear now the wrath of Patriots, flash and report of a well aimed muzzle, only the Second Amendment can protect children from tyrants in black robes. Adelman proves beyond a reasonable doubt, jews of Connecticut hijack courts, rule from the talmud, victimize children in worship of their money god. He begs a patriot’s .50 cal to the head.
Riordan believes that if Judge Adelman was so “damaged” by hate speech in an Internet blog, he should have recused himself from her divorce case. By his sworn statements, there is no way Judge Adelman’s condition, predisposition, and bias could not have affected his judicial determinations. How could Judge Adelman not be affected by issues related to Internet-based reporting, even content that was not arguably threatening violence?
“Judge Adelman engaged in viewpoint discrimination of third-party political speech, disdain for the existence of the Internet, and a Memorandum of Decision reciting all, including his political missive, “Riordan’s papers say.
The papers alleged that because of Judge Adelman’s trauma, as described in the Affidavit and based on his own statements, he “snapped” when the Family Court Circus blog or any Internet reporting was mentioned and could not have been impartial. “Judge Adelman shows a malicious bias that causes him to intentionally misrepresent the facts and the law and produce decisions larded with impropriety, particularly in the face of fundamental rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” the papers say.
Riordan claims Judge Adelman’s trauma was dripping from the Memorandum of Decision he issued:
This [Family Court Circus] blog, produced by an unnamed person, is filled with anti-Semitic, homophobic and racist rants of the worst kind. It is based on the belief that the entire family law bench and bar in Connecticut and other states are being controlled by a mysterious Jewish cabal in order to steal children away from loving parents and give them to rapists and pedophiles.
By his actions, Riordan claims Judge Adelman violated the Judicial Canons of Ethics, Canon 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, Harassment and Canon 2.4 External Influences on Judgment, “by sitting in review of a matter in which he has predetermined conclusions/beliefs/prejudice, intentionally conceals from litigants, and intentionally failing to disclose personal bias and prejudice.”
The failure of Judge Adelman to recuse himself at trial “violates court integrity, undermines public confidence in the judiciary, abandons judicial office, and betrays judicial oath. Judge Adelman created a mistrial by fraud upon the court,” the papers say.
Riordan says there is a “substantial likelihood” that the new trial’s result will differ. “A new trial before an impartial authority will clearly remedy the apparent constitutional injury, and will reasonably likely be resulting in the termination of the malicious isolation of children from defendant/mother and other equitable relief,” the papers say
If Riordan’s allegations are true, one can only wonder how many other judgments in the Connecticut Family Court were also “poisoned” by the biases and failures of judicial machinery. The courts claim they cannot act as instruments of injustice. But for too many in the Connecticut Family Courts, justice is not blind but blinding, biased, and bankrupting.
Richard Luthmann is a writer, commentator, satirist, and investigative journalist with degrees from Columbia University and the University of Miami. Once a fixture in New York City and State politics, Luthmann is a recovering attorney who lives in Southwest Florida and a proud member of the National Writers Union.
For Article Ideas, Tips, or Help: firstname.lastname@example.org or call 239-287-6352.