THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.


Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Delaware County's Drug Court: Rehabilitation for Drug Addicts or a Supply of Confidential Informants? The supposed OD death of James Laughman, a convicted heroin addict and dealer, the destruction of private property for the benefit of law enforcement, and the price paid by the community for CI use and for Drug courts


Drug courts advertise themselves as a humane alternative to incarceration.  Their stated purpose is to rehabilitate people suffering from addiction, prevent recidivism, and protect the community.

But there is another side to drug enforcement that deserves public scrutiny - the exploitation by local law enforcement of drug addicts/ drug offenders as confidential informants, to their detriment (fatal at times), to the community's safety detriment, to private property detriment.

A convicted drug dealer can be valuable to law enforcement precisely because he remains connected to the criminal world.  He knows the dealers, the suppliers, the customers, and the places where drugs are distributed.  Keeping him on the street preserves those connections.

The question is what happens when the government's interest in obtaining information conflicts with its obligation to protect the public and rehabilitate the offender.

The case of James Laughman, a convicted heroin dealer who died on October 24, 2024, inside our property at 201 Main Street in Delhi, New York - which authorities and the RRRRevolutionary local press kept under wraps - illustrates the consequences of that conflict.

The criminal history the public was not supposed to examine

We obtained 133 pages of criminal court records concerning Laughman.  The County fought hard, for 2 years, not to disclose it.  It disclosed the records only after it first surreptitiously obtained sanctions against us - before adjudication of our inverse condemnation case, mind, through a prejudgment by a person who, as it turns out, was at the same time a prosecutor on the Laughman's case and then a judge trying to quash our pursuit of reimbursement or property damage caused by his use as a CI - possibly, with that DA's (Joseph A. McBride) help.

You can read these records here.

You can read the transcript of the audio interview given by Delaware County DA Simth of the audio file I downloaded from Smith's Facebook page, that, read together with Laughman's records and the records we submitted in Neroni v Mole, EF2024-880, and Neroni v Delaware County, EF2025-447, listing just what we know before discovery about Laughman's role in destruction of our property at 201 Main Street, Delhi, NY, reads like a eulogy to the County's Confidential Information (CI) who perished in the line of duty.

This is our complaint in Neroni v Mole.

This is the affidavit of our daughter featuring what Laughman was doing at our property at 201 Main Street, Delhi, NY, including threats of violence against her.

Our daughter suffered dire consequences for seeking police protection against the CI Laughman and going public about what happened at 201 Main Street, including police's refusal to help her and supporting the violent drug dealer instead.

After she submitted this affidavit with exhibits - she was fired from County-entwined non-profit Watershed Agricultural Council, her position was then split into two, exported to Delaware County, and the County refused to hire her into either of the now two positions despite her confirmed qualifications.

The County then grandstood lamenting that they cannot find "talent" for the County Attorney's office (my daughter is a licensed attorney living within a walking distance of the County building at 111 Main Street, Delhi, NY - but no-no, she is my daughter, not eligible for hiring).  The County further grandstood claiming in public that there is a scarcity of environmental engineers (my daughter holds an MA in environmental engineering from SUNY Buffalo, and has been a CREP/CSBI Planner for Watershed - a successful one - for over 6 years, before they cut her position after she provided an affidavit for us in court).  She is also fully trilingual:  English, Russian, Spanish - an asset with the influx of immigrants into the County.

These are photographs of drug dealer Laughman who was allowed to squat at our house, destroy it, including with fentanyl contamination, and threaten violence against our daughter with impunity.

They were obtained from Facebook account of his girlfriend and filed in court here and here.

Note the sign that Laughman, a convicted felon, put on our house, saying "FUCK THE POLICE, I WILL SHOOT".

Note how Laughman's girlfriend - very much alive, still uncharged for anything - directly harassed and intimidated our daughter posing in front of our daughter's cameras in a threatening mask.  She was not charged with anything.

Note that Mills' police records, provided to us on a FOIL APPEAL (initially withheld) DO NOT mention the contents of the sign and DO NOT contain a picture of the sign.

A convicted felon MAY NOT possess guns.

It is a SEPARATE criminal offense.

Yet, nobody prosecuted Laughman, and instead they protected Laughman from legitimate complaints of our daughter - a sure sign of a CI.

These records establish that Laughman was convicted of felony grand larceny in Chenango County in 2015. In 2017, he faced four felony drug-sale charges in Delaware County, including three class C felonies and one class B felony.

On July 3, 2017, Laughman pleaded guilty to selling heroin. He was adjudicated a second felony offender and sentenced to four years in prison followed by two years of post-release supervision.

His probation was also revoked, resulting in an additional concurrent sentence of one to three years.

These are judicial records, not rumors about Laughman's past.

Laughman's criminal proceedings involved the criminal justice establishment of Delaware County, including officials serving under District Attorneys Richard Northrup and John Hubbard, and prosecutor John A. McBride, who subsequently became a Supreme Court justice.

The criminal records establish that the authorities knew Laughman's background. His convictions and supervision history were matters of official record.

They also raise an obvious question: how did a repeat felony offender and heroin dealer come to occupy our property, remain there despite repeated police interventions, and die there in October 2024?

The district attorney explains the confidential-informant system

On November 13, 2024, just twenty days after Laughman's death, Delaware County District Attorney Shawn Smith gave a recorded interview discussing drug enforcement.

Smith described the interviewing and debriefing of confidential informants and cooperation among the District Attorney's Office, the Sheriff's Department, the New York State Police, and local police departments, including Delhi.

His interview described an established method of drug enforcement: law-enforcement agencies obtain information from people who have access to criminal activity.

That method creates a conflict of interests when the informant is himself a repeat offender.

