Council hopefuls talk on Acosta

As long as the Jones & Mayer law firm wants to continue trying to prosecute Benito Acosta for allegedly disrupting a 2006 Costa Mesa City Council meeting for free, city leaders should support it, former Mayor and current council candidate Gary Monahan says.

“If it’s pro bono, it’s a no-brainer,” Monahan said. “If they’re paying for the appeal, then it’s not costing the city anything, then, of course, we should continue it. If they’re not, then the question is what is the financial burden to go to the next step?”

Other council hopefuls aren’t so sure, with some saying the matter ought to be dropped.

Benito Acosta, a student activist who goes by the name Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, was removed from City Council Chambers Jan. 3, 2006 after he refused to be silenced by then-Mayor Allan Mansoor. After a brief struggle outside with police, Acosta was arrested.

With support from the American Civil Liberties Union, Acosta sued the city two months later. In May 2006, Dan Peelman, an attorney with the Jones & Mayer law firm, filed misdemeanor charges against Acosta.

In October 2007, the case was dismissed because Peelman was not sworn in as a city prosecutor and could therefore not file charges against Acosta, a judge ruled. By the end of the month, Costa Mesa attorneys appealed to revive the case.

On Tuesday, the appeal was rejected.

“Because the prosecution of [Acosta] was performed by attorney Peelman without the requisite official authority, the trial court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was warranted,” the three-judge panel ruled.

The city’s appeal was handled pro bono by Jones & Mayer at the urging of city officials. City prosecutors can either request a re-hearing before the panel or appeal to a higher court, City Atty. Kimberly Barlow said. Officials have not indicated whether they would like to continue pursing the case and, if so, if it would be free for taxpayers. For some, it doesn’t matter.

“In this case I would say enough is enough. There is still a cost to taxpayers in regards to the [legal] system,” council hopeful Chris Bunyan said. “I know at this point, I’m a cost-benefit kind of guy, this thing you’ve got to ask, ‘Is it worth it?’”

Candidate Bill Sneen said the city was right to prosecute Acosta, but since the case’s dismissal because of Peelman’s “blunder,” even a win in court wouldn’t necessarily translate into a victory based simply on how many legal hoops everyone has had to jump through and headaches residents have had to endure.

“I have no doubt in my mind that it needs to be dropped. I believe the law firm that represented the city made a blunder,” Sneen said. “It’s not about the original charges at this point, it’s about the mistake that the law firm made by not swearing in the man that filed the charges.”

Monahan, who was a councilman at the time and was at the meeting, said only exorbitant costs should prohibit the city from pressing the issue.

“I say definitely pursue it, we cannot let someone disrupt meetings and get away with it or we’ll never have order at City Council meetings,” Monahan said.

Candidate Jim Righeimer preferred to hedge his bets, saying that if taxpayers would not foot the bill, and the city had a good chance of winning a second appeal, it would be worth pursuing.

“I just think it became a personal issue between Allan Mansoor and Mr. Acosta,” said candidate Lisa Reedy, who would also like to see the criminal case let go. “I think he let things carry over from the previous meeting. I think his treatment was unfair. He didn’t have that same attitude toward the Minutemen.”

Before Acosta had spoke, Minuteman Jim Gilchrist had addressed the council and had supporters of the city’s stance on immigration enforcement stand. When Acosta attempted to do the same, except showing dissent, he was silenced.

Efforts to reach Mayor Eric Bever, Councilwoman Katrina Foley, and candidates Chris McEvoy and Nick Moss were unsuccessful.

JOSEPH SERNA may be reached at (714) 966-4619 or at joseph.serna@latimes.com.