Fraser BESS: Copper Thieves, an Unmanned Mountain Facility, and an Electrical Fire That Already Happened in Neighboring Otsego County On July 23, 2026, copper thieves broke into a fenced electrical substation in Hartwick, stole wiring, damaged electrical equipment, and caused a fire. Why is Fraser Storage proposing an unmanned battery installation on a remote mountain in neighboring Delaware County?

My prior experience with criminal defense matters has taught me something that I initially overlooked when examining the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County, New York.

Criminals.

Whenever there was a snowstorm, my husband and I would start receiving phone calls of police picking up people breaking into seasonal homes and facilities alike, under the cover of bad weather.

While preparing to file my Fraser BESS project lawsuit, I have examined the proposed installation's fire hazards, its location on a forested mountain ridge, the surrounding wetlands, potentially combustible organic soils, winter access problems, inadequate firefighting resources, and the discrepancies between the project's publicly represented energy capacity and its own emergency response plan.

But there is another foreseeable source of danger that has nothing to do with defective batteries, manufacturing errors, or spontaneous thermal runaway.

Copper thieves. Burglars. Vandals.

Anyone familiar with criminal defense practice in rural upstate New York knows that unoccupied properties can and do attract thieves.  Seasonal homes are burglarized.  Copper piping and electrical wiring are stripped from buildings.  Stolen metal is sold to scrapyards.

And now EDF Renewables Development, Inc. and Fraser Storage, LLC propose to install a massive, unmanned industrial facility containing approximately 767.5 megawatt-hours of stored electrical energy on a remote mountain ridge.

It is a huge piece of candy for local criminals calling their names off that mountain ridge.

Before dismissing criminal interference as a hypothetical danger, consider what happened just this summer in neighboring Otsego County.

July 23, 2026: Copper Theft Causes an Electrical Fire in Hartwick

On July 23, 2026, WBNG reporter Madeline L. Adams published an article titled Police Search for Suspects in Copper Wire Theft at Otsego Electric Substation.

According to the New York State Police account reported by Adams, two individuals entered the fenced Otsego Electric Cooperative substation on Kinney Road in Hartwick at approximately 2:30 a.m.

They stole copper wiring.

The theft caused significant damage to electrical equipment, resulting in a fire at the substation.

WCDO Radio reported the same incident on July 23, 2026, explaining that the damage produced sparks and a fire inside the installation.

The State Police sought the public's assistance in identifying the suspects.

This was not an abandoned farmhouse.  It was not a seasonal residence. It was an electrical substation, surrounded by a fence.

The fence did not prevent the intrusion.

The intruders did not need to destroy the entire installation.  They wanted copper.  Their interference with the equipment caused an electrical fire.

That is precisely the category of danger that must be considered when evaluating the proposed Fraser BESS facility.

Hartwick is in Otsego County, immediately neighboring Delaware County.

And this incident occurred on July 23, 2026, while the Fraser project was under consideration.

September–October 2026: Stolen Copper in Delaware County Results in a State Prison Sentence

The Hartwick incident is not isolated from the local criminal landscape.

On September 11, 2026, WBNG reported that Eric Meade of Delhi, Delaware County, pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of stolen property in connection with stolen copper.

According to the subsequent October 22, 2026 WCDO Radio report, the investigation began after Otsego County Crushers contacted the State Police about Meade's repeated visits to exchange copper fittings and wiring for money.

Investigators determined that the copper had been stolen.

On October 20, 2026, Meade was sentenced in Delaware County Court to a prison term of two and one-half to five years, as reported by WCDO.

The significance of this case is not merely that someone possessed stolen copper.

It demonstrates an actual local market for stolen copper materials, with repeated transactions and criminal prosecution in the very county where Fraser BESS is proposed.

January 26, 2022: Copper and Steel Stolen From a Stamford Building

On January 26, 2022, reporter Kathy Whyte published Delaware County Man Accused of Stealing & Selling Metal, describing another Delaware County copper-theft investigation.

According to the Delaware County Sheriff's Office account reported in the article, Jeremiah Clark of Roxbury was accused of stealing copper and steel from a building in the Town of Stamford and selling the materials to Otsego Auto Crusher's scrapyard in Davenport.

Clark was charged with felony falsifying business records and criminal possession of stolen property.

Investigators also alleged that records had been falsified to make it appear that the seller lawfully owned the materials.

The case illustrates the economic incentive behind these crimes.

The thief is interested in the resale value of the metal.  The damage inflicted on the property owner is an entirely different consideration.

At an ordinary building, that damage may consist of destroyed plumbing, wiring, walls, and structural components.

At a large electrical installation, interference with equipment may have consequences far beyond the replacement cost of the stolen material.

July 13, 2021: Seasonal-Home Burglaries Across Three Counties

The vulnerability of unoccupied rural properties is also documented.

On July 13, 2021, Kathy Whyte reported for WNBF that New York State Police were investigating burglaries involving seasonal homes across Chenango, Delaware, and Otsego Counties.

Two individuals, Christopher Youngs Jr. of Maryland, New York, and John Clark of Morris, were arrested on felony burglary and stolen-property charges.

State Police reported that the suspects were linked to burglaries in Delaware and Otsego Counties. Investigators believed additional individuals might be involved.

Homeowners were urged to inspect their seasonal properties and sheds. Reported stolen property included firearms, generators, tools, and other valuables.

This investigation demonstrates that remote or intermittently occupied properties in the three-county region have been targets of organized or repeated burglary activity.

An unmanned industrial installation cannot simply be presumed secure because it is located away from population centers.

June 2022: Copper Stolen From a National Grid Substation in Cortland County

The Hartwick fire was not the only reported copper theft involving an electrical substation in upstate New York.

On June 28, 2022, Kevin L. Smith of The Cortland Voice reported that the Cortland County Sheriff's Office was investigating the theft of copper wiring from a National Grid substation on Route 11 in Cortlandville.

The amount of copper stolen was not disclosed.

Again, the target was electrical infrastructure, not an abandoned residence.

November 2025: More Than $20,000 in Copper Equipment Targeted at an Albany County Substation

On November 8, 2025, the Times Union reported that a Schodack man had been charged with multiple felonies following an attempted theft at a National Grid substation in New Scotland, Albany County.

According to the Albany County Sheriff's Office account reported by the newspaper, deputies discovered a hole cut in the perimeter fence and evidence that a storage building had been entered.

Investigators reported finding copper electrical components valued at approximately $20,000, along with sections of underground copper grounding wire that had been cut and removed.

The accused was charged with burglary, criminal mischief, attempted grand larceny, and possession of burglar's tools.

Once again, a fenced electrical installation was targeted for valuable copper components.

And once again, the criminal activity involved damage to the facility itself.

The Mountain Is Remote for Firefighters, Not Necessarily for Criminals

Now return to Fraser BESS.

The proposed installation is located on a forested mountain ridge in the Town of Hamden, with seasonal access roads that present serious problems for emergency vehicles during winter.

But roads impassable to heavy firefighting apparatus are not necessarily impassable to snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles.

Commercially available drones also make it possible to observe remote properties without physically entering them.

The difficulty of reaching the site with fire engines, water tankers, and specialized equipment does not mean that an individual intent on committing theft or vandalism would face the same obstacles.

There is a fundamental asymmetry.

A criminal needs to reach the equipment. Firefighters need to reach the equipment with sufficient personnel, resources, and specialized apparatus to control the consequences.

The very remoteness that makes Fraser BESS difficult to protect and service could also complicate the detection of and response to unauthorized intrusion.

And the facility is proposed to be unmanned.