The government wants information.  The informant wants to remain out of custody.  The public wants drug trafficking stopped, and it wants safety from violence of drug addicts and dealers.  The addict needs treatment.

These interests often collide.  DA Smith made sure they collided in Laughman's case.

An offender who is useful as an informant may have an incentive to preserve his criminal connections.  Law enforcement may have an incentive to preserve his access to those connections.

The result can be a system in which the very activity the government publicly condemns becomes the means by which it conducts investigations.

Smith's interview did not identify Laughman by name.  But, reading all the records available to us before discovery, filed with the court and now made public here, his interview is a EULOGY to the goddamn violent drug dealer that helped Smith so much in drumming up convictions where New York State drug lab supposedly failed Smith in going after lower-level drug offenders.

Our litigation raises the question of Laughman's use as a confidential informant and the government's use of our property in connection with drug enforcement.  The government fights tooth and claw - including by underhanded use of Chenango County's Joseph A. McBride, a former DA-turned Judge involved on both sides of proceedings.

The public is entitled to examine the records bearing on that question, including the decisions made by prosecutors, probation and parole authorities, and police officers who dealt with Laughman.

What happened at 201 Main Street

Our property at 201 Main Street became - with condonation, help and taxpayer-backed financing from Delaware County, the Town of Delhi and the Village of Delhi - a place of unauthorized occupation, drug-related activity, violent threats, theft, and destruction.

Amy Merklen and Tina Mole of Delaware County, County Attorney and the Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, refused to provide to us records of financing of the drug dealing squatters at our properties - on "privacy" grounds.

The Village of Delhi police knew Laughman occupied the building.  Our daughter's affidavit establishes their presence there every day.  Delhi Village police records independently establish that they had access to the house and even prosecuted Laughman for theft of water from the Village of Delhi from the inside of our house Laughman seized.

Police Chief Michael Mills produced records in response to our Freedom of Information Law requests.  Those records documented repeated police involvement, theft-of-services issues, lack of essential utilities, and continuing occupation.

Throughout the records of Delhi Village police reports falsely designate us as landlords and Laughman as tenant.  That was never so.  He never had our permission to be there.  Village and County knew it.

On April 16, 2024, Mills documented a water-theft investigation.

On June 17, 2024, police action involved Laughman's custody and a summons concerning theft of services and code violations.

On July 28, 2024, police again intervened at the property.

The building had no water or electricity. Another occupant reported paying rent to Laughman. The police treated the situation as a landlord-tenant dispute and directed the owners' representatives to pursue eviction proceedings.

There were also explicit threats of violence.

A sign displayed at the property declared:

"FUCK POLICE I WILL SHOOT."

Laughman threatened to shoot the eyeballs of a person associated with the property owners.

These threats were brought to police attention.  According to the sworn account of the incident, the responding officer photographed the sign and cameras and explained that police intervention would require Laughman to point a gun.  Those photographs DO NOT appear in the official police records provided to us on a FOIL appeal.  They were SCRUBBED. 

That is a CRIME of alteration of public records.

That crime remains uninvestigated and unprosecuted.

The police nevertheless permitted the occupation of our house by a known heroin dealer and addict, with multiple parole violations that should have but did not land him in prison, to continue.

He was convicted of a goddamn B FELONY - by John Hubbard as DA and Dick Norhrup as judge.

Consider what this means.

The police knew the building lacked essential utilities - destroyed by squatters with County's, Town's and Village's help - including specifically Amy Merklen's help, we provided a detailed account of it to the court.  They knew about theft-of-services violations.  They knew Laughman was occupying property that belonged to somebody else. They were confronted with a threatening sign and a specific threat to shoot a person.

Their response protected the continuation of the occupation.

The Village's own records establish repeated knowledge of conditions at the property.  The government cannot erase that knowledge by subsequently characterizing the building as abandoned.

The SUPPOSED death of James Laughman

On October 24, 2024, Laughman was SUPPOSEDLY found dead inside our property.  I DO NOT KNOW whether that was true. 

As a criminal defense attorney, I know of many episodes when the local law enforcement let a CI escape to another state. 

The County refused to show me coroner's report of the supposed death.

The County refused to show me photographs of the supposedly dead Laughman - due to "privacy" of the supposedly dead drug dealer.

He may be enjoying Florida beaches - as County's previous CI was for some time, James Bathen, whose burglary and attempted arson of our home law office at 203 Main Street at the time I was still a licensed criminal defense attorney the County also refused to investigate and prosecute.

As to 201 Main and the supposed finding of Laughman's supposed dead body (and his girlfriend, alive next to him in an "altered state of mind") - they also allegedly discovered two dogs.  One live, one dead.

The called in animal-control to take the live dog.

They left the dead dog inside the building and Michael Mills tried to impose my daughter with pushing Narcan on her in a hypocritical "concern" about her health if she ventures into what he said a building contaminated by fentanyl.

She is not the building's owner.  She did not so venture.

We refused to venture either.  We instead sued.

Before the Laughman's story, Delaware County DSS contacted us only when - this is from different reports, we never got any records - approximately 45 dogs had been removed from the property by the SPCA while the County continued to finance the non-paying moratorium squatter there whose unlawful dog-breeding operation caused the house at 201 Main Street, Delhi, NY (that is during moratorium on eviction) to be covered in dog shit to such a degree that SPCA reported to DSS that walls, ceilings, floors were covered with liquied, solid and fossilized dog shit, and dog shit clogged and destroyed the furnace - in the middle of winter.

Now - when Laughman was supposedly found dead in the house on October 24, 2025, County police, Village police, and SUNY police present on the property called in two people - Town of Delhi dog warden and Village of Delhi Code Enforcer.  Both came, Town of Delhi dog warden retrieved the live dog, leaving the decomposing carcass of the dead dog for us to enjoy - together with drug-contaminated and needle-ridden house and property.

