|
By John Earl
OC Voice Editor
(Nov. 2007)
Mayor Allan Mansoor’s abrupt halt to Benito Acosta’s speech during a meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council on Ja n. 3, 2006, and the pro-immigrant activist’s forced removal from the room minutes later, has become a heavy burden to the city’s taxpayers.
So far, Acosta’s civil rights lawsuit against the city and a city prosecutor’s still failed attempt to prosecute him on criminal charges have cost the city’s taxpayers almost $130,000, so far, according to public documents released to the OC Voice.
And costs could go much higher, especially if city prosecutor Dan Peelman, a private attorney paid by the city, decides to appeal his loss and if Acosta wins the civil suit.
The conflict began when Acosta, the immigrant rights activist, asked opponents of the mayor’s immigration policies to stand and the mayor cut him off before his time was up, even though, Jim Gilchrist, the self-described “vigilante” founder of the Minuteman Project, was allowed to ask the mayor’s supporters to stand only minutes earlier.
Acosta continued to ask the audience to stand, but was then allegedly “grabbed,..struck, pushed, kicked, choked and dragged” by police as they removed him from the chambers, according the lawsuit.
The police continued to strike Acosta outside of the council chambers, the lawsuit alleges. In news clips, Acosta was seen being choked and dragged along the ground into another wing of City Hall. One officer can be seen sitting on Acosta while another drags both him and Acosta through the hallway.
Costa Mesa police charged Acosta with resisting arrest and two misdemeanor counts, one for unlawfully addressing the city council and one for “disorderliness.”
Former Chief of Police John Hensley, who signaled for officers to physically remove Acosta from the council chambers, and who is a defendant in the civil case, pursued the criminal prosecution, at least in part, because he feared that Acosta would sue for false arrest if the charges against him were dropped, according to an e-mail dated Jan. 5, 2006 and obtained by the Voice.
In the e-mail sent by Hensley to Costa Mesa resident Chris Blanc, who hoped to  persuade the Chief to drop all charges against Acosta, Hensley wrote, “If we drop them, he will sue us for false arrest and I am not going to let that happen.” The e-mail was revealed in court during Acosta’s trial.
Hensley did not drop charges, but on Feb. 3, 2006, the Orange County District Attorney’s office declined “in the interest of justice” to prosecute Acosta for resisting arrest—a violation of state law—but the DA does not handle stand-alone Municipal Code violations, which it handed the code charges back to the city without comment.
That same day Hensley attempted to add another state law violation against Acosta for “battery” of a police officer, but the DA’s office again declined to prosecute.
High costs
On March 3 the ACLU filed Acosta’s civil rights lawsuit. Two months later (and four months after the DA’s office refused to prosecute), on May 18, 2006, Peelman announced he would prosecute Acosta on two Municipal Code allegations—for “disorderly conduct” while addressing the city council and as a member of the audience.
 Acosta’s criminal trial had lasted only a few days before it was dismissed on Oct. 1 by presiding Superior Court Judge Kelly MacEachern, who ruled that city prosecutor Dan Peelman had not been properly authorized under state law, not just a technicality she said, but “a denial of due process” as well.
The result for Costa Mesa taxpayers, according to documents released to the Voice under a Public Records Act request, was a cost of $32,000 at $169 per hour for the failed prosecution of Acosta .
The bill was paid to the private Fullerton law firm of Jones & Mayer, which provides Costa Mesa with its outsourced city attorney, Kimberly Hall Barlow. Acosta’s prosecutor, Danny Peelman, also works for the firm.
Add that to the previously reported $44,000 cost of police services provided at city council meetings between Oct. 2005 and Oct. 2006—related to protests, pro and con, sparked by the mayor’s proposed immigrant control polices.
Plus the growing costs of defending against Acosta’s civil lawsuit—$95,000 as of September, according to documents released to the Voice.
At press time Peelman was considering an appeal, but he previously admitted that the issue is “probably moot.” A successful appeal would have to go through three more layers of courts, including the California Supreme Court, and legal costs would skyrocket.
That makes the outlook for Costa Mesa taxpayers seem bleak, whether Acosta’s appeal goes forward or not, especially if the case put on by Peelman during the short-lived trial is any indication of things to come in a possible criminal retrial and the civil suit that goes to trial next April.
Opening argument
In his opening trial statement the first day at trial, Peelman described the atmosphere at the Jan. 3 city council meeting as riotous due to “a volatile immigration demonstration” outside of the chambers and because the mayor’s proposal to use police to help enforce immigration law had gained the “ire” of a lot of people, including Acosta.
Legally, he would attempt to show that Acosta violated city code by addressing the audience instead of the city council during his comments and by asking members of the audience to stand up and basically engaging in “disorderly” conduct.
In order to do that, Peelma n hoped to convince the jury that Acosta had planned to “incite” the crowd inside the council chambers by having his “hand picked” supporters stand up in during the meeting.
Based on his experience as a deputy sheriff, Peelman told jurors, the mayor “saw that the meeting was so volatile that it needed to be recessed.”
Peelman got dramatic. “I have been in riots,” he told jurors, “I have seen the innocent people shot and killed.”
