Acosta gets day in court

Activist Benito Acosta’s freedom of speech was the latest thing that Allan Mansoor took away from a member of the Latino community, when the Costa Mesa mayor recessed that contentious City Council meeting back in January 2006, Acosta’s lawyer, Dan Stormer, said Wednesday.

Stormer argued during opening statements of his client’s federal lawsuit trial against Mansoor and the city that when Mansoor recessed the Jan. 3, 2006, meeting, as Acosta was speaking and before his three minutes at the dais were up, he violated his right to free speech.

Acosta was speaking during the public comment portion of the meeting and arguing against Mansoor’s resolution that city police begin to enforce federal immigration laws. At first he was calm and collected, but by the end of his comments that night, Acosta was calling Mansoor and Councilman Eric Bever racist, and saying they were against Latinos in the city.

At the previous council meeting, Acosta had called council members “F------ racist pigs,” his attorneys acknowledged to the jury.

“He’s emotional, he’s upset. He starts to speak. He’s admittedly rude, admittedly insolent. Admittedly profane, admittedly angry. But what he isn’t, is in violation of the Constitution or of the laws,” Stormer said. “There’s a big difference between inappropriate and illegal.”

At the Jan. 3, 2006, council meeting, Mansoor recessed the meeting when Acosta called for his supporters to stand. The city claims he caused a disturbance, a violation of city ordinance. Acosta was ejected by police and arrested.

The city unsuccessfully pressed charges, even though the district attorney’s office had declined to file charges. While the city was pursuing criminal charges, Acosta, who also goes by the name Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, sued Costa Mesa with the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union.

This civil trial in federal court is the culmination of those brief moments more than three years ago. At the time, witnesses testified, tensions in the city were at an all-time high. The closure of a job center for day laborers was a rallying cry for the Latino community and when Mansoor brought up the idea of immigration enforcement, it reached a fever-pitch.

Going into that meeting the council knew tensions were high, Dan Spradlin, the lawyer representing Costa Mesa, said during his opening statement.

But just as Mansoor tried to keep Acosta’s supporters from standing, he showed the same discretion with supporters of the immigration legislation, Spradlin said.

When Acosta turned to the audience and told them to stand up, and repeated it despite Mansoor’s objections, he was inciting the audience, Spradlin said.

Acosta’s attorneys spent the majority of the day’s testimony setting the scene for Costa Mesa at the time. On one side, you had groups like the Minutemen that supported Mansoor’s idea of enforcing immigration laws.

On the other, Latino-heavy groups like Acosta’s, who claimed it would discriminate against Latinos in the community and cause relations between police and the community to deteriorate.

The trial is scheduled to continue this morning at U.S. Central District Court in Santa Ana, in Courtroom 9D.

Timeline

Dec. 6, 2005

The Costa Mesa City Council approves a proposal to have police trained to enforce federal immigration law.

Jan. 3, 2006

Student Benito Acosta, using the name Coyotl Tezcatlipoca, protests the plan at a council meeting. He disobeys the mayor’s orders, scuffles with police and is arrested.

February 2006

Susan Schroeder, Orange County district attorney spokeswoman, says the D.A. will not file charges against Acosta for resisting arrest and battery of an officer; but, she says, the city can pursue a remaining alleged municipal code violation.

March 2006

The ACLU files a lawsuit against the city, alleging that Acosta’s civil rights were violated.

May 2006

City Prosecutor Dan Peelman files charges against Acosta for three municipal code violations stemming from the January meeting.

Sept. 27, 2007

The People vs. Benito Acosta comes to trial.

Oct. 1, 2007

A judge throws out the trial because Peelman failed to be sworn in as a public prosecutor before filing the case.

Dec. 19, 2008

City officials express regret after the state court of appeals, for the third time, declines to consider the case.

Dec. 2, 2009

With the criminal side of the case closed, the civil-federal trial begins.