Amy Merklen to First Amendment in the Sidney graffiti case: eh?

 On July 23, 2026, I published an article about Sidney graffiti indictment by Delaware County DA's office, raising 1st Amendment questions - that the indictment is political and one-sided.

I also FOILed DA Smith - which caused him to spat against me attempting to own his government-given email and to claim that I do not contact him at that e-mail - while at the same time including me into the journalistic media release list.  Because I sued the County, of course, for denying me, as a journalist, that right.

On August 26, 2026 County Attoney Amy Merklen who self-designated herself as County's Record's Access Officer produced this 9-day wonder response to my FOIL/1st Amendment journalistic inquiry:

The defense of the girls indicted by DA Smith might be interested to know what the County claims in response to my FOIL/1st Amendment request.

First, Merklen claimed that the criminal investigation in Sidney graffiti case - despite the indictment already revealed to the public, with humiliating and embarrassing and scary legal consequences to the girls indicted - IS STILL ONGOING (that is the only basis how FOIL requests of this nature may be denied).

She claimed that BECAUSE the information I sought was “gathered for law enforcement purposes” and because the investigation is allegedly ongoing, despite the indictment, she may deny a journalist access to the actual photographic evidence of MESSAGES for which the girls were criminally indicted for felonies.

That is a direct violation of FOIL, and a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, my rights as a representative of the press for access to these records, as I sought records on issues of public concern, potentially political prosecution of individuals in Delaware County, and specifically belonging to the camp of political opponents of the predominantly Republican County management.

Mind that the County management, with a straight face, claimed to federal court in Decker Advertisement, Inc. v. Delaware County, NY, an ongoing case, that they had a right to de-designate Walton Reporter from publishing County's governmental notice because The Reporter is not Republican-leaning, and because the County, with a Republican-leaning management, has a right to match the choice of newspaper to simply publish legal notices of the County, with the County management's personal political leanings.

Also mind that once the indictment is filed, the investigation is presumed to be officially over - thus making certain criminal records, with the exception of testimony in the grand jury - open to the public.

And all that I asked was SPECIFICS:  the actual PHOTOGRAPHS of what the girls WROTE on those sidewalks or buildings, what kind of POLITICAL MESSAGES they are CRIMINALLY charged with creating on public property.

I, of course, will appeal that FOIL decision - but Merklen has put herself now, unlawfully, in the position of BOTH the FOIL Records' Access Officer - and advisor to FOIL Appeals Officer (Tina Mole), which is adamantly unlawful - but when did it stop either Merklen or Mole?  

So, the response to FOIL Appeal will be predictable.  

The case is litigation-prone for non-disclosure of records on issues of public concern.

Second, Merklen claimed that no records exist as to First Amendment training of any officers or employees of the County who participated in investigation or prosecution of the girls.

That response was predictable - given that Merklen, in a recent deposition in Decker, made sworn statements that she has no clue about the 1st Amendment, could not identify a seminal 1st Amendment case, and that she delegates all federal litigation on 1st Amendment issues to outside counsel, and then does not watch what that counsel files on her behalf in that litigation.

But, I wanted to see it in writing that, even after THREE YEARS IN LITIGATION on 1st Amendment retaliation issues with Walton Reporter (since 2023) and 2 years in litigation with me and my husband also on 1st Amendment retaliation issues in multiple cases, state and federal - Merklen STILL did not come around to put together a 1st Amendment training policy, or to actually train Delaware County officers and employees in how 1st Amendment works.

Delaware County taxpayers should vote Mole out of office finally.  Not only Mole uses her public office to enrich herself and her buddies, but she also keeps appointing the incompetent Merklen as County Attorney and condones Merklen's inviting litigation to the County by her incompetence - and taps into taxpayer coffers to finance litigation against herself and Merklen in individual capacity for intentional misconduct, which should be covered by taxpayer-funded insurance.

I will continue to comment on this case.

Stay tuned.

