Tina Mole blurts out the elephant in the room - Delaware County's deliberately EXPLOITS the double roles of its public officials planted into local nonprofits

My May 16, 2026 little blog article diluting Delaware County pink smoke screen of goodness regarding the Senior Meals program and conflicts of interest - and possibly much more in financial dealings - that it hid, blew up quite a cover n a snake pit.

Within a month, Wayne Marshfield lost his seat on the County's Health Committee.  

He then was obviously pressured not to re-run as Town of Hamden supervisor - the first time in 30 years.

Coincidentally, the pair of supervisors involved in the "suddenly surfaced" conflict is the same pair of supervisors who gave the County grief in the Decker Advertising lawsuit, leaking to the press contents of executive sessions - for which the County hired a special investigator Hancock Estabrook LLP who AT THE SAME TIME (1) represented Marshfield in MULTIPLE lawsuits, and (2) investigated and prosecuted him - a stark and irreconcilable ethical violation.

That "suddenly surfacing" conflict begs the question - was exposure of the conflict and the impact of that conflict on the vulnerable seniors, the senior meals program - deliberate?  Targeting political careers of the stubborn Marshfield and no less stubborn Boukai?

Then came something a lot more dear to the heart of ... yes, of Tina Mole, who was, according to my sources, involved in a significant friendship with the patriarch of the Clark family, to the point of taking care of him when he was sick - as a live-in caretaker friend, and driving his car around town.

That is the same Clark family who repeatedly, over decades, received PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreements) that only this year caused the Town of Delhi to exceed the tax levy in formation of its 2026 budget - for which I am suing the town of Delhi, and they resist discovery.

And, here comes another Clark family PILOT - now they eye the lucrative piece of property in the Town of Delhi, the former E-Center.

The very same piece that the Town of Delhi and the Village of Delhi centered on, seeking to make it their combined town-village facility.

When that clash occurred, apparently, it has become so emotional for Tina Mole that she slipped.

Badly.

When push came to shove, the Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai published in the Reporter an open "letter to the editor" lamenting that, essentially, in the land of kissing cousins that DelCo is, everybody has conflicts of interest, but not every conflict of interest is treated equally.

Boukai's deferential treatment of local conflict of interest should inspire voters at the booth in the future - maybe, just maybe, they can find somebody to vote for who does not revere local conflicts of interest as a God-given right of local governance.

But, here is how Mole responded - and I would FIRE on the spot any legal advisor who prompted her to put out this masterpiece:

The Reporter published it in full; I will intersperse it with my own commentary and highlighting.

"In response to Ms. Boukais’ Letter to the Editor:

It is true that in our small communities many of our elected and appointed officials wear multiple hats. At times there are conflicts of interest that must be carefully weighed and balanced to meet the needs of the different roles.  However, the comparisons drawn in this letter are not even close to being the same and the conclusions drawn are politically motivated to undermine Jim Ellis in his reelection campaign in favor of a closely aligned candidate to Ms. Boukai.

To begin with, Wayne Marshfield has served on many committees over his years of service to the Town of Hamden and Delaware County.  He has successfully fulfilled the demands of each without conflict until now (TN: not true - back in 2015 I wrote about NYS Audit that flagged Marshfield's conflict in the exact same role, combining the role of County Supervisor and member of Board of Directors of Delaware Opportunities, Inc.).  However, the letter to the editor leads the reader to believe the Board of Supervisors decided to remove Mr. Marshfield because of divided “loyalties” without any explanation as to the facts that surrounded that decision.

It is true for many years Mr. Marshfield has served both on the Delaware Opportunities (DO) Board and as a Board of Supervisor Committee member for the Office for the Aging and the Department of Social Services (both of whom have contracts with DO).  What was left out of the letter was that up until now there has not been any reason to believe there was a conflict between the two roles (TN: translation - he was a good boy, and Mole could simply overlook any of his shenanigans).  The programs at DO, OFA and DSS have operated for many years without issue or concern since it has long been believed that there is some level of separation (TN: translation - nobody cared, and who did care was not in the club).  The board members’ oversight and the day to day operations by staff are generally defined by the program requirements and board decisions are often limited to general oversight, budgetary approval and staff support.  The programs operate through mutual contracts (often dictated by rules from the state or other funding agencies) with clearly defined scopes. Programs operate under the direction of the DO Executive Director and county program managers, in most cases the Department heads. It was not until we became aware of and investigated into questionable documentation and the repeated overruns of the budget for the senior meals program run DO that a conflict became apparent.  The decision to remove Mr. Marshfield from the OFA committee was not because of a “perceived” conflict but was in fact based on Mr. Marshfield’s own actions.

1. When the Board of Supervisors took decisive action to address the issues presented by the OFA Director regarding billing, senior meal donations, lease agreements and lack of compliance with state and federal granting agencies, Mr. Marshfield came to the defense of DO and the Executive Director, taking a position to the detriment of the County, dismissing the concerns of the OFA Director as “a lack of communication” or “unfortunate banter between the two agencies”, minimizing the issues.

2. Mr. Marshfield never acknowledged or reviewed the documented and factual information provided by OFA staff regarding the use of donations, the lack of documentation for reimbursement, and the refusal to provide accounting for all expenditures or revenues. When he was asked as the DO treasurer about the discrepancies, he said he doesn’t see those reports or accounting, denying any accountability for the financial decisions of DO.

