Judge MacEachern Bounced From Bench!
JUDGE REMOVED FROM BENCH
In a bit of news that is sure to raise some eyebrows in the land of Newport-Mesa, the Orange County Register reports HERE that Judge Kelly MacEachern has been removed from the bench by a judicial commission, apparently for falsifying expense reports and lying about it. She apparently plans to appeal the removal, which will become permanent in 30 days, to the State Supreme Court.
SHE DISMISSED ACOS
TA TRIALObservers of all things Costa Mesa will recognize MacEachern's name as the judge who dismissed the criminal case filed by the City of Costa Mesa against Benito Acosta last fall because the prosecutor, Dan Peelman, had not been properly sworn in before he took the case to trial. I suspect there are smiles all around at the offices of Jones & Mayer, the legal firm which provides the City of Costa Mesa with City Attorney services in the form of Kimberly Hall Barlow and where Peelman also works. MacEachern's decision to dismiss the Acosta case is under appeal by Peelman - at the expense of Jones & Mayer, not the City of Costa Mesa.
IMPACT ON THE APPEAL?
It's unclear if MacEachern's removal from the bench will have any impact on the Acosta trial at this point. Obviously, if her removal is upheld and Peelman's appeal of her decision on the Acosta case is allowed, another judge would have to hear the case. That would mean more dollars from our municipal coffers to try a case that should never have existed. And, of course, still pending is the civil trial Acosta filed against Allan Mansoor and the city. That case potentially represents more dollars - a lot more.
PAY ATTENTION, WILL YA!
Who ever said things are dull around these parts just isn't paying attention!
Labels: Benito Acosta, Dan Peelman, Kelly MacEachern
posted by The Pot Stirrer at 6/27/2008 02:25:00 AM
3 Comments:
Geoff, as an astute observer of City Council meetings, and an admitted critic of Acosta's outbursts, I am troubled by your assertion that he never should have been prosecuted for his actions at the meeting where he was arrested.
This isn't about politics or immigration, it is about Acosta's blatant disregard for the law. Plain and simple. Please stop trying to legitimize Acosta's actions because you disagree with Mansoor's. When 4 senior police officers have to physically remove and subsequently fight Acosta, it isn't about politics or policies. even Byron described the ensuing situation as a "football scrum."
You DO NOT GET TO FIGHT POLICE OFFICERS and expect no consequences.
I repeat, this is not, and never was, about Mansoor.
Rob,
Once again we disagree on this subject... There would have been no issue if Mansoor had applied the rules uniformly at the meeting. He was directly responsible for what happened by allowing his bias to cloud his judgment. By permitting Gilchrist to encourage his five dozen followers to stand, then forbidding Acosta from doing the same - and then cutting him off well short of his allotted time he exacerbated the situation. I do not condone Acosta's behavior at the earlier meeting when he cussed out Mansoor. That was unacceptable behavior. That is not the issue here.
The appeal of Judge MacEachern's dismissal of the case is pending. The civil trial is in the works now. I guess we'll eventually see how this sorts out in the legal system.
Geoff,
Thanks for the reply. I still maintain that Mansoor's actions - however improper they were - in no way excuse Acosta's. Two wrongs never make a right, and Mansoor wasn't fighting with the police.
We will continue to disagree on this one.
I look forward to the final outcome - whichever way it falls. The OCSC panel is far more astute than I am, and I will respect their decision. Perhaps you will be proven right!
Post a Comment
<< Home