Attention Delaware County farmers: WIll Matter of Ryan and Neroni v WAC dismissals be overturned based on WAC's new disclosures of its government functions? WAC Wins the Right to Be “Private” and then, a dismissal of Neroni v WAC asserting WAC is a state actor. A Month Later, WAC Wants to Exercise a Quasi-Judicial Function To Refer Farmers to State Mediation. Of Claims against WAC

 

On June 18, 2026, the Appellate Division, Third Department handed the Watershed Agricultural Council a significant victory.

In Matter of Ryan v. Watershed Agricultural Council of the New York City Watersheds, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03853, the court affirmed dismissal of farmer Colm Ryan's Article 78 proceeding seeking records from WAC under the Freedom of Information Law.

WAC's position was simple: we are not government.

The Third Department agreed—for FOIL purposes.

It characterized WAC as a “charitable not-for-profit environmental corporation” contracting with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”).  

The court emphasized WAC's allegedly formally private attributes: its board elects its members; DEP has only one representative on the board; WAC establishes its own budget; WAC hires and fires its own employees; and WAC maintains its own insurance.  Those findings, of course, were contradicted by the case's own record - but the spectacularly lazy, incompetent and very possibly corrupt Judge Brian Burns who I wrote about multiple times on this blog, wrote otherwise - and the 3rd Department rubber-stamped Burns' incorrect findings of fact without looking.

Yet, the 3rd Department acknowledged at least two facts, troubling for WAC, that make the victory in Ryan considerably less sweeping than WAC might prefer.

First, WAC receives approximately 95% of its revenue from DEP.

Second, the Third Department expressly acknowledged that WAC “arguably performs a governmental function by working to reduce water pollution in the City's watershed region.”

Nevertheless, it held that WAC's contractual relationship with DEP did not make WAC an “agency” under FOIL.

All that WAC had to do to keep that victory is to keep its proverbial mouth shut.

But - WAC kept talking.

And only two months after Ryan, and one month after dismissal of Neroni v WAC (see below) based on Ryan - WAC publicly announced something rather difficult to reconcile with the image of an ordinary private nonprofit contractor:

WAC now wants to refer farmers into the New York State Agricultural Mediation Program to resolve disputes before they reach court.

WAC's August 25 Meeting Creates a Very Uncomfortable Question

On August 27, 2026, The Reporter published Lillian Browne's article, “As Land Changes Hands, WAC Looks to Mediation to Ease Farm Conflicts.”

Browne reported on WAC's August 25 meeting and a presentation concerning the New York State Agricultural Mediation Program.

This was not a discussion about WAC employees mediating their own office disputes.

WAC Executive Director Ryan Naatz identified the subjects confronting WAC: conservation easements, property rights, funding, agricultural development, and New York City's role in the watershed.  He specifically discussed conservation work funded through DEP watershed agreements.

Then the discussion became considerably more interesting.

According to Browne, a WAC council member asked whether WAC could incorporate the New York State Agricultural Mediation Program into WAC's dispute-resolution policy as a step before formal litigation.

The reported answer was yes.

WAC members then discussed whether WAC could refer farmers directly to the mediation program when WAC encounters disputes involving conservation easements, property rights, and other complicated matters before farmers filed lawsuits against WAC.

The mediator's response?

“Send them our way.”

Excuse me?

Who Gave This “Private Nonprofit” Authority to Refer Farmers Anywhere?

That is no longer an academic question.

If a farmer voluntarily asks WAC for help obtaining mediation, there is nothing remarkable about WAC providing the telephone number, as a matter of courtesy.

But that is not the institutional arrangement described in the article.

The proposal discussed at the WAC meeting was to incorporate state mediation into WAC's own dispute-resolution policy before litigation and TO IMPOSE THAT POLICY upon farmers by "referring" farmers directly to mediation when WAC encounters qualifying disputes.

That immediately raises a basic question:

What authority does WAC have to exercise a QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION (government function) and to “refer” a farmer's dispute to a state mediation program when the farmer has not agreed to mediation?

And especially when, most likely, an average farmer does not have a law degree and cannot put WAC on the spot with a question - what AUTHORITY - especially after you obtained back-to-back dismissals in Matter of Ryan and in Neroni v WAC asserting that you are NOT state actors and NOT a state agency - do you have to exercise a GOVERNMENT FUNCTION - ANY GOVERMENT FUNCTION, AT ALL?

