Frank Parlato
The jury in New Haven found Paul Boyne guilty on all 18 counts on Tuesday. The charges were felony stalking and electronic stalking tied to blog posts about three Connecticut Superior Court judges.
Boyne is 64. He once lived in Glastonbury and later in Springfield, Virginia. The jury convicted him on twelve counts of first-degree stalking and six counts of electronic stalking. Each judge accounted for six charges — Jane K. Grossman, Elizabeth J. Stewart, and former Judge Thomas G. Moukawsher.
All three presided over family court cases.
Judge Peter L. Brown presided at the trial.
Judge Brown remanded Boyne to custody when the verdict came in. He had been free on bail.
His bond had run from $1.5 million down to $7,000 during the pretrial years. He had already done 18 months in custody during the pendency of the case.
The state had offered him a plea deal. Plead to a misdemeanor with a sentence of time served. Boyne said no.
What the Evidence Showed
The prosecutors showed the jury the computer evidence. The posts named the judges, described their homes and listed addresses and cars. They mentioned rifles and calibers. One post about Judge Jane Grossman said she was “begging for a .308 shot to the head thru two panes of window glass from an oath keeper concealed in the woods behind her house.” Another post from July 2022 listed her address on MacArthur Drive in Hamden and described her 2018 Audi A4 Quattro. It also published the car’s VIN.
Some of the posts were antisemitic. Boyne used the term “JEW-dicial” and wrote that Connecticut’s family courts were part of a Jewish conspiracy.
The state charged the case as a hate crime. Prosecutors argued that the posts targeted the judges in part because of their actual or perceived religion. Under Connecticut law, that finding raises first-degree stalking from a Class D felony to a Class C felony. The penalty can be up to 10 years for each count.
If the judge ordered every sentence to run consecutively, Boyne could face 180 years in prison. That is unlikely. But it shows how much discretion the sentencing judge holds.
What Judge Grossman Said
Judge Grossman spent two days on the stand. On a weekend in January 2021, a colleague telephoned to tell her there was a post about her. She read it.
“I froze,” she told the jury.
The post correctly described her property. Behind her house, there are woods. The rear of the house is largely glass — a sunroom faces the trees. When she finished reading, she testified that she and her husband went outside and walked the perimeter to see if anyone had been there. After that, she said she stopped using the sunroom for a long time.
She said that Hamden police drove past the house regularly. Judicial marshals came and assessed the security. She installed cameras. She adjusted the alarm. She altered the routes she drove to work. She told her father — a man in his eighties — not to mention to strangers what his daughter did for a living.
On cross-examination, defense attorney Todd Bussert directed her attention to her written decision in the Tiberi family court case. Grossman had included a footnote describing the blog as containing “racist, homophobic, and antisemitic tirades” and noting that “the legal commentary is sophomoric and riddled with profanity.”
Bussert asked her whether “sophomoric” was a synonym for “threatening.” She said it was not. He asked whether the word “threatening” appeared anywhere in her written description of the blog. She said it did not.
On redirect, prosecutor John Doyle asked Grossman whether she considered the .308 post to be criticism.
“No,” she said. “I think that’s a death threat.”
Grossman is half-Jewish — her father is Jewish, her mother Catholic — and does not practice. She testified that the antisemitic language directed at her made her feel threatened. When Doyle asked her what Zionism means, she answered: “I think that’s hate for Jews; the goal to eradicate all the Jewish people.”
Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and the establishment of a Jewish state.
The Defense Argument
The defense had a Supreme Court case. Counterman v. Colorado, decided in 2023. It said the state must prove the speaker himself knew his words would be taken as real threats. Not that a reasonable person would find them threatening. They had a second case—Watts v. United States, 1969. A man had said at a protest that if he were drafted, he would put President Johnson in his rifle sights. The Supreme Court said that it was not a threat. It was political speech. That was the argument. Two cases. Fifty-four years apart.
Bussert argued that Boyne never sent the posts to the judges or traveled to Connecticut, and no one harmed any judge, though the posts were online for years. He argued the language — .308 calibers, “kill shots,” references to mobs of mothers — was the kind of rhetorical excess the First Amendment is designed to protect when directed at public officials.
The state countered that repeating the conduct over years and across dozens of posts constituted a sustained course of conduct designed to intimidate.
The jury deliberated and returned guilty verdicts on all 18 counts.
Background
Boyne’s grievance with Connecticut’s family courts originated in his 2007 divorce. Judge Gerard Adelman presided over his custody case. Boyne’s parental rights were terminated, and he lost all contact with his children.
He believed the outcome was not justice but a system — evaluators, guardians, lawyers, and judges operating as a coordinated enterprise that monetized family destruction and called it the best interests of the child.
Accounting for time already served, Boyne’s age, and the absence of any violence, his sentence may fall somewhere between probation with time served and an additional five to ten years, with the hate crime enhancement and the number of counts pulling toward the higher end.
