Paul Boyne Extradited on Cyberstalking; Jailed in Connecticut
New Haven, CT: Paul A. Boyne, 62, of Springfield, Virginia, faces 18 felony cyberstalking charges for alleged online threats targeting three Connecticut judges.
After spending 90 days in a Fairfax County, Virginia jail, Connecticut extradited Boyne on October 19.
Boyne appeared in New Haven Superior Court on October 20, where Justice Eugene R. Calistro issued protective orders prohibiting him from contacting the three judges. With a bond of $750,000, Boyne remains in custody, awaiting his next court date on November 1.
Boyne, who fought extradition from Virginia, said he feared prosecution in Connecticut.
“If I go to Connecticut, you’ll never see me again,” Boyne said. “They’re going to throw me in a hole in the basement of the oldest prison in Connecticut. And the trial might be sometime in the next ten years. And they won’t let me out, and they’re just going to punish me, because it’s a whole bunch of Jews running the entire thing.”
The charges against Boyne stem from a multi-year investigation by Connecticut State Police alleging he operated the contentious blog “The Family Court Circus” from his Virginia home. From late 2017 until Boyne’s arrest in July 2023, the blog, which is currently offline, regularly posted derogatory and sometimes threatening language aimed at exposing the injustices of Connecticut family court.
The charges are based on sworn complaints by three Connecticut Superior Court judges, including Judge Jane Grossman.
Boyne detailed in an article entitled “Judge Grotesque” how someone might shoot Grossman through the windows of her home by hiding in the woods behind her house.
Judge Jane Kupson Grossman
Judge Jane Grossman
Responding to these allegations, Judge Grossman told investigators that Boyne’s website “changed the way she thinks about work and home.”
Connecticut charged Boyne with violating sections 53a-181 c 4 and 53a-181 [f] of the Connecticut Penal Code. These sections are typically misdemeanors, but can be elevated to felonies if they involve racist, anti-Semitic, or other prejudicial language.
In a statement to Frank Report (FR), Boyne said, “They charged me because, obviously, Judge Jane Grossman doesn’t like reading about herself on the blog.”
For the state to convict Boyne of felony stalking, the prosecution must prove that he knowingly engaged in conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their physical safety or the safety of a loved one. Furthermore, to establish a felony, the prosecution must prove that Boyne did so with no purpose other than harassing, terrorizing, or alarming individuals based on race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
According to Boyne, the charges are under new hate crime statutes introduced by the Connecticut legislature in 2021.
He told FR, “They’re part of the Connecticut hate speech packages, which is authored by the Jews.”
Despite the severity of the charges, Connecticut authorities have not claimed Boyne’s writings resulted in actual violence against the targeted judges.
Boyne said, “They’re all whining and complaining that the blog says terrible things, and they all say the blog threatens to kill them all.”
The Boyne case comes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which clarified the definition of a “true threat” and set a precedent that could potentially influence the outcome of Boyne’s trial.
Boyne’s animosity towards the Connecticut family court system reportedly originated from a contentious divorce battle with his ex-wife, Heather P. Boyne, in 2007.
A former Naval officer, forensic expert on nuclear submarines, and an electrical engineer, Boyne lost custody of his four children after a 16-year marriage when Judge Gerard Adelman granted his wife sole custody, allowing Boyne visitation at his wife’s sole discretion.
Effectively terminating his parental rights, Judge Adelman would order Boyne pay more in alimony and child support than he earned.
Adelman invoked a provision in Conneciitcut law that allows a family court judge to arbitrarily calculate what a party might earn and base support payments on that.
Boyne was unemployed at the time of his divorce. In the three years prior, his annual income averaged $41,000. Adelman decided Boyne could potentially earn $100,000 – and set both child support and alimony based on that figure, which was two and half times his three year earnings average annual income.
The judge also ordered Boyne to transfer the bank accounts he had worked for and saved for his children’s education to their mother – with him having no more input into his children’s education.
As part of the divorce settlement, Adelman ordered Boyne to secure a bond to guarantee payment of the alimony and child support, and a $500,000 life insurance policy with Heather named the beneficiary.
These obligations, which Boyne could not meet, cost more than 100 percent of his average annual income. The bond alone cost $41,000, on top of his alimony and child support.
His wife alienated his four children and moved to New York, leaving Boyne financially and emotionally devastated. Boyne has not seen his children in over a decade. He moved to Virginia to live with his elderly parents.
Paul Boyne with his daughter before CT family court terminated his parental rights.
Paul Boyne with his daughter before CT family court terminated his parental rights.
You will find this text and imagery on the Family Court Circus blog website at www.familycourtcircus.com
Boyne maintains that his online activities merely express critical commentary against “the most evil court in the land and the monsters who control it.”
He called the Connecticut Family Court, “A Jewish enterprise designed to destroy the rights of a sovereign people.”
After his divorce, Boyne spent 11 years fighting the custody and support orders unsuccessfully.
Then he began the Family Court Circus in November 2017.
Boyne said, “It’s a totally Jewish game. They’re punishing me for [exposing] my experience in family court, where every judge that ever hammered me and kept me away from my kids was a Jew.”
From Boyne's website
He reserved harsh words for Adelman, referring to him as “Adelshit” and “the Dark Lord.”
He posted statements such as:
“Judge Gerard Adelman gets a .50 cal to the head.”
“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.”
Connecticut Family Court Judge Gerard I. Adelman
Connecticut Family Court Judge Gerard I. Adelman.
Adelman told investigators, “I have 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.”
Two former judges, Thomas Moukawsher and Eric Coleman, are believed to have filed complaints against Boyne.
One Family Court Circus post targeted Coleman:
“Only the Second Amendment remains for the sovereign people to protect the children. There lies the constitutional case for the assassination of Judge Eric Colemen. A .50 cal to the head, a .308 sniper shot from the grassy knoll through two panes of window glass, complete and rapid discharge of a high capacity magazine in a dark alley. Burn the courthouse to the ground, bring body bags.”
Coleman told investigators:
“I do not know what the author of the article or the administrator of the website is capable of… and who among that audience may be inspired to act on the suggestion to harm or kill me.”
Another post targeted now-retired Judge Thomas Moukawsher, his picture superimposed in a crosshair.
It is JUST CAUSE when Mouk gets a .50 cal to the head.”
Boyne's published image of Moukawsher
A photo of Judge Moukawsher has the caption, “Given the domestic terrorism, several bullets needed.”
Boyne said he never made contact with any of the judges. He likened his internet postings to a bulletin board on his front lawn. No one is forced to drive by his home – neither does he force any judge to visit his website and feel threatened.
“There is some serious concern about these charges among people who actually can count to First Amendment,” Boyne said.
New Haven State’s Attorney John P. Doyle, Jr. is prosecuting the case. Unlike in family court, where a judge has full authority, Doyle will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Boyne’s writings are not protected speech before an unanimous jury of between six and 12 Connecticut residents to win a conviction.
During jury selection, Boyne will likely seek to exclude Jewish jurors, while Doyle will likely try to keep parents who have experienced family court off the panel.