The Code Enforcement Officer of the Village of Delhi - the glorious Delaware County Republican Chair Josh Morgan who has his finger in every pie - put a stop occupancy order on the door of 201 Main Street, Delhi NY - while NEVER, until this day, sending a notice to us, the property owners.

That same Josh Morgan - or Town Code Enforcement officer - never put a stop occupancy order on the house when it was still redeemable after the dog shitting squatter was finally removed from it by the County.

The County first tried to coerce us to buy a new furnace for the dog-shitting squatter because we are "landlords", and when we refused and required to remove the squatter from the turned-unliveable house, refused to do that and SEIZED our house for public use claiming that they have a difficulty locating a replacement housing for the dog-shitting squatter due to her supposed mental health issues.

Mental health issues did abound - she talked to me on the phone about an African prince coming to marry her.

According to my information, her boyfriend - who suffered an unexplained health deterioration, was air-lifted to Albany Med and, as far as I know, died there - expressed concerns about his safety due to her mental health issues.

The County, as far as I know, never investigated the death of Richard Harnosky as a homicide by the dog-shitting squatter.

They should.  There is no statute of limitations on homicides.

The contrast is striking. The authorities had known that the property was turned unliveable before Laughman got in.

They had a LEGAL obligation to stop the occupancy of the building without any eviction - not available during moratorium, and to let us remediate the property while it was still possible.

But, doing so would have required the County to reveal its role in financing the dog-shitting squatter whlie the unliveable condition was created and deteriorated.  Now they claim statute of limitations - because they concealed the condition long enough for us to sue early enough for their taste.  They also claim that we need to be barred from this litigation, with sanctions, and from future litigation, with sanctions, simply because we caught the County, Town and Village government in gross misconduct involving public safety.

Note - and you can walk right to the door of 201 Main Street, Delhi, NY and look - that Village of Delhi DOES NOT warn people of drug, including fentanyl, contamination inside the house, or needle contamination.  That means that children and other nuisance trespassers may still break in and get hurt.

Guess what - we DID NOT enter that building since the stop occupancy order.  We are not responsible for creation of that condition, and we will not risk our lives or lives of our contractors to remediate it.  Those who did it should remediate it at their own expense.

Once again, County, Town and Village waited to stop occupancy of the building long after they knew of its unliveable condition.  

They CONTINUED TO TAX it as LIVEABLE all along.

They now claim that our pursuit of remedial damages agaisnt them is frivolous.

The effective termination of the occupation came only after Laughman was declared dead.

A heroin addict with a history of serious criminal convictions - and a young one - had supposedly spent his final years, instead of being cleaned up in state prison where he belonged because of his B FELONY conviction for SALE OF HEROIN - in a building without water, electric or sewer - Michael Mills' police report reports HUMAN REFUSE in the house.  They were human-shitting on the floor over the previous dog shit - and left it for us to handle after Laughman supposedly dropped dead there.  

And - the County refused to release to us records showing whether Laughman was a graduate of Delaware County "Drug Court".  Claiming privacy associated with a MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITY.

Now - there is no such thing in New York State Constitution as a DRUG COURT.  NONE.

Nor in any statute.

It is a CONTRACT with federal government.  That contract the County ALSO refused to reveal to us - even though its own Public Defender was openly discussing with the press his exclusion from ex parte negotiation between Judge Rosa (the handler of that "Drug Court") and DA Smith - ex parte negotiations confirmed by email exchanges I received through FOIL from the same County.

The courthouse is not a proper place for a MEDICAL FACILITY.  Nor IS THERE A MEDICAL FACILITY - it requires all kinds of licensing and staffing requirements.  Drug court is NOT a medical facility.

Furthermore, Judge Rosa is as much a medical professional as Santa Klaus.

So refusal to release to me Laughman's potential drug court files - remember, DA Smith grandstood in temporarily bowing out of drug court after Laughman's supposed death on claims (or rather an attempt for a clumsy disclaimer) that drug courts are releasing drug dealers into the streets making the community unsafe - but without mentioning DA Smith's own role in that arrangement.

BECAUSE:  such an acknowledgment, same as County's refusal to timely put code enforcement authorities on notice of unliveable conditions inside 201 Main Street where County was financing a de facto homeless shelter, halfway and drug sting operation in succession and combined - would be exposing the County to liability.

Better to sweep it under the rug, let it fester until it explodes into  your face - and when it does, blame the victim and the messenger.

Drug courts are supposed to prevent such outcomes as actually happened with Laughman.

A prison sentence, properly administered with addiction treatment, could have removed Laughman from the drug environment and provided an opportunity for rehabilitation. 

He was 42 when he supposedly died from a PREDICTABLE overdose.  Predictable since his plea of guilty on July 3, 2017 for a B felony drug sale in Delaware County Court accepted by Dick Northrup and John Hubbard where he admitted in open court under the penalty of perjury that he sold heroin to support his own addiction.

A heroin addiction does not go away on its own.

For his own benefit, Laughman was safer in prison.

Instead, his life - according to government's own reports - ended at 201 Main Street on October 24, 2025 because the government refused to pack him away to prison where he would be cleaned up and kept safe and alive.

Because the government could not pass up on exploiting his addiction for its own benefit.

Whatever information Laughman may have supplied to law enforcement, it did not save him.  It killed him.

The people responsible for the system

The officials who administered Delaware County's criminal justice system during Laughman's repeated encounters with the law have names.