WAC cannot have it both ways.

If WAC is merely an ordinary private nonprofit contractor - as WAC presented to the Ryan and Neroni v WAC courts (judges Burns, McBride, respectively), then WAC has precisely NO authority over an unwilling farmer - the same as any other private nonprofit.

A private actor/nonprofit can offer mediation.

It can recommend mediation.

It can inform a farmer that mediation exists, as an option before a farmer would consider - with his lawyer! or on his own, as a pro se litigant - mediation.

A farmer can voluntarily request mediation.

But “referral” as part of WAC's institutional dispute-resolution process before litigation is something different. 

It places WAC in the quasi-judicial, governmental position of 

• identifying disputes, 
• classifying them for intervention, and 
• routing affected persons toward an official dispute-resolution mechanism.

Where does that authority come from?

• A contract?
• A conservation easement?
• DEP?
• The 1997 watershed agreements?
• A WAC program agreement signed by the farmer?
• A statute?
• A regulation?
• Or exactly from nowhere?

That question becomes especially acute where the dispute is between the farmer and WAC itself.

A quasi-judicial officer MUST BE NEUTRAL.

It may not be both a PARTY in the dispute to be mediated, and the REFERRING QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER.

Yet, that is exactly what WAC suggested as its own new PUBLICIZED policy.

Who decides that the farmer should be “referred”?

WAC?

And what happens if the farmer says no?

Mediation Is Consensual. WAC's Claimed Referral Role Is the Issue.

There is an important distinction here.

Nobody needs governmental authority merely to suggest mediation.

But WAC was discussing something institutional: putting the New York State Agricultural Mediation Program into its dispute-resolution policy as a step before litigation.

That necessarily raises questions about authority, consent and consequences.

If participation remains entirely voluntary, then WAC should say exactly that:

No farmer is referred without the farmer's affirmative consent; refusing mediation has no consequence whatsoever for WAC funding, conservation programs, easement administration, eligibility, enforcement, future dealings with WAC, or litigation.

If that is the rule, publish it.

If it isn't the rule, then WAC has a much bigger problem.

Because an organization controlling access to publicly financed agricultural and conservation programs cannot transform “voluntary mediation” into institutional leverage merely by calling the process "a referral".

And, WAC, a COUNSELED entity, may not interfere with UNCOUNSELED, PRO SE farmers' rights of access to court be giving them LEGAL ADVICE as to mediation, LEGAL ADVICE that is WRONG and that purports to amount to a quasi-judicial order that WAC has no authority to issue.

And if WAC possesses some governmental or contractual authority to initiate such a process without the farmer's prior consent, then the obvious question returns:

Where did a supposedly private nonprofit acquire that authority?  And did WAC LIE TO TWO COURTS in two separate lawsuits - Justice Burns and the Third Department in Matter of Ryan, and Justice McBride and the Third Department (case is now on appeal) in Neroni v WAC - in claiming that it is not a government agency and not a state actor while at the same time SECRETLY BREWING a "REFERRAL" policy exactly on opposite grounds - and going public with that policy only AFTER the dismissals were obtained?

The Timing Is Spectacular

WAC's timing could hardly be better.

Or worse.

The Third Department decided Ryan on June 18, 2026.

The court concluded that WAC was not a governmental “agency” for FOIL purposes after examining the record then before it. The court emphasized WAC's formal corporate independence and rejected Ryan's request for discovery into the DEP-WAC relationship.

The Delaware County Supreme Court decided Neroni v WAC, based on Ryan decision by the 3rd Department, at the insistence of WAC, on July 14, 2026, dismissing the case and claiming that WAC is just a private nonprofit and not a state actor for purposes of a civil rights, 1983 action.

Justice Mcbride then dismissed claims in Neroni v WAC against NYC DEP (WAC's partner and source of finance and governmental functions), relying on its own dismissal of July 14, 2026 - which, in turn, relied on the Third Department's June 18, 2026 decision in Ryan.

