The hilarious (in)competency (and not only) discussion of Delaware County's County Attorney Amy Merklen at her deposition on October 15, 2025

Here is the full deposition of Delaware County (NY) attorney Amy Merklen that was conducted on October 15, 2025 by Biglaw Greenberg & Traurig's attorney Michael Grygiel 

(you can look at the impressive credentials of this attorney on the website of his law firm here) in a federal case Decker Advertisement, Inc. v. Delaware County, 3:23-cv-1531 (NDNY), filed in court as Dkt. # 246-14.

In this blog article, I will cover several points of the deposition: 

(1) the relentless, matter-of-fact exposure of Amy Merklen's stark incompetence in her job as a County Attorney;

(2) exposure of Amy Merklen's stark neglect of her duties; and

(3) expose of Amy Merklen's casual deceit of courts - a criminal offense and a disbarment offence.

Those of the readers who know this personage (Merklen) for a number of years at a professional level will feel vindicated that these three points were finally stated, from the horse's own mouth, under the penalty of perjury, on record, extracted by a Biglaw shareholder attorney who Delaware County cannot dare to mow down by claims of "frivolousness" etc.

I wrote a cautionary article on this blog about Merklen's complete inaptitude for the role of a County Attorney in 2017 and again this year, based on my personal experience as opposing counsel to Amy Merklen in Family Court on a daily basis.

An Albany Law School Professor Patrick Connors testified about stark unethical behavior of Amy Merklen against her own client DSS Commissioner Dana Scuderi-Hunter.

Dana Scuderi-Hunter's counsel has filed a scathing memorandum of law listing Amy Merklen's unethical shenanigans.

Then, in 2022, the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division 3rd Department wrote about Amy Merklen's legal abilities quite bluntly:

"We begin by addressing the Board's resolution terminating petitioner's employment, particularly as it relates to the Hearing Officer's finding that petitioner's actions in a Family Court juvenile delinquency proceeding amounted to disloyalty and misconduct. The first "resolved" clause includes the following declaration: "[T]he Board does hereby declare that the testimony of [petitioner] at a Family Court hearing described in the transcripts of this matter is not a factor in this decision but rather that the conduct of [petitioner] in engaging in acts of lack of cooperation, disloyalty, insubordination, conduct unbecoming, and misconduct [form] the basis of this decision as found and recommended by the Hearing Officer." Considering that the Hearing Officer's findings of disloyalty and misconduct are based in significant part on petitioner's role in testifying at the aforementioned Family Court hearing, it is difficult to reconcile the Board's declaration with the Hearing Officer's recommendation other than to conclude that petitioner's role in that matter cannot serve as the basis for any finding 1311*1311 of misconduct. Moreover, it is evident that the charges pertaining to the Family Court juvenile delinquency proceeding reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory roles of the Commissioner of Social Services, the County Attorney and the Probation Department.

By way of background, the Family Court juvenile delinquency proceeding involved a juvenile in foster care (hereinafter youth No. 2) who was under probation supervision and had allegedly engaged in criminal and disruptive behavior. As a consequence, both the Director of Probation and the County Attorney advocated for placement of youth No. 2 in secure detention pending treatment at a substance abuse facility, while petitioner took the position that youth No. 2 should be held in a less restrictive setting. That disagreement and the attendant circumstances prompted the charges of disloyalty and misconduct against petitioner. In our view, the charges relative to this disagreement misperceive petitioner's statutory authority to take the position she did in the matter.

The position of a county social services commissioner is in the noncompetitive class, and appointments are for a five-year term (see Social Services Law §§ 65[4]; 116[1]; County Law § 400[4][b]). A commissioner is subject to removal or other disciplinary action only for incompetency or misconduct in office following due notice of the charges and a hearing (see Civil Service Law § 75[1][c]; Social Services Law §§ 34[4]; 116[2]). The commissioner is "responsible for the administration of all the assistance and care for which the county is responsible" (Social Services Law § 65[2]). As such, petitioner was imbued with authority under state law to provide for the care and custody of youth No. 2 (see Social Services Law §§ 65[2]; 383-c; see generally Matter of Richard UU., 56 AD3d 973, 977-978 [2008]).

At the same time, the Director of Probation was responsible for supervising youth No. 2 while he was on probation (see Family Ct Act § 360.1[2]; Executive Law § 256[1], [4], [5]). The Director of Probation was also authorized to file a violation petition in Family Court based upon "reasonable cause to believe" that youth No. 2 had violated the terms of his probation (Family Ct Act § 360.2[1]). In such a proceeding, the County Attorney serves as the presentment agency (see Family Ct Act §§ 254[a]; 301.2[12]; County Law § 501[1]). Under County Law § 501(1), the County Attorney is the "legal advisor" for the County and its officers, including petitioner. Notably, however, County Law § 501(2) expressly provides: "Whenever the interests of ... the county are inconsistent with the 1312*1312 interests of any officer paid his [or her] compensation from county funds, the county attorney shall represent the interests of the ... county. In such case the officer may employ an attorney-at-law at his [or her] own expense unless the provisions of [Public Officers Law § 18] are applicable" (see County Law § 409; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.7, 1.13).