Richard D. Northrup Jr. served as district attorney and subsequently as county judge.  John L. Hubbard served as district attorney and subsequently became county judge.  The then-Chenango County DA Joseph A. McBride prosecuted Laughman on his first felony conviction and commenced a violation of probation proceeding based on his drug sale indictment of 2017 singed by John Hubbard in Delaware County Court.

McBride then became a Judge and sua sponte ex parte sanctioned both my husband and I for our quick - and correct - assessment that Laughman was a convicted drug dealer - even before we had the records.  We represented such people as criminal defense attorneys long enough (my husband for 37 years, I was working for my husband as a legal assistant for 10 years, then was a defense attorney for 6.5 years) - and that included the local CIs - to know a CI when we saw the signs.

McBride WAS NOT assigned to either Neroni v Mole or Neroni v Delaware County.  Neroni v Mole was dismissed on false presentation of County litigation counsel Miller and a motion to vacate the dismissal on new evidence is pending.  

The dismissal was without finding of frivolous conduct or sanctions.  Neroni v Delaware County is still unadjudicated.  

Yet, McBride, who was not assigned judge in these cases, in full knowledge that we were right and in full knowledge of his disqualification to even reach these cases, bound by Advisory Opinion for Judicial Ethics 25-20 to first disclose his prosecutorial role in the case - did no such thing and instead sua sponte ex parte declared that Neroni v Mole and the yet unadjudicated Neroni v Delaware County are frivolous and barred our access to the court forever.  

After that, he duplicated that bar in a yet another case, also sua sponte ex parte, and then ERASED - not denied, but ERASED - four motions filed by us in order to restore OUR RIGHT TO APPELLATE REVIEW.  An ex parte sua sponte decision (without notice made by the judge himself without a motion from anyone) is not appealable as of right.  DA/Judge McBride wants to keep it so.

The NYS Commission for Judicial Conduct is asleep at the wheel.

These are the officials whose decisions and institutional practices deserve really, really close public scrutiny.

By the way, Richard Northrup publicly promoted the Delaware County Drug Treatment Court.  At a New York State Senate hearing, he described a program in which offenders pleaded guilty, entered treatment under probation supervision, and faced prison if they failed the program. He presented this as a successful approach.  I wonder whether he included Laughman into that assessment of success.

The New York court system continues to describe the Delaware County Drug Treatment Court as an alternative to incarceration, involving supervised treatment and testing.

The public should be able to compare those promises with the "treatment" outcome of repeat offenders such as Laughman.

Look once again at his criminal records, his repeated violations - he left the Delaware County shelter, he was thrown out of County's alcohol and drug treatment program for noncompliance, he was arrested for driving while ability impaired by drugs - AFTER his B felony conviction, while ON PAROLE.  

He was further arrested with a crack pipe, being violent at a convenience store.

RESIDENTS OF DELAWARE COUNTY!  VOTERS!

We were - as I said - criminal defense attorneys.  There were zillions of our clients who came to us charged by the same authorities that were babying Laughman and not prosecuting him for MUCH, MUCH less - like SOMEBODY ELSE's beer can in their home fridge.

Laughman remained on the streets because he was A VALUABLE ASSET for Smith.  DA Smith acknowledged in his interview interlinked here that CIs were instrumental for him, raising the rates of convictions for lower-level drug felonies from ZERO caused by bail and discovery reform statutes.

That exploitation by the local law enforcement resulted in a seizure and destruction of private property - while the County knew that they are no longer immune from such actions because of prior similar litigation in Colao v Mills in 2004, 2007.

Qualified immunity given to the County's police officers in Colao was a double-edged sword:  it at the same time (1) gave immunity to officers ON THAT OCCASION; and (2) extinguished immunity FOR FUTURE SIMILAR ACTIONS.  So - here we go.  We are right there in court for the same thing.  And County Attorney Merklen, DA Smith, former DA Hubbard, ADAs Norhrup and Lamont are raising immunity that is LONG GONE - being competent professionals that they are.  Not.

These questions concern identifiable public officials exercising public authority.

The county attorney's denial

When we brought litigation over the destruction of our property, Delaware County's longtime litigation counsel Frank Miller denied our allegations concerning Laughman's background and the government's conduct.

In Neroni v. Molé, Miller's Amended Answer denied paragraph 78 of our complaint he denied all allegations, including that Laughman was a drug addict and had criminal history.

That statement was knowingly false.

That statement caused dismissal of the case.

County and Miller fought for 2 years against us in court, asking - and bringing from DA/Judge McBride - sanctions upon us for telling the truth that he knew based on RECORDS.   

The criminal records subsequently obtained by us established Laughman's felony history, heroin-sale conviction, second-felony-offender status, and revocation of probation.  We now ask the court to sanction Miller, the Delaware County, its County Attorney, its County Chairperson, its Sheriff, its DA, as well as Northrup, Lamont and Hubbard in their former or present capacities as prosecutors (respectively) for frivolously seeking sanctions against us in full knowledge that we are right.

Meanwhile, the police records produced through FOIL documented repeated official involvement at 201 Main Street.

Miller also described our property as "apparently abandoned" and attributed its condition to our departure from New York and failure to maintain it.  Yet, HE KNEW that was a false statement when making it.

We retained ownership of the property.  We continued paying taxes - even though they were fraudulently imposed as if the building rendered unliveable with the help of the government by squatters and drug dealers was still inhabitable - that's what the tax classification said, repeatedly, year after year. The police knew Laughman was occupying it.  They knew what was going on.  They did not stop Laughman while we could still remediate the property.  Laughman was too valuable an asset for the local law enforcemetn to stop him.

The official records should be compared with Miller's false pleadings all over the place in all cases involving us as parties.  They show why his account of what happened to our property is directly belied by his clients' own documentation.