In fact, the only people at the meeting with a (well known) reputation for toting guns were from the Minuteman Project, an organization that Mayor Mansoor later joined as an “honorary member” and which was led at the time by self-proclaimed “vigilante” Jim Gilchrist, who considers the mayor to be a hero.
There was plenty of passion to go around on both sides that night, but not the slightest hint of violence—inside or outside—until police dragged Acosta out of the council chambers.
Court testimony from the mayor and two police officers present on Jan. 3 contained many repetitions of “buzz” words like “volatile,” “disruptive,” “boisterous,” “angry,” “animated,” “agitated,” “riled,” “involved” and “riots” to depict Acosta as out of control, but often seemed like hyperbole when subjected to the skilled cross examination of Acosta’s attorney, Kwaku Duren.
What follows are some highlights of the testimony of each witness in the order that they appeared in court.
Mayor Allan Mansoor for the prosecution
The mayor admitted under cross examination that there were no known acts of violence or threats against members of the city council at the city council meeting on Jan. 3
Mansoor admitted under cross examination that there is no prohibition in the Municipal Code against members of the audience standing up during council meetings.
The mayor also admitted that he did not ask Jim Gilchrist’s Minuteman supporters to stop standing in support of his immigration policies because they sat down anyway—indicating that he did give preferential treatment to Glchrist, after all.
The mayor admitted that he did not warn Acosta not to address the audience and that nothing in the Municipal Code specifically prohibits speakers from addressing the audience—although he interprets it that way.
The mayor at first denied that he is an honorary member of the Minuteman Project, but then grudgingly acknowledged that “I simply said thank you” when membership was offered. He also acknowledged that he was the guest of honor at a campaign funding event for his mayoral campaign organized by Gilchrist’s Angels in the summer of 2006.
Officer Dan Guth for the prosecution
Officer Guth was the Sgt. Of Arms at the Jan. 3 city council meeting and was one of the intervening police officers that night. He is also a defendant in Acosta’s lawsuit.
Guth admitted that he destroyed his original notes on the incident “because I didn’t need them” and it’s standard procedure for officers to type up their reports and discard their notes. Still, his report said nothing about Acosta being disruptive that night, he testified.
Referring to the mayor’s interaction with Gilchrist, “Did you actually hear the word (sic) ‘stand up’” Duren asked. “I believe so,” Guth answered.
Under further questioning, however, Guth filp-flops, saying he can’t remember that, and again after referring to his report, which does not mention standing, when he claims that he heard the mayor say the words “can’t stand” or “something to that effect.”
Guth testified that the action taken against Acosta might have prevented a “catastrophic event.” But there was nothing in his report about a “riotous situation;” he referred to that as a comment he thought of in court.
Chris Blank for the defense
Blank, a local business attorney, was inside the city council chambers when Acosta was removed by police.
Blank said there were 30-40 people outside of the council chambers and that the atmosphere was “intense” but “everybody was peaceful,” contradicting police testimony.
He saw Gilchrist ask his supporters to stand. The mayor did not admonish Gilchrist or his supporters, but thanked them.
He had seen “many” instances of the mayor allowing members of the audience stand over the years.
Acosta appeared to be “passionate, yes, but I wouldn’t say agitated.” When he asked his supporters to stand he was not angry but “forthright.” Blank joined others in complying with Acosta’s request, but said the group was not “boisterous.”
After Acosta was removed from the chambers, Blank saw him face down on the ground with a police officer’s knee in his back while complaining that his arm was hurting.
He had greeted Acosta outside prior to the meeting, but never heard him say that he was going to use civil disobedience inside the council chambers.
Lt. Dave Anderson for the prosecution
Lt. Dave Anderson was present at the meeting and was involved in the scuffle with Acosta along with Guth. He is also a defendant in Acosta’s lawsuit.
Based on the way Acosta was speaking to the outdoors crowd in Spanish, a language Anderson said he does not understand, the Lieutenant concluded that Acosta was a “ring leader” dominating and “inciting” the crowd of anti-Mansoor protesters.
Acosta’s “behavior [at the podium] was short of outrageous,” Anderson said. “Mr. Acosta was becoming more agitated and yelling,” he testified, and “was screaming and yelling as loud as he could, ‘Don’t touch me,’ which made me think he was trying to agitate the crowd to violence.”
“I pleaded with him and begged him to walk away,” Anderson continued, “[but he] continued to scream and yell at me… It was one of the worst episodes in 22 years as a police officer...I was afraid for my life.” So Anderson “grabbed him around the neck” to control him. “It was a full on battle,” he said.
In order to test Anderson’s claims, defense attorney Kwaku Duren played back a clear video with full audio of the entire incident that took place inside the council chambers.
Showing the video one segment at a time, Duren asked Anderson repeatedly if he could point out when Acosta was yelling or when he thought his life was in danger. But Anderson answered repeatedly that Acosta was “not disruptive at this point” or that he did not yet fear for his life.
Embarrassingly, at one point in the process, Anderson says, “Somewhere in there he [Acosta] was yelling, but I can’t hear it.” In fact, throughout the video, there is not a single time when Acosta yelled or screamed at anyone.
The jury in the upcoming civil trial might see a lot more of the same type of testimony, and the Costa Mesa taxpayers will pay the bill.
|