You know what was the date when that dismissal was issued?  August 25, 2026,  look up Neroni v WAC, EF2026-106, NYSCEF Document # 278.

August 25, 2026 is the very date when WAC went public with its new "referral" policy.  You can't make this up.  They could not wait even one day.

On August 25, 2026 WAC declared that it will include a REFERRAL policy into its own dispute resolution policy with farmers - as reported by the local press.

And WAC did this while appeal in Neroni v. WACis pending over whether WAC's may be characterized, by conduct, as a state actor for purposes of a 1983 action.   

That is quite a way to celebrate dismissals in Ryan and in Neroni v WAC.

Even Better: DEP Was at the Same Meeting

The mediation presentation was not the only important event at the reported WAC's August 25, 2026 meeting.

Three days later, The Reporter published another article by Lillian Browne: “Keeping NYC Tap Water Flowing, Without a Filter.”

That article reports that DEP Acting Executive Director Adam Bosch appeared before WAC at the same August 25, 2026 meeting to present DEP's Future of Filtration Avoidance white paper and discuss the regulatory future of New York City's unfiltered drinking-water system.

Browne explains that the 1997 watershed agreement produced more than $1.7 billion in DEP commitments for watershed programs and expressly identifies WAC as one of the regional entities administering those programs.

DEP is now preparing for the next Filtration Avoidance Determination and reassessing the effectiveness of the land-management programs upon which that governmental regulatory system depends.

So here is what happened at one WAC meeting:

DEP came in through one door to discuss the governmental regulatory program WAC helps administer.

The New York State Agricultural Mediation Program came in through another door to discuss having WAC refer farmers with property and conservation disputes into state mediation before litigation.

And WAC remains, apparently, just an ordinary private nonprofit, not an agency for FOIL purposes, not a state actor for a 1983 action purpose.

Right.

A Shoutout to Farmers: Do Not Accept WAC's Claimed Authority to “Refer” You Anywhere - You Are Being DELIBERATELY WRONGED

First, WAC cheated you out of your legitimate right to FOIL WAC as a state agency to discovery what is brewing in WAC.

Actually, I do not know why the Ryan plaintiff/petitioner went that way - but there is a different way and different entity to FOIL for the same information, NOW, it is not foreclosed by the Ryan 3rd Department decision: just FOIL NYC DEP.  Or file 1st Amendment requests with NYC DEP.  Or file federal FOIA requests with USDA - another participant in filtration avoidance programs.  Those are undeniably state actors, and as to USDA, denials of FOIA requests can be challenged in federal court.

As to WAC's newly announced "referral" policy, farmers should pay very close attention to the word “refer.”

Mediation is consensual unless court-ordered or required by statute or regulation.

If you want mediation, request it.

If WAC offers you mediation (at WAC's own expense) and you want it, nothing can prevent you from accepting it - but I would be very careful to hire a lawyer for the process, otherwise WAC will dupe you of your access to court in that mediation, you know that.

But if WAC tells you that it is “referring” you to mediation because of a dispute involving your farm, your conservation easement, your property rights, your funding, or your dealings with WAC or DEP, do not simply accept the premise that WAC possesses that authority.

Ask.

Ask WAC:

What is the legal basis for your authority to refer my dispute to mediation?

Ask whether the purported authority comes from:

1. a statute or regulation;
2. your conservation easement;
3. a WAC participation agreement you actually signed;
4. WAC's contract with DEP;
5. the watershed MOA or subsequent agreements;
6. a written WAC policy; or
7. some other source.

And ask for the document and the specific provision.

Do not settle for “this is our policy.”

A private organization's adoption of a “policy” does not itself create authority over somebody else's property dispute.

Ask the More Important Question: What Happens If I Say No?

If WAC says mediation is voluntary, farmers should ask WAC to put that proposition in writing.