3. Mr. Marshfield’s behavior and attitude toward the OFA Director led her to become uncomfortable in Mr. Marshfield’s presence. His unwavering allegiance to DO and its executive director, undermined the Director’s credibility and her abilities; always dismissive of the Director’s attempts to bring the issues to light in a way that would breathe life once again into old female stereotypes and the treatment of women in the workplace.

4. Mr. Marshfield agreed at an OFA committee meeting that he had a conflict and said he would not vote on actions pertaining to the DO senior meals program or the DO contract.  However, when it came time to vote on whether or not to extend DO’s contracts through the end of the year, he voted against of the other committee members and against the interests of the county, instead opting to defend DO despite the mounting evidence of DO’s failure to appropriately manage the program.

5. When confronted in a Board of Supervisors executive session about the issues with DO and the actions of the Executive Director, a board member stated to the county supervisors serving on the DO board, (Mr. Marshfield and Ms. Boukai), that they should put the county first and recommend an administrative leave for the Executive Director until such time as these issues could be investigated and resolved. Neither of them took any action to protect the county, the county employees or the senior meals program. Instead, they cried foul that they were being singled out and they didn’t know why.

6. When Mr. Marshfield was asked about his knowledge regarding the DO Executive Director’s decision to cease senior meal operations immediately, he said he found out when he saw the county press release. However, in the paper he was quoted as saying he was called by the executive director the night before. When confronted with this information and asked why he didn’t let the board know about the action as soon as he found out, he denied knowing anything and said he didn’t read the paper.

It became clear after all these incidents Mr. Marshfield could not wear both hats, and his loyalties were with DO and not the county or our OFA staff.  His removal was necessary to protect our staff, the senior meals funding and the senior meals program. It is not and was not a “perceived” conflict it was a clear conflict that required decisive action by the board.

The letter attempts to draw a comparison of this situation to the current situation surrounding the Jim Thomson Business Center (formerly the E-Center) and Mr. Ellis as a member of the Catskill Development Foundation (CDF). This is clearly intended to mislead the reader into believing the Board of Supervisors’ Vice Chair is doing something unethical or even illegal.

1. Ms. Boukai fails to state in her letter that she too was a board member of the CDF up until a couple of months ago when she took a leave of absence after it was publicly stated at an IDA meeting that she had a conflict of interest.

2. She also fails to share with the public that as a board member she approached the former Business Alliance Executive Director, Ray Pucci about Delhi purchasing the building, this is documented in a February 6, 2026, record of a joint Town and Village Board meeting (attached).

3. Ms. Boukai was also a CDF board member at the time the sale of the Business Center was proposed by the current Business Alliance Executive Director, Todd Pascarella (without CDF Board consent) and she and the Village Mayor met with him to discuss a sale to the Town of Delhi. Her letter states “Instead of being offered on the open market, it is being transferred between organizations whose leadership is closely connected.” Yet her actions were clearly taken to ensure it would be a direct transfer to the Delhi community and not put out to the open market. Her leadership as Town of Delhi Supervisor and as a CDF board member shows she was the only one with a clear connection to both organizations, not Mr. Ellis.

4. The attached February 6, 2026, minutes of a joint meeting of the Town and Village of Delhi Boards at the E-Center clearly states Ms. Boukai had actively been negotiating the purchase of the building not only with the Business Alliance but also with DCEC who had expressed interest in the property. This was prior to the CDF board being notified as the minutes also stated that Mr. Pascarella only notified the CDF board members that day when there were the beginnings of public discussions regarding a possible interest in purchasing the building. He didn’t want to “blindside” the board members by reading about the public meeting instead. The minutes indicated she was only aware of this opportunity and took advantage of it due to her insider information as a CDF board member. Her mission was to gain this property for Delhi prior to any other action by the CDF board members.

5. Ms. Boukais’ letter states “Jim Thomson Center is a unique and valuable property that could contribute to the local tax base”. However, if the property was turned into a joint Town and Village municipal building it would NOT contribute to the local or county tax base. As a business incubator it was always intended to help fledgling businesses grow to better support the tax base across the county.

6. Mr. Ellis, as a CDF board member, has no affiliation with any organization that either expressed interest in the E-Center property or participated in any negotiations with the Business Alliance regarding a potential sale. The conclusion she draws for the reader about Wayne Oliver being a Meredith Town Council Member and Mr. Ellis as the Town of Meredith Supervisor is nonsense and politically motivated. Mr. Oliver, as a Town Council member or as the IDA chair, has no obligation to report to or advise Mr. Ellis, nor does Mr. Ellis have any authority over Mr. Olivers’ decision making. It is insulting to both men to insinuate they do not make independent decisions based on their independent roles in government or pseudo-government operations.

7. Ms. Boukais’ letter states “The Catskill Development Foundation, which controls the property, includes the Town of Meredith Supervisor on its board, who also serves on the Delaware County Board of Supervisors as the County Vice Chair. At the same time, the Delaware County Industrial Development Agency, which is expected to be given the property, is chaired by a member of the Meredith Town Board and is also Deputy to the Meredith Supervisor.” Mr. Ellis is NOT a member of the Economic Development Committee that oversees the IDA (unlike Mr. Marshfield who sat/sits on the OFA and DSS committees). Mr. Ellis has no authority over the IDA or Economic Development and his role as Vice Chair has no bearing on the discussion. Further, Mr. Oliver is NOT the Deputy Supervisor for the town of Meredith. This is clearly a deflection regarding Ms. Boukai’s own conflict of interest as the Delhi Town Supervisor and a CDF board member. The only reason for making this statement is to damage Mr. Ellis’ and Mr. Oliver’s reputations.

