M E D I A A D V I S O R Y

CONTACT:
Duane Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com


COSTA MESA CITY PROSECUTOR: MAYOR ALLAN
MANSOOR "UNDER INVESTIGATION"

Saturday, February 4, 2006

COSTA MESA, CA -- Dan Peelman, an attorney with Jones
and Mayer, a Fullerton-based law firm, and an
"independent prosecutor" on contract with the City of
Costa Mesa, opened up an investigation Friday into
allegations contained within a "letter of complaint"
that was filed against Mayor Allan Mansoor with
Kimberly Hall Barlow, the City Attorney, on Tuesday,
January 17th.

The complaint, which was submitted on behalf of the
Tonantzin Collective by Duane Roberts, a member of the
group, asked Barlow to "open an investigation to
determine whether or not Mayor Allan Mansoor violated
Section 2-60 of the municipal code when he engaged in
conduct which unlawfully disrupted a meeting of the
Costa Mesa City Council on the evening of Tuesday,
January 3, 2006."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that
"[e]vidence exists suggesting that Mayor Mansoor has
willfully ignored well-established protocols governing
the way City Council meetings have been traditionally
conducted in the past and has behaved in an arbitrary,
capricious, and vindictive manner against persons whom
he disagrees during public comments."

As an example of this, the complaint specifically
cites the January 3rd incident, where Mansoor abruptly
cut off Coyotl Tezcatlipoca from speaking before his
time was up, and allegedly had police forcibly remove
him from Council Chambers while the meeting was not
legally in session. The Orange County District
Attorney's office has declined to file charges against
Tezcatlipoca.

According to The Orange County Organizer, the website
that first broke this story, Mansoor "would face
misdemeanor charges with a maximum fine of $1,000 and
up to six months in jail" if Peelman determines there
is sufficient evidence to go forth with a criminal
prosecution. Barlow, however, is quoted as saying that
such an outcome is “highly unlikely” if he were
convicted.

See the following link for more information about this
breaking news story:

http://www.ocorganizer.com/html/coyotl.html

###

I'm confused Duane I was at the council meeting and you were not. I taped the entire meeting And you were not there. In the original post where you were talking cameras with the SOS guy you admit you were not there.

Now I read in the OC register you were standing a few feet away from the guy who got arrested. Also you claim to have acted as a liason between the police and the protestors.
http://www.ocorganizer.com/html/monsoor.html

What a pathetic lie. Once again you invent yourself as an eye witness, when the truth is you didnt even show up. Pathetic really but hardly surprising.

Anyone who thinks you might have a shred credibility should go back and read your original indymedia post and then the activist post above

Roger Young

Mr. Young:

Duane Roberts can be seen in the video. You are the liar, and much more.

John Earl

If you mean the night when Coyote got arrested, I was outside watching the TV monitor. I know what Duane looks like and he was there. There's footage that shows him witnessing the incident right in front of him.

After the meeting, Duane was speaking with some of Coyote's friends and supporters relaying information on what was going on. Duane claimed to be a laison between police and demonstrators? Well it's true. I've seen it firsthand.

To "Roger Young":

Well, if you have any doubts about where I was on
the night of Tuesday, January 3, 2006, then I suggest
you contact Captain Ron Smith of the Costa Mesa
Police Department. I was standing right next to him
when Police Chief John Hensley ordered his officers
to forcibly remove Coyotl Tezcatlipoca from the room.
You can see him putting his hands on my right
shoulder in a video of the incident that was posted on
www.immigrationwatchdog.com.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

P.S. KABC, KCBS, CNN, and several other TV
channels broadcast footage showing that I was
standing a few feet away from Tezcatlipoca
when Costa Mesa Police hauled him off. Yet
you have no video of me? Well, to solve that
problem, I suggest you put batteries in your
camcorder the next time you leave your house.


