Is OCDA Rackauckas Obstructing Justice in Pulido Investigation?

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas (Photo: Chris Prevatt)
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas (Photo: Chris Prevatt)
Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas (Photo: Chris Prevatt)

Voice of OC has done some additional digging into the “investigation” by Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas into the property swap between Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and auto parts contractor Rupen James Akoubian. Reporter Adam Elmahrek has found that in the in the more than six months since Santa Ana City Attorney Sonia Carvalho turned over an internal investigation report, the District Attorney’s office has not yet interviewed key witnesses in the case.

Orange County District Attorney’s Office investigators haven’t once tried to contact key Santa Ana City Hall officials during their months-long investigation into Mayor Miguel Pulido’s property swap with a city contractor, multiple sources confirmed during interviews with Voice of OC.

This despite a city report handed over to the DA over six months ago that found Pulido likely committed crimes under Gov. code section 1090, which prohibits public officials from having financial interests in their agency’s contracts.

 

In fact, the report, based on an inquiry by former Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask, said whether Pulido had influence on city staff’s recommendation of the contract with NAPA Orange County Auto Parts is the top question investigators should be trying to answer.

“What, if anything, did Mayor Pulido say to City employees about the Auto Parts Co. contracts?” Asks the report, which was obtained by Voice of OC last week.

DA investigators don’t know the answer to this question because they haven’t interviewed any of the city officials who could have had a hand in the contract, according to sources inside City Hall.

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and Mayor Pulido sit together at the mayor's table at the state of the city address. (Photo by: Adam Elmahrek/Voice of OC).
District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and Mayor Pulido sit together at the mayor’s table at the state of the city address. (Photo by: Adam Elmahrek/Voice of OC).

This revelation may help explain why the City Council majority is so annoyed about the progress of the District Attorney’s investigation of the matter. As time rolls on, peoples memories become faded, and other influences may come into play. Why would a city staffer, with damning knowledge of the events that transpired, be willing to reveal that information when it appears clear that the DA is holding back the investigation.

This type of cover-up, or appearance of a cover-up, is a clear example of the need for an independent investigatory and prosecution process in Orange County. It is time for the State Attorney General, Kamala Harris, to take this investigation, and potential prosecution out of the hands of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas. Attorney General Harris should probably add an investigation of Rackauckas for possible obstruction of justice.

Here is the link to the full Voice of OC story.

1 Comment

  1. Dan, the material as reported by the Voice of OC is very likely true and is a disgrace to the Justice System.

    That the District Attorney would do such a thing is not surprising given his past track record of investigations. The same ignore and fail to investigate scenario occurred a number of years ago when the Special Investigation Unit of the D.A.’s Office was given documentation, a falsified police report and the facts of an Obstruction of Justice allegation against none other than your BFF, Larry Agran. The D.A.’s Office followed the same M/O ignoring the material provided, never doing a follow up investigation and as a result a felony suspect got a free pass thanks to Larry Agran. Yes, the “Teflon” Councilman skates again.

    Without a doubt, it is time for us to elect a new District Attorney in Orange County who will investigate crime regardless of who the suspect is, or what political affiliations they may have. On that we can probably agree?

Comments are closed.