time. i do not think we need to set up whatever audiovisual to show it for us to out -- evaluate whether it should be admissible. how will we get a copy? >> i have sent seven copies. they have delivered them. chairperson hur: we have them? ok. it sounds like i will be able to figure out a way. next we should not be -- address the objections submitted by the sheriff. mr. keith, i understand you have no objection.

that is still the case? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok. what about -- >> i have three objections. i can make them all or early -- orally. chairperson hur: ok.

>> if you look at the fifth paragraph of the declaration, and beginning i never suspected, there is a sentence beginning with the word " usually." we would move to exclude that for a lack of foundation and it is getting toward an expert opinion. commissioner renne: which paragraph is this? >> beginning i never suspected. five lines down you see the word usually. chairperson hur: ending with "no." commissioner renne: i am still lost. chairperson hur: it begins with i never expected anything going -- this is mr. deleone. commissioner renne: i thought you were talking about linette.

that explains it. chairperson hur: was there anything else you wanted to say? >> the foundation appears to have been made previously when she describes her experience in caring for children.chairpersons

on this? >> when you say she describes her experience caring for children, are you talking about the first sentence? >> where she says she is a child care provider. it is implied it is not just for sheriff mirkarimi and miss lopez's son. chairperson hur: are would be inclined to sustain the objection. i think it lacks foundation in this would be more appropriate for expert testimony if it were relevant. is there a dissenting view with respect to that objection? commissioner renne: the whole

paragraph? chairperson hur: "usually children have." the objection is sustained. you said you had two others? >> the next paragraph after that beginning when they were separated. that is basically a lot of statements about observations of the child's behavior after the sheriff was arrested. >> i will submit on that. chairperson hur: i do not see how it is relevant to the task we have. are there dissenting views?

what is the last objection to this? >> on the second page, the paragraph beginning "theo began" for the same reasons. concerns of the child behavior after he received the stay away order. as well as the witness's feelings and observations about the family, which to not seem to be relevant. chairperson hur: the objection is sustained. the remainder of mr. deleon's

testimony will be amended. -- omitted. is submitted written objections, mr. keith, we will deal with those. are there any others? >> no. >> as to the first objection dealing with the statement in the second paragraph, i would argue that the foundation was not shown for the statement. if it is an opinion by the previous sentencing in which she said she has a training regarding domestic violence. moreover, i do not believe that this is an expert opinion.

it appears to communicate peralta haynes' belief that she did not have to do anything for herself. she was satisfied miss lopez was not in danger. i do not think she is trying to say this is an empirical fact. this is on her -- her own perception. >> mr. keith? >> if this is only offered to show why her state of mind and why she decided to do whatever she did, we do not have an objection for that purpose. we have an objection to it being an assessment about whether she was actually in danger. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule this objection. i do not think this is being offered as an expert. it is being offered as her opinion. what value that has, there is

some, -- >> we were not given on -- any of the facts on which she relied. we get none of the information. of course whatever she relied on would be here say. -- hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to allow it. questions from the commissioners? the objection is overruled. mr. kopp, do want to address the second objections? >> yes, in the third paragraph, and leave the portion objected to was the italian sized portion that the woman responded know. -- italicized portion that the

woman responded no. that shows that she had not contacted any agencies or tried to connect eliana with them. but it could come in for a purpose of contextualizing the conversation between that woman and miss haynes and what she said -- why she said what she said. chairperson hur: mr. keith's? -- keith? >> this cannot be shown for the truth of the matter. i have doubts about what kind of context it is because the next speaker was miss madison. i do not think it serves any purpose.

chairperson hur: this is a conversation that is going to be, it is clearly at issue between miss haynes and miss madison and i would be inclined to allow it. that objection is overruled. the third objection >. >> i concede this cannot show miss lopez had been not -- had not been able to contact the sheriff. but i think when the sentence is red, the only fair import is that it explains why peralta

haynes called ross mirkarimi. she says i called him because and then goes on with the portion they are objecting to. we do not seek to admit it for that purpose. >> we do not object to the statement because that explains why she made the call. we object to additional information about what she had been doing. that is hearsay and inadmissible. i do not think there is any other evidence that would allow for that to come in. chairperson hur: i would solicit

the views of my fellow commissioners on this objection. >> we have allowed the other evidence to come in under the same caveat so we should allow this as well from the sarah sighed. -- sheriff's side. chairperson hur: the objection is overruled. sheriff's declaration. give this a moment here. -- us a moment here. commissioner renne: i take it the subpoena has been issued for ms. haynes? chairperson hur: it sounds like she is saying she is not available until july.

we should discuss scheduling as well as soon as we're done with this. we should address when she is going to be able to testify. the objections to the sheriff's declaration. is there anything else to consider? mr. kopp, will you be addressing this? >> perhaps i missed something that i did not see objections to his specific a state -- specific statements. >> the sheriff had filed his declaration late so we filed our deck -- objections.