The Owner's Representative Is Four Hours Away

The Fraser emergency response arrangements contemplate an owner's representative approximately four hours away by car or air.

Four hours is travel time, not necessarily response time.

Before a representative can intervene, an intrusion must be detected, assessed, and communicated. Personnel must be contacted and dispatched. Weather and access conditions must permit arrival.

Meanwhile, an intruder interfering with electrical equipment may already have caused damage.

A remotely monitored alarm is not a firefighter. A surveillance camera cannot repair damaged equipment. And the presence of an electronic security system does not establish that qualified personnel can intervene before an incident escalates.

What happens if a criminal damages electrical components or protective systems?

What happens if an electrical fault produces sparks or fire?

What happens if the fire spreads beyond the equipment enclosure into the surrounding forest?

What happens if the seasonal access roads are impassable?

These are not questions answered by a statement that the installation will be monitored remotely.

Fraser BESS Is Not an Ordinary Electrical Substation

The December 14, 2025 Fraser emergency response plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, each with a stated capacity of 3,916 kWh.

That produces a total of 767,536 kWh, or approximately 767.5 MWh.

This substantially exceeds the 500 MWh and 540 MWh figures previously presented publicly.

The installation is proposed on a forested mountain ridge, in the vicinity of wetlands, potentially combustible organic soils, and terrain that complicates emergency response.

The consequences of criminal interference with such an installation must be assessed in light of those site-specific conditions.

The July 23, 2026 Hartwick incident demonstrates that copper theft can cause electrical equipment to spark and catch fire.

It does not prove that the same incident would produce battery thermal runaway at Fraser. That depends on the equipment affected, the electrical configuration, protective systems, and the ability to isolate faults.

But it does establish that theft-induced electrical fire is a real initiating event, not a speculative invention.

And the consequences of such an event at Fraser require a site-specific assessment.

Did Fraser Storage Evaluate Criminal Interference at All?

This is the question that EDF Renewables Development, Inc., Fraser Storage, LLC, and the Town of Hamden must answer.

Has the developer evaluated the risk of unauthorized intrusion, theft, vandalism, and deliberate equipment damage?

Has it identified which components could be damaged or compromised by criminal interference?

Has it assessed the potential consequences of damage to electrical grounding, cabling, monitoring equipment, and protective systems?

What physical security measures are proposed?

Who responds to an intrusion alarm, and how quickly?

What happens when the access roads are impassable?

Has the developer examined the possibility that an electrical fire originating outside the battery modules could threaten the installation or surrounding vegetation?

And has the December 14, 2025 emergency response plan been reviewed or updated following the July 23, 2026 electrical substation fire in neighboring Otsego County?

These are factual questions requiring documentary answers, not assurances.

A Private Theft Can Produce a Public Disaster

There is a substantial difference between a thief stealing copper piping from an unoccupied farmhouse and a thief interfering with electrical infrastructure at a massive battery energy storage facility.

In the first case, the immediate consequences may be confined to the building and its owner.

In the second, the consequences may extend to surrounding forests, neighboring properties, volunteer firefighters, and public water resources.

The criminal may be interested in the scrap value of copper.

The developer may regard theft primarily as a security or property-loss problem.

But the public has a separate interest in whether criminal interference could initiate an industrial emergency that local responders cannot promptly control.

The July 23, 2026 Hartwick fire should put an end to any suggestion that theft-induced electrical fires are merely theoretical.

Theft at electrical installations has occurred in upstate New York. Copper theft has occurred in Delaware County. Burglaries targeting unattended properties have been investigated across Delaware, Otsego, and Chenango Counties.

And in neighboring Otsego County, copper thieves actually caused a fire inside a fenced electrical substation.

Before Fraser Storage is permitted to install approximately 767.5 MWh of battery capacity on a remote, forested mountain ridge, the public is entitled to a documented explanation of how the developer intends to prevent, detect, and respond to criminal interference.

A mountain is not a security system.  A fence is not a guarantee against burglary.  An alarm is not a firefighter.  And a four-hour journey is not an immediate emergency response.

The residents of Hamden and the surrounding communities should not be expected to bear the consequences of a hazard that the developer has failed to examine.

Selling Justice While Neglecting Public Safety: How Will Delaware County Residents Evacuate a Fraser BESS Fire Without Transportation? Delaware County's District Attorney wants more money from motorists. Meanwhile, the Fraser battery project raises an unanswered question: how will residents without reliable transportation escape a major industrial fire?

 

Delaware County, New York, has a remarkable set of priorities as to rural transportation - read Part I here, Part II here.

County District Attorney Shawn Smith operates a traffic-ticket diversion program charging motorists $317, including $250 for the District Attorney's services.  Now he wants to increase the price to $350, generating additional revenue for the County and participating municipalities.

Meanwhile, for Delaware County residents, private automobiles in a rural area are the only means of transportation since the busy County, applying and receiving all kinds of state and federal grants, did not come around to get a grant for public transportation.  Not a priority.   

And now, in the Town of Hamden, a 6 by 10 mile area, a massive industrial Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) is proposed on a forested mountain ridge, raising the prospect of large scale catastrophic lithium-ion battery fires, explosions, toxic smoke, and wildfire spreading through surrounding forests and underground peat, gas and oil deposits - the County is sitting on a Marcellus gas shale and reports multiple oil wells, and the project's emergency "plan" reports the project being put 125 feet away from wetlands - natural source of peat deposits.

In other words, the local authorities - ALL, Town of Hamden, County of Delaware, CWT, CWC and the developers - represented by one and the same law firm Young and Sommer - are merrily putting a powder keg over a bonfire.  Their site visits reported that - oh well, there are not a lot of people over there.  So what? They are expendable now?  With their homes, loved ones, pets, cattle and belongings?

NO EVACUATION ROUTES OR PLANS in any of the project documents that are so far publicly available. NONE.

So here is a question that Delaware County officials should answer before another permit is issued:

How are residents who cannot afford reliable transportation supposed to evacuate themselves if - or rather when, given how the project is handled - the Fraser BESS inferno occurs?

1. Delaware County's Motorists Are a Revenue Source

As discussed in the preceding article, Selling Justice in Delaware County, District Attorney Shawn Smith's traffic diversion program converts traffic-ticket dispositions into a source of revenue.

The current charge is $317, of which $250 goes toward the District Attorney's program. That represents approximately 78.9% of the total charge.

The proposed increase to $350 would make participation still more expensive.

For residents of a major metropolitan area, losing access to a car may mean taking a bus, subway, or train.

In rural Delaware County, the consequences can be considerably more severe.

Residents depend on their vehicles to reach employment, medical appointments, grocery stores, schools, and essential services. Those without a car may depend on relatives, neighbors, or limited transportation services.

For an elderly person, someone with a disability, or a low-income resident, the difference between owning a functioning automobile and being unable to maintain one can determine whether that person can leave home independently.

Yet the County treats motorists as a source of additional prosecutorial revenue.

And that transportation dependence has implications far beyond ordinary traffic enforcement.

2. Fraser BESS: A Fire Emergency That Will Not Wait for Residents to Find a Ride

The proposed Fraser BESS project is located on a forested mountain ridge in the Town of Hamden, within the New York City watershed.

The developer's December 14, 2025 Emergency Response Plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, each with a stated capacity of 3,916 kWh.

That amounts to approximately 767.5 MWh of installed battery capacity, substantially exceeding the 500–540 MWh figures publicly associated with the project.

The proposed facility would be unmanned.

The emergency response documentation contemplates a potentially four-hour response time for an owner's representative.

