Oath of Office Project Questions Spitzer’s Enforcement of State Laws

Yonkers Tribune ^ | March 13, 2004 | Ehezi

[citizenx7]

ALBANY, NY -- March 13, 2004 -- New York State Oath of Office Project coordinator June Maxam applauded Attorney General Spitzer for enforcing New York State law with New Platz Mayor Jason West. “However,” Maxam stated, “Spitzer has a double standard. No matter where one stands on the issue of same sex marriages, our laws must be obeyed… even by public officials. Spitzer was correct to remind West about obeying our laws, However,” Maxam continued, “the Attorney General sees no problem chastising West while turning a blind eye to the nearly 82 percent of justices, sheriff’s and DA’s through out New York who have willfully failed to obey state law regarding the filing of their oath and or undertaking as the law requires.”

Maxam noted Spitzer’s spokesperson, Paul Larrabee while referring to the situation West created said the Attorney General by law has the power to remove any public official from office who willfully violates law. “Seems The Attorney General forgot to add, unless they are members of our judiciary.” Maxam quipped.

In December 2003, Maxam along with members of the Constitution Party delivered the findings of the NYS Oaths Project to the Attorney General’s office but short of acknowledging receipt of the 315-page document, Spitzer has allegedly ignored the situation. Ginger Berlin State Chair for the Constitution Party stated, “Why can’t Mr. Spitzer see the duplicity he has created with West. Is it selective enforcement? Clearly, there seems to be a brotherhood of protection within the justice system in our state.” Berlin, whose Party has played a vital role in the unmasking of errant officials stated, “Since Spitzer has that authority, why is he disciplining one errant public official and not others? That is selective enforcement and that is illegal in itself.”

[citizenx7]

The time has come for a detailed analysis of lack of filing oaths of office, in every State. The importance of doing this will not be lost on anyone who understands the reasons that our government officials must be "under oath"

[expatpat]

But it discriminates against the poor atheists.....

[citizenx7]

The wording of the oath is not the issue, and wording can be devised that will not cause the atheist to be offended. The public official must be put under oath, so that he is legally liable to the people who elected him, for misconduct in office.

I'm going to begin to study my State, to see how widespread this practice is here. I hope others will join me!