The foregoing statutory provisions illustrate that petitioner, the Director of Probation and the County Attorney each had defined statutory roles in the Family Court proceeding involving youth No. 2. That petitioner opted to promote a less stringent measure than her counterparts does not, as charged by respondents, constitute a breach of loyalty owed to either the County Attorney or the Director of Probation, or vice versa. Accordingly, to the extent that the Board relied, at all, on the Hearing Officer's findings with respect to charge 1, specification Nos. 1.42 through 1.91, its determination is not supported by substantial evidence. It therefore follows that so much of the Board's determination as sustained said specifications are annulled."

Before and after this determination, according to local press reports (The Daily Star in 2020 and The Reporter in 2024) two County Supervisors - Andes' Wayland Gladstone in 2020 and Delhi's Maya Boukai in 2024 voted to not re-appoint Amy Merklen to the position of County Attorney specifically because she is not good for the County - and breeds litigation at taxpayers' expense.

As to Maya Boukai, Merklen's revenge was swift. 

Emboldened by the 3rd Department's support of termination of Dana Scuderi-Hunter on grounds other than insubordination and disloyalty, Amy Merklen simply hired a harasser attorney Facciponte to "investigate" - and harass - Maya Boukai in apparent retaliation for such a vote (after a publicity scandal flourished, he was let go by Hancock Estabrook LLP that was his host law firm at the time).

But, then, the disaster of the October 15, 2025 deposition of Amy Merklen happened.

The deposition is a publicity disaster for Merklen - and Mole who pushes Merklen's disastrous employment with the County - on a completely different level.

In the deposition, Merklen fumes there that she is supposedly improperly "harassed" and put on the spot by the deposing counsel, for incompetence and stupidity (and a couple other things, too, not mentioned by Merklen) - while at the same time DEMONSTRATING incompetence in real time, under oath, and on official court record.

So - here we go.

This is well into the deposition, page 164 - where attorney Grygiel, apparently tired of the stupidity of the deponent, states in the exchange with attorney Facciponte:

Facciponte:  "We all understand, basically, the black letter law about 92 percent of the questions you ask".

Grygiel:  "Apparently your client isn't /sic/"

The client in question, Amy Merklen, explodes:

The Witness (at lines 23-25): "Did you or did you not just call me incompetent and/or stupid on the record?"

Well...  Did he?  And if he did - did he have grounds for that - coming from Amy Merklen's mouth under oath?

I have had many, many, such occasions in the courtroom where Merklen was blundering stupidities in court.  Those stupidities, unfortunately, do not see the light of day as she does it in sealed Family Court proceedings - juvenile delinquency, child abuse and neglect.

Here, finally that stupidity is seeing the light of day - so thank you profoundly, Attorney Grygiel.

Earlier in the deposition, Attorney Grygiel started a hilarious line of questions grilling County Attorney Amy Merklen on her understanding of a core 1st Amendment subject:  is it possible to defame the government in the U.S.:

See here: he is asking her a question:

Grygiel:  Your letter says, "defamatory to the Delaware County Board of Supervisors"?

Merklen:  Correct.

Grygiel:  So my question is, did you consider The Reporter's publication that is the subject of your March 15, 2022 letter defamatory to the Delaware County Board of Supervisors?

Merklen says:  Yes.

Grygiel presses further:  Do you know whether the 1st Amendment allows our government body in our system to be defamed?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, attorney Grygiel was grilling her on 101 1st Amendment topics - 3 years into litigation against the County and herself on the issue of 1st Amendment retaliation.

And, this is THE County Official who is bound by duty to TRAIN County personnel in how NOT to violate the 1st Amendment.  So, she must know 1st Amendment law forwards, backwards and criss-cross.

And yet - here is what she say: under oath.

"If it is a federal practice, I do not do a lot".  "I do not do any federal practice".

This statement is DEVASTATING for an attorney who 

(1) is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution - but does not know it, and admits it under oath;  

(2) is a salaried employee of the County tasked to have the County personnel trained and supervised that it does not violate people's constitutional right - but confirms she does not know that law herself, under the penalty of perjury - and 3 years into litigation for a particular constitutional violation; and

(3) has been for nearly 20 years, since 2007, taking away PEOPLE'S CHILDREN and PEOPLE'S LIBERTY - all constitutional rights - without knowing or caring to know whether the rights she is taking away are constitutional rights.