The surrounding terrain includes forested slopes, wetlands with potential peat deposits and difficult emergency access.  If a peat bog catches fire, the equipment that is needed to extinguish that type fire needs to be delivered by giant military helicopters.  If the surrounding forest catches fire, at the speed of the recent California forest wildfires, the entirety of the Town of Hamden (remember, roughly a 6 by 10 mile area) will be wiped out in less than an hour.

Hamden does not have its own fire department - a VERY good candidate for an industrial project of the type reported around the country and state of New York alike to burst into uncontrollable fires often, including on a scale requiring massive evacuations of surrounding areas.

Emergency response depends upon volunteer resources from neighboring communities, including Delhi, NY.

I reported on this blog how in one case, Delhi, NY volunteer firefighters arrived to a house fire at night without water.  A dog died in that fire, the house was completely destroyed, the owner suspected and reported an arson, the Village and County refused to investigate.

I received not only harassment online, like here and here and here (not the full list), for reporting on that fire - and no other media source, as far as I know, reported on it. 

Here is the juiciest piece of advice to me from commentators:

I also received death threats, and was relentlessly harassed for reporting the incident by Sharon Reichert-Morgan, wife to Josh Morgan, a then-volunteer firefighter who was among the crew who arrived at that house fire without water - and by a flock of her friends.  

Josh Morgan's wife promised me, among other things, that if MY house catches a fire, she will hide her husband's keys.  Which would have made no difference since he was arriving to house fires without water anyway.

Guess what - Josh Morgan has now risen in the local ranks, he is the Chair of the local Republican Party, a Councilman in the Town of Delhi, and a CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER in the Village of Delhi, and THE TOWN OF HAMDEN!!!

He is the one who is going to be "responsible" - a funny word, isn't it, when pronounced next to Josh Morgan given what I reported about him 10 years back - for fire safety.

But, in this case, Josh Morgan's competency - and conflicts of interests (Young Sommer represents every single stakeholder, developer and government alike) involved - are not the subject of online spats, or even death threats to one particular investigative journalist.

They may cost LIVES and may cost an ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER spreading far beyond the Town of Hamden.

A battery fire can produce hazardous smoke and gases. A fire spreading into the surrounding forest could require evacuations extending beyond the immediate facility.

In mountainous terrain, weather and wind conditions may complicate both suppression and evacuation.

A plan for managing the burning equipment is not a plan for evacuating the population.

Source: Fraser BESS Emergency Response Plan, December 14, 2025; project documentation concerning battery capacity, site conditions, and emergency access.

3. Where Are the Buses? Where Are the Evacuation Vehicles?

Suppose a Fraser BESS incident requires evacuation of nearby residents.

What happens to a household without a functioning car?

Who picks up an elderly resident living alone?

How is a wheelchair user transported?

What happens to someone who cannot drive at night, or whose vehicle cannot negotiate a seasonal road in winter?

Who transports residents requiring oxygen, mobility equipment, or other medical assistance?

And how are families supposed to evacuate their pets, horses, cattle, and other livestock?

An emergency evacuation plan must identify transportation resources before the emergency occurs.

It must establish who will dispatch vehicles, how residents will request assistance, where they will be collected, which roads will remain available, and where they will be taken.

It must account for road closures, smoke conditions, disabled vehicles, and the possibility that the same limited road network will be needed by arriving emergency responders.

Simply telling residents to leave is not an evacuation plan.

And, by the way, where the Fraser BESS project is planned, the road leading to that ridge-top location is gravel, narrow and windy, and equipment going up to extinguish the fire may clog the ways of frantic people and cattle going down escaping the fire and running for their lives.

If Delaware County cannot identify sufficient transportation capacity for residents without private vehicles, that deficiency belongs in the Fraser BESS risk assessment before the project is approved.

4. Delaware County Was Already Involved in Fraser BESS Planning

The County cannot treat these questions as matters solely for the Town of Hamden or the developer.

The Fraser BESS project review included County participation.

The July 9, 2025 project kickoff and site visit involved the Delaware County Emergency Response Director, County Planning representatives, and local officials.  Was not very widely advertised though.

Subsequent project records describe coordination concerning transportation and road access, including an April 28, 2026 meeting involving the New York State Department of Transportation, Delaware County Department of Public Works, and Delhi and Hamden highway officials.

These meetings demonstrate that transportation and access were already within the scope of governmental project review.  Under the guidance of Young Sommer, of course.

But reviewing how construction vehicles and emergency apparatus will reach a battery installation is not the same as establishing how residents will escape from it.

Where is Delaware County's civilian evacuation transportation plan?

Where is the inventory of vehicles available to transport people who cannot drive?

Where are the arrangements with transportation providers?

Where is the plan for winter evacuations, accessible transportation, emergency shelters, and livestock relocation?

And where is the evidence that the required transportation resources will actually be available during a major fire?

Sources: Fraser BESS project kickoff/site visit records, July 9, 2025; April 28, 2026 transportation coordination meeting records.

5. The Same Government That Collects Money From Motorists Must Plan for Those Who Cannot Drive

If you caged a person or animal, you are responsible for their well-being.

The same simple maxim applies if you grounded a person or animal and de facto deprived him or her of their means to escape a fatally dangerous industrial event.

The connection between traffic enforcement and emergency preparedness is not incidental.

Delaware County's residents depend exclusively on automobiles because of the County's rural geography and limited transportation alternatives.  THAT'S WHY DA Smith reported such a high revenue for the tickets.  In any metropolitan area, as Smith's and Public Defender Ermeti's disclosures reveal (reported today by the Reporter), people may use a taxi, an Uber, subway etc.   

That dependence gives the District Attorney's traffic diversion charges an economic significance far beyond the nominal cost of disposing of a ticket. 

Not in the Town of Hamden.

Not to escape off the burning forested peat-covered mountain ridge with seasonal snowed in gravel roads.

In the Town of Hamden, the proposed Fraser BESS project creates a scenario in which private transportation may become a matter of immediate survival.

A person who cannot afford to repair or maintain a vehicle does not become less vulnerable because the County has collected additional traffic diversion revenue.

A resident who cannot drive because of age or disability does not acquire transportation merely because an emergency alert instructs everyone to evacuate.

The County's responsibility to plan for those residents exists independently of whether they own automobiles.

The question is therefore one of public priorities.

Delaware County has identified a mechanism to extract additional revenue from motorists.

Has it demonstrated comparable initiative in identifying, financing, and organizing emergency transportation for people who cannot evacuate themselves?

The Fraser BESS project makes that question urgent.

6. Emergency Readiness Must Precede Industrial Development

The relevant distinction is between emergency response at the industrial facility and emergency preparedness for the surrounding community.

The developer may provide instructions concerning battery isolation, incident command, hazardous gases, and firefighting tactics.

But a major incident could extend beyond the facility boundary.

County and municipal authorities must address the civilian consequences, including evacuation warnings, transportation, accessible shelters, medical support, road management, and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions.

The issue is particularly serious where an industrial installation is proposed in a forested mountain environment with limited access roads and volunteer emergency services.

Emergency readiness cannot be improvised after an incident begins.

And the absence of reliable transportation cannot be treated as the private problem of residents who lack automobiles.

7. A Question for District Attorney Shawn Smith and Delaware County Government

The District Attorney's traffic diversion program has a price.

The proposed increase has a revenue objective.

But what is the County's budget for evacuating residents who cannot drive?

How many accessible vehicles can be deployed in Hamden?

How many people can be transported within the time available during a spreading wildfire?

Who has responsibility for residents living along seasonal roads?