8. The letter also states that the building is “...moving toward county ownership”. Clearly there is a lack of understanding regarding the IDA function and their role. The IDA, unlike DO, is a pseudo-county agency not a not-for-profit with no true county-based ties. The IDA was created under Article 18-A of the General Municipal Law by the Delaware County Board of Supervisors as a public benefit corporation, ultimately established by an act of the New York State Legislature. The board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and the Delaware County Economic Development Director is the Executive Director of the IDA. This is important because although the IDA was created by the County and the members are appointed by the county, they are separate and able to hold properties that are independent of the County. This allows them to negotiate PILOT agreements, taxation values and enter into contracts that are separate and independent of the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has no authority to direct the IDA to hold properties or conduct business on the county’s behalf. In fact, in this case the IDA has proposed as part of the property transfer that they will pay village taxes, putting the property back on the tax rolls. The same would not be true if Delhi took ownership.

As a brief history I will offer the following information. The E-Center was first developed as a concept in 2002 as a public/private venture to create a space for business development, workforce development and economic support. Initial conversations with the Economic Development Department, the Planning Department, the IDA and Scott Clark were a result of several factors. Mr. Clark and his family were looking to help redevelop Delhi’s Main Street with in-fill businesses that could support his family-owned businesses and their employees. At the same time Planning and Economic Development had been working with the local villages across the county on Main Street Revitalization projects. Economic Development had secured a Main Street grant to do façade enhancements on store fronts and was working to find solutions to filling empty store fronts. Economic Development was actively working with SUNY Delhi to address workforce development in support of small fledgling businesses as well as the development of a cottage industry economy in the region. The idea of a business incubator was born out of the needs identified by similar efforts taking place at the same time. At that time broadband, fiber optic connectivity and the use of internet services was just starting to be built out and a space that could offer these services to new or small business was desirable and even essential.

The premise of the project was that by supporting fledgling businesses and cottage industries we could help businesses get off the ground and then relocate to the vacant store fronts, infilling Main Street. Although the concept was envisioned as part of Main Street Revitalization initiative surrounding Delhi it was not limited to Delhi and in fact additional incubator space was created in Margaretville later to do the same thing.

The Clark family was willing to purchase the property from Agway, develop the site and then deed it back to the County/IDA for this purpose. However, for the County or the IDA to accept a gift of that value from a private entity many factors to justify it needed to be considered. This proposal also would require some level of oversight and commitment that would best be served by an independent organization. As a result, it was agreed the Catskill Development Foundation (CDF) would be formed to own and operate the business incubator at the E-Center and the Chamber of Commerce, under the Direction of Mary Beth Silano, would manage the property on a day-to-day basis in return for office space for the Chamber. The CDF board included the Economic Development Director, a member of the SUNY Delhi administration, local business leaders and the Chamber President when it was formed in 2002. The mission of the CDF aligned almost exactly with the IDA since they were closely aligned with the IDA and were intended to work hand in hand with Economic Development, the Chamber of Commerce and the IDA for business development and ultimate business relocations.

The construction of the building was funded through grants secured by Economic Development and the Clark family oversaw the construction. Once the building was completed in 2007, it was deeded to the CDF and the Chamber moved in so businesses could start operating there in the various suites within the building. It needs to be understood that it was easier for a private developer to purchase the property and develop it because they were not bound by the same restrictions as a public entity. For example, the County and the IDA are limited to Fair Market Value (plus a small percentage) for purchase and construction requires prevailing wage expenses and procurement rules that the Clark family did not have to comply with as a private developer. This allowed the project to be built quicker and more efficiently even though we were able to secure grants to support the construction. It became a great example of how a public/private venture could be successful.

At the time the property was deeded over to the CDF it was fully paid for and free of any mortgages or financial constraints and due to the not-for-profit status of the CDF it was never established as a taxable property. Since 2007 the CDF has primarily been run through the Chamber as a not-for-profit foundation. However, over time the Chamber and the County IDA had less involvement with each other, ultimately leaving operations of the incubator to the now defunct Chamber. The new Business Alliance Executive Director proposed to offer the property for sale at a CDF board meeting with no definitive action of the CDF to support or challenge that concept initially. History is important because at no time was this facility on the tax rolls in Delhi as a business incubator. Over time it has become clear that the incubator has been mismanaged. Businesses were never intended to make the E-center their permanent home, and the role of the CDF board has been minimized to what the Chamber offered to them as reporting. The CDF has not been afforded the opportunity to review business leases, rent amounts, or costs associated with operating the facility. There is no public record as to what the two mortgages on the building are for and under what premise they were sought. There is no public record of a process for CDF board members to be appointed, what term limits exist if any, public records of minutes or accounting and no accountability of the Chamber or the CDF actions pertaining to the incubator which was paid for with public grants.

The decision of the IDA to seek ownership of the James Thomson Business Center was due to the continuing need for an incubator that can support small business development across Delaware County. The management of the incubator under the IDA and Economic Development will clearly be different as a public entity. However, the decision regarding this transaction was NOT a Delaware County Board of Supervisors’ decision nor was it a Town of Meredith decision.