Ask:

1. Can I refuse this referral?
2. Will refusing mediation affect my eligibility for any WAC program?
3. Will it affect funding?
4. Will it affect an existing conservation easement or WAC's administration of that easement?
5. Will my refusal be communicated to DEP?
6. Will it affect future dealings with WAC?
7. Will WAC characterize my refusal adversely in subsequent litigation?
8. Who decided that my dispute should be referred in the first place?

And:

9. What authority did that person have to make that decision?

Those aren't hostile questions.

They are elementary questions about authority of an entity attempting to exercise POWER over you to potentially FORECLOSE your access to court, to SUE THAT SAME ENTITY or its financing partners.

Because if the answer really is:

“WAC has absolutely no authority over you; we are merely suggesting an entirely voluntary service that you may freely accept or reject without consequence,”

then WAC can say that plainly.

If WAC obtained DELEGATED authority to refer farmers to medication from a government program - it may not EXERCISE those delegated authority to refer farmers to mediation when it ITSELF is a party.  Such a referral would directly violate requirement for referrer's neutrality as a quasi-judicial officer.

And be especially alert if refusing WAC's “referral” carries any consequence within the publicly funded watershed program WAC administers, the situation is entirely different.

WAC Cannot Invent Jurisdiction by Calling It a “Policy”

This is the central problem.

WAC's board can adopt policies governing WAC.

That does not mean WAC can adopt a policy creating QUASI-JUDICIAL authority over farmers to be de facto judges in WAC's own cases - in at least referring farmers to mediation.

The source of authority matters.

Consent matters.

The consequences of refusing matter.

And where an organization overwhelmingly financed by government, administering governmental watershed programs, working directly with DEP, and exercising substantial practical power over farmers proposes to insert itself into the path between a property dispute and litigation, the governmental character of that function matters too.

WAC wanted a dismissal Ryan and Neroni v WAC, to shield itself from 

(1) FOIL requests (Ryan); 

(2) civil rights actions under 42 USC 1983 (Neroni v WAC).

It got dismissals in both.

But Ryan itself acknowledged that WAC arguably performs a governmental function.

Now, while Neroni v. WAC is on appeal over state action, WAC has volunteered evidence of another one.

Quasi-judicial dispute referral.

So farmers should ask the question that the courts have not yet required WAC to answer:

Who gave WAC authority to “refer” your property dispute anywhere?

And until WAC identifies that authority, do not concede that it exists.

SAY NO TO THE FORCED REFERRALS BY WAC TO MEDIATION BEFORE YOU SUE WAC

YOU KNOW WAC WILL CHEAT YOU - AS IT CHEATED SO FAR SEVERAL COURTS IN RYAN AND NERONI V WAC.

Will Delaware County (NY) longtime litigation counsel Frank Miller be disbarred and jailed for insurance fraud and fraudulent arrangement involving unlawful use of taxpayer funds for private purpose? The emerging Hunt-Miller problem

In July of 2025, a year ago, Appellate Division 4th Department accepted a resignation of a Syracuse lawyer Marsha Hunt who, reportedly, overbilled assigned counsel defense program by $160,000 - including invoices for 30 and 33 hours a day of work.

Of course, the question arises whether a judge signed such a voucher, if it happened - what is the identity of such a judge or judges and how many more judicial documents, including court orders did he or she sign with the same level of "diligence".

But - that is a side issue.

The front-and-center issue is:  an attorney in the same judicial district and the same appellate division where Delaware County (NY)'s longtime litigation attorney Frank Miller toils was stricken from the roll of attorneys - and barely escaped a criminal prosecution for fraud - for misuse of taxpayer funds in legal defense.

And, that issue is very relevant to whether the same - and worse (D felony insurance fraud) - should happen to Frank Miller for his currently ongoing shenanigans.

Before Miller pulled these documents off NYSCEF, I will interlink them and publish them here.

On February 5, 2026 I sued Wayne Marshfield - not in his capacity as a public official.

The Complaint can be read here.

Attached to the Complaint was a Beacon record clearly identifying Marshfield as a contact person for Watershed Agricultural Council's headquarters.

The former Tax Assessor of the Town of Hamden Tina Moshier personally represented to me that she was the one who was supplying information to Beacon for tax parcels in the Town of Hamden - including this one.