Has the County determined whether emergency vehicles and outbound civilian traffic can use the same roads simultaneously?

Has it conducted a full-scale evacuation exercise involving residents without private transportation?

And has the County required the Fraser BESS developer to demonstrate that an industrial fire can be managed without leaving surrounding residents stranded?

These questions require documented answers, not general assurances.

Delaware County cannot reasonably treat motorists as a dependable revenue source while treating the transportation needs of its most vulnerable residents as somebody else's responsibility.

Before the Fraser BESS project proceeds, the public should be shown a comprehensive, operational civilian evacuation plan, including arrangements for residents without transportation.

Because when an industrial fire threatens a rural community, the ability to escape must not depend on whether a resident can afford a car.

Selling Justice in Delaware County, Part II: Wayne Marshfield's 80/20 Deal — Sharing the Proceeds of Traffic Ticket-Fixing with Municipalities Whose Judges Deliver the Dismissals: Wayne Marshfield Arranged for Municipalities to Receive 80% of the Money Gouged From Motorists by District Attorney Shawn Smith. The United States Supreme Court Has Already Condemned Financial Interests in Traffic Court Adjudications

In my previous article, “Selling Justice in Delaware County: District Attorney Shawn Smith Wants to Raise the Price of Traffic Ticket Dismissals While Half the County's Drivers Cannot Afford to Keep Their Licenses,” published November 6, 2026, I examined how Delaware County District Attorney Shawn Smith charges motorists hundreds of dollars for his prosecutorial “services” as a salaried public official, in exchange for obtaining dismissals of traffic tickets from local town and village justices.

Smith's office openly advertises a $250 “DA Fee” as part of the $317 charge for traffic diversion. 

He now proposes raising the total charge to $350. 

His office reported nearly half a million dollars in revenue for 2025 and budgeted approximately $750,000 for 2026.

As reported by J. Lawrence-Bauer in The Reporter on November 6, 2026, Smith and Delaware County Public Defender Joseph Ermeti acknowledged that approximately half of the county's drivers may lack valid licenses, that poverty contributes to the loss of driving privileges, and that residents of this vast rural county have virtually no public transportation.

Smith knows that losing a driver's license in Delaware County may mean losing employment, access to food, medical care, and the ability to maintain a livelihood. Nevertheless, he is proposing to gouge motorists for even more money.

But Smith is not the only public official involved in this traffic ticket-fixing revenue business.

Enter Wayne Marshfield, Supervisor of the Town of Hamden, NY.

On September 25, 2024, the Delaware County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 151. 

According to the county's legislative record, Marshfield proposed the amendment directing 80% of the designated traffic diversion revenue to the municipalities having jurisdiction over the original traffic infractions, while Delaware County retained 20%.

In other words, Marshfield arranged for the municipalities whose town and village justices must dismiss the traffic tickets to receive the overwhelming majority of the proceeds.

The scheme is simple.

The district attorney charges the defendants. 

The town and village justices dismiss the tickets. 

The municipalities employing those justices collect 80% of the money. 

Wayne Marshfield proposed that financial arrangement.

And the United States Supreme Court has already spoken about judges whose decisions generate revenue for the municipalities they serve.

Wayne Marshfield's 80/20 Deal: Sharing the Proceeds for Selling Justice

A traffic ticket is a judicial proceeding.  The district attorney does not own it.  He cannot impose a criminal fine, sentence a defendant, or dismiss a pending judicial proceeding by himself.  Those powers belong to the court and must be exercised according to law.

Yet Smith's traffic ticket-fixing operation charges motorists a predetermined amount for the opportunity to obtain dismissals.  The county collects the money, and the district attorney requests the judicial dispositions necessary to complete the transaction.

Marshfield's amendment added a financial distribution arrangement under which 80% of the designated proceeds are paid to the municipalities having jurisdiction over the traffic infractions.

The municipalities receive the money precisely because the traffic prosecutions arose within their jurisdictions.  Their town and village justices possess the judicial authority necessary to dismiss those prosecutions.

The financial beneficiaries and the judicial decision-makers are thus connected through the same municipal governments.

This is not an ordinary criminal fine imposed by a judge after adjudication.  It is a charge established outside the judicial sentencing process, collected through the district attorney's traffic diversion arrangement, and distributed according to a formula proposed by Marshfield.

What law authorizes a county supervisor to arrange the distribution of money charged by a prosecutor for obtaining favorable dispositions of judicial proceedings? What law authorizes the municipalities to receive it? And what law permits the judicial authority of town and village courts to become the indispensable component of a revenue-producing arrangement benefiting the governments that maintain those courts?

Marshfield's amendment deserves scrutiny  because of what is being divided.

The money comes from defendants facing prosecution. The promised result is dismissal. The judges must deliver that result. And their municipalities receive the proceeds.

The Supreme Court Already Condemned This Kind of Financial Interest in Tumey v. Ohio

In Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant's due process rights were violated when the judicial officer adjudicating the case possessed a financial interest in convictions.

The case involved a mayor who exercised judicial authority and received compensation contingent upon convictions, while the municipality also benefited from the fines collected.

EXACTLY what we have with Marshfield-Smith's not-so-little revenue scheme.

The Supreme Court condemned the financial temptation built into the adjudicative arrangement.

The constitutional defect did not depend upon proof that the mayor had actually convicted an innocent defendant.  It arose from the financial interest attached to the exercise of judicial power.

A defendant is entitled to an impartial judge, not a judicial officer whose financial interests favor a particular disposition.

That constitutional principle is not suspended because the proceeding concerns a traffic ticket. 

Nor is it suspended because government officials decide to collect the money through an administrative arrangement rather than a fine imposed after trial.

The Constitution does not permit the financial interests of government officials to replace independent judicial adjudication.

Ward v. Village of Monroeville: The Judge Does Not Have to Pocket the Money Personally

The Supreme Court's decision in Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972), is even more important.

In Ward, a mayor adjudicated traffic and ordinance violations in a municipal court that generated substantial revenue for the village. 

The mayor did not personally receive the fines. 

Nevertheless, he exercised executive responsibility for municipal finances.

The Supreme Court held that this arrangement violated due process.

The money did not have to go into the judge's personal pocket. The municipality's financial interest, combined with the mayor's fiscal responsibilities, was enough to disqualify him from adjudicating the cases.

Now consider the Marshfield-Smith arrangement.

The municipalities receive 80% of designated traffic diversion revenue.  

Their town and village justices DELIVER the VOLUME of dismissals necessary for that revenue to exist.

It is the DA-judge-municipality financial chute.

Marshfield's legislative arrangement made the financial interest of the municipalities explicit.

The judicial officers are not mayors exercising executive responsibility over municipal budgets, as in Ward. 

They are town and village justices. 

But that does not make the financial relationship disappear. 

It raises the question of how the municipalities' financial interests are separated from the judicial decisions upon which the traffic ticket-fixing business depends.

The Supreme Court has already rejected the proposition that municipal revenue interests are harmless merely because the judge does not personally collect the money.

The county cannot avoid the constitutional question by routing the ticket-fixing scheme proceeds through the County Treasurer and municipal accounts.

Connally v. Georgia: Five Dollars Was Enough

In Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977), the Supreme Court invalidated an arrangement under which a justice of the peace received $5 for issuing a search warrant but received nothing for denying the application.

Five dollars.

The Court held that the financial incentive violated constitutional requirements of judicial impartiality.

According to The Reporter, Delaware County's traffic ticket-fixing operation generates hundreds of thousands of dollars annually - which DA Smith gleefully reports to the County, and asks to allow him to increase the fees.  