In 2018 I published a book - it is still available on Amazon - listing her little invention, the "A through O" conditions for parents in (fabricated) child neglect and abuse cases that Merklen puts into illegal ex parte court orders from the start of the case, forcing parents:

(1) to talk to DSS despite a parallel criminal prosecution, in violation of the 5th Amendment;

(2) to let DSS search the premises, in violation of 4th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution;

(3) to submit to numerous invasive "evaluations" in violation of rights to privacy recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of due process guarantees of the 14th Amendment and part of "penumbras" of the 9th Amendment; and

(4) she actually takes children away - including right in the maternity hospital - and parental rights are core, fundamental constitutional rights.

And here - under oath - we have a casual "I do not do federal law".

And Attorney Grygiel saw the problem - and went for it full speed.

He presses the issue:  

"Do you know whether, under our First Amendment system, it is permissible to defame a government body?" - and look what happens next.

Delaware County Attorney Amy Merklen, 3 years into litigation on 1st Amendment retaliation issues, asks a question instead of answering:

"Can you explain what you mean by "our First Amendment system"?

Well - she is trying to deflect, of course, but looks really stupid.

Note that she is trying to bid her time with answers to questions - forcing attorney Grygiel to go into factual details first:

"you allege, in the first paragraphs of the letter, that this publication of The Reporter defamed the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, correct?"

She confirms.

So - Attorney Grygiel presses her further:

"So my question is, can, under the First Amendment, a governmental body be defamed consistent with our protection for freedom of speech?".

And he has to ask once again, in another way:

"Could the County Board, to your knowledge, as a plaintiff, have sued The Reporter for defamation?"

And there comes the DEVASTATING answer of Merklen:  "I don't practice First Amendment law".

In other words:  "I do not know".

And - attorney Grygiel presses even more:

"Isn't it important for you, as the County Attorney, when you're making representation in your official capacity on official stationary bearing County letterhead to be accurate in the assertions represented in the letter?"

Her answer:  "I would think so".

So Attorney Grygiel presses further:

"So my question is, could the Delaware County Board of Supervisors, to your knowledge, under our First Amendment jurisprudence, bring a defamation claim against The Reporter?

And then she starts to wiggle:

"I did not say that the Delaware County Board of Supervisors was legally defamed.  What I said was defamatory, meaning, in nature defamatory".

But Attorney Grygiel does not buy the deflection and presses on:

"Well, explain to me the difference there".

Merklen still tries to wiggle out of it, and asks:

"In the general sense in, with the layman's understanding of what defamatory means?"

Attorney Grygiel holds her to the task:

"Well, I'm not asking for a layman's.  You're an attorney, correct?".

Merklen:  Correct.

Grygiel: "My question is straightforward.  Can a municipal government body or a County Government entity commence an action as a defamation plaintiff?"

And the answer is - again:

"I don't practice that. I've already said that".

In other words:  "I do not know."

And yet attorney Grygiel is not done with her yet on this issue.

He presses further:

"Yes, but you said the County was defamed here?" - 

and then she says, under oath:

"No, I didn't".  "I did not say that".

And then Attorney Grygiel recites back to her her own words from her letter to The Reporter accusing The Reporter of coverage that is "overwhelmingly false and defamatory to the County Board of Supervisors".

And she says - "right".

So - "no, I did not say that", and "right".

Elsewhere in the deposition (please read it - I interlinked it at the top of this article) Merklen was unable to provide examples of what exactly she meant as "false and defamatory" in her own letter to the newspaper.

And finally, when cornered, she says:

"I don't know what you want me to say".

She, nevertheless acknowledges that she wrote in the letter the word "defamatory".

And then Attorney Grygiel strikes the final blow:

"Ok, you ever hear of a case called New York Times v Sullivan?"  And that is what is called a "landmark", seminal, main US Supreme Court case from 1964 on the 1st Amendment saying the government may not be defamed, and setting very high standards for defamation if individual public officials are suing critics for defamation.

Normally, asking such a question of a reasonably competent lawyer in Merklen's position is an insult.

Not in this situation though.  Attorney Grygiel clearly sees that what is in front of him is not a competent lawyer. 

And he was right to ask the question.

Because the answer came:

"No".

Attorney Grygiel pressures:

"Never?" (and these things are on the bar exam)

And her answer is "I just said so".

And after that the normally eloquent Attorney Grygiel is so stunned with her open incompetence that he only says:  "All right.  Well, fair enough".

Fair enough?

This is a County Attorney who RULES Delaware County, is paid by taxpayers in a POOR county the ever increasing salary that, as of now, is set at $171,000.00 a year.

And she is admittedly, completely incompetent on core issues of law that she is supposed to guide and protect the County on.

Elsewhere in the deposition, there is a discussion that Merklen outsources litigation to outside counsel without supervision or review of what is filed by that counsel in court:

And, last but not least, here is the hilariously devastating testimony of Merklen where Merklen admits to deceiving the court in filing of the formal document called "Answer" to a lawsuit -where Merklen had to answer the Complaint (lawsuit-initiating document) paragraph by paragraph.

