Source: http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/searching-nys/commission-to-investigate-public-corruption/holding-to-account/exposing-nyag.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:46:51+00:00

Document:
'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.
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.
[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)."
CJA's declaratory judgment action -- CJA v. Cuomo, et al.
CJA's (1st) citizen-taxpayer action -- CJA v. Cuomo, et al.
CJA's (2nd) citizen-taxpayer action -- CJA v. Cuomo, et al.

References: §6
 §63
 §6
 §63
 §63
 v. 
 v. 
 §63
 v. 
 v. 
 v.