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.

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."