In a formal Answer, three main types of answers are possible:

(1) to admit the allegations in the specific paragraph to which the defendant is responding;

(2) to deny these allegations, or

(3) to state that the defendant "lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" as to how to answer.

All three types of answers must be utilized by defendant in good faith, of course.

It is the # (3) type of Merklen's answer that Attorney Grygiel is focusing on.

Merklen's counsel understands very well what KIND of answers Attorney Grygiel is trying to get out of Merklen - and vigorously tries to prevent that - but Grygiel is asking a relevant question about Merklen's OWN LETTER that she claimed in the Answer not to have "knowledge or information to form a belief" about:

She says, hilariously, that "she would say" that she authored that letter (bearing her signature, put into the court record):

After some more squabbles with Facciponte:

Merklen understands she is caught here in lying to the court (a disbarring offense), she tries to portray the line of questioning as "ridiculous", but she nevertheless answers, under oath:

Here we go: line 22 - "I mean, I guess it's not accurate".

But Grygiel is not done with her.

He presses further - about another paragraph, paragraph 37 of the complaint, and the correspondent "lack knowledge or information to form a belief" in Merklen's answer filed with the court.

And Merklen states, under oath, lines 7-8: "I knew this" - so her claim in the answer that she "lacked information to form a belief" as to paragraph 37 in the complaint was a lie to the court.

Merklen then tries to portray it as a mere mistake - not lying to the court, lines 5-9:

Delaware County taxpayers - this is YOUR County Attorney.

And unless you pressure your government to remove her - she will continue to hit you in the pocket and breed litigation for the County with her raging, admitted incompetence.

Delaware County's penchant to search, investigate and fabricate claims against whistleblowers - attorneys, reporters, own personnel

Sometime in 2007, Oneonta's The Daily Star reported that a Sheriff's Deputy Eck blew a whistle on the Delaware County Sheriff's Department that:

(1) he was told to fix a traffic ticket for a Burton Clarke, of THE Clarke's family, receiving, until now, huge financial benefits from the county, such as PILOT-financing that re-spread Clarke's tax burden to other taxpayers - I am currently suing the Town of Delhi to invalidate its 2026 budget over it;

(2) there are Nazi salutes in Delaware County Sheriff's Department's meetings; and that

(3) County patrol cars are used by county employees for romantic affairs.

The current disastrous litigation-breeding Delaware County Attorney Amy Merklen was employed by the County at that time already and was working up the ranks.

I reported on officer Eck - and connected - stories in 2015.

The 2015 audit of the State Comptroller (reportedly, another audit is going on in Delaware County right now) confirmed and even wider problems in Delaware County.

But, as to Eck - with the help of attorney Frank Miller - Eck was fired, and whoever he was reporting on kept their employment with the County.

Sometime in December of 2009, the present Delaware County Attorney Amy Merklen sat at a deposition of then-DSS Commissioner Bill Moon.  I was the deposing attorney - and we were respondents, me and my husband, in a child neglect case brought by Moon against us.  

Bill Moon openly testified there and then, in my presence and in Amy Merklen's presence, under oath, on record, that he would not have brought child neglect proceedings (later dismissed as improperly brought after a full discovery, motion practice and trial) against myself and my husband, also then a trial lawyer litigating against the County and Merklen - had I allowed a warrantless search of my husband's and my own home law office, exposing to search by DSS and County police files of our clients going back to 1974.

Merklen sat there, heard that - and continued to prosecute the fabricated case.

When I filed a Notice of Claim against the Count, the ever-present Frank Miller, heavily drunk and breathing fire and alcohol (I sat within inches from him, one could light a cigarette on his breath), tried to have me PHYSICALLY removed from a deposition for interposing objections on behalf of my client.  He literally called upon Deputy Sheriff ("coincidentally") LaVonne Shields 

(relative of sued social worker Meghan Barnes who undressed in front of my minor child showing him "an eagle tattoo going into the crack of her butt" according to my child, such a tattoo in that location confirmed by some of her classmates, and I turned her in for criminal prosecution, relative of then-County Treasurer Beverly Shields with whom I was in litigation)

and asked LaVonne Shields to forcibly carry me out of the deposition room.  She already advanced at me, and only my warning that I will sue her personally for 4th Amendment violation on the spot, ask for punitive damages personally against her and bankrupt her - stopped her, to the dismay of attorney Frank Miller.

Merklen, as County Attorney, continues to hire Frank Miller for the County's "litigation needs" - obviously for his harassment value.

Notably, Miller has recently joined a new law firm, Hancock Estabrook, LLP, together with a partner Thomas Murphy and an associate Giancarlo Facciponte.

And, notably, the Miller-mentored Facciponte was recently booted from Hancock Estabrook LLP after a publicity scandal blew up that Facciponte was harassing elected Town of Delhi supervisor for doing her job.

As a good girl, she got her prize for that - ascension to the County Attorney seat.