Roger Young wrote on Monday, Feb. 06, 2006 at 10:03

> I'm confused Duane I was at the council
> meeting and you were not. I taped the
> entire meeting And you were not there.
> In the original post where you were
> talking cameras with the SOS guy you
> admit you were not there.
>
> Now I read in the OC register you were
> standing a few feet away from the guy
> who got arrested. Also you claim to
> have acted as a liason between the police
> and the protestors.
> http://www.ocorganizer.com/html/monsoor.html
>
> What a pathetic lie. Once again you invent
> yourself as an eye witness, when the truth
> is you didnt even show up. Pathetic really
> but hardly surprising.
>
> Anyone who thinks you might have a
> shred credibility should go back and
> read your original indymedia post and
> then the activist post above
>
> Roger Young

Here's the thread in question:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/143755_comment.php

Duane doesn't say he wasn't there.

Hi John:

by johnk Tuesday, Feb. 07, 2006 at 12:46 AM

> Here's the thread in question:
>
> http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/143755_comment.php
>
> Duane doesn't say he wasn't there.

Thanks for posting that. I was wondering what
the heck "Roger Young" was talking about.
I'm going to advise people not bother replying
to any other messages he posts here claiming
I wasn't there. We have better things to do with
our time than to argue with a liar and a fool.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Trust me, if there was a camera, Duane was there!

It's amazing that there's all this indignation and throwing around of 'racism' about this Costa Mesa ordinance when it's really very simple: This is specifically focused on checking the immigration status of anyone arrested on suspicion of a FELONY ... not racial profiling, not sweeps of day labor sites, not patrolling neighborhoods questioning individuals without cause.

Someone gets arrested on suspicion of a felony ... if they are in this country illegally, regardless of their nationality ... we as a society don't want or need those types of individuals in our midst. If they are criminals, and here illegally ... hit the 'eject' button and deport them.

Simple.

If "suspicion of a felony" is the excuse, then, police will become a lot more "suspicious" about people who look like they don't have papers.

Let's say it's a cop's job to keep crooks off the street. That may or may not be a true premise, but give it to me for the sake of argument.

So a cop can go about their normal routine, catching 4X number of crooks a night, doing all the booking rigamorole, filing charges, testifying, and maybe the crook goes free--'cause maybe they weren't really a crook at all.

Or the cop goes out to Boyle Heights, rounds up 4X number of people on "suspicion of commiting a felony," calls ICE, and X number disappear into the immigration detention system for processing, and release or deportation. Then the cop has only 3X to process through the regular channels. So they have time to run out and make more busts--probably back in Boyle Heights, since it's so "productive."

That's how it becomes racial profiling--it makes the cop's night either easier or more "successful," and it encourages cops who have it on their agendas to deport undocumented people. More police arrests, more disappearances, and the neighborhood starts feeling targeted and terrorized.

'Cause I don't think the cops will be driving through Brentwood looking for people without papers.

And what the heck is Mansoor doing going to a CCIR meeting and being friendly with Gilchrist and Coe on stage anyways? I've been to those meetings and know what they're like. I'm a citizen, but I'm glad I don't live in Costa Mesa. I have no trust for him just like I lost my trust for Gilchrist and those affiliated with him.

If you have people from Stormfront working with you, I say move over and be done. Go away and let better people replace you. And now, if you work with the likes of Gilchrist, the CCIR, SOS, etc, same thing. Step down and move over. Let someone else do the job.

While Gilchrist and his people couldn't get into the Laguna Beach parade, they managed to grab Costa Mesa in a way by sucking up to mayor Mansoor and hailing them as their hero. If they have their way and it actually does put certain people in certain danger, my advice is to move out of the city for the time being.

Leslie, I see your point ... but I guess it comes down to a fundamental question on whether an individual, but entering this country illegally, essentially forfiets the right to due process. If someone wanted to be treated equally under the law, they can enter the country legally. I'm not saying they forfiet human rights to be treated 'humanely' ... but I think it's a big question on whether the simple act of placing two feet on US soil, particularly illegally, makes someone fully empowered to the civil protections afforded US citizens and legal residents. If the answer to that question is 'yes', then every Indoneasian, Sumatran, Indian, Pakistani, Haitian, etc., economic refugee should hop the first boat to the US immediately as we will have just annouced the US as the world's haven for it's poor masses. If the answer is 'no', then a persons illegal immigrant status trumps the right to due process.

They still get due process. Those arrested have the right to fight the deportation. Many do not fight it but they have the right.