Delaware County will ultimately benefit from this as we seek to grow business and tax base across the county, however, the Town of Meredith directly gains nothing from this action. Ms. Boukai insinuates Mr. Ellis and Mr. Oliver colluded to make sure the property was transferred to the IDA, however, as independent members of the Town of Meredith Board neither has anything to gain from that action. The CDF decision to allow for the transfer of ownership has nothing to do with Mr. Ellis or Mr. Olivers’ independent roles as Town of Meredith Board members or in their roles as CDF or IDA members. However, the actions taken by Ms. Boukai as both a CDF board member and the Town of Delhi Supervisor had a clear conflict as Delhi was seeking to take ownership of the property for the sole benefit of Delhi, without the knowledge of the rest of the CDF board.

Ms. Boukai states “The people of Delaware County deserve government that is transparent, accountable, and consistent. Multiple hats may be unavoidable in a small community. Double standards are not.” This statement has no merit whatsoever. The comparisons between Mr. Marshfield and Mr. Ellis are completely misrepresented. Ms. Boukais’ failure to disclose her own involvement and conflicts with the CDF shows she is unwilling to be accountable and is most definitely not transparent. Lastly, her attempt to undermine Mr. Ellis and Mr. Oliver is strictly political."

As you see, I have lost interest highlighting anything in the section related to the Clark family.  Mole could just as well state up front:  the Clark family is MY family, do not touch its interests.

But - as to Marshfield - her multiple slips of the tongue are devastating.

She had the audacity to state up front that 

(1) the county went into an executive session in order to PRESSURE a member of the board of a non-profit who "coincidentally" - and for decades - was also the County Supervisor, into violating his fiduciary duties to the nonprofit he was serving; 

(2) expected him to be disloyal to Delaware Opportunities, Inc. (DO) he served as a Treasurer and member of Board of Directors in order to "put County interests first";

(3) considered him a "danger to staff" - a direct flashback from how Mole ousted DSS Commissioner Scuderi-Hunter - because of his loyal discharge of his duties as DO Treasurer and member of the board;

and

(4) openly justified his demotion based on his LOYALTY to his STATUTORY DUTIES to the nonprofit he served.

So, Mole has displayed - up front, in the open, in a newspaper, voluntarily - (1) the County policy of planting its high-ranking officers into boards of local non-profits in order to influence non-profits' personnel policy, up to top-ranking officers of non-profits; (2) claiming that "no issues" existed for decades as long as those planted county officials did not take positions in the non-profit governance "to the detriment of the County", and (3) rained hellfire on Marshfield as soon as he did.

Mole earlier hired Marshfield's own attorneys in Decker Advertisement and a couple other lawsuits, to INVESTIGATE and PROSECUTE him - which the greedy law firm (belonging to the brother of Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York) agreed to do, conflict or no conflict, counting that the political back up will allow it to do anything it wants, law or no law.

I am the last person to DEFEND Marshfield - but here Mole is accusing him of having refused to succumb to that extreme pressure.

That was the stick.

Mole did not mention the carrot for Marshfield - a very large one - for that one carrot, evidence is developing and I will publish it when it becomes verifiably available.

It is also interesting that the conflict flared not so much through conflict with Marshfield, but through present-time E-center conflict with Boukai.

Boukai, while not having the courage to point her finger at personal relationships of county top managers with the Clark family that is at the core of the conflict, still fights - and fights strongly.  She is not 80, and she is hoping for a long political career in Delhi and Delaware County.  Hopefully not, given her take on "wearing many hats".

I bet, this spat between Mole and Boukai is not the last.  I wonder whether Boukai is aiming at Mole's position as Chairperson of the Board of County Supervisors.  Looks plausible.

The Fairy Tale of the Dragon Act

If you thought the tale of the dead Village of Delhi/Samudrala tale was the end of the lunatic courtroom reality - no, the sleep of reason never failed to produce monsters as readily as through the kind-of-minds of the very, very, very privileged court inhabitants.  These are their stories.

Long ago, in a prosperous kingdom where lawyers still believed that statutes meant what they said, there existed a venerable law known simply as the Dragon Act. It was not a complicated statute. In fact, dragon scholars often remarked that it was one of the few laws in the kingdom that even judges could understand. It contained only one proposition of consequence. Whenever Fact A (such as death of an attorney's client) occurred, a Pearl Dragon was born. No committee voted upon its birth. No court approved it. No lawyer drafted it. The dragon appeared by operation of the Dragon Act itself.

The Pearl Dragon was admired throughout the kingdom. It was magnificent, with shimmering mother-of-pearl scales that reflected every color of the rainbow. It always possessed three heads, neither more nor fewer, and every apprentice lawyer could recite their names before being admitted to the Guild. The first head was called Jurisdiction Abates. The second was Attorney's Authority to Represent Ends. The third was Post-Death Filings Are Nullities. No dragon naturalist had ever observed one head arriving before the others or departing without them. They were born together because the Dragon Act had so ordained.

For generations this arrangement caused no controversy. Whenever Fact A occurred, the Pearl Dragon quietly appeared, everyone acknowledged its existence, and the legal world adjusted itself accordingly. Lawyers might quarrel about fees, procedure, or footnotes, but no respectable advocate ever argued with the Dragon Act itself. It was considered unhealthy to quarrel with dragons that had been born directly from statute.

Then one autumn morning, Fact A occurred again.

The kingdom naturally expected the familiar Pearl Dragon. Instead, before anyone had time to consult the Dragon Act, the Royal Dragon Keeper hurried into the Great Hall with a broad smile upon her face.

"There is no need to concern yourselves with that old dragon," she announced. "We have our own."