In 2014, I then reported that the County invented a "search of attorney files" policy as a condition of my access to a particular client detained in Delaware County jail on fabricated charges that later resulted in:

(1) dismissal of the charges based on a forged warrant, forged by Judge Richard Gumo's clerk and/or County's illegally nepo-hired "Sheriff's Deputy" Derek Bowie;

(2) firing of Derek Bowie;

(3) removal of Judge Gumo first from criminal cases and then from the bench;

(4) reporting on that removal by The Reporter;

(5) retaliation against The Reporter by the County;

(6) the currently pending lawsuit against the County by the Reporter's owners;

(7) the continued retaliation by the County against the Reporter during the pendency of the lawsuit.

I was also aware of certain individuals apparently hired by DA's office eavesdropping on attorney-client conferences in the courthouse.  The particular individual (last name Lieberman, phonetic), very intelligent, pretended to be a homeless person - he wasn't, documented.  His disastrous smelly "a la homeless person" clothing and hair style were immediately gone as soon as he got into a spat with the DA's office.

In 2024, The Reporter/Lillian Browne published an article "‘Snitch Culture’ in Delaware County. Under Watch: Defense attorneys allege jailhouse eavesdropping" indicating that the old policies continue.

And, DA Shawn Smith threatened to sue the newspaper for defamation - even though the article was based on reports by several defense attorneys (Ermeti, Kaas, Van Buren) about eavesdropping, and based on a VIDEOTAPE of a Zoomed presentation where DA Smith openly admitted to listening to attorney-client communications:

"In a November 2023 recorded Zoom presentation on a potential opioid diversion court initiative, District Attorney Shawn Smith stated that he listens to phone calls made by inmates. The meeting included representatives from the Office of Court Administration and Delaware County Court Judge Gary Rosa.

“I listen to the jail phone calls who [sic] tell their attorney, ‘Oh, give me rehab so we can beat this case, or whatever,’” Smith stated in the meeting."

The Reporter's editor testified at deposition in federal court that DA Smith, in retaliation for that TRUTHFUL, documentary-based article, barred her from receiving press-releases and threatened to sue her employer.  I published a link to the full court-filed deposition of Lillian Browne (510 pages) here, click the word "Enjoy!".

In 2015 I wrote on this blog, based on a tip from a witness that the County is preparing a set up to take Dana Scuderi-Hunter down on a fabricated felony charge.

According to public records, including court records I reviewed, and statements of various dissenting public officials, Dana Scuderi-Hunter was doing a good job as a DSS Commissioner - but crossed the "old girls' club" of Tina Mole and Amy Merklen by cleaning up DSS Department of Bill Moon hires, as well as 

Mole and Merklen hired Bill Moon - who escaped by a hairs-breadth felony charges in a case where, coincidentally, the present Public Defender Joe Ermeti was a special prosecutor - and Ermeti received that newly created position of Public Defender immediately after he refused to investigate and prosecute Bill Moon and allowed him to resign and escape to another county unscathed, nothing corrupt here at all - TO INVESTIGATE Dana Scuderi-Hunter's efforts to clean after Bill Moon's mess.  And fired her based on Bill Moon's "investigation" - helped out and supported by who? - TADA! - the same Frank Miller.

Merklen obtained the firing of Scuderi-Hunter because Scuderi-Hunter was independent and did not allow Merklen to wag the dog - and the 3rd Department reversed the Miller-drafted charges of "disloyalty/insubordination" pointing out Merklen/Miller's lack of basic understanding of the statutory role of the DSS Commissioner.

An expert in ethics testified in Scuderi-Hunter's proceedings pointing out STARK ethical violations where Merklen deliberately and openly sought to fire her own client, a department head, literally, for doing her job, for truthfully testifying, and for disobeying Merklen's "legal advice".

Again, nothing corrupt here either.

In 2014-2016 I reported on a yet another fabrication against a whistleblower, the People v O'Sullivan case that resulted in a dismissal of a criminal case because of a forged arrest warrant, but then in the burning down of a whistleblower's house with the local officials refusing to extinguish the fire or then investigate the arson.  You can word-search this blog "Barbara O'Sullivan", "Derek Bowie" and "house fire" and see the violent reaction in comments of county officials and their friends to the blog series.  I received death threats for these reporting series.

And, in 2025, the County hired Hancock Estabrook/attorney Giancarlo Facciponte, Miller-mentored (Facciponte was since booted by Hancock Estabrook after publicity about his "performance" surfaced) to investigate and threaten two of the County Supervisors - Town of Hamden Supervisor Wayne Marshfield and Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai.

And, the editor of The Reporter from Walton NY, testified at a deposition in 2025 that retaliation against her, exclusion of her from press releases, locking her up with a security officer in a Public Information Officer's building to prevent her from attending a public meeting (I don't know why she did not sue the county and the officer for that yet, she should) - all stemmed from her TRUTHFUL reporting about Dana Scuderi-Hunter's ordeal, where Dana Scuderi-Hunter was persecuted by Merklen for her TRUTHFUL testimony in Family Court.