So - what does Marshfield tell the court about it?

First, he was served with the Complaint and this Exhibit, among others, on February 17, 2026, personally.

Then what happened becomes blurry.

On August 13, 2026 Marshfield's purported counsel Frank Miller claimed that events transpired in the following way:

Now, NYMIR is, very definitely, a taxpayer-funded insurer.

I am a taxpayer in Delaware County municipalities.

I got extremely interested as to how did Marshfield get this insurance coverage - after he gave the court a tear-jerking story in March of 2026, after DEFAULTING, in support of a motion to reopen his default, that 

*  he DOES NOT have municipal insurance coverage because 

*  he IS NOT sued as a public official and 

*  he IS NOT entitled to municipal insurance coverage, and 

*  he WAS ALREADY TURNED DOWN by the Town of Hamden's attorneys for such municipal coverage.

Note how hard both Miller and Marshfield try on March 31, 2026 to disclaim what they already know is occurring - representation at taxpayer expense based on assignment from a municipal insurance company.

And - even after I DROPPED him as a defendant on April 3, 2026,

Marshfield and Miller continued to defraud taxpayers by continuing to insist that Marshfield is still a defendant in the case (attorney readers - appreciate the gall) - and, of course, the presiding judge who was in a 30 plus year war with my husband endorsed these shenanigans and allowed him to apply for attorney fees.

I do not know whether the presiding judge knew about the fraud or not - that is up for New York State Police and Attorney General to investigate, I do not have such authority or capabilities.

Yet, the August 13, 2026 NYMIR invoice is part of the record.

Notice the bait-and-switch fraudulent technique:  

1) Miller and Marshfield fraudulently got from the court an award of attorney fees on representation that Marshfield RETAINED Miller ("Transaction A") and paying OUT OF POCKET for Miller's legal defense for Transaction A, because municipal coverage of defense ("Transaction B") is not possible - 

while knowing all along that Transaction A did not exist and it was Transaction B, from an unknown municipality, who was and is funding - at taxpayer expense - Marshfield's PRIVATE legal defense in the case, even after Marshfield stopped being a party.

Once again - this is what NYMIR is, according to its own advertisement:

So - the above bait-and-switch scheme violated - at a minimum, New York State Constitution, Article 8 Section 1, providing that public funds may not be loaned or gifted for private purpose, and Penal Law Article 176, insurance fraud, and defrauding taxpayer-funded insurer for over $8,000 is at a minimum a D felony, a disbarring offense.

I instantly turned both of them into NYS Insurance Department, fraud unit.

Moreover - since the legal defense, as Miller NOW disclosed, was funded by NYMIR, and NYMIR may only act on behalf of a municipal "subscriber" to the insurance reciprocal cooperative (which is what NYMIR is), I directly asked Miller to disclose identity of that municipality.

Had that identity been disclosed in March of 2026, it would have strengthened my theory behind the entire lawsuit - that Delaware County is pulling strings of the local non-profits, something that Tina Mole recently confirmed in her letter to the editor that I wrote about here.

Now, mind that, according to controlling precedent, where an insurance company funds a legal defense, the insurance company and nobody else may claim reimbursement of those funds - and the insurance company must do it by a separate lawsuit against whoever it seeks reimbursement against.

And, when that happens, the name of the municipality behind the insurance assignment must be then disclosed IN THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF:

"NYMIR, as subrogee of DELAWARE COUNTY, NEW YORK, subrogor".

Do you think Miller disclosed THE NAME of WHO OWNS THE CLAIM Miller is seeking to enforce against me in court?

Nah.

Here is what he answered:

So after publishing this blog, I am attaching it to a complaint turning him, along with Marshfield, and the judge who, after receiving the NYMIR invoice, blocked my ability to move to vacate the previous award based on new evidence and fraud - into New York State Police, NYS Commission of Judicial Conduct, and Attorney Grievance Committee.

And filed discovery demands in a case where Marshfield (1) is a party defendant;  (2) "joined issue" and proceeded to discovery;  and (3) is represented by a law firm other than Miller.