The cost of using criminals as police assets

There is a fundamental problem with a drug-enforcement system that depends on offenders maintaining their access to criminal activity.

The government can claim success when an informant helps produce arrests. But the number of arrests does not measure the harm caused while the informant remains active.

It does not measure the drugs distributed, the people threatened, the property stolen or destroyed, or the lives lost.

And it does not measure what happens to the informant.

Laughman was a heroin addict with serious criminal convictions. He needed effective intervention. His history of repeated encounters with the criminal justice system gave public authorities opportunities to intervene.

Instead, his life ended inside our property.

We are left with a destroyed building, years of litigation, and government records that document repeated official knowledge of the conditions in which Laughman lived.

The public deserves a complete accounting of how the system operated, who made the decisions, and whether the use of confidential informants influenced those decisions.

What voters are entitled to know

Delaware County residents elect district attorneys, judges, sheriffs, and other officials whose decisions affect criminal justice and public safety.

The record of James Laughman's criminal proceedings, the police response at 201 Main Street, the treatment of threats against people associated with the property, and the government's subsequent litigation positions are matters of legitimate public concern.

The public should have access to the relevant probation and parole records, confidential-informant arrangements where disclosure is lawful, and the decisions that permitted Laughman's continued presence in the community.

Voters can examine these records and decide for themselves what accountability they expect from the officials entrusted with public safety.

Drug rehabilitation is a serious public responsibility. So is the protection of the community. So is the protection of private property.

James Laughman is - SUPPOSEDLY - dead when he could be imprisoned, but clean and alive, facing many more years of productive life and a prospect of a family.

Our property was destroyed and contaminated by fentanyl, needles and what else - we do not know.   Our daughter was first threatened and harmed by the drug dealer CI, denied police protection when she - repeatedly - asked for it, and then rendered unemployed because she sought police protection and provided an affidavit for us about what was happening at 201 Main Street.

WAS IT WORTH IT, DA SMITH?  WAS IT WORTH IT, GARY ROSA?  WAS IT WORTH IT, CRAIG DUMOND?  WAS IT WORTH IT, MICHAEL MILLS?


WAS IT WORTH IT - dear members of the public who were made to finance all of it, unknowingly, while being exposed to the very hazards that DA Smith hypocritically - and temporarily - ADMITTED in his interview of November 2024 when he withdrew from drug court for just 5 seconds, protecting himself from liability after Laughman's supposed OD death at 201 Main Street among needles and fentanyl?



The vacant Town of Hamden's Tax Assessor Seat and the Aggressive Felon Taggart: I DO NOT WANT MY FELONY CONVICTION RECORDS SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC - HERE, MY DARLING


I challenged in court - Neroni v Delaware County, EF2025-447 - LEGALITY of ALL tax assessments in the Town of Hamden this year.

WHY?

Because there is no tax assessor to make them - as a matter of law.

WHY?

Because Public Officers Law Section 30 makes it clear that a public office becomes VACANT - as if "nobody is occupying it" - on conviction of the occupier of that public office for a felony.

And, the Town of Hamden's (NY) Tax Assessor office is occupied by a convicted felon Katherine Covell/Taggart.

Hamden Town Supervisor Marshfield addressed that issue publicly - as covered by the local press - deciding to do what Delaware County Court refused to do - lift associated disabilities or seal the conviction records.

Well, Marshfield is not authorized by law to do it.

Taggart - aggressively - is moving in court to (1) strike any mentioning of her felony conviction as "prejudicial" and "scandalous", and (2) sanction me heavily, with monetary sanctions and a bar on access to court - and I am a journalist, my newsgathering by FOIL requests is, as Taggart and her counsel Frank W. Miller of Hancock Estabrook LLP know well, depends on vindication of denials of FOIL requests through Article 78 proceedings, which I may need to bring frequently, as many as there are denials of FOILs.

I do not know what the judge will decide.  And it is irrelevant to what I am going to do here.

A COURT DECISION, a PUBLIC COURT DECISION, and PUBLIC COURT RECORDS of felony conviction of a public official that resulted in a VACANCY in a public office throughout the period that Taggart, with Marshfield's help, was trying to usurp it - are what they are: PUBLIC RECORDS.

So here we go: I PUBLISH THEM.  You can read them here.

And yes, it IS scandalous, not-so-dear Ms. Taggart, the usurper of Town of Hamden Tax Assessor's office drawing a salary of $25,000.00 a year UNLAWFULLY at MY expense, too.

It is scandalous that you killed a human being, a young father of two children while driving drunk.

You were given a slap on the wrist for it - just 4 months in jail - by a judge who you "shadowed" - notably, Dick Northrup, the then-DA, recused, but not Becker, never Becker.

The mother of the killed man made a victim statement at the sentencing - reported contemporaneously by the local press - that you were NOT rehabilitated, that you were seen drunk AGAIN during the period leading to your plea allocution and sentencing.

You have no morals and no conscience and no integrity to have done that.

You should not occupy the public office of Town of Hamden Tax Assessor - more so that you are ALSO a REAL ESTATE BROKER, so the raising of taxes fills your pocket much more than taxpayer-backed salary does - through elevated REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONS.


The law requires you to disclose disqualifying conditions and disqualifying conflicts of interest, not - as you are doing - HIDE it and try to QUASH it and try to PUNISH THE MESSENGER.

You MAY NOT - as a matter of law - occupy the seat of Town of Hamden (NY) Tax Assessor.

You MAY NOT receive that salary.  

And whoever is elected instead of Marshfield must BOOT you and REQUIRE you to reimburse the Town taxpayers with whatever you were paid.