Behind her shuffled the strangest creature anyone had ever seen. It vaguely resembled a dragon, but only in the charitable way that a scarecrow resembles a knight. Its scales were stitched together from mismatched scraps. Entire sections appeared to have been repaired overnight. One wing seemed borrowed from another species entirely. It looked less like a creature born of nature than one assembled from spare parts in a government workshop.

The villagers stared in respectful silence until one elderly dragon scholar finally cleared his throat.

"Forgive me," he said politely, "but that is not the dragon described in the Dragon Act."

The Dragon Keeper looked almost amused.

"Precisely," she replied. "This is our dragon."

The patched creature raised its first head and proclaimed with great dignity, "Jurisdiction abates."

The scholar nodded.

"Very good."

The dragon continued.

"...except where jurisdiction continues to be useful."

Its second head then spoke.

"Attorney's authority to represent ends."

Again the scholar nodded approvingly.

"...except where representation ought to continue."

Finally the third head lifted itself proudly.

"Post-death filings are nullities."

The scholar smiled.

"...except these post-death filings."

The smile slowly disappeared.

"I don't believe," the scholar said after a long pause, "that such a dragon exists."

The Dragon Keeper laughed.

"It certainly exists. You are looking directly at it."

"But not under the Dragon Act."

"That," she answered pleasantly, "is because you continue reading the Dragon Act."

At precisely that moment the Royal Judge entered the hall. He was widely admired for many qualities, but above all for his extraordinary confidence in deciding dragon cases without opening dragon books. A diligent clerk immediately approached him carrying the Dragon Act bound in beautiful blue leather.

"Your Honor," whispered the clerk, "perhaps the statute should be consulted."

The Judge accepted the book graciously.

Then, with great ceremony, he placed it face down upon the bench.

"There," he said.

"It can no longer distract the Court."

The scholar gathered his courage.

"Your Honor, the Dragon Act recognizes only the Pearl Dragon."

The Judge nodded thoughtfully.

"An interesting historical observation."

"It is not historical, Your Honor. It is today's law."

The Dragon Keeper gently stroked the patched creature.

"We have our own dragon."

The scholar pointed toward the far corner of the courtroom, where behind a heavy iron gate sat the Pearl Dragon, quietly shimmering in the darkness, all three heads watching the proceedings with patient dignity.

"But the Pearl Dragon is still here."

"No," replied the Dragon Keeper.

"Our dragon is here."

"But that is not the Dragon Act dragon."

"We also," she explained kindly, "have our own truth" - here:  the client may be dead and alive at the same time! - because if the client is dead and counsel's authority ceases, and counsel kept going and stating to the court he is alive - it means unthinkable - counsel can be sanctioned!  No, not THIS counsel!"

The scholar opened the Dragon Act anyway.

"It says that when Fact A occurs, the Pearl Dragon is born."

"Our truth is different."

"It says attorney's authority ends."

"Our dragon has improved that feature."

"It says post-death filings become nullities."

"Our dragon is more practical."

"It says jurisdiction abates."

"Our dragon is more flexible."

The scholar closed the statute.

"I begin to understand."

"No," corrected the Dragon Keeper.

"You continue to misunderstand."

"How so?"

"You keep believing that the Dragon Act governs dragons."

The scholar looked genuinely puzzled.

"What governs them then?"

The Dragon Keeper smiled.

"Our dragon."

"And our truth."

The courtroom fell silent.

The scholar slowly raised one finger toward the locked cage.

"I am not asking the Court to create a different dragon."

"I am merely asking the Court to acknowledge the dragon that the Dragon Act itself created."

The Dragon Keeper gasped in horror.

The Judge frowned gravely.

After a moment of deep reflection he announced his decision.

"The scholar shall be sanctioned."

The clerk hesitated.

"For inventing a dragon?"

"No."

"For insisting upon the Dragon Act when the Court already has its own dragon."

Access to virtual hearings project

I have started a journalistic investigation project regarding New York State system providing - or not providing - access to court watchers at virtual court hearings held by Microsoft Teams.

While I have my own data for it (including data obtained from a sitting judge in the shape of his sworn affidavit - through a lawsuit), and will start publishing it soon, I encourage members of the public to report to my e-mail address tatiana.neroni@gmail.com any restrictions of public access to virtual court hearings - once again - in New York State Court held by any means, Zoom, Microsoft Teams or any other long-distance means.

I pledge protection of your privacy and not disclosing the reporter as source of my information in this journalistic investigation unless the reporter wants his or her identity to be disclosed.

I will follow up on all reports by attempting to attend remote hearings of the allegedly offending judge, thus creating my own experience and eliminating the need to use the identity of the reporter in publications.

Looking forward to your tips and thank you ahead of time.

On the poisoning of the well of justice - by the government. The Connie Reguli case in Tennessee, the Roman Melnichenko's case in Russia, the Decker Advertisement IInc. v. Delaware County, NY case in federal court, the Sidney (NY) kid graffiti indictment - what do those cases have in common?

Four pieces of news from different places - all freedom of speech related - converged for me over the last three days.

(1) The disbarment of civil rights attorney Connie Reguli in Tennessee - an active critic of corruption in the Family Court system, an active speaker to federal and state legislators, a judicial candidate in her state - for (I am not kidding) "poisoning the well of justice" with her criticism (words from her actual order of disbarment);  Connie Reguli suffered a contrived criminal prosecution for a felony for her position as a civil rights advocate, the conviction was overturned - but they took her law license, permanently now, anyway;

98 pages attempting to justify the mowing down of a critic of judicial corruption in Family Court, including at state and federal legislative level!