chairperson hur: the first objection. >> i do not think this is an opinion. it is a statement of fact. i feel he can offer in this testimony. >> the charges were dismissed as part of a global plea-bargain. that is different from charge is being dropped. -- charges being dropped. i think what happens at the sentencing speaks for itself and this in jackson and needed

ambiguity. 0-- injects unneeded ambiguity. chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. the second objection. >> in terms of the mayor not telling sheriff mirkarimi why he suspended him, we think it is relevant. there was not a legally valid reason for the suspension but it was an improper reason. that could go to the mayor's bias. >> our objection on this was relevant. there is not a due process claim about whether there is an interest in getting paid or anything like that. this is not relevant. the communications with the mayor and the nature of them,

and even if it may go to the bias, did the sheriff thing to the mayor was unfair? clearly he does. i do not think it undermines regarding the validity of the charges. the charges rise and fall on the facts not on what was going on in the mayor's head. >> what is the purpose of the mayor's declaration? >> it was requested. chairperson hur: the mayor basically said -- as seems there is some relevance and the basis

of the decision. i think the share should be committed to examine the mayor on whether what that was the basis, and not being told the charges, i think that is potentially relevant to that state of mind. >> we dispute the facts of what happened in the conversation between the mayor and the sheriff. putting that aside, we submitted a declaration because we were requested to by the commission and we thought the commission wanted to know what the mayors reasons or for bringing the charges. his reasons are not important but he has some personal knowledge of a standard of -- public official and the standards. why the particular things that motivated him, i do not think

those are relevant. chairperson hur: first of all, and i have been wrong before, my understanding was he was on your witness list and we thought that based on the statements provided for what the witnesses would say he would be relevant. >> we put him on our list after the commission indicated they wanted to hear from him. certainly our feeling was they indicated they wanted to hear from the mayor. we are going to put him on our best. it was as simple as that. this issue of whether the mayor told the sheriff why, i still do not see how that it's to the issue of bias. chairperson hur: therefore says

based on his conduct that he conducted official misconduct and is not fit to hold office. in paragraph 6, he decided that any actions necessary -- he seems to have put at issue his reasoning for why he issued the charges. >> i do not think the mayor submitting a declaration about the reasons that motivated him to file the charges put at issue his motivation on the issue of what happened with regard to official misconduct. what i think it does is says this is the judgment of the mayor about why this conduct is serious. i think there is a difference what is motivating the mayor verses' his judgment that conduct is serious.

we're trying to provide the commission what he wanted and this is what the mayor had to get. it is putting aside for the moment what the ultimate relevance issues are. commissioner renne: have i missed something? are we on paragraph 19 of the declaration? if somebody asked a question of the mayor or the sheriff, one or the other, did the mayor tell you why he was suspending new? -- you? there would be no objection, the answer would be yes or no. i do not understand why we're spending any time on it. it is clearly a statement of fact which a witness could be

asked about in any court of law and there would be no objection. >> certainly the mayor has personal knowledge. but on the issue of relevance and what happened in terms of the back-and-forth between the two of them before the sheriff was suspended, our argument is that is not relevant. commissioner renne: it is not objectionable statement. chairperson hur: we have been excluding things based on relevance. commissioner renne: those are things that go to the substance. if the witness were here and the attorney asked him the question, did the mayor tell you why he was suspending new, and somebody objected, i would shake my head and say he can answer yes or no.

nothing to do with relevance. >> i think i understand. chairperson hur: i think i know where mr. renne falls on this objection. i think it should be overruled. is there a dissenting view from the commission as to whether that line should be permitted? >> at the very least it could come in as background evidence. i do not see any problem with it. chairperson hur: that objection is overruled. paragraph 20, line one. >> this is also relevant to that same issue whether or not the mayor has some kind of bias in his decision. it is also relevant to the issue of whether or not there

is an adequate investigation done by the mayor before the charges of misconduct were filed. as i believe has been made clear throughout these proceedings, the investigation was not only not concluded, it was not begun at the time the charges were filed. for those reasons we believe the mayor's failure to talk to the share for his wife about what happened is highly relevant. >> i hate to retread ground but the mayor made this decision when he found out the sheriff is a convict and is on probation for three years of his term. that is when the mayor made this decision. the ida he needs to conduct a further investigation after that, before he can file charges.

chairperson hur: ok. please, we are nearing the end of this proceeding. the public has been respectful thus far and we would like that to continue. none of the extracurricular conversation. >> having made that point, i see the argument we just made regarding the last objection, i would also assume the condition -- the commission arpino's that and they can make their ruling. chairperson hur: my view it is not relevant of anything. i do not see a situation in which that would happen. i do not see the relevance or the value of that. i would strike and permit the remainder. is there a dissenting view to that?

the objection is sustained. para graaff 21. -- paragraph 21. >> i do not see this as his opinion that he has ability, it is really just a phrase that is uttered routinely. i do not see this as his expert opinion that he has the ability to serve as a law-enforcement officer. >> is that the limitation? chairperson hur: sounds like there is a stipulation. the objection is overruled. ok. have we handled all of the

witness declarations from the sheriff? >> i believe so. >> yes. chairperson hur: let's talk about the schedule. we currently have available the 28th of june in the evening and the 29th of june. based on my conversations with council during the break, it sounds like they agree that testimony should begin not today but on the 28. do i have that corrected? -- correct? on the 28, the mayor is going to call the sheriff. do i have that right?

>> we will definitely have a witness. i do not know whether it is corn to be the sheriff. -- going to be the sheriff. i want to make sure we do not have a witness who can only come on the 28. i do not know about that. we will certainly have a witness. it will be the sheriff if no one else. chairperson hur: before we get to that, let's identify which witnesses we currently know we will see. that would be the sheriff, the mayor, ms. haynes. is there anybody else who know with certainty we were -- will hear live? >> i don't think so.

chairperson hur: what witness, -- >> both of our experts are available on the 29th. chairperson hur: is acceptable to defense counsel? >> i have thought so but an issue just came up. i need a moment. that is fine although i should state our objection to the sheriff testifying before the mayor's witnesses. chairperson hur: my understanding is that the mayor tent -- intends to call the sheriff. you want to make an objection to that.