Tony Rackauckas and Susan Kang-Schroeder to unload on Todd Spitzer this Wednesday


 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

.
.
.
.
.

The OC Weekly is reporting that “Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and his assistants will end their public silence on Wednesday about the controversial release of Todd Spitzer as a prosecutor.”

Rackauckas’ dreadful right hand, Susan Kang-Schroeder, has apparently been working overtime. ┬áCheck out this laundry list of B.S. she will be unleashing on Spitzer this Wednesday:

–Did Spitzer call the public guardian, use his “assistant district attorney” title, and request confidential information?
–Did Spitzer ever lie to the news media about what happened when a senior DA official disciplined him for giving a bottle of wine to a court clerk?
–Did Spitzer try to help a friend set up a business to use victims of crimes for profit through improper referrals from the DA’s office?
–Did Spitzer ever use DA staff and equipment to campaign for the 2014 race for DA?
–Did Spitzer reveal the existence of a confidential investigation at a Republican Party meeting after being specifically told not to do so?
–Was Spitzer ever rejected by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to be a level one reserve deputy?
–Did Spitzer ever take a stress leave from the DA’s office?
and
–Did Spitzer fail to pass a psychological examinations for any law enforcement agency?

Spitzer has already responded, in a comment posted after the article:

The Schroeder’s tried this same allegation about a stress leave in 2005 when I was going to run against Rackauckas. I opened up my personnel file to Moxley then and what? Nothing.

Ask yourself this. If the DA’s office believed I had a stress leave, didn’t they need to report it to LAPD where I was a cop at the time working patrol with a gun, badge, baton, pepper spray, shotgun, and handcuffs issued to me?

Why did the DA’s Office bring me back in 2008 if any of these allegations had any merit?

Ask yourself this: why did the DA’s office write me a letter to the Sheriff’s Department in SUPPORT of my CONCEALED GUN PERMIT in April 2009 if Rackauckas had concerns about my ability to handle stress? Why didn’t they write a letter asking Sheriff Hutchens to revoke my permit if they had concerns about my carrying a gun?

Does anyone see any problem with liability here if any of this were true?

Believe me. I love these allegations. It proves the level of corruption these law enforcement officials are willing to go to to level their critics. The County is waking up and people are getting angry that sworn prosecutors are using the DA’s Office to advance their own political corruption.

Remember, people know this is more than just about me. You have hurt too many good people. Your tactics are proving to the community exactly who you are, what you stand for, and what means you will use to achieve your objectives.

You didn’t say anything negative about me until after the March 12, 2010 filing period to run against Rackauckas closed. Then, suddenly, you had all these concerns.

Keep it up. You only give me more opportunities to expose how awful you really are. But then again, we all know it, the staff in the DA’s Office knows it and the press and the Board of Supervisors knows it.

No one respects either of you. You rule through fear; that never lasts too long. There is already an internal rebellion from within the DA’s Office against both of you.


About Art Pedroza