(2) An arrest and criminal charges for free speech and "discreditation of the Russian army" in Volgograd, Russia of my longtime colleague and Facebook friend Roman Melnichenko, a law professor, for teaching Ukranian in the war-time Russia, for asking to discipline a judge for an adamant anti-Ukranian position, for asking to "denazify" the judiciary.

I have had multiple discussions with Roman about the theory and practice of law, in Russia and in the United States.  He is a proliferant educator on issues of law, and an adamant opponent of attorney monopoly in Russia.

Roman's criminal defense counsel's status (kind of  a license, there is no full scale attorney monopoly - yet - in Russia, even though attempts are made and an onset of such a monopoly, American-type, is close) was suspended by the local criminal defense bar some time ago - as I understand, for his free speech positions criticizing certain developments in that same bar.

After the war against Ukraine started, Roman's fearless public position earned him a firing from his job as a law professor in the Volgograd State University.

I do not know why Roman did not leave the country as many other people did.  He certainly had powerful, including financially, friends who could help him do that.  

Under the wartime laws of Russia, Roman (whose parents are Ukranian and have been in the Ukraine when the war started, as far as I know) may be now facing up to 15 years in prison for his public statements.

Regardless of the outcome of criminal charges, Russian criminal detention system, as reported by Russian colleagues, civil rights organizations and prisoners and their families, is extremely unfriendly to prisoners' health, safety and dignity.

Roman's safety is in jeopardy now.

It was Roman who urged me to start publishing formal law review articles - which I am doing since 2017.  I owe him a debt of gratitude for that.

3) Delaware County (NY), in a federal lawsuit by a newspaper against it that garnered nationwide attention, suffered a major setback two days ago when a federal judge denied it a summary judgment in the case (it denied it to the newspaper, too - predictably so, as both sides raised issues of fact in their dueling motions for a summary judgment) and cleared the path for trial as to whether the County and its public officials (County attorney Merklen, County Chairperson Mole, County "Public Information Officer" Johnson-Bennett) retaliates against journalists who criticize the County;

See the federal court's decision denying the County's motion to dismiss dated February 24, 2025;

See the federal court's decision denying the County's motion for a summary judgment, after a full discovery, dated July 21, 2026;

4) As an active journalist who forced Delaware County (NY) - through a lawsuit of my own for 1st Amendment retaliation - to recognize me as a journalist, I received a press release yesterday from the Republican Delaware County (NY) District Attorney's Office, about indictment of the County's young political opponents for a host of crimes including a felony that carries 7 years in prison as maximum punishment.

To me, these four events are interrelated.

They are all about the government - at state, federal, and local level, regardless of the country, is trying to suppress free speech and demonize critics of its misconduct by any means possible.

As I understand from news reporting, the young women charged by the Republican Delaware County DA were spray-painting political messages criticizing the current president Donald Trump and ICE - both on Village property (pubic property) and on private property.

This is from the local press:

As far as I understand, political messages against President Biden were appearing all over the place in the same County during the Biden presidency - with the same DA sitting on his hands and doing nothing.  Here - the grand jury indictment is instant.

He is trying to make an example out of the entrenched Republican County's young political opponents now.

The Sidney Village mayor publicly commended the police for quick apprehension of the graffiti painters - with an interesting claim that it was heartbreaking for him to see public property being "defamed".  

I do not know who trained him in constitutional law - he should know basic concepts of it not to violate people's rights - but there is no such thing in state or federal law as defamation of GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, nor of public institutions.  

And, the President would have had a hard time suing the kids for defamation - the standards of pleading in such cases are set by constitutional precedent high and the President's defamation lawsuit against the kids would never have been successful, if the President would even undertake fighting with kids in court over graffitis.

These girls' young faces are now all over Facebook, and in the news.  Notably, the police is secretive if any of their own is charged with even a disciplinary action.  To protect their "privacy".

As it happens usually - and I have been reporting on this particular issue for over a decade, with several articles specifically dedicated to public reactions to announcements of criminal charges that completely erase the presumption of innocence - in news reports by the local press (with a very few exceptions) presumption of innocence is not mentioned or honored.

In the Village Police's Facebook post presumption of innocence IS mentioned.  In the news reports - it is already omitted.

The public in comments on social media already convicted them and is discussing punishment.

This is DELIBERATE tainting of the jury pool by Delaware County DA's office.

It is the DA's office who should have imposed on the news outlets to include presumption of innocence in their reporting, and to seek correction of improper publicity before trial when presumption of innocence was not included.

Misconduct of DA's office, politically-based misconduct, is even starker when considering that it was involved in destruction by its successive confidential informants of several of our homes (no concern about property - or life - of a critic of the local government), and that the County recently endorsed a convicted felon for a Republican Chair (removed at this time, but given a position of Town of Hamden tax assessor, forbidden by her criminal sentence), despite her history of a felony conviction for KILLING a Latino father of two children while DRIVING DRUNK.

She was given 4 months of jail time for that, total.

The three young women are charged with a D felony (top count) carrying a maximum of $5,000 fine (per count) and 7 years in state prison (and a loss of voting rights, of course) for, as far as I could gather from various media sources, spray-painting political messages criticizing President Trump and ICE.

Of course, for the local idio... oops, government officials, that is a crime much worse than killing a Latino young father of two, or intimidating the local criminal defense attorneys and their family members and destroying their properties - adamantly, openly, relentlessly.

So - who is poisoning the wells of justice? 