Truth, reporters, defense attorneys and any kind of whistleblowers are not welcome by Merklen and the County led by her - and that has been a documented fact for a very long time.

Delaware County's litigation counsel Hancock Estabrook LLP got rid of harasser attorney Giancarlo Facciponte

I wrote on this blog about harassment by attorney Giancarlo Facciponte of Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai hired for that purpose by Delaware County Chairperson Tina Mole and Amy Merklen.

While reading deposition testimony in the lawsuit by The Reporter (Decker Advertisement, Inc.) against Delaware County, I have learnt that:

(1) Facciponte also investigated (the word used) Town of Hamden Supervisor (Facciponte's own client in the case) Wayne Marshfield for allegedly leaking information from an executive session - while such "leaking" was expressly permitted in that federal case by the court, and at that same deposition Facciponte openly accused Magistrate Lovric of misconduct and made open threats to Maya Boukai at a deposition stating that "she will learn"; that

(3) Facciponte harassed every single witness for The Reporter at depositions - and their counsel - and harassed The Reporter's editor especially viciously, I will dedicate some articles to documentary proof of that harassment from depositions.

Interestingly, Attorney Frank Miller notified the court in Decker case, the same Magistrate Lovric that Facciponte accused without basis of improper catering for Plaintiffs, that at least as of March 18, 2026 Facciponte was no longer employed by Hancock Estabrook and asking the court to remove him as an attorney of record - which the court did.

The "winner" of the absolute prize of Facciponte is the Syracuse, NY law firm of Scolaro, Fetter, Grizanti & McGough, P.C.   

On its website the new law firm of harasser Facciponte advertises itself as providing efficient legal advice - and with care - to entrepreneurs, families and closely held businesses.

I bet with the acquisition of the loose cannon Facciponte the law firm's advice will get a lot more "sophisticated".

As of today, Facciponte was not listed on the official team of attorneys at his new law firm as per attorney registration.

Let's hold our collective breath as to how this disaster of an attorney - as evidenced by his DOCUMENTED conduct in multiple depositions filed in December of 2025 and January of 2026 with the federal court - will be described in an advertisement to the law firm's clients.

Because - you know what - attorneys may not engage in false advertisement, it may be a disciplinary violation.

As soon as Facciponte's advertisement at his new law firm appears online, I will publish it.

Stay tuned.

Delaware County harasses its own supervisors for lawful release of protected documents - and Hancock Eastabrook's attorney Giancarlo Facciponte is the tool of harassment of supervisors AND journalists (deposition of Walton Reporter's Lillian Browne)

Recently, Walton reporter reported that Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai publicly stated that she was harassed by Delaware County, through its hired attorneys Hancock Eastabrook LLP/Giancarlo Facciponte, also an attorney in the ongoing federal case against the county Decker Advertisement, Inc. v. Delaware County, 3:23-cv-01531 where the County lost a motion to dismiss in February of 2025 and where duelling motions for summary judgment, each supported with about 900 pages or more of depositions and affidavits of county officials and other witnesses, are now pending.

I happened to file a journalistic FOIL/First Amendment request seeking information regarding authority of Hancock Eastabrook LLP, Frank Miller, 

Ashley Hayes 

and Giancarlo Facciponte whose name and visage interestingly disappeared from the website of Hancock Eastabrook LLP after the controversy with Town of Delhi supervisor was publicly reported, but he is still listed as attorney employed by Hancock Eastabrook, LLP on New York State official website:

All I asked for is - please, cough up documents showing authority of these individuals and a law firm to represent DelCo in ongoing litigations - Decker + several lawsuits where I am a party (several - because DelCo deliberately fragmented litigation by selectively removing a case meant for litigation to federal court and artificially kept it there, using Hancock's connections to the local judges, for 7 months post divestment of federal jurisdiction - while at the same time cooking up events of further retaliation against me as a journalist, including through my close family members).

And, please, cough up legal bills of these happy individuals and a law firm in these litigations, I want to see them.

The response of the County:  they do not have a shred of documentation I asked for because (supposedly) these happy individuals and a law firm were hired by an insurance carrier - and because of that, supposedly, the County has, again, not a shred of documentation showing why the holy cow these individuals claim to be attorneys for the county to different courts in different cases.

Additionally, the County introduced a trick - a "portal" for FOIL requests (I asked not only under FOIL, but also directly under the 1st Amendment) now attempting to MANDATE journalists like me and other records requesters to (1) register and account with a third party vendor;  (2) authenticate themselves, providing personal information to the third party vendor - and only then be able to SEE what County's responses are to the records requests.

I am suing the County for that inelegant violation of my 1st Amendment - and FOIL - rights, including my rights as a journalist engaged in newsgathering of newsworthy information about the local government.  See my lawsuit here.