Any arrested foreign national not only has the right to an attorney they have the right to speak to someone from the consulate office from their home country. That is part of international law and can not be denied.

Many held on immigration violations are actually able to post bond pending a hearing in front of an immigration judge.

Don't trust me, check out the State Department web site at http://travel.state.gov/consul_notify.html.

Thanks John, that seems pretty cut and dry.

So the CM ordinance/directive then simply means that the police, in the process of arresting someone on suspicion of a felony, if they find the suspect is also a foriegn national in this country illegally, can start the "due process" of that person's immigration status being legally reviewed. The suspect isn't forfieting any 'rights' and is essentially being treated like any foriegn national caught entering the country illegally ... they can get an immigration attorney, they will have a court date, and they can argue their case in front of a judge. If they can make a good case for why they should remain in the country, more power to them ... they've had their day in court and been afforded the right to argue for why they should be granted the privilege to remain in the country.

This of course presumes that we can agree that it is a 'privilege' for any foreign national to be granted residency in the US, not an innate 'human right'.

The 'bias' being exercised by the CM police would be in reviewing the immigration status of people that have sufficient evidence against them to warrant their arrest for a felony crime, not just anyone walking down the street. It's not a racial bias, it's a bias directed at suspected felons. If that's profiling, it's profiling directed as suspected actions based upon some minimum amount of evidence sufficient to warrant arrest ... not profiling based upon race.

With respect to Leslie's point of debate, I assume the majority of police are righteously concerned with getting "bad guys" off the street first and foremost and not trying to meet some 'quota' or exercising some personal or race-based vendetta. If they arrest a suspected felon, their primary motive is to remove a potentially dangerous person from the immediate possibility of doing more "bad things" in the communiity, or use the felony arrest of a true "bad guy" to get them to flip on the even worse "really, really bad guys". They aren't going to drive down to Boyle Heights or East LA or Santa Ana and see how many round trips they can count up with their back seats filled with suspected illegal immigrants. They know that would be pretty counter productive in getting help in snagging the real bad guys, not to mention a monumental waste of their time.

Well the thought that a cop from Costa Mesa would leave his city to go to another city to fill up his back seat is crazy. No cop is going do something like that, first and formost because they have no reason to do that.

And the question is going to come up about cops framing suspects on felony arrests. Suspects, citizens or not, have the right to sue should they be arrested with out probable cause.

The worst thing the Costa Mesa Police could do would be to make false arrests just to get a suspect undocumented foreign national "off the street". No Police Department would want that reputation. There is nothing to indicate the police have done this or are planning to do that.

And lest I inderject common sense into this arguement, it is common knowledge that criminals routinely victimize people of their own race. So by taking suspect felons into custody are they not potentialy protecting those of the same race?

Most Americans want our borders closed and illegals
out of the country.
Get it now?

John and Alfonso are proposing that cops never, ever, ever profile people based on race. And when they do (yes, they're taking both positions), well, the arrestees are "criminals" anyway, and deserve to be punished for something, even if it's not the alledged crime they were arrested for.

Gotta love that kind of policing. I'm not really guilty of theft, but I probably littered, so lock me up anyway and figure I'm getting what I deserve for littering.

Leslie, I think what you've stated is an inaccurate paraphrasing of what I or John have said.

I didn't ever say "cops never, ever, ever profile people based on race". I said I believe, and I assume, that the MAJORITY of police are first and foremost concerned with getting bad guys off the street and reducing crime in our communities. I'm sure that you could find a individual policeman that is racially biased and performs actions based upon his/her personal racial agenda ... but I believe it's unfair for you to try label police as a group that racial profiling is a tool of their profession.

It's also an exaggerated metaphor to use 'littering' as compared to being reported for illegally entering the US. If I litter, I know I face the risk of a simple citation and have to pay a inconsequential fine. If I enter the US illegally, I should expect that I face the risk of being deported as a consequence of my actions. I think it's more fair to compare illegal immigration to theft ... if I come to this country illegally, I'm stealing a free education, free medical care, free social services benefits, I'm undercutting legal residents in the labor market ... things I really don't have a right to.

