A man charged with cyberstalking for publishing vile racist and antisemitic rants against judges has been jailed on the eve of trial after he photographed a prosecution document in court and used it, in some cases with assistance from supporters, to contact potential state witnesses.

Paul Boyne’s return to jail days before his trial is scheduled to start is another irregular development in a troubling case that could test the limits of what constitutes protected speech.

At the time of his arrest in July 2023, Boyne was notorious among the judiciary for publishing blog posts vilifying judges involved in emotionally charged divorce and custody cases in the state family court system.

He was arrested after several judges complained to state and federal authorities that they were afraid they or family members could be the subject of attacks because Boyne has identified them, their home addresses and even the cars they drive.

In posts illustrated with photographs of judges framed by rifle sights, some of Boyne’s milder suggestions have included talk of a need to nurture liberty with the “blood of tyrants,” references to .50 caliber justice and suggestion that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled litigants.

“My primary concern is that I, family, friends, colleagues, or attorneys may be killed,” one Superior Court judge told a State Police detective. “The blog has repeatedly contemplated my murder and given detailed ways to carry it out, including posting a picture of my house with statements about how it could be burned. It has considered what types of bullets are necessary to pierce double pane windows, such as those I have on my home, and depicted me being shot with .50 caliber bullets.”

Prosecutors and judges contend that Boyne’s admittedly vitriolic blog posts cross a line that separates speech protected by the first amendment from speech that, as defined by state felony stalking laws, puts a victim, family member or partner “in reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily harm.

Boyne claims both the law and his arrest are unconstitutional because “making nasty, vile, disgusting, vulgar, wretched commentary about the personal characteristics of a public official is just a day in the life of the home of the brave and the land of the free.”

He is a 64-year old unemployed electrical engineer who once lived in Glastonbury and, according to an associate willing to talk about him, is obsessed by the belief that he was wronged in his contested Connecticut divorce more than a decade ago. A law enforcement officer who has studied Boyne’s background said he stopped working after the divorce and moved in with his elderly parents in suburban Washington, D.C.

Boyne claims he is being persecuted for, among other things, using the internet to expose a cabal of corrupt judges, lawyers and other professionals who profit by manipulating the outcomes of divorce and custody cases. He has presented nothing to support the claim, and lawyers who practice in family court — and are rarely reluctant to criticize its faults — call it spurious.

Still, Boyne has attracted a following among disgruntled litigants and the bloggers they read. A federal law enforcement affidavit asserts that the FBI has records showing email correspondence between Boyne and Edward Taupier, who was convicted in 2015 – based on his email correspondence with others – of threatening to shoot a judge involved in his divorce. One exchange discussed the judge’s home, the distance from her bedroom to a nearby cemetery and ammunition that could be used to shoot her, according to testimony at Taupier’s trial.

Superior Court Judge Peter L. Brown returned Boyne to jail earlier this month — he was held for 18 months after following his arrest, initially unable to post a bond — after concluding that he photographed the prosecution witness list and contacted one witness directly and two others indirectly.

The prosecution had placed the list on a courtroom table for Boyne’s appointed state public defenders to consider when they arrived in court on January 28 to choose a jury. Boyne and his blogosphere supporters argue the state has no claim of privacy in a document left unattended on a courtroom table. Returning Boyne to jail, they say, is another example of the state trampling his speech rights.

The list included names of dozens of possible prosecution witnesses — several judges among them — along with the names of many people not likely to testify, but who might be referred to during the course of a trial. The purpose of the list was to enable the prosecution and defense to identify prospective jurors who know witnesses or people otherwise involved in the case.

Within hours, both the prosecution and defense agree that what appears to be a photograph of the list had been emailed to three people on it, with questions about what they will testify to, according to court filings and transcripts.

Two of the emails to potential witnesses were the subjects of email strings associated with bloggers who have written extensively and sympathetically about Boyne. Those emails went to a retired Supreme Court Justice who wrote a law journal piece years ago criticizing what she considered the threats inherent in Boyne’s blog and to a father involved in a long and bruising divorce.

One of the bloggers also emailed New Haven State’s Attorney John Doyle, who is prosecuting Boyne, daring him to open a witness intimidation investigation and asking, “can you have one of your (Connecticut State Police) goons call us and talk about it some more?” according to a transcript of a court hearing during which the matter was discussed.

A third copy of the list with the same questions was emailed directly by Boyne to a Virginia State Police officer involved the Boyne investigation with a copy to another Virginia trooper who is on the witness list.

The following morning, Boyne emailed the list to a Courant reporter.

After learning of the witness emails, Doyle expressed concern in court about Boyne photographing a document that had not been made part of the court record, and doing so in a place — the well of the courtroom — where photography is not permitted. Doyle said his first reaction was that Boyne’s photographing and disseminating the list was “contemptuous” and he said he was contemplating an increase in bond and a possible witness intimidation prosecution.

But Doyle told the court some days later that he had decided not to pursue either an increase bond or an intimidation charge.

Without waiting for an explanation from Doyle, Brown acted on his own. He found that Boyne had contacted the Virginia state police witness directly and was responsible for the witness list being shared with third parties who sent it, with the questions, to the other two potential witnesses.

“Now the Court finds that this contact made by the defendant, as well as the contact made by third parties, has no legitimate purpose other than to attempt to harass or intimidate those contacted regarding their impending testimony in this case,” Brown said in court, accordion to a transcript.

Brown said he was aware that, besides the Virginia state trooper, Boyne “did not personally make contact with any other persons as far as the Court is aware.”

“Nonetheless, his actions in taking the picture and sending said picture to others put this attempted harassment and intimidation in motion,” Brown said, according to the transcript. “Furthermore, it’s come to the attention of the court the defendant has been taking pictures in the courthouse with his electronic device, which except with regards to court records in the clerk’s office, is prohibited by Judicial Branch policy and guidelines unless prior authorization is given. Accordingly, the court. finds that the defendant’s conduct has led to the attempted harassment and intimidation of witnesses in this case.”

Boyne has three cases pending against, him each comprised of six counts of stalking. Brown set bond on each case at $500,000, meaning Boyne needs to post $1.5 million in order to be released. He was unable to post bond and jailed. The judge scheduled a hearing on February 17 to revisit the question of bond.

Boyne’s public defenders have asked the state Appellate Court to hear an expedited appeal, arguing that the court abused its discretion by ordering what amounts to a punitive bond increase

The date the trial is to begin, which has changed frequently, was last set for February 23.

Boyne has said the prosecution has tried to settle the case with a plea bargain, but he turned the offer down. Under the state’s offer, Boyne would plead no contest to stalking and be sentenced to the 18 months he already has served. The arrangement would have allowed Boyne to pursue an appeal of a prosecution he claims unconstitutionally deprived him of free speech rights. If he were convicted at trial, Boyne would face up to five years in prison for each of the felony cyberstalking crimes with which he is charged.

Appointed public defenders who represented Boyne earlier in his prosecution petitioned the court to have him found incompetent and incapable of standing trial. Boyne refused to submit to examination by state mental health professionals and fired the lawyers. Brown later found Boyne competent after questioning him in court and hearing testimony from a prison officer.

_____

©2026 Hartford Courant. Visit courant.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.