Additionally, I filed a separate FOIL request asking what is the basis of authority of Miller/Hancock Eastabrook to represent the County in that lawsuit, too.

But: never underestimate capability of DelCo and its ruling czarine Amy Merklen (aka County Attorney) to breed and fuel litigation:

while ALREADY BEING SUED for this same conduct, they sent me two emails indicating that I must - once again - create an account and authenticate myself by providing personal information to a 3rd party provider - to even SEE what the heck their answer to me is.

Now, quite coincidentally, yesterday I was provided extremely interesting responses to my FOIL/1st Amendment request to the Town of Delhi seeking information as to what exactly were those masonic files that Maya Boukai released that caused Facciponte/Delco to harass her FOR DOING HER STATUTORY DUTY AS AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL - after consulting (1) the Town Attorney, and (2) a private attorney, at her own expense (consider the rule of fear emanating from the County that even makes an elected Town Supervisor to THINK this kind of expense is necessary).

Here is what I so far got - now, the Town of Delhi did not release the masonic files themselves for which Boukai was harassed by DelCo/Facciponte, I filed an administrative FOIL appeal while also notifying Boukai that I may sue her under 1st Amendment, or FOIL, or both, if these files - already released to someone else - are not released to me.

But, I've got a beautiful exchange between Facciponte and Boukai in letters where Boukai in no uncertain terms tells Facciponte that he is lying and harassing her and to f**k off in the future unless he subpoenas Boukai.  Boukai is a member of County Legislature - remember?

Here is the response of the Town of Delhi to my FOIL/1st Amendment request, of yesterday:

And here is the documentation that was attached:

This is the Facciponte summary of his harassment of Boukai:

And this is Boukai's "f**k off" letter:

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a Facciponte's so-called deposition - that he turned into an harassment session - of Walton Reporter's editor Lillian Browne, the requester of information that Facciponte harassed Boukai about, and the reason why DelCo is in litigation for 3 years, costing the County an untold amount of money - because the County took a position that the cost of continued designation of Reporter as the County's legal notices paper (which it was for decades before) is the firing of the Reporter's editor Lillian Browne and sanitizing its coverage of Delco business (including political alignment with Republican majority of DelCo government).

I purchased this deposition from Pacer and interlinked all the glorious 510 word-searchable pages for you.

In a separate blog, I will analyze it and point out the most pertinent and interesting pieces.

Now - enjoy!  If you can.

Oh - and a valuable post-scriptum for the idiots from Hancock Estabrook and DelCo reading this blog and retaliating against me and my family while claiming in court (along with pursuing sanctions against me right after my publications here) that my blogs are irrelevant:

if you think you will intimidate me into stopping what I am doing to expose your misconduct in this blog - like you are intimidating Lillian Browne - like you are intimidating Maya Boukai - like you are intimidating anybody else who dares to criticize you - think again, if you have anything to think with (which I highly doubt given your conduct I am familiar with for decades).

The disaster of Amy Merklen, Delaware County Attorney (NY)

I wrote at the time Amy Merklen was ascended to power by Delaware County Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors Tina Mole - and I know Amy Merklen personally, from opposing her in litigation: she is bad news, and not in terms of fear of her competence.

She is incompetent, lazy, bad-tempered and vindictive - and all of that has been visited on Delaware County and its taxpayers, myself included, since 2017, with disastrous fiscal consequences and consequences to people's rights.

Now that the County is up to its eyeballs in litigation because of Amy Merklen and spent and continues to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys whose authority to represent the County I could not verify through FOIL requests with the County (County simply does not have any

 documentation supporting that authority) - readers will be thrilled to read, from the horse's own mouth, the revelations of Amy Merklen in her declaration in support of her motion for a summary judgment against the local newspaper that is suing her for 1st Amendment retaliation.

Note that even the threat of punitive damages did not clear up the brain - either of Merklen or of her attorneys - and Merklen continues to barge claiming, as of right, her right to "advise" the County officers and employees how to block the flow of information to the public and the press.

And - note that she confirms withholding benefits from Walton Reporter because of the contents of the reporting, a CLASSIC 1st Amendment violation.  She is an ATTORNEY, for God's sake.  Doesn't she have to go through CLE every year - in addition to her duty to know the law and ADVISE the County on how to NOT violate that same 1st Amendment?

And - by the way - she LIES, openly LIES, LIES UNDER OATH, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY - when she said that she never held herself out as being able to give commands to officers and employees of the County.

In her own testimony in the case against CPS Commissioner Dana Scuderi-Hunter, filed with the court, she testified that she was placed by the County higher than any other officer or employee of the County - appointed OR ELECTED.  And she enjoyed every minute of relishing when the 3rd Department upheld the firing of Scuderi-Hunter, even though it nullified Merklen's charges of "insubordination" - to Merklen.  Merklen and County's litigation attorney kept making public statements and made a statement directly in a lawsuit where I was a party that they won against Scuderi-Hunter ON ALL CHARGES - directly misrepresenting to the court the contents of the 3rd Department's decision.