Buyers and sellers of real estate in the Town of Hamden, beware of what is going on:  as a tax assessor, Taggart can and does DRAMATICALLY raise taxes through raised tax assessments.

As a real estate broker, she BENEFITS from raised commissions - from ALL sales in the Town of Hamden, NY.

This type of conflict of interest is in addition to the fact that AT NO TIME Taggart was allowed by law to take that public office in the first place, due to her felony conviction, resulting in a VACANT office of tax assessor in the Town of Hamden this year and all the legal consequences that come with it - which Town of Hamden property owners and taxpayers are welcome to explore with their own lawyers.

The financial benefit Taggart gets from her public office disqualifies her absolutely even had she had a right to occupy that office in the first place - which she does not, by operation of Public Officers Law Section 30.

As to the destiny of Town's tax assessments this year by a hole in the Tax Assessor's office - it is in court already.  I am doing it not only for myself.  I am doing it for all Town of Hamden, NY property owners and taxpayers.



 

Monday, October 12, 2026

BewaRRRe of the RRRRevolutionary RRRReporter (County Twin Brother Bunny TM) 🐻 Bea🐰RR🐻R🐰ING 🐻🐰 Gag OrdeRRRRs! Timid 🐰 with Brother Bunny 🐉 government bringing something yummy🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕 - or ... something else 🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨🔨. Stern with encroachers on journalistic non-freedom.



Once upon a time, in the enchanted kingdom of Delaware County, New York, there lived a very RRRRevolutionary newspaper publisher named Randy Shepard. 🐇

He was a brave little zaichik.  A fearless defender of the First Amendment.  A ferocious opponent of government censorship. A man prepared to drag the entire county government into federal court to vindicate the sacred freedom of the press.

Fighting in court for resumption of an eon-long contract awarded to him - why?  Surely not because his brother Wayne Shepard was Director of that same County's Office of the Aging?

According to Wayne Shepard's deposition - here and here - no, he only owned to being a brother to the newspaper having a tantrum in court at the expense of Delaware County taxpayers for not resuming a CONFLICTED contract.

I hate to tell you what I kept telling you all along - the County has a LOUSY legal representation.  Neither Merklen nor Miller (litigation counsel) raised in court the issue that Decker was not entitled to the contract in the first place - because of a conflict of interest... Yay...

RRRREVOLUTION! FREE SPEECH! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT GAG ORDERS! 🐰✊

Then, one terrible day, something horrifying happened.

An investigative journalist sent his editor a copy of a FOIL request.

A FOIL REQUEST! 🐇😱

Containing questions about public money spent on litigation involving his own newspaper!

The little zaichik nearly fainted. 🐰💦

What if his editor READ it?

What if she LEARNED something?

What if she INVESTIGATED?

Worse yet, what if somebody thought they were COORRRRDINATING?

With "THAT WOMAN"????!!!! 🐰😱

NO, NO, NO and NOOOOO! the cornered bunny thought, his little ears standing straight up. 🐰

Can't happen. Not to us. Not to our RRRRRRevolutionary RRRRRReporter, who has been soaking Delaware County taxpayers in litigation over 30 grands per year — but that's MONEY, ma cher ami... 💰🐇

Information? From THAT WOMAN? For FREE?

MON DIEU! QUELLE HORREUR! 🐰🥕

The RRRRevolutionary publisheRRRR spRRRRang into action.

He seized his keyboaRRRRRd, summoned eveRRRRRy ounce of his RRRRRRevolutionary couRRRRRage - and issued an uRRRRRgent pRRRRRoclamation:

Please, please, PLEASE stop sending information to me, my newspaper, or ANYONE ASSOCIATED with us! 🐰🚫

Because my kind Brother Bunny is WATCHING!!!



BUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUT???


How can I possibly not associate with "anyone" in your newspaper - if Delaware County is commonly known as The Land of Kissing Cousins (TLKC)?


Anyone associated?

The editor? Certainly!

The reporters? Naturally!

The freelancers? Presumably!

The cleaning lady? Better safe than sorry!

The delivery driver? Suspiciously associated!

The editor's cousin's dentist? DANGEROUS TERRRRRITORY! 🐇🚨

The zaichik had discovered a revolutionary principle of journalism:

THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW — PROVIDED NOBODY TELLS THE NEWSPAPER. 🐰📰

And what was the terrifying information he was so desperate to avoid?

A request for government records.

Records about government spending.

On litigation.

His own litigation.

Which his newspaper was covering.

While suing the government for allegedly interfering with its freedom to report.

You see, the RRRRevolutionary RRRReporter believes passionately in the First Amendment.

He simply prefers to exercise it in splendid isolation from people who might have information. 🐇🥕

Meanwhile, his brother Wayne had testified in federal litigation about county instructions routing press inquiries through the County Attorney or Public Information Officer.

What a RRRRRemarkable family RRRRRResemblance! 🐰🐰




The county says: “ALL PRESS INQUIRIES THROUGH OUR OFFICE!”

The RRRReporter says: “ALL INFORMATION MUST STAY AWAY FROM OUR OFFICE!”





That was before the bunny popped out.




Eh?




🐰 But boundaries — in some Brother Bunnies — enjoy GROWTH. 🌱🐇

🐰 And GROWTH. 🎈

🐰🐰 And GROWTH. 🎈🎈🎈

🐇💨 Until some Brother Bunnies become... 🐰🎈💥

OOPS! 😱🐰

👀🐇 See? Even your Kind Big Brother (Bunny) is worried! 🐰🔭🚨



🐰🫃🤔💭 On the other hand...