Under Marshfield's arrangement, municipalities receive the overwhelming majority of designated revenue.

According to J. Lawrence-Bauer's March 10, 2026 article in The Reporter, the Town of Hancock alone received $142,250 in 2025.

If a $5 payment contingent upon a judicial decision was constitutionally impermissible in Connally, the financial arrangements surrounding the dismissal of thousands of traffic prosecutions in Delaware County demand examination.

How much money, if any, reaches the town and village justices personally? How much supports the courts in which they preside? What understandings exist concerning the judicial dismissals that make the revenue possible?

The answers belong in the public record.

Non-Attorney Town and Village Justices Looking to Prosecutors for Legal Advice

New York permits town and village justices to preside over criminal and traffic proceedings without being attorneys.

Most of them are non-attorneys.

As a criminal defense counsel in the past who practiced in Delaware County justice courts, I have personally observed non-attorney town and village justices openly looking to local prosecutors for legal advice about how to resolve cases pending before them.

The prosecutor is an advocate appearing before the court, not the judge's independent legal adviser.

But, New York State does not have ANY education-level requirement for town and village justices' positions, and does not watch what the uneducated judges do in their "service".

So, the judges feel free to use DAs as their legal advisors.

So when, like we have in the Delaware County's traffic ticket-fixing arrangement, the prosecutor is also the official who establishes the monetary conditions for obtaining favorable dispositions and whose revenue figures are regularly reported to the county legislature, that interested legal advisor de facto means that how the judge will decide traffic ticket cases that the DA wants to charge defendants money for - is a given.

The district attorney charges the money, determines eligibility, and seeks dismissal. The judge, advised by that District Attorney, exercises the judicial power necessary to complete the transaction.  The municipality receives its share of the proceeds.

Sweet deal, isn't it?

It is. 

And it is as criminal as it is sweet.

The September 11, 2024 Delaware County Finance Committee records make the issue particularly important. 

Assistant District Attorney Schuyler Kinneman reported that some town judges had expressed skepticism about the proposed diversion program. 

He also discussed the participation of Delhi Town Court and the ability of individual judges to request that certain offenses be excluded from diversion.

Thus, before Marshfield's September 25, 2024 amendment, the district attorney's office was already discussing the participation and preferences of the local judicial officers - and whether those non-attorney judges, advised by the DA, may bow out of generation of the revenue stream much sought by DA Smith, the County and its municipalities.

What understandings were reached? 

Who participated in the discussions? 

Were the justices asked to approve the dismissal of charges after payment? 

Were they advised of the financial benefits to their municipalities? 

Did they independently examine the legality of the prosecutor's fees?

There is no public reporting or records available in open access about it.

And people need to start questions, why?

Including the zillion-dollar question: did Marshfield know what arrangements had been made with the judges before he proposed giving their municipalities 80% of the proceeds?

The Municipalities Are Making Real Money From This Arrangement

The revenue figures have been repeatedly reported by J. Lawrence-Bauer in The Reporter.

In “Traffic Diversion Program Generates $247K Year-to-Date,” published September 3, 2025, Lawrence-Bauer reported that Eric Northrup (quite coincidentally, nephew of former DA and former judge and present ADA Richard Northrup), appearing for District Attorney Shawn Smith, informed the county Legislative Committee that 267 diversion agreements had generated $66,750 in August 2025 alone.  Year-to-date revenue had reached $247,750, and Hancock received $16,500 for August.

In “Traffic Diversion Program Gains Speed After Strong First Year,” published February 11, 2026, Lawrence-Bauer reported that the program processed 2,544 cases during 2025 and generated $478,750.  Eighty percent went to municipalities, while Delaware County retained 20%.  Monthly revenue increased from $7,250 in January 2025 to $65,000 in January 2026.

In “Caseloads, Funding, and ‘Poaching’ Discussed at County Legislative Committee Meeting,” published March 10, 2026, Lawrence-Bauer reported Smith's March 4 statement that the program generated approximately $485,000 in 2025 and that the county budgeted approximately $750,000 for 2026.

The same article reported that Hancock received $142,250 in 2025, while Bovina and Tompkins received $500 each.  Smith had prepared individualized reports showing supervisors how much money was returning to their municipalities.

In “Fiscal Realities and Public Rebuttals: Inside the Delaware County Legislative Committee,” published February 9, 2026, Lawrence-Bauer reported Smith's disclosure that January diversion revenue reached approximately $68,000 despite winter conditions that ordinarily reduce traffic enforcement.

These are not insignificant sums.

Marshfield's arrangement made municipalities the principal financial beneficiaries of a traffic ticket-fixing operation that generated nearly half a million dollars in 2025 and was budgeted to generate three-quarters of a million dollars in 2026.

Where is the money going? 

How much has the Town of Hamden received?

How much did Marshfield personally receive for his input?

What part of the revenue supports municipal court operations? 

What payments, if any, have been made to judicial officers?

And how many traffic prosecutions have been dismissed by the participating town and village justices after motorists paid DA Smith off? 

New York Has Already Condemned Ticket-Fixing

In Matter of Conti, 70 N.Y.2d 416 (1987), the New York Court of Appeals sustained the removal of a town justice for misconduct involving ticket-fixing.

The integrity of judicial proceedings does not become less important because the charge is a traffic violation.

New York Penal Law §§ 200.00 and 200.10 prohibit bribery and bribe receiving involving public servants pursuant to corrupt agreements or understandings intended to influence official action. Penal Law § 195.00 addresses knowing unauthorized official conduct undertaken with the requisite intent.

Federal law also criminalizes qualifying corrupt arrangements involving public officials, including bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 and honest-services fraud involving bribery or kickbacks under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346.

The county cannot make an otherwise corrupt arrangement lawful by calling it traffic diversion or adopting a resolution distributing the proceeds.

If the prosecutor and the judges have reached improper understandings concerning predetermined dispositions, the fact that those understandings operate through an organized countywide system does not immunize them from criminal law.

A county resolution is not a license to fix judicial proceedings.

New York Judicial Ethics Authorities Have Already Warned About These Arrangements

New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has repeatedly addressed the dangers arising when prosecutors administer traffic diversion arrangements involving fees, judicial dismissals, and financial benefits to local governments.

Opinion 14-175 considered judicial participation in designing or implementing countywide traffic diversion programs, including the appearance-of-impropriety problems arising from financial interests in redirected traffic revenue.

Joint Opinion 10-32/10-48 discussed programs involving payments by motorists, prosecutorial requests for dismissal, revenue distributions, and even payments associated with cases disposed of through participating courts.

Opinions 19-145, 20-165, and 25-62 addressed additional concerns involving prosecutorial control of diversion, upfront payments, and the independence of town and village justices.

The courts are not administrative extensions of the district attorney's office. Their authority to dispose of prosecutions cannot be subordinated to the prosecutor's financial arrangements or the municipalities' desire for revenue.

The judges are supposed to administer impartial justice, in each and every case in front of them, not to deliver dismissals necessary to sustain a municipal revenue business, or DA Smith's personal business.

Marshfield's Arrangement in a County Where Poverty Is Already Destroying Transportation

The November 6, 2026 Reporter article makes Marshfield's arrangement especially disturbing.

According to Lawrence-Bauer, Public Defender Joseph Ermeti estimated that approximately half of Delaware County drivers lack valid licenses, and District Attorney Shawn Smith agreed that the estimate sounded about right.

The officials acknowledged that poverty contributes to the loss of driving privileges and that public transportation is virtually nonexistent.