So enjoy reading what they lying Merklen says here under the penalty of perjury.

In full knowledge that - who is going to charge her with perjury?  Local pocket DA?

The time has come. I am starting to publish depositions of Delaware County officials from the federal Walton Reporter lawsuit. The first one - the absolute kicker - Delco's Information Officer's revelations, from the horse's own mouth

 Enjoy!

I am posting this absolute piece of art in full, just follow the link and read it.

This is an "information officer" toiling in the County of Delaware at taxpayers' expense - who considers her primary duty to bend to the petty tyrant Amy Merklen who demands that no "sensitive" (or rather any) public information be given to the public and the press to shed a light on the kind of governance that happens in the rotten depths of Delaware County office building.

I have personally purchased this record off Pacer.gov.

I will continue the publications.

Once again - enjoy.  If you can.

Does it smell like rotten fish in the 3rd Department?

 

Back in 2015 I published a series of articles about an individual who was fraudulently elected as a Supreme Court Justice of Albany County Supreme Court, Christina Ryba (interesting coincidence, the name “Ryba” means “Fish” in Russian, so that is a rotten fish, indeed).

You can read the essence of the rotten-fish’s rotten fishness in the elections in my blogs dated:

November 4, 2015, here;

November 12, 2015, here;

Another November 12, 2015 article, here, titled “GOP wants an ethical probe of Christine Ryba who was elected as judge one day after she was terminated from an appellate court for unethical behavior” – yet, who is GOP in “democratic” New York and what “ethical probe” may be had against a BLACK WOMAN and a “FIRST BLACK FEMALE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE”? And so young?  And so pretty?  Oh, no.  Go away, GOP, with your ethics probes into rotten fishes, let them rot happily ever after, at NYS taxpayers’ bottomless expense.

(The next day, quite coincidentally, my law license was pulled 😊, and remains pulled – for how may a LICENSED attorney complain about various judges’ rotten fishness – OPENLY?)

I did not stop writing about the rotten fishness of the rotten fish, and published the next article about her the next day – as already an unlicensed attorney 😊:

November 14, 2015, here, article titled “Michael Coccoma's stop-gap job offer to Christine Ryba: for a senior high-ranking male judge, ethical misconduct of a pretty-face female attorney who has ties to the government is grounds for promotion. Again”

January 2, 2016, here, article titled “A "historic" fraudulent election of a black woman to the New York Supreme Court bench is cheered on by those who should have reported and disbarred her”.

I was not the only one who raised the issue of the fraudulent election – but apparently, the her gender and the blackness of her skin – and the prettiness of her face meant more than her obvious fraud upon voters.

And she survived in her judgeship.

And she thrived.

 

And – hallelujah – she made a thunderous comeback to the very 3^rd Department from which she was fired (but not disbarred), allowing her career to proceed.

The 3^rd Department recently announced the next step in the rotten fish’s career – the appointment to the Appellate Division 3^rd Department, you can read the public announcement by the 3^rd Department of that appointment here.

The is Honorable know.  The Honorable rotten fish.

The announcement is an copy of the announcement of New York State Governor Hochul made on January 15, 2026, available here.

In the announcement, you can trace the “successful” career of the rotten fish, including the litany of where she is a “member” and where she “served”.

Judging by how exactly she got elected and who harbored her after that, which I described in my contemporaneous blogs referenced above, the “service” could be as prominent as her fraudulent election and safe-harbor trick with then-Chief Administrative Judge for upstate New York Michael V. Coccoma, the connoisseur of pretty women who quite coincidentally happened to be rotten judges.

Unfortunately, my alma mater, the Albany Law School, fell for the brown-nosing temptation, putting the rotten fish on its Board of Trustees.

Consider that the rotten fish, as the announcement of the 3^rd Department claims, “serves” on the Permanent Commission for Access to Justice, people! 

And, of course, first and foremost what was prominently mentioned in the announcement of the 3^rd Department, the rotten fish was she is “the first Black person ever elected to the Supreme Court in the Third Department and will be the first Black justice elected from the Third Department to serve on the Appellate Division”.

That must mean a whole lot to attorneys whose law licenses the rotten fish will be now regulating, and to litigants whose liberty and property issues the rotten fish will be now adjudicating, guided by her own, already demonstrated to the public at the point of her first election – rotten fraudulent principles.

I get a kicker out of identity politics of judicial appointments.

The same 3^rd Department is headed – and I openly wrote about it before – by the first LGBTXYZ@#$^ justice “serving” as the Chief Judge of an Appellate Division, Elizabeth Garry.  Whose only qualifications was who she chooses to sleep with.

Welcome to the woke world of the judiciary – ever alive.

And prepare - now the rotten fish will not only decide your fate, but will decide the fate of your attorney and lifeline to court relief - and teach that attorney ETHICS, CARL.  Figure.