About CJA
Our History
Our Mission
Who We Are
Awards & Honors

Published Pieces


Judicial Selection

Judicial Discipline

Test Cases:
Federal (Mangano)
State (Commission)

"Disruption of Congress"
Paper Trail to Jail
Paper Trail from Jail
The Appeals

Judicial Compensation

Informing the Voters

Press Suppression

Suing The New York Times
Background Paper Trail

Searching for Champions:

Bar Associations
Nader & Others

Our Members' Efforts


Join Us!

Going Where the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption & Preet Did NOT:

New York's prosecutorial authorities --

starting its TOP COP & ATTORNEY --

CJA's August 5, 2013 letter-complaint to the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption   (at pp. 6-8)

"...concealing that New York’s Attorney General has always had the power and duty to safeguard against public corruption was part of the run-up to the creation of this Commission.  For instance, this April 18, 2013 news report:

'Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he’d love to have more authority to pursue public corruption cases, which even in the face of recent scandals, no one is pushing to give him.

‘The debate is on now for the next round of reform, and you have to understand that one aspect of that is strengthening our ability to fight corruption, strengthening the ability of prosecutors like my office….’, Schneiderman, a Democrat, told Susan Arbetter on ‘The Capitol Pressroom.’'[fn] 

It appears that the Commission is also concealing the Attorney General’s powers and duties by its website and letterhead, wherein it calls itself 'Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption'.  This is not the Commission’s name.  The Governor’s Executive Order #106 creating the Commission could not be clearer in announcing that the Commission is 'to be known as the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption' (at ¶I).  This is understandable as the Commission’s sweeping power to investigate public corruption in all three government branches actually comes not from the Moreland Act (Executive Law §6), but Executive Law §63 pertaining to the 'General duties' of the Attorney General [fn].   Tellingly, the Commission’s website neither posts Executive Order #106, nor Executive Law §6, nor Executive Law §63.

Clear from Executive Law §63 is that the Attorney General is an essential safeguard to ensuring governmental integrity in this state.  Is that essential safeguard functioning?  Such must top the Commission’s investigative agenda.

Examining how Attorney General Schneiderman and prior Attorneys General ACTUALLY discharge their powers and duties under Executive Law §63 was the subject of a proposal for scholarship embodied in a November 5, 2012 letter that I personally delivered to Professor Briffault on that date at his comfortable office at Columbia University Law School and which he personally received from me, in hand.    It identified that CJA, et al. v. Cuomo, et al.  was the perfect case for such scholarship, that it arose “from the official misconduct of a succession of New York State Attorneys General – the most recent being State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a named defendant. (at p. 1); and that it is 'a powerful case study for explicating and resolving critical issues at the core of the state attorney general’s function' (at p. 3).  The letter stated:

'CJA v. Cuomo is illustrative of what happens time, after time, after time, at the New York State Attorney General’s office.  Citizens turn to the Attorney General with evidence of unlawful, if not unconstitutional, state government action, which he ignores.  This then burdens the citizens with taking legal action as ‘private attorneys general’, suing the state and/or its culpable officials and agencies – at which point the Attorney General defends the state, etc. by dismissal motions, including dismissal motions that are frauds on the court, being based on knowing falsification and material omission of fact and law, thereupon granted by a biased and/or self-interested judiciary.  In such fashion, our state’s highest law enforcement officer functions not as a safeguard of government integrity and constitutional governance, as he was intended to be – but as a perpetuator of governmental corruption and abuse,…

[Here demonstrated is how the Attorney General’s] misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance have facilitated an ongoing parade of horribles: (1) the brazen theft of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in fraudulent judicial pay raises this year and over the next two years, in perpetuity: (2) an unconstitutional court-controlled attorney disciplinary law, utilized to retaliate against judicial whistle-blowing attorneys; (3) a corrupt Commission on Judicial Conduct, dumping the very complaints the law requires it to investigate; (4) violative and unconstitutional state judicial selection processes, including to the Court of Appeals; (5) obliteration of state remedies against official misconduct provided by Article 78 and motions for judicial disqualification and disclosure.  All are chronicled, with substantiating documentary proof, by the CJA v. Cuomo lawsuit record.'  (at pp. 4-5, underlining in the original).

Our follow-up January 24, 2013 letter further reinforced this scholarship proposal and identified that CJA v. Cuomo establishes the necessity of crafting legislation to not only rectify the perversions wrought in Executive Law §63, but for developing 'a powerful qui tam statute to protect the People from the Attorney General’s derelictions and misfeasance' (at p. 6)."

 click here for referred to: CJA's November 5, 2012 letter

click here for referred to: 
CJA's January 24, 2013 letter

THE ODYSSEY OF CJA's AUGUST 5, 2013 letter is
chronicled in CJA's April 23, 2014 proposed intervenor's complaint
in the declaratory judgment action vs the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption -- HERE


of Attorney General Schneiderman's corrupting
of the duties of his office & litigation fraud

CJA's declaratory judgment action -- CJA v. Cuomo, et al.

CJA's (1st) citizen-taxpayer action -- CJA v. Cuomo, et al.

CJA's intervention in the declaratory judgment action
vs the Commission to Investigate Public Corruption,
purportedly brought by the Legislature -- NYS Senate v. Rice

CJA's (2nd) citizen-taxpayer action -- CJA v. Cuomo, et al.







CJA Site Search Engine Search CJA

CJA Homepage  •  Latest News  •  Join Us  •  Site Search



Post Office Box 8101
White Plains, New York 10602
Tel: (914) 421-1200
e-mail: mail@judgewatch.org