They recognized that people continue driving because otherwise they cannot work, obtain essential services, or survive economically.

Yet Delaware County collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from motorists seeking favorable dispositions of traffic prosecutions and distributes most of the proceeds to municipal governments under the formula Marshfield proposed.

The county's residents are losing their ability to drive because of financial hardship, while their municipal governments collect revenue from a system built around the threat of traffic penalties and loss of driving privileges.

Instead of developing public transportation for residents who cannot afford to maintain valid licenses, county officials are discussing how to increase the charges imposed through the district attorney's traffic ticket-fixing operation.

Marshfield's amendment made the municipalities principal financial beneficiaries of that operation.

The same municipalities whose courts must independently adjudicate the traffic prosecutions.

What Did Wayne Marshfield Arrange, and Who Authorized It?

The September 25, 2024 legislative record identifies Marshfield as the official who proposed the 80/20 distribution.

The public is entitled to know what legal authority he relied upon, what discussions preceded his amendment, and what he knew about the arrangements between the district attorney's office and participating town and village justices.

It is entitled to know how much revenue the Town of Hamden has received, how that money has been spent, and what role the Hamden Town Court has played in delivering the dismissals necessary to generate it.

It is entitled to know whether the constitutional implications of Tumey, Ward, and Connally were ever examined by the County's giant legal mind, Amy Merklen - or was it "County Attorney" Kevin Young of Young Sommer, so reported in a recent Reporter's article?

And the public is entitled to know whether the county's officials considered the conflict between municipal financial interests and the independence of the judicial officers whose decisions make the revenue possible.

The County's Board of Supervisors cannot vote away the Fourteenth Amendment

---

Sources and Authorities

Delaware County Records

1. Delaware County Board of Supervisors, Resolution No. 151, September 25, 2024, including Wayne Marshfield's amendment establishing the 80/20 distribution of designated traffic diversion revenue.

2. Delaware County Finance Committee meeting records, September 11, 2024.

3. Delaware County District Attorney's Office, published Traffic Diversion Program fee schedule.

Reporting by J. Lawrence-Bauer, The Reporter (Catskills Today)

4. “No License, No Transit, No Choice? Public Defender Estimates Half of Delaware County Drivers Lack Valid Licenses,” November 6, 2026.

5. “Traffic Diversion Program Generates $247K Year-to-Date,” September 3, 2025.

6. “Traffic Diversion Program Gains Speed After Strong First Year,” February 11, 2026.

7. “Fiscal Realities and Public Rebuttals: Inside the Delaware County Legislative Committee,” February 9, 2026.

8. “Caseloads, Funding, and ‘Poaching’ Discussed at County Legislative Committee Meeting,” March 10, 2026.

United States Supreme Court Decisions

9. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927).

10. Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972).

11. Connally v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 245 (1977).

New York Case Law and State and Federal Statutes

12. Matter of Conti, 70 N.Y.2d 416 (1987).

13. New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, Opinion 14-175; Joint Opinion 10-32/10-48; Opinions 19-145, 20-165, and 25-62.

14. New York Penal Law §§ 195.00, 200.00, 200.10.

15. 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1343, 1346.

Selling Justice in Delaware County: District Attorney Shawn Smith Wants to Raise the Price of Traffic Ticket Dismissals While Half the County's Drivers Cannot Afford to Keep Their Licenses: A Poor County, a Prosecutor's $250 Fee, Nearly Half a Million Dollars Collected in One Year, and Town and Village Justices Who Must Deliver the Judicial Dismissals

On November 6, 2026, The Reporter published J. Lawrence-Bauer's article, “No License, No Transit, No Choice? Public Defender Estimates Half of Delaware County Drivers Lack Valid Licenses,” reporting on the November 4, 2026 meeting of the Delaware County Legislative Committee.

 According to Lawrence-Bauer, Delaware County Public Defender Joseph Ermeti estimated that approximately 50% of the county's drivers lack valid driver's licenses. District Attorney Shawn Smith agreed that the estimate sounded about right. 

The article describes the officials' acknowledgment that public transportation is virtually nonexistent in this vast rural county, that financial hardship contributes to license suspensions, and that police sometimes refrain from enforcing licensing violations because doing so could cost residents their jobs.

At the same meeting, Lawrence-Bauer reported, Smith proposed increasing the charge for participation in the county's traffic diversion program from $317 to $350 per ticket. 

The article specifically connects the proposal to increased revenue for Delaware County and participating municipalities, with the county retaining approximately 20% of the program's revenue.

Thus, the county's own prosecutor acknowledged the financial hardship and transportation dependence of local residents while advocating increased charges through a program that generates substantial government revenue.

Since when does a district attorney have authority to establish the price of disposing of a judicial proceeding, collect that price, and increase it to generate more government revenue?

A Poor County Turned Into a Prosecutor's Revenue Source

The economic conditions underlying this arrangement were acknowledged months before the November 2026 discussion. In “Caseloads, Funding, and ‘Poaching’ Discussed at County Legislative Committee Meeting,” published by The Reporter on March 10, 2026, J. Lawrence-Bauer reported that Smith and Public Defender Ermeti described Delaware County as a “poorer county,” where approximately two-thirds of criminal cases are handled by the public defender.

The November 6, 2026 article added the extraordinary estimate that approximately half of county drivers lack valid licenses. Lawrence-Bauer reported that Ermeti and Smith recognized the economic cycle in which residents lose driving privileges, continue driving because they must work, and face additional financial burdens. In a county without meaningful public transportation, losing a driver's license may mean losing employment, income, access to medical care, and the ability to pay outstanding fines.

Yet the prosecutor's traffic diversion program has become a substantial source of government revenue.

In “Traffic Diversion Program Generates $247K Year-to-Date,” published September 3, 2025, J. Lawrence-Bauer reported that Eric Northrup, appearing on behalf of Smith, informed the Legislative Committee that the program had generated $66,750 through 267 diversion agreements in August 2025 alone, bringing year-to-date revenue to $247,750. Northrup described applications as increasing dramatically.

In “Traffic Diversion Program Gains Speed After Strong First Year,” published February 11, 2026, Lawrence-Bauer reported that the program, officially launched in January 2025 following a December 2024 pilot, had processed 2,544 cases and generated $478,750 during 2025. Eighty percent of the reported proceeds went to municipalities, while Delaware County retained 20%. Northrup described the program as a major success, with monthly revenue rising from $7,250 in January 2025 to $65,000 in January 2026.

The financial figures continued to grow. In “Caseloads, Funding, and ‘Poaching’ Discussed at County Legislative Committee Meeting,” published March 10, 2026, Lawrence-Bauer reported Smith's March 4 statement that the program had generated approximately $485,000 in 2025 and that the county had budgeted approximately $750,000 for 2026. Smith expected the program to remain approximately on track to meet that projection.

These figures reveal the financial scale of a program built around traffic prosecutions. Smith's office reported nearly half a million dollars in 2025 revenue, anticipated three-quarters of a million dollars in 2026, and subsequently proposed increasing the charge to motorists.

The question is no longer merely how much money Smith can collect. It is who authorized him to sell favorable prosecutorial dispositions in the first place.

A Traffic Ticket Is a Judicial Proceeding, Not an Invoice From Shawn Smith

A traffic ticket initiates a proceeding governed by New York law. 

A motorist accused of violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law is entitled to contest the charge before a court. 

If convicted, the motorist is sentenced by a judge, and any fine must be authorized by statute and imposed through the judicial process.  The district attorney does not possess independent sentencing authority, cannot establish his own schedule of criminal fines, and cannot independently enter a judicial order dismissing a pending prosecution.