Sentencing is May 26.
See also: Paul Boyne Spent 18 Months in Jail for Blog Posts. His Trial Starts This Week.
When Judges Let Thin Skin Undermine Justice
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
When following the Boyne case what people should remember. Paul Boyne was found guilty of cyber stalking three family court judges. The judges admitted that the documents in the cases were real court transcripts. Retired Judge Thomas Moukawsher admitted that there is curruption in the family court system in a past interview. While Paul Boyne faces sentencing for harresing and threatening three family court judges. Thousands of people are forced to file for divorce in the state of Connecticut to be legally free from their spouses. Children are being caught in the cross fire. People lives are destroyed and they can’t move on due to the legal abuse. In a system focused on equity over Best interest standards. Paul’s actions destroy the credibility of Connecticut people trying to advocate for citation to be routed out of the system. Boyne blog was not debunked as the Connecticut insider claimed. Unfortunately now that that a paid reporter that the family court fraud warriors project has a hold of it it’s gotten worse. The the intimidating of judges is gone beyond Connecticut. Several of the courts findings are absolutely solid. The deep roots of evil go beyond the people walking the halls of the family court house. They don’t live in Boynes cell. Much of it is within the organization that are attempting to control the family court house. Judges should be protected and so should the people are forced to go to family court system. One thing about Frank, even if he doesn’t agree with you he will allow the comments. # free speech.
FBI determined no crime had occurred. Joette Katz refused to take no for an answer.
This was a CT take down to silence opposition, deter others from speaking out, and punish Paul Boyne who knows the laws and the Constitution better than any of these court actors combined.
This is why they refused to allow Paul Boyne to represent himself.
Everyone was terrorized?
Why didn’t no one file for a restraining order?
Six vile creatures filed affidavits which were manipulated in lieu of a warrant- yet not one of the six ever filed a restraining order.
It surely would have been granted by one of their CT judicial pals.
Paul might have less chance of being raped in prison if he grows a beard.
Just saying.
The real legal issue here is the Supreme Court’s decision in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). The Court held that the prosecution must show the speaker was at least reckless as to whether the statement would be perceived as a true threat. The question is whether a blog rant using violent metaphors crosses that line.
Grossman is gross and typical filth in family court.
He was rightfully convicted.
Even under Counterman v. Colorado, the rule is pretty clear: the First Amendment doesn’t protect threatening speech when the speaker recklessly disregards the risk that their words will be understood as a real threat of violence.
Boyne knew his violent language would be taken as threats, IMO. At the very least, it’s hard to argue he didn’t recklessly disregard the risk that the judges he named would see it that way.
Criticize judges and politicians all you want. That’s protected speech. But repeatedly talking about putting bullets through the heads of specific, named people crosses the line.
That said, it’s probably not all doom and gloom for Boyne. My guess is he ends up with a relatively short sentence, with credit for time served and strict probation conditions.
They violated his rights and violated Virginia state law. This was a set up to silence Boyne and cover up for their misdeeds which traumatize children and targeted parents for money. These judges were not afraid of Paul Boyne. The same judges publicly scoff and mock him.
If Grossman went to great lengths to allegedly call people out to her property, where’s the police report?
Why didn’t she file for a restraining order?
Eighteen charges against a concerned citizen trying to draw attention to the corruption in the courts means the few controlling Connecticut are the same kind of people who haven’t told you what’s been happening at “Zorro Ranch” and the “Zodiac Club”.
Who pushed for eighteen charges against Boyne after Kent Mawhinney’s friend, Simon Hessler faced twelve charges for “Hessler Enterprises”?
If “Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and the establishment of a Jewish state”, is that to say there’s only one operational definition of “Zionism”?
Judge Grossman’s opinion that Zionism is “hate for Jews; the goal to eradicate all the Jewish people” is shared by many.
For example some might add:
Those The Messiah warned us about 2,000 years ago. claim to be something they are not. Since not enough of us listened, those who do the opposite of what they claim scapegoated faithful Jews, faithful Christians and faithful Muslims. Those who deceived us destroyed families and children with family courts. They destroyed families and children with drugs, gangsta’ rap and techno “music”. They foreclosed on private homes and sold national land to multinational corporations. Now they wage their “World War III” to destroy Israel, America, all Jews, all Christians all Muslims and all nations.
As Paul Boyne might say, they don’t celebrate Easter.
In fact, they don’t celebrate the way most people celebrate. To learn more about their celebrations, read about the Epstein files.
The Selective Service System is now set to automatically draft all 18-25 year old male Jews, Christian and Muslims to wage war on Jews, Christian and Muslims in December 2026. See how that worked?
“… Christianity is disappearing from the Middle East. … Christianity in the Holy Land is down to about 1% …”
https://www.catholicunscripted.com/p/a-catholic-priest-from-the-middle