On November 4, 2026, Delaware County (NY) District Attorney's Office sent me as a journalist this press release entitled “Sentencing in Fraud Scheme Case.”
The announcement provides an interesting opportunity to examine how Delaware County officials respond to allegations of felony fraud—and what happens when the person accused of criminal conduct is an attorney representing those same officials.
A Class E Felony: Prosecution, Conviction, and Prison
According to District Attorney Shawn J. Smith's press release, Xueyu Luo, 43, of Manhattan, New York, pleaded guilty in Delaware County Court to one count of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a Class E felony.
The case was adjudicated by Delaware County Judge John Hubbard, who sentenced Luo to one to three years in state prison.
Luo had been arrested on July 25, 2025, in connection with an alleged organized criminal operation targeting senior citizens. The scheme involved persuading victims to withdraw money from their bank accounts and turn it over in cash.
The District Attorney's Office reported that Luo had attempted to steal property valued at more than $3,000.
Smith praised the Sidney Police Department and the New York State Police for their investigative work and emphasized the importance of protecting elderly residents from fraud.
The message from Delaware County law enforcement was clear: financial fraud is a serious crime, and those responsible will be prosecuted.
I agree.
But that raises another question.
What happens when allegations of felony fraud concern an attorney who represents Shawn Smith and John Hubbard in an action brought by a local journalist and property owner (me) and her husband - for participation in destruction of their property?
And what happens when the same journalist and taxpayer (me) sues the INSURER of Delaware County and the Town of Hamden, as well as their litigation counsel - shared by Shawn Smith and John Hubbard - for taxpayer waste, asserting as a predicate violation of NYS Constitution Article VIII Section 1, Gifts and Loans Clause (giving or loaning public money for private purpose) and a D felony insurance fraud in violation of Penal Law Article 176 in the amount exceeding $8,000.00? Where the culprit to whom the money was - unquestionably - based on his own sworn admission - donated by the yet unknown municipality (Delaware County or Town of Hamden) is - TADA - the soon-to-be former Supervisor of the Town of Hamden Wayne Marshfield.
A Potential Class D Felony: Insurance Fraud Involving Public Money
I have raised allegations concerning the possible commission of insurance fraud by an attorney representing Delaware County officials in litigation against me. In fact, I, acting as a witness of the crime, turned Frank Miller of Hancock Estabrook LLP, litigation counsel for Delaware County, Town of Hamden, Marshfield, Hubbard and Smith - into New York State Department of Insurance, Fraud Unit, as well as New York State police - lauded here for its activities to investigate and apprehend Luo.
New York Penal Law § 176.20 defines insurance fraud in the third degree as a Class D felony where a person commits a fraudulent insurance act and thereby wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds—or attempts to do so—property valued at more than $3,000.
A Class D felony is more serious than the Class E felony involved in Luo's prosecution - 2 classes higher.
These are not my "allegations". I turned Miller in for a criminal investigation upon his sworn admissions made in court.
Multiple Sworn Statements and the Question of Perjury
I have also challenged multiple sworn statements submitted in judicial proceedings by attorneys representing public officials.
New York Penal Law § 210.10 makes perjury in the second degree a Class E felony when a person makes a knowingly false material statement in a sworn written instrument required by law, with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of official functions.
Perjury in the first degree, under Penal Law § 210.15, is a Class D felony involving knowingly false material testimony.
The relevant questions include what statements were made, whether they were knowingly false, their materiality, and whether the remaining elements of the applicable offenses are present.
Where multiple sworn submissions are involved, each must be examined on its own facts.
These are matters for criminal investigation, not questions to be disposed of merely because the person making the allegations is an opposing litigant.
What Happens to the Person Reporting the Alleged Crimes?
Here is where the situation becomes particularly troubling.
Instead of the allegations being addressed through an independent investigation, attorneys representing the officials concerned have sought sanctions against me, including restrictions on my own and my husband's access to court - BECAUSE I raised the issues of what I believe as an expert in New York State criminal law qualifies under insurance fraud and perjury felony statutes - which are, on conviction, automatic disbarment offenses.
And here comes a zillion dollar question: WHO MAY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE MILLER based on my crime tips?
The Conflict of Interest: Where are the Special Investigator and Special Prosecutor, and a "Special Judge", Mr. Smith and Mr. DuMond and Judge Hubbard?
Miller - remember? - REPRESENTS these folks in Neroni v Delaware County, EF2025-447.
And it is ON THERE BEHALF that he made perjurious statements.
And it is on Marshfield's (County Supervisor) behalf that he billed a taxpayer funded insurance carrier (NYMIR) for over $8,000.00 in full knowledge that Marshfield was not entitled to gifts or loans of public funds - as directly prohibited by New York State Constitution, Article VIII Section 1.
New York County Law § 701 provides for the appointment of a special district attorney when the district attorney is disqualified from acting.
And what disqualifies a district attorney MORE than being a co-conspirator and aider and abetter and an accomplice in the same criminal conduct?
So - when the issue of his attorney committing multiple crimes on his and a County Supervisor's behalf arose, and was brought in front of Smith BY MILLER HIMSELF - Smith, in his execution of the duties of his elected public office, should have sought (1) disqualification of Miller from representing the county and Smith - and Hubbard - and DuMond - and Marshfield - in ANY litigation; and (2) appointment of a special investigator and prosecutor.
And, naturally, John Hubbard could not be a judge presiding over a criminal case against Miller - for qualifying offenses of Judiciary Law 487, fraud upon the court, a class A misdemeanor, and for felonies perjury and insurance fraud.
DID Smith apply for such a special investigator and prosecutor?
OF COURSE NOT! Instead, he allowed Miller - who I already turned in for criminal investigations by state authorities - to continue representation of Smith, Hubbard, Dumond, Marshfield and Delaware County - and actually asked the court to TAMPER WITH THE WITNESS OF THAT CRIME! To punish me for even raising those issues!
No comments:
Post a Comment