right now. this is it. >> i want to say one thing for commissioners. the court reporter has been going for three hours which as someone who is familiar with court reporters, that is not ok. this is not evidence and does

not have to be included in the