I think the difference between you and me is that you view entering the country illegally as not really illegal, i.e., it's really no worse than littering and people who do enter the country illegally essentially have a human right to live here in the US and "build a better life" for themselves. I don't agree with that position. While it's a very philanthropic belief system, it's really just a self-serving rationalization unless you truely embrace it on a global level ... if immigration into the US should be truely open, go sponsor hundreds of thousands of Somalis, rural Chinese, Bangledishi, Pakistani, Sudanese, Tanzanians ... people in the world that have a much more urgent, life threatening, and dire cirmstances than that should have an equivalent right to "build a better life" for themselves here in the US. If you're going to make the argument that illegal immigration is equivalent to littering, then extend that argument to it's logical conclusion if your motivation is truely philanthropic. Otherwise, its just a means of rationalizing away the consequences of what today is defined as an illegal action for the benefit of a select group.

The reality is that true philanthropy would be focused on improving the social, economic, and political infrastructure in the home countries of people attempting to enter the US illegally. It would certainly benefit a far larger number of people and be more sustainable. Right now, Mexican villagers come to the US, work, send money home to build houses, buy trucks, refrigerators, etc., for their families back home, but beyond consumer goods, it doesn't help build sustainable economic activity back in those villages. Grandma is still trying to sell trinkets and tortillas for a few Pesos a day out of the front room of her new five bedroom house. The infusion of remittances isn't creating local industry, jobs, or sustainable economic infrastructure. Ultimately, the 'temporary' workers won't go back, even to the nice new 5-bedroom house in the mountain village ... because there still nothing to do. So a few million immigrants live a more comfortable life here in the US three families to a house working bottom rung jobs ... it's not really solving the real problem. And it IS creating problems here.

Ok fine, ignore me.

But I still have to wonder why in your dozen or so posts on this website, you only mention elements of the videotape from watchdog and others. You dont mention anything tthat is not on video. A Month later, suddenly you were part of the story since you were the Liason between police and demonstrators. I mean in all your posts it just seems to me as odd that you forgot to mention that part.. To me your observations as police Liason would be a large part of the story.

But since everybody is ignoring this per your recommendation, I guess that I will never get an answer. Oh well.

Roger Young

Hi Roger:

Roger Young wrote on Friday, Feb. 10, 2006 at 8:46 AM:

> Ok fine, ignore me.
>
> But I still have to wonder why in your
> dozen or so posts on this website,
> you only mention elements of the
> videotape from watchdog and others.
> You dont mention anything tthat is
> not on video
>
> A Month later, suddenly you were part
> of the story since you were the Liason
> between police and demonstrators.
> I mean in all your posts it just seems
> to me as odd that you forgot to mention
> that part. To me your observations as
> police Liason would be a large part
> of the story.

O.K. That's a fair question.

In some of the first messages that I posted
online about Coyotl Tezcatlipoca's arrest
on the night of January 3, 2006, I
didn't say much about the role I played
because I was instructed not to get into
specifics about this case.

It was only after John Earl, myself, and others
collected evidence that fully exonerated Coyotl
of all criminal wrongdoing that I felt a
little bit freer to talk about my role as a
"police liaison" and publicly comment about what
happened.

But even now, there are alot of things I can't talk
about. In fact, some of the stuff I'm posting online
is reviewed by attorneys before you see it. You need
to understand I'm a witness to what many
people believe to be a criminal act that was
committed by government officials at the highest
levels of power within the City of Costa Mesa.

And I'm not about to reveal everything I know on la.indymedia.org since the Orange County District
Attorney's Office, Costa Mesa Police Department,
Costa Mesa City Attorney, and other people in
power are reading every message I'm posting
here.

Believe me, Roger. You'll learn more about this
case as time goes by. Be patient.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com


> But since everybody is ignoring this
> per your recommendation, I guess
> that I will never get an answer. Oh
> well.
>
> Roger Young

i still don't get how checking the immigration status of a criminal is "racial profiling". you guys trump this all up in fear of some odd psuedo-mcarthyism that doesn't exist. oh wait! i better be careful, my keyboard might be tapped!

Leslie,
anyone who would say that there are not some cops out there with an agenda would not be telling the truth. But you must admit the vast majority of cops out there want nothing to do with they type of publicity they would subjected to for making an illegal arrest of a foriegn national. Not to mention the possibility of a law suit and loss of reputation that would come with that.