🌱🌸🎈🐰🎈🌺🌱

🌳🎈 Grow, Bunny, Grow! 🎈🐇🌳

🌱🌿🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🎈🌸🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌿🌱




Delaware County (NY) Voters: You Are Voting With The Money Of Out of the Area Property Owners, Too - and these owners may SUE and have you pay for those lawsuits, so VOTE RESPONSIBLY as to who you are putting into the public office

I am publishing this lawsuit from 2008 so that local voters remember come November - you are voting not only for yourself, but also for us, property owners and taxpayers, who own property in Delaware County, pay taxes, same as you, through our collective noses, but are not allowed to vote.

This is just another example of the longstanding "legal talent" Frank W. Miller, Esq. representing the County in frivolous investigations and lawsuits generated by mindless acts of County's officials. 

This is also a reminder to Delaware County voters.

You Are Voting With My Money, Too.

In Matter of Willkie v. Delaware County Board of Elections, 55 A.D.3d 1088 (3d Dept. 2008), Delaware County authorities went after Bovina property owners who dared to vote locally while maintaining homes elsewhere. The Sheriff's Department investigated. Voters were disqualified. The property owners sued and won.

The Third Department confirmed that maintaining two residences does not automatically deprive a person of the right to choose one as a voting residence.

I own multiple properties in Delaware County. I pay tens of thousands of dollars in property taxes annually. I cannot vote there because I reside in South Carolina.

Yet the officials you elect can spend my tax money on lawyers who pursue sanctions against my husband for lawsuits he never filed, defend private individuals through taxpayer-supported municipal insurance, and generate still more litigation and potential public liability.

I am challenging those expenditures in court, including through my recently filed Nassau County taxpayer-waste lawsuit against NYMIR and the attorneys involved.

I pay for the government you elect. I pay for its lawyers. I pay for its insurance. And I have no ballot with which to hold any of them accountable.

When you vote in Delaware County, remember that the financial consequences of your government's decisions reach far beyond the people standing in line at the polling place.

You are voting with my money, too. And I intend to demand an accounting of every dollar spent unlawfully.


AND - READ this case, NOTE what EXACTLY the County and its Sheriff's office was doing - it was deliberately trying to claim that people was "pretextually" claiming residnece in the Town of Bovina and are not entitled to vote and control through their vote how those taxes are used.


This is TINA MOLE's TOWNSHIP - REMEMBER THAT.


And, the court finally said that there was no reason for the Sheriff's Department - or the County in general - to insinuate that the ownership or use of the property was pretextual.


Unfortunately, the fate of voting rights of out of the area and out of state property OWNERS and TAXPAYERS who do not reside in Delaware County, is not so bright - we are outright forbidden to vote.  Even though our tax money is extracted from us, under the threat of property foreclosure, every year.

JUST CONSIDER how many property owners (sometimes 2/3 in a given township of Delaware County - cannot vote).

Please, vote FOR US.


========================

 55 A.D.3d 1088 (2008)

865 N.Y.S.2d 739

In the Matter of HALL F. WILLKIE et al., Respondents,
v.
DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Appellant.

Not in source.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department.

Decided October 23, 2008.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur.

Spain, J.

Following the passage of a zoning ordinance in the Town of Bovina, Delaware County, which was publicly supported by each petitioner, an opponent of the ordinance filed affidavits with respondent challenging the voter registrations of each petitioner on the basis that he or she was not a resident of Bovina within the meaning of the Election Law (see Election Law § 5-220). In response, petitioners provided documentary evidence of their respective ties to Bovina. After reviewing this evidence, together with investigations conducted by the Delaware County Sheriff's Department (see Election Law § 5-702) which revealed that petitioners' Bovina homes were not used full time, respondent determined that petitioners Hall F. Willkie, Juliet F. Lauricella, Thomas A. Lauricella, David Hendricks and Stephen Robbins did not reside in Bovina and, consequently, were not qualified to vote there. Additionally, respondent placed the registrations of petitioners Julianne Bond-Shapiro, David Spry and Maria Spry 1089*1089 in inactive status after correspondence sent to their respective residences in Bovina was returned as unclaimed (see Election Law § 5-213).

Petitioners subsequently commenced this proceeding seeking an order directing respondent to reinstate their voter registrations in Bovina, and a declaration that the "eligibility of dual residents to register and vote at a given residence [should] be determined by considering the resident's expressed intent, his or her renunciation of the right to vote elsewhere, and whether or not such person has legitimate, significant and continuing attachments to his or her voting residence of choice." Petitioners also requested an injunction enjoining respondent from employing any standard other than that elucidated above. Supreme Court granted petitioners' application in its entirety and respondent now appeals.

For voting purposes, we conclude that petitioners are, indeed, residents of Bovina. Ordinarily, respondent's factual determinations are presumptive evidence of a petitioner's voting residence (see Election Law § 5-104 [2]; Matter of Bressler v Holt-Harris, 37 AD2d 898, 898 [1971], affd 30 NY2d 529 [1972]). Here, however, no presumption arose because respondent did not apply the correct rule of law in determining the issue. Election Law § 1-104 (22) defines a residence as "that place where a person maintains a fixed, permanent and principal home and to which he [or she], wherever temporarily located, always intends to return." Although the plain language of the statute—and opinions expressed in dissent over the years (see People v O'Hara, 96 NY2d 378, 386-390 [2001, Rosenblatt, J., dissenting]; Matter of Bressler v Holt-Harris, 30 NY2d 529, 530-532 [1972, Jasen, J., dissenting]; Matter of Gallagher v Dinkins, 41 AD2d 946, 947-948 [1973, Martuscello, J., dissenting], affd 32 NY2d 839 [1973]; Matter of Gladwin v Power, 21 AD2d 665 [1964, Steuer, J., dissenting])—would support respondent's interpretation of "residence" as the equivalent of domicile, requiring a finding that the individual has more significant contacts to that place than any other, the Court of Appeals has not interpreted the statute so narrowly. Indeed, it is clear that the Election Law "does not preclude a person from having two residences and choosing one for election purposes provided he or she has `legitimate, significant and continuing attachments' to that residence" (Matter of Isabella v Hotaling, 207 AD2d 648, 650 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 801 [1994], quoting Matter of Ferguson v McNab, 60 NY2d 598, 600 [1983]; see People v O'Hara, 96 NY2d at 385).