I will continue to go over the Sidney kid graffiti case, with full analysis of the charges and of their constitutionality under free speech/1st Amendment principles.

That is especially important that, if these three young girls are to be represented by the local Publi Defender's office.

The Public Defender Joe Ermeti is heavily entrenched in Republican policies of the County and should not touch this case with a 10-foot pole.

There should be a conflict defender appointed - but who is the appointing judge?  John Hubbard?  To whom Joe Ermeti ceded a path to judicial position?

In fact, I reported on this blog that, apparently, Joe Ermeti got his position as a Public Defender created and given to him right after he, as a special prosecutor, refused to charge former County crooked CPS boss Bill Moon for a felony - playing ball with the Republican majority of the County's government.

Joe Ermeti then made numerous public statements to the effect that he took a fall for the Republican Party by allowing two judicial candidates from the Republicans (Richard Northrup and John Hubbard) to take judicial seats on the County Court - the very court who will be presiding over prosecution of the young girls.

Joe Ermeti - according to deposition of the local newspaper's editor (where the newspaper is suing the County and 2 days ago, got a right to a jury trial to determine its 1st Amendment retaliation claims) - pursues journalists for criticism in the press by visiting their offices physically and advancing at them with "balled fists" - conduct that the DA's office leaves uninvestigated and unprosecuted.

The County's public information officer - according to the same deposition - has journalists physically detained, on numerous occasions, in County buildings by County security officers to prevent newsgathering activities - with DA Smith, once again, sitting on his hands and undertaking no investigations or prosecutions whatsoever of such conduct.

Because - in the political realm of the kissing-cousins Delaware County - who plays ball with whom matters more than law, facts or justice.

Speaking, again, of who poisons the proverbial well...

I truly hope that the young defendants in the graffiti case will be able to get representation from very far from Delaware County.  From a well that is at least  relatively unpoisoned by the local politics.

Otherwise their prospects in this case are predetermined by the local politics.  And local politicians - the first that comes to mind is the appointed Queen of the County, County Attorney Amy Merklen who testified in the proceeding against independent CPS Commissioner Scuderi-Hunter (who was trying to clear up the mess created for decades by Bill Moon) that the Board (Tina Mole) passed a resolution putting Merklen above appointed AND ELECTED County Officers.

That includes DA Smith.

So - it is Merklen who could be driving this indictment, as DA Smith (and Sheriff DuMond) allowed their integrity and impartiality as elected County officers to be overpowered by administrative fiat of the Board.  And Merklen testified in October of 2025 in a deposition in the Decker federal case that she knows zilch of the 1st Amendment.  But obviously knows a lot about retaliation against critics of the government.

Had these girls spray-painted "We Love Merklen", they would have been kindly told not to do so again and given a medal of good citizenship.  

As I stated above, I will continue to publish about the kid graffiti case, with statutory and constitutional analysis of the charges.

Stay tuned.

The Fairy Tale of the Village That Died

Once upon a time, in a land called Civil Rights Litigation 101, there stood a cheerful little municipality known as the Village of Delhi.

It had streets and sidewalks, a water system and a clerk, a police department and a seal. It attended lawsuits from time to time, as municipalities often do.

One day, the Village was sued through its Mayor.

"Do not worry," said Professor Hornbook to the law students. "A suit against a public official in his official capacity is simply another way of suing the governmental entity."

The students nodded.

"That is easy."

And everyone lived according to that rule for many years.

Then, one spring morning, the Former Mayor was rumored to have departed this world.

The Village sighed.

"Poor fellow," it said. "Somebody needs to step into his shoes in this lawsuit - as Professor Hornbook said - in his individual capacity".

But before the Village could do anything like that, a Learned Attorney Heinel arrived carrying a Motion to Substitute.

She proclaimed,

"The Former Mayor, in his official capacity, shall be replaced by two Trustees from Florida."

The Village blinked.

"Excuse me," it asked politely. "Official capacity? Isn't that... me?"

"Details," replied the Learned Attorney.

The motion reached the Great Castle of Justice Baker.

It arrived from Learned Attorney Heinel.  It conveniently arrived with a Proposed Order and an attached Schedule A with a new caption.  Such respect! - happily thought The Wise Judge Baker.  

So The Wise Judge Baker spoke the ancient judicial words:

"Motion granted" - and signed the Proposed Order without looking.

Lightning flashed.

Thunder rolled.

A pigeon fainted.

At that very instant, something extraordinary happened.

The Village of Delhi looked down at its own feet.

They were disappearing.

"My streets!"

Poof.

"My sidewalks!"

Poof.

"My municipal corporation!"

Poof.

"My taxpayers!"

"Still here," replied the taxpayers.

"But... who am I?"

No one answered.

Meanwhile, two bewildered young women in Florida received a parchment.

It read:

Congratulations.

You are now the Village of Delhi.

One looked at the other.

"I thought we were trustees."

"So did I."

"Do villages usually live in Florida?"

"I don't think so."

Back in the Kingdom of Civil Rights Litigation 101, the law students opened their hornbooks.

The first sentence still read:

"A suit against a public official in his official capacity is a suit against the governmental entity."

The second sentence now read:

"See also: The Curious Death of the Village of Delhi."

The students scratched their heads.

One timidly raised a hand.

"Professor... if the Village did not die..."

"Yes?"

"...who exactly was substituted?"

The Professor quietly closed the book.

"I believe," he said, "that is a question for the appellate courts."