Yet Delaware County's traffic diversion program requires motorists to pay a predetermined amount in exchange for the opportunity to obtain dismissal.  According to the district attorney's published fee schedule, the $317 charge consists of a $250 district attorney fee, a $55 traffic course charge, and a $12 processing charge. The $250 is not a fine imposed by a judge following conviction. It is money charged by the DA for his prosecutorial services - charged ILLEGALLY.

THE BULK of the illegal "traffic diversity" charge - 80.44% of it - is illegally charged by Delaware County District Attorney Shawn Smith for his services as a SALARIED PUBLIC prosecutor.

The February 11, 2026 Reporter article described the program as permitting eligible motorists to complete an online safety course and pay a reported $312, after which their charges would be dismissed without license points. 

The November 6, 2026 article reported a $317 charge, which Smith proposed increasing to $350.

What statute authorizes Smith to impose this charge, increase it, or make payment a condition of obtaining a favorable prosecutorial disposition? What statute authorizes him to treat the resulting proceeds as a revenue source to be expanded according to the financial expectations of county and municipal governments?

Prosecutorial discretion is not legislative authority somehow changing what a prosecutor may or may not do financially with the defendants he is prosecuting.  

The power to prosecute is not the power to impose monetary penalties, and the authority to recommend dismissal is not the authority to sell it.  Nor does the existence of a program supply the legal authority that the program itself requires.

Smith's Financial Interest Is Not Hidden: He Openly Reports It to the County Legislature

The financial character of this program is not something critics must infer from secret documents. It has been repeatedly reported by The Reporter, with specific attribution to Smith and his staff.

In her September 3, 2025 report, Lawrence-Bauer described ADA Richard Northrup's presentation of the program's revenue, including the $66,750 collected in August and $247,750 year-to-date.  She also reported that Hancock received $16,500 for August, while several municipalities received nothing.

In her February 11, 2026 article, Lawrence-Bauer identified Hancock, Colchester, and Sidney as major beneficiaries.  ADA Richard Northrup reported that Hancock was averaging approximately $20,000 monthly, and local supervisors praised the program's financial returns.

The February 9, 2026 article, “Fiscal Realities and Public Rebuttals: Inside the Delaware County Legislative Committee,” also by Lawrence-Bauer, reported that Smith described January 2026 as an unexpectedly busy month for traffic diversion, generating approximately $68,000 despite winter conditions that ordinarily reduce traffic enforcement activity.  Walton Supervisor Joe Cetta requested a comprehensive year-end accounting of the distributions to towns, which Smith agreed to provide.

The March 10, 2026 article reported that Smith had prepared individualized accounting reports for supervisors showing how much money was returning to their municipalities.  Hancock reportedly received $142,250 in 2025, while Bovina and Tompkins received $500 each.

In that article, Lawrence-Bauer placed Smith's financial disclosures under the heading “The DA's Ledger: Rising Revenue and Rising Felonies.”

By November 6, 2026, The Reporter was describing Smith's proposal to increase diversion charges and the committee's discussion of administrative expenses, municipal distributions, and the county's retained share.

The prosecutor's office was openly reporting the financial yield of traffic prosecutions, shared with municipalities employing adjudicating judges, and projecting further growth.

Where, in these discussions, was the prosecutor's obligation of impartiality?

 Where was an explanation as to what law allows a public prosecutor to charge defendants for his "services" of prosecuting them?  There is NONE!

Where was the discussion of the judiciary's exclusive authority to dispose of pending prosecutions?  And where was the recognition that the people paying these charges live in a county whose own officials acknowledge a transportation crisis driven substantially by poverty?  That the County and DA Smith are openly GOUGING?

The district attorney is supposed to administer justice, not report the financial productivity of prosecutions as though he were managing a commercial enterprise.

The Town and Village Justices: Who Delivers the Dismissals Smith's Program Promises?

Smith cannot dismiss pending judicial proceedings himself.  

The judicial act of dismissing a pending prosecution belongs to the court.  

Smith's revenue-generating program therefore depends upon town and village justices exercising their judicial authority to deliver the dismissals.

New York permits town and village justices to serve without being admitted attorneys, and many are non-attorneys. 

The author of this article, a longtime criminal defense counsel in the past, who practiced in Delaware County justice courts, has personally observed non-attorney town and village justices openly looking to local prosecutors for legal advice concerning the disposition of cases pending before them.

That practice presents a fundamental problem of judicial independence even when the prosecutor has no financial interest in the disposition. 

The prosecutor is an advocate appearing before the judge, not the judge's independent legal adviser.

Now consider the situation where the same prosecutor administers a program generating hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, 80.44% of it for the DA's office itself - as is openly stated on DA's office's website.

The district attorney establishes monetary conditions, his office determines eligibility, the motorist pays, and the prosecutor then seeks dismissal. 

The town or village justice must exercise the judicial authority necessary to complete the arrangement. 

The prosecutor who benefits institutionally from the revenue-producing program may also be the person to whom the non-attorney justice looks for legal guidance about its dispositions.

What understandings exist between Smith's office and the participating town and village justices? 

Were they negotiated, and are they written?

Were the justices consulted about the program's operation? 

Do they independently examine the legal authority for the fees and determine whether dismissal is appropriate in each case, or do they routinely enter the dismissals requested by the prosecutor once the program's financial conditions have been satisfied?

The answers go directly to judicial independence, to legality of traffic ticket proceedings, and, possibly raise issue of state and federal ticket-fixing criminality.  

A non-attorney justice who looks to the prosecutor for legal advice is already placed in a position of potential dependence upon an advocate appearing before the court.

When that advocate administers a revenue-generating program whose operation requires judicial dismissals, the danger becomes acute.

The prosecutor cannot be both the financially interested architect of a disposition and the effective legal adviser to the judge who must approve it.  A judicial dismissal is not a receipt issued after payment, and a town or village justice is not Smith's subordinate.

New York Has Already Condemned Ticket-Fixing

New York's highest court has treated improper traffic-ticket dispositions as grave judicial misconduct. 

In Matter of Conti,  70 N.Y.2d 416 (1987), the Court of Appeals addressed ticket-fixing misconduct by a town justice and sustained removal from judicial office. 

The seriousness of ticket-fixing does not depend upon the monetary value of the underlying traffic offense.  It concerns the integrity of judicial proceedings and the prohibition against privately appropriating the court's authority to dispose of prosecutions.

New York Penal Law §§ 200.00 and 200.10 criminalize bribery and bribe receiving involving public servants where benefits are conferred or received pursuant to corrupt agreements or understandings intended to influence official judgment.  

Penal Law § 195.00 addresses official misconduct involving knowing unauthorized exercises of official authority undertaken with the requisite intent.

Federal criminal statutes also reach certain corrupt arrangements involving public officials, including qualifying bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666 and honest-services fraud involving bribery or kickbacks under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346.

A lawful diversion agreement is not criminal ticket-fixing merely because it results in dismissal after payment. 

But the label “traffic diversion program” cannot immunize an otherwise corrupt arrangement. 

If judicial outcomes are improperly predetermined through understandings between prosecutors and judges, the existence of an organized program does not make those understandings lawful.

If fixing a single traffic ticket can result in removal from judicial office, what scrutiny should be applied to a countywide system collecting hundreds of dollars per ticket and depending upon judicial dismissals?

How many of those dismissals have been independently adjudicated?  How many have been processed as a matter of routine? What has been communicated to participating judges, and who is examining the relationship between the prosecutor's revenue objectives and the courts' disposition of cases?

