NED LAMONT UNDER PRESSURE: BOYNE DROPS BOMBSHELLS ON THE UNKNOWN PODCAST

Paul Boyne’s explosive return to The Unknown Podcast—hosted by Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe—tears the lid off one of the most politically charged prosecutions in America. In this gripping 40-minute update, Boyne lays out the full extent of the legal and constitutional abuses committed by Connecticut officials, led by Governor Ned Lamont and State’s Attorney Jack Doyle.

At the heart of the saga is Connecticut’s controversial “stalking speech” statute, PA21-56—a law nearly identical to those struck down in Relerford (Illinois, 2017) and Boone (D.C., 2021) for violating the First Amendment. Yet Connecticut presses forward, pretending these rulings don’t exist. Boyne, a Virginia resident, is being prosecuted as if he committed crimes in towns he’s never visited—Hamden and Groton—based solely on blog posts critical of family court corruption.

But that’s just the start. In a stunning turn, Boyne reveals how Lamont’s agents, acting under the direction of Jack Doyle, traveled to Virginia in 2022, illegally seized his computers, and absconded with the property without judicial approval—violating Virginia law, the Fourth Amendment, and the Silver Platter Doctrine banned by Elkins v. United States.

Boyne has launched a civil suit—Boyne v. Lamont—presided over by Judge Shuman, who has thus far refused to recognize any constitutional question, while AG William Tong continues to represent the Governor unlawfully. Boyne has filed multiple motions to disqualify both Shuman and Tong, calling the entire proceeding “a farce built on fraud and judicial cowardice.”

Meanwhile, in State v. Boyne before Judge Brown, discovery is incomplete, no trial date is confirmed, and the state still hasn’t produced full evidence disclosures, including communications with former Justice Joette Katz. Katz’s prior op-ed targeting Boyne has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over censorship and weaponized lawfare.

Boyne closes the interview hinting at a strategic move to Illinois, where Relerford could shield him constitutionally. His message is clear: “This is not about me. This is about whether the Constitution still means anything.”

This must-watch interview is a bombshell for anyone concerned with free speech, prosecutorial abuse, and political targeting in the age of cancel culture.