As far as being arrested for littering, it is my understanding the Costa Mesa PD will only be screening those who have been arrested for a felony crime. Should a pattern be displayed of an officer or a department engaging in such activity would certainly be broadcast on IMC and hopefully the media at large.

Please dont paint the cops with such a broad brush. If you were to talk to many of them as I have you would know they want to just do their jobs and not be in the spotlight. Being involved in the activity you assume they are going to do would do just that.

I was there, I saw the whole thing. I know who Duane is, very well. He was not there.

I don't know if cops as a rule are into racial profiling, and I never said they all were. But if even one is, then that's a BIG problem in Costa Mesa now. And Alfonso, John, and I agree that there's least one.

It's my understanding (if anyone has a copy of this resolution, plz post it) there is nothing in the CM resolution that prohibits sweeps. The mayor just offered the public some verbal assurances. I'm not sure the policy is even limited to felonies, although that's what people are saying. Except the CM mayor, who reportedly said publicly that he was going to get all undocumented people out of his city, so I think it's probably not.

I never said anything about arresting undocumented people for littering. I drawing an analogy around the idea of punishing someone because they must have done something, even if it's not the crime they were arrested for. Nasty idea, reminds me of Guantanamo

And, given current U.S. trade treaties and terrorist laws, I'd hate to think of what the countries you describe would look like without the contributions of immigrants to this country.

Witness wrote on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 10:47 PM:

> I was there, I saw the whole thing. I know
> who Duane is, very well. He was not
> there.

I think the problem here is that the white hood you
wore to the meeting obstructed your view.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Leslie,
I think you make a great point. A lot of this would put to rest if someone would post the resolution and let us read what it says. I would bet most of what is being said would be shut down. However, many people hate when facts get in the way of a good thread.

Someone must have the resolution, if you have it please post it.

Duane,
go back to sleep, we are trying to discuss the facts of the situation.

'Cause I don't think the cops will be driving through Brentwood looking for people without papers."

You make a good point, Leslie. This has been nagging me for some time. It reminds me of the "bait" car video, where the cops, rig a car for video and audio, then "abandon" it in a poor neighborhood. Later on some TV show, like "Cops", we are entertained by the supposed success, the cops have catching poor kids, driving the "stolen" car.

This is like a fisherman, going to his favorite fishing hole to catch fish, using his favorite lure, because he has had such good success, in that location. Except the cops are not supposed to enforce the laws, by enticing people to commit crimes.

Looking at the cop's process from a scientific perspective, they fail to provide any "control" situation, or a "normal" for reference, so we "the jury of the suspect's peers", can compare data, to reach a conclusion, of guilt or innocence. The DA presents overwhelming evidence the kid, in the poor neighborhood, must be a criminal, because he jumped into the 'Benz, sitting at the curb, with the keys in the ignition, and the doors unlocked, rather than calling the police to report a stolen car.

If the cops are going to go fishing for crimes, they need to try, the same number of times, but in a variety of neighborhoods, even though they have low expectations of catching a crook, "stealing" their bait car. They need to sit on a spot all day like the fisherman often does, and not catch any fish. But they need to try fishing the same spot at different times, days of the week, etc., to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, they won't catch criminals at that spot. Yes, I know this seems like a waste of police time, but a jury needs reliable information, to make a decision.

At least that's how I look at it.

BR

I think the CM plan, will look at the person arrested for a crime, then as part of processing, determine if he/she is a citizen, or resident of the USA, or legally supposed to be here. If not, then determine immigration status, but not give the person up to ICE or a consulate. The supect will be, processed as anyone else. He/she could make bail, or bail might be denied. He/she may face a hearing or a trial. He/She may get sentenced to jail or prison and serve time, or be immediately deported.

Flash forward 5,10,15, 25 years...

At the time of processing for release from jail or prison, should a review of records indicate eligibility for deportation, then the criminal would be scheduled for release to the custody of ICE, or the consulate, for deportation. The country of origin, just might wan to put the person into their own prison system, for crimes committed back home. This would prevent the MS-13 debacle inflicted on El Salvador.

BR