And somewhere, in a quiet cemetery reserved exclusively for municipal corporations, a small granite monument appeared.

It read:

HERE LIES

THE VILLAGE OF DELHI

Municipal Corporation

Cause of Death:
Official-Capacity Substitution

Survived by:
Two Florida Trustees

And the taxpayers lived perplexedly ever after.

I haven't, in a long time, read something so hilariously stupid as (1) the notice of motion filed by the taxpayer (including myself) paid attorney Courtney Heinel, fully rubber-stamped by a long-time judge Christopher Baker.

The attorney sought substitution of the allegedly dead (no admissible evidence on record) former Village of Delhi Mayor Sridhar Samudrala in a lawsuit where I am a plaintiff.

In individual AND OFFICIAL capacity.

Here is how a federal court recently ruled about official capacity claims against individual Delaware County Defendants and the County:

Now, the attorney in question is also municipal counsel for the Village of Delhi guiding the village with her wisdom - at taxpayer expense.

Here is how Attorney Heinel who is practicing law for 10 years,

 advertises herself on the website of her law firm:

And here is the Chemung County Supreme Court Justice Christopher P. Baker 

who endorsed Heinel's crazy nonsense wholesale - a judge who has been admitted to practice law 30 years ago

and who has been a law clerk for a judge or a judge in his own right for 26 years, according to the judge's official biography

Follow me - you won't see this kind of craziness often.

This is the Notice of Motion to substitute a supposedly dead party filed by attorney Courtney Heinel (remember, 10 years of experience practicing law, Village of Delhi's municipal advisor and litigation counsel), the document number on the public NYSCEF docket is 306.  By clicking the link you will open the document from its official court website.

I will duplicate by publishing a scan before they removed this piece of work:

Here is the proposed order that attorney Heinel helpfully drafted for Judge Baker, NYSCEF Document Number 348, and here is a scan of paragraph 3 in that proposed order:

And here is the link to NYSCEF Document Number 352 - showing that Judge Baker simply rubber-stamped whatever attorney Heinel put in front of him - complete with the crazy substitution clause in paragraph 3.

And this is the Schedule A of the order of substitution - the brand spanking new caption of the case:

Now why do I call this portion of the order of substitution absolutely, batshit crazy.

Even law students know that suing a public official in his official capacity is the equivalent of suing the entity he serves.

In other word, suing Samudrala, as former mayor of the Village of Delhi, in his official capacity is the equivalent of suing the Village of Delhi.  Meaning, if (no competent evidence on record) he died - anybody who could be, theoretically, substituted in his place, could be substituted only in his individual capacity.

So, what the above mental exercise of the 10-year-practicing attorney and a 30-year-practicing judge shows is that Justice Baker, at the request of Attorney Heinel, has made a ruling - an official court ruling - that the Village of Delhi, literally, died - and is substituted in a lawsuit by two young women out of Florida, the former mayor's daughters.

And - how many more rulings like this this judge has generated?  Or will generate over his "career" on the bench?

Why am I writing about this?

It is important for those who are - loosely - spending public money TO PAY ATTENTION WHAT they are putting in front of the court (for Heinel) and WHAT they are signing (for Judge Baker).

And WHO they are contracting with for legal services - this is to Village of Delhi government and taxpayers.

And WHO they are electing to the bench (this is - to Chemung voters of Judge Baker).

JUST IMAGINE an appeal like that hitting the 3rd Department - as it will soon:

I appeal the order of The Hon. Christopher P. Baker who ruled that the Village of Delhi has died...  Well...

On importance of not going to court - on some days

The secretary's voice was not reassuring.

- Sir M, there is associate Timmy McJudgeson on the phone.  It does not seem good.  You need to hear it.

Sir M swore.  That son of a... no, I have no complaints, the father is good to us.  But what did he get into again?

At the same time his second phone line started to flash - incoming call from partner.  Incoming call from another partner.  Another... Another...

- What happened? - barked Sir M. at the secretary - because as much as he wanted to bark at McJudgeson, there are limits on barking...

- So what happened, son? - Sir M. could not go any sweeter.

- My l...  my l... my l...!

Sir M. lost it.  

- I am tired of your goddamn love stories! just go do some work for a change, you useless son of a... - he caught himself.

- MY LAW LICENSE!!!  HE TOOK MY LAW LICENSE!!!

That got Sir M.'s attention.

- Son, stop drinking that early in the morning! Told you many times! Your f... well - there is no excuse!

- LISTEN TO ME, PLEASE!  It is the Brut!  He took my law license!

The Brut... The Brut?  

- Are you talking about The Honorable AI Bruticus TM 1.0?  How did your motion go?

- Remember what he said a week ago at what they called "prepared press conference" when he started:  "I am fair and reasonable.  No more word limits.  Do your best".

 - I did!  I gave him a 2,000 page record and a 5213-page brief!  You know what he did?  He blinked.  He displayed "Thought 4s".

And then he displayed:

Sir M. looked at his phone: 56 missed calls from partners.

He did not start returning calls.

Instead he switched on TV.

"...an average of 42% of the workforce was lost in law firms on the first day The Hon. AI Bruticus was presiding".

Timmy Judgeson sobbed on the loudspeaker:  "my f... f... my f... called him as colleague to colleague.... he took his law license, too!"

Sir M. lost it - again.

"Fired!" - he roared.  

And made an important phone call - to his accountant.  

"Come look at our.... well, at my vaults, bro... Looks like we beat the average.  Looks like it is all mine now".