In addition, yesterday, my husband has filed a municipal waste lawsuit against Miller under General Municipal Law Section 51 demanding that Miller be made by court to return the money unlawfully billed to taxpayer-funded insurance cooperative NYMIR, Frederick J. Neroni v Frank Miller, EF2026-271 in Delaware County Supreme Court.

Now what is VERY interesting - how much of the footprints of James Murphy, the Chief Administrative Judge of upstate New York whose brother owns Miller's law firm Hancock Estabrook LLP - are over this fraudulent submission, and the obvious pressure upon judges to bend over backwards to allow Miller to engage in any possible crime only to please judge Murphy.

But, the HUNT resignation looms large here.

Attorney Hunt - from Syracuse, too - at the very least was lawfully assigned cases for legal defense, she "only" overbilled based on legitimate assignments.

Here, Miller (1) knowingly orchestrated assignment of municipal insurance to a private client where the lawsuit against the client was not against him as a public official;  (2) knowingly made false sworn statements tot he court that Miller is instead representing the client on a non-existent retainer agreement;  (3) obtaining attorney fee award based on that false lamentation;  (4) then turning around and showing NYMIR origin of representation; and (5) continuing to press attorney fees under NYMIR while at the same time refusing to disclose the identity of subrogor municipality behind the unlawful assignment, while (6) openly admitted, in a written statement filed in the court, to a D felony insurance fraud and to violation of NYS Constitution Article VIII Section 1 Gifts and Loans Clause.

Such audacity requires serious political support.

So I repeat again - what is the difference between attorneys Hunt and Miller?

Will Miller escape where Hunt went down?

And why?

Pro Se Blunder #1 that Costs the Case

One of the main issues of my work - as, formerly, an attorney, now as an investigative journalist - is concentration on issues of access to justice, particularly of pro se litigants, those who cannot afford a lawyer or otherwise decide to represent themselves in court.

A considerable portion of my reporting is dedicated to these issues.

I continue to do case studies on the issue.

Several cases in New York state courts have recently caught my attention with the same recurring errors pro se litigants make - that cost them the case.

The error is: engaging the court too soon.

Example:  a pro se plaintiff filed a complaint, and a defendant - often also pro se, but does not matter - filed an answer, instead of a pre-answer motion to dismiss (MTD).

Filing an answer does not involve assignment of a judge.

Unlike federal courts, in New York State court a judge does not have to be assigned and to enter the case unless and until a party asks for it - and pays for "judicial intervention", RJI.

So - if there is an answer instead of an MTD, the pro se plaintiff needs to jump up and down in joy and to happily and immediately proceed with discovery.  Research Article 31 of the CPLR and serve upon defendant all kinds of discovery devices - relevant to the case.

What pro se litigants do though - often, too often - is that they immediately pay for RJI and ask a judge to be assigned - for a conference.  Why?  What do they hope to achieve by that?  I simply do not know.

And - what do judges often do?  They come in, and through a conference, strongarm a settlement or dismiss the case sua sponte - on the court's own motion, right there at the conference.  

That decision not only ends the case before it really started, without any discovery, but since it is sua sponte, by law and precedent in New York State courts, a sua sponte decision is not appealable as of right.  So, the pro se litigant brought upon himself or herself - for their own money, mind, RJI application has a $90.00 filing fee - an order of dismissal AND an order that is not appealable as of right.

And, it is very, very difficult to have a sua sponte decision vacated and discovery rights restored.

So, the pro se litigant now has the additional pain of having to pay a $45.00 motion fee and to file a motion to vacate that sua sponte determination in order to create an appellate record, and may only appeal from the denial of such motion, not straight from a sua sponte dismissal.

So - where a pro se plaintiff sees an ANSWER, the pro se plainitff had better immediately forget of the existence of an RJI unlesss he wants to immediately make a written motion on notice - and that would be extremely rare (such as an application for a preliminary injunction).

An Answer means an opportunity for discovery.

I wish pro se litigants get at least one consultation from an attorney who knows what he/she is doing before applying for RJI under the circumstances.  It can cost them the case.

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.