"The crucial determination whether a particular residence 1090*1090 complies with the requirements of the Election Law is that the individual must manifest an intent, coupled with physical presence `without any aura of sham'" (People v O'Hara, 96 NY2d at 385, quoting Matter of Gallagher v Dinkins, 41 AD2d at 947; see Matter of Shafer v Dorsey, 43 AD3d 621, 622 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 804 [2007]). Election Law § 5-104 (2) provides that, "[i]n determining a voter's qualification to register and vote, the board [of elections should] consider, in addition to the [voter's] expressed intent, his [or her] conduct and all attendant surrounding circumstances relating thereto," including, among other things, "business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children, . . . sites of personal and real property . . . , motor vehicle and other personal property registration, and other such factors that it may reasonably deem necessary."

We find that each petitioner herein has demonstrated significant and genuine contacts with Bovina such that his or her choice of Bovina as his or her residence for voting purposes should have been honored.  Six of the eight petitioners established that they have a home in Bovina and, although they live and work in New York City during the week, they spend most weekends and vacations in Bovina. Further, these petitioners demonstrated that their ties to Bovina were not a sham for voting purposes, but genuine, long-term contacts created out of a true desire to become part of the Bovina community. For example, Willkie has owned his home in Bovina since 1985 and lists his Bovina address on two separate bank accounts. Hendricks and his life partner purchased their home in Bovina in 1994 and Hendricks has been registered to vote in Bovina since 1996. Bond-Shapiro maintains a home in Bovina Center, having lived with her boyfriend in his family home since 2002.[*] The Sprys purchased their Bovina home in 1991 and have been registered to vote in Bovina since that time. Robbins purchased his home in Bovina in 1995 and lists his Bovina address on two separate bank accounts. He registered to vote in Bovina in 1996 and has remained registered there since that time.

In the case of each of these petitioners, their New York City address is listed on their income tax returns as their permanent home address. However, each petitioner listed the Bovina address on his or her driver's license and there is nothing in the record to indicate that any petitioner voted elsewhere while registered to vote in Bovina. Further, in their own words, 1091*1091 petitioners expressed the fact that, although their employment requires them to maintain another residence, their intent is to spend as much of their lives in Bovina as possible. The Lauricellas are distinct in that their Bovina home is owned jointly with their children. The home was purchased in 1995 and has been utilized by them and their extended family on weekends and for vacations and has never been rented. Further, the Lauricellas do not own another residence and had been residing with their daughter and son-in-law in West Nyack, Rockland County, to assist in caring for their grandchildren. They utilize a Bovina post office box as their mailing address for all purposes and clearly expressed their intent to someday live full-time in Bovina.

Significantly, the inquiry is not which of petitioners' dual residences is "the more appropriate one" for voting purposes, but whether the residence held by petitioners is a legitimate one (People v O'Hara, 96 NY2d at 385). The record herein is devoid of any suggestion that any petitioner herein has attempted to "create an address solely for the purpose of circumventing residency requirements" (id.). Under these circumstances, where petitioners have renounced their right to vote elsewhere and manifested an intent to reside long term in Bovina, coupled with a legitimate and significant physical presence, we find no basis upon which to disturb Supreme Court's determination that petitioners have successfully established their voting residences in Bovina (see id.; Matter of Ferguson v McNab, 96 AD2d 916, 917 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 598 [1983]; Matter of Shafer v Dorsey, 43 AD3d at 622; Matter of Bressler v Holt-Harris, 37 AD2d at 899; see also Matter of Geller v Lasher, 196 AD2d 613, 614 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 654 [1993]; Matter of Umland v Board of Elections of City of N.Y., 143 AD2d 240, 241-242 [1988]; Matter of Gallagher v Dinkins, 41 AD2d at 947; Matter of Gladwin v Power, 21 AD2d at 665; cf. Matter of Isabella v Hotaling, 207 AD2d at 650; Matter of Ramos v Gomez, 196 AD2d 620, 621 [1993]).

Turning to respondent's challenge to the injunctive relief awarded by Supreme Court, we find that the court erred in enjoining respondent from employing—in the future—any legal standard other than that specifically elucidated in its order when determining the eligibility of dual residents to register and vote. While Supreme Court has the discretion to fashion permanent injunctive relief under appropriate circumstances (see e.g. Matter of Hebel v West, 25 AD3d 172, 177-178 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]), this injunction, at best, compels respondent to follow the law; "[i]t is, in other words, `little more than a direction to do right in the future'" (Gimbel Bros. v 1092*1092 Brook Shopping Ctrs., 118 AD2d 532, 536 [1986], quoting Earl v Brewer, 248 App Div 314, 315 [1936], affd 273 NY 669 [1937]). As respondent is already obligated to follow the law and there is nothing in the record to suggest that it will not do so, "the extraordinary relief of an injunction is unnecessary and inappropriate" (Van Laak v Malone, 92 AD2d 964, 966 [1983]; see also Matter of Town of Dickinson v County of Broome, 183 AD2d 1013, 1015 [1992]).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted injunctive relief, and, as so modified, affirmed.

[*] While this home is owned by members of his family, he and Bond-Shapiro are reported to be in negotiations with them to purchase the home.