NEW HAVEN, Conn. — During the pendency of his case, Paul Boyne has spent 18 months in jail. The state offered a plea deal: time served. He turned it down.
His trial starts this week.
Boyne, 62, of Springfield, Virginia, faces 18 felony counts of stalking and electronic stalking for ten posts published on thefamilycourtcircus.com — a website that attacked Connecticut’s family court system.
The jury will decide whether his words were political speech or a criminal threat.
What Boyne Wrote
On January 6, 2022, Boyne wrote about Judge Gerard Adelman: “Judge Gerard Adelman gets a .50 cal to the head.”
On May 1, 2022, again targeting Adelman: “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.”
About Judge Jane Grossman: “Is she 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?”
About Judge Eric 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 Coleman. 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.”
On March 8, 2021: “Happy .308 day! More justice can be dispensed in one bullet than by all of Family Court. Celebrate the Second Amendment as protection from the pedophiles who run family court. Judicial discretion falls to the report of a rifle.”
About Judge Thomas Moukawsher, with his photo superimposed in crosshairs: “It is JUST CAUSE when Mouk gets a .50 cal to the head.” The caption beneath his photo read: “Given the domestic terrorism, several bullets needed.”
He published home addresses. He posted photos of residences. He described property layouts and surrounding terrain.
He referred to the courts as the “JEWdiciary” and to Connecticut as “Corrupticut.” He called the family court system “a jewish enterprise designed to destroy the rights of a sovereign people.”
Boyne’s defense of his speech, posted on the blog: “State sponsored terrorists… should fear the power of a sovereign people who hold Second Amendment rights for the sole purpose of defending themselves against such tyranny. A .50 cal to the head does an excellent job of readjusting the attitude of tyrants and their elite masters, while defending the Constitution. When the hunters of free speech become the hunted, there is liberty and justice for all.”
What the Judges Said
Grossman told investigators the post was specific about her property and the woods behind her house. She said it was terrifying.
She reviewed her security footage. She searched the grounds. She said she could not relax in the room of her home that Boyne had described.
Adelman stated, “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.”
Coleman told investigators, “I do not know what the author of the article or the administrator of the website is capable of. Moreover I do not know anything about the website’s audience and who among that audience may be inspired to act on the suggestion to harm or kill me.”
What Didn’t Happen
The facts are that since 2022, when he posted his threats above, no one harmed a judge. No one fired a shot. No assault took place.
Boyne never went to Connecticut to confront anyone. No one acted on what he wrote.
They were words, mean, and vile.
The Prosecution Expands
On February 13, 2026, the State of Connecticut filed a Notice of Intent to Offer Uncharged Misconduct Evidence — a 25-page motion asking the court to let jurors see more than the ten charged blog posts.
Prosecutors want to introduce:
Voicemails Boyne left for Connecticut State Police Detective Samantha McCord after a predawn SWAT raid on his Virginia home seized his computers in June 2022.
Recorded jail calls in which Boyne discussed the blog, its hosting, and its effect on judges.
Eight uncharged blog posts threatening other judges with “.50 cal” and “.308” language and containing racial slurs against black judges.
The Grievance That Fueled the Blog
Boyne went through a divorce that began in 2007. Adelman handled the case and terminated his parental rights. He lost all contact with his children.
Connecticut’s Family Court has drawn criticism from litigants and reform groups for years.
Whatever grievance started the blog, the language changed. It moved from criticism to naming weapons. From general anger to specific people at specific addresses.
But Boyne had been attacking judges by name for years. He was known to them. He was persistent. After several years, the Attorney General decided to act. His investigators went to the judges and collected complaints.
A jury may ask whether the judges feared a literal bullet or if they agreed to cooperate with the AG, who assured them he would silence Boyne.
The law in Connecticut does not require judges to be terrified. It requires that Boyne’s conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety.
The Plea He Refused
The state offered Boyne a deal: plead guilty to misdemeanors and walk free with time served. He said no.
That refusal means Boyne will litigate the First Amendment question.
It also means Boyne chose the risk of additional incarceration (he is out on bail) over a guilty plea — a decision that either reflects principled constitutional conviction or miscalculation.
The First Amendment Collision
He has some precedent behind him. The Supreme Court has protected harsh political speech for years.
In Watts v. United States in 1969, a Vietnam War protester said that if the military drafted him, “the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” The Court called it political hyperbole, not a true threat.
In Counterman v. Colorado in 2023, the Court said prosecutors must show that the speaker knew there was a risk the subject of the words would take it as a real threat and ignored that risk.
Boyne’s lawyers will likely say he never contacted the judges, never went to Connecticut, never tried to hurt anyone. They will say the language was metaphorical, anger at a system he believed was corrupt.
The state will say he named names, listed weapons, posted home addresses, and described property. He did it repeatedly. That is not metaphor. That is cyber stalking.
The Slippery Slope
If publishing addresses and invoking firearms in political criticism becomes stalking when no violence occurs, the precedent extends beyond Boyne.
The concern is not that courts should tolerate genuinely threatening language. It is that prosecutors can expand the definition of “threat” to encompass a wide range of legitimate dissent.
Still, if the state cannot prosecute repeated invocations of sniper fire, crosshairs imagery, home addresses, and assassination rhetoric directed at named individuals, what option does the state have to prevent escalation before someone acts?
Antisemitism
The blog’s violent language was not race-neutral, and this is key to the prosecution’s case.
Boyne described the courts as a “jewish enterprise.” He used the term “JEWdiciary” repeatedly. He wrote that judges “rule from the talmud” and serve “their money god.” He called a black judge the n-word and described another as a “puppet doing her jewish master’s bidding.”
Connecticut State Police’s Hate Crimes Unit participated in the investigation.
The antisemitic and racist language is the element that Connecticut’s felony stalking statute requires prosecutors to prove as a hate crime.
What This Case Is
The trial will determine whether Boyne’s violent rhetoric directed at judges, accompanied by their addresses and photos, framed in antisemitic and racist language, and maintained for years from across state lines, constitutes a crime.
Boyne’s words are vile. Nothing in the First Amendment requires anyone to admire what he wrote or respect the man who wrote it.
The question is whether his speech is criminal, and in a free country, vile and criminal are not the same thing.
The First Amendment exists to protect that distinction.
For those who believe the family court system destroys families, Boyne’s prosecution looks like retaliation. For a state that wanted him silenced, prosecution was the only option left.
The website remains up. The old posts are still there. No new threats have appeared. The calls for violence, now four years old, have inspired no one to act.
To the Constitution, it is simpler than that. It is a test.