New York's Judicial Ethics Authorities Have Already Warned About Prosecutor-Operated Diversion Programs

New York's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics has repeatedly considered traffic diversion programs administered by district attorneys. 

Joint Opinion 10-32/10-48 examined arrangements involving payments by motorists, prosecutorial requests for dismissal, revenue distributions, and even payments associated with cases disposed of through participating courts. 

Opinion 19-145 addressed a prosecutor's traffic program involving administrative fees and recommended dismissals. 

Opinion 20-165 examined concerns about upfront payments, judicial discretion, and the possibility that motorists might believe payment guaranteed a favorable judicial outcome. 

Opinion 25-62 again considered the proper judicial role in prosecutor-administered diversion.

These opinions reinforce the independence of judicial decision-making. 

Judges cannot allow prosecutorial administrative arrangements to dictate judicial dispositions, and the legality of a prosecutor's monetary conditions remains a separate question that cannot be answered by pointing to the convenience of diversion.

The court is not an administrative extension of the district attorney's office.  A judicial dismissal must remain a judicial act, not the final step in a prosecutor's payment-processing system.

Berger v. United States: The Prosecutor Must Govern Impartially, Not Maximize Revenue

In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935), the United States Supreme Court explained the special responsibility of a government prosecutor. 

The prosecutor represents the sovereign, whose obligation is to govern impartially. The government's interest in a criminal prosecution is not merely to win, but to see that justice is done.

Justice Sutherland famously declared: “He may strike hard blows, [but] he is not at liberty to strike foul ones.”

That obligation reaches beyond courtroom advocacy. 

It concerns the character of prosecutorial authority itself. 

A district attorney is entrusted with coercive governmental power, not with a franchise to monetize that power. 

In Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized the dangers arising when prosecutorial judgment is affected by conflicting interests.

Here, Smith's financial objectives are expressly documented in the county proceedings reported by Lawrence-Bauer on September 3, 2025, February 9, February 11, March 10, and November 6, 2026. 

Smith administers the diversion program, charges an express fee, 80.44% of the it for his own "services", reports the resulting revenue to county legislators, and proposes increasing the charge to generate still more money - for himself, from his public elected office.

That is CRIMINAL.

The prosecutor's duty to govern impartially cannot be converted into a duty to maximize the financial return from prosecuting motorists.

His obligation is to justice, not revenue targets, municipal budgets, or producing ever-increasing receipts from people threatened with the loss of their ability to drive in an area where no alternative to driving exists.

Gouging a Poor County's Transportation-Dependent Residents

The most damning feature of the November 6, 2026 disclosures is their blunt cynicism. 

As Lawrence-Bauer reported, Smith and Ermeti acknowledged that Delaware County is a rural jurisdiction where many residents cannot survive economically without driving. 

They recognized the connection between financial hardship and the loss of driving privileges, estimated that approximately half of drivers lack valid licenses, and acknowledged that police sometimes refrain from enforcing licensing violations because doing so could cost people their jobs.

Smith's response is to propose charging motorists more money to participate in his diversion program. 

Not because a judge determined that a particular defendant deserved a higher fine, and not because the Legislature increased the statutory penalty for a particular offense, but because the increased charge would produce more government revenue.

This is a county where poverty threatens residents' ability to drive, and the prosecutor's office has turned the fear of losing driving privileges into a lucrative government revenue stream.

The county does not provide meaningful public transportation to replace the vehicles upon which residents depend. 

It does not solve the economic problem that leaves people unable to maintain valid licenses. 

Instead, its prosecutor charges struggling motorists hundreds of dollars for de facto ticket-fixing with local non-attorney judges who the same prosecutor advises and, according to public record, shares the illegal revenues with - through their municipalities.

The motorists are not customers shopping for a convenient service from DA Smith or ADA Northrup (formerly Delaware County DA, formally Delaware County Judge).  They are people facing the coercive authority of the state.

That authority threatens consequences affecting their ability to work and survive, while the prosecutor offers a paid route to avoiding those consequences and the county celebrates the proceeds.

Poverty becomes a source of government revenue.  The threat of losing transportation becomes leverage.  And the prosecutor becomes the administrator of the payment system.

Where Has the Money Gone?

As reported by Lawrence-Bauer on March 10, 2026, Smith described approximately $485,000 in 2025 revenue and a $750,000 budget estimate for 2026. 

Those figures represent approximately $1.235 million in reported 2025 receipts and projected 2026 receipts combined.

How much of the money actually collected has been spent on transportation assistance for the residents who need it? 

How much has been used to establish rural shuttle services, provide transportation to people unable to drive, or reduce the dependence upon private automobiles that county officials themselves acknowledge?

Even a portion of the proceeds could potentially support demand-responsive rural public transportation in Delaware County.  

This author came to live in Delaware County in 1999, left it to live in South Carolina in 2015, and now it is the year of 2026.

Taxes go up.

Smith is gouging poor motorists now.

Yet, no public transportation exists - it is not a priority for the County.

Instead, county officials are discussing how to increase the price of diversion for the already struggling victims of Smith's illegal gouging.

A public prosecutor illegally charges high financial fees against defendants in traffic ticket program as a condition of obtaining dismissals from local non-attorney judges in cahoots with the DA.  In full knowledge that losing a driving license in the area may mean loss of a job, of any means to maintain a livelihood, get sustenance or medical help.

The public deserves a full accounting—not merely how much money was collected, but where it went, who benefited, and why the district attorney is treating the disposition of traffic prosecutions as a revenue-generating operation.

Conclusion: Who Authorized Shawn Smith to Sell Justice?

---

Sources and Authorities

Reporting by J. Lawrence-Bauer, The Reporter (Catskills Today)

1. “No License, No Transit, No Choice? Public Defender Estimates Half of Delaware County Drivers Lack Valid Licenses,” November 6, 2026.  

Reporting on the November 4, 2026 Legislative Committee meeting, Ermeti's estimate that approximately half of county drivers lack valid licenses, Smith's agreement, the absence of practical public transportation, and Smith's proposed increase from $317 to $350.

2. “Traffic Diversion Program Generates $247K Year-to-Date,” September 3, 2025. 

Reporting Northrup's presentation of $66,750 in August revenue from 267 diversion agreements, $247,750 year-to-date, and the distribution of proceeds to municipalities.

3. “Traffic Diversion Program Gains Speed After Strong First Year,” February 11, 2026. 

Reporting 2,544 cases processed in 2025, $478,750 in annual revenue, the 80/20 distribution, the $312 participation charge reported at that time, and increasing monthly collections.

4. “Fiscal Realities and Public Rebuttals: Inside the Delaware County Legislative Committee,” February 9, 2026. 

Reporting Smith's February 4 disclosure of approximately $68,000 in January diversion revenue and the request for comprehensive municipal distribution reports.

5. “Caseloads, Funding, and ‘Poaching’ Discussed at County Legislative Committee Meeting,” March 10, 2026. 

Reporting Smith's March 4 statements concerning approximately $485,000 in 2025 revenue, the $750,000 budget estimate for 2026, municipal distributions, and the characterization of Delaware County as a poorer jurisdiction.

Judicial Decisions, Statutes, and Ethics Opinions

6. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

7. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987).

8. Matter of Conti, 70 N.Y.2d 416 (1987).

9. New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, Joint Opinion 10-32/10-48; Opinions 19-145, 20-165, and 25-62.

10. New York Penal Law §§ 195.00, 200.00, 200.10.

11. 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, 1343, 1346.

12. Delaware County District Attorney's Office, published Traffic Diversion Program fee schedule.