Submitted by Marilyn Rick, Dec 13, 2006 06:00

Spitzer's choice of former NYAG Robert Abrams to co-chair his advisory committee on government reform proves that neither Spitzer nor NY is ready for reform. Spitzer is well aware (and has been for years) that Abrams and then NYS Comptroller Ed Regan resigned their state offices during midterm in 1993 amid charges that the NYAG's office was using state funds to bribe private attorneys in cases defended by the NYAG's office. The case that caught Abram's office was a federal civil rights case defended by Abrams office that involved a sexual assault by a NYS Police Investigator {see, Rojicek v Cooley et. al.). It was known in Buffalo as "the Kitchen sink " trial because the plaintiff's attorney (who sat on the NY ACLU board of directors), the Ass't NYAG and a federal magistrate were caught laughing over a kitchen sink during jury deliberations. During trail the NYAG attorney was given free reign to manufacture evidence, put on false witnesses, misrepresent the pretrial and trial record and ignore court rulings --all without objection from plaintiff's attorney or the trial magistrate.

Also, on April 1. 1993 the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary became aware that then Gov. Cuomo knew about the corruption of Abrams' office, forcing Cuomo to redraw his name from consideration as a US Supreme Court nominee six days later..

Where was NY's alleged aggresive press? When two of the state's top five office holders resign their offices during midterm due "to family considerations" all kinds of questions should have been raised.

Despite Spitzer's creation of a Public Integrity Unit while NYAG not one attorney was assigned or available to investigate corruption in the NYAG office. Spitzer has gone on record as wanting to emulate his good friend Robert Abrams. His refusal to investigate or weed out corruption in his own office and to set aside those verdicts that resulted from illegal acts by attorneys in his or Abrams' former office shows Spitzer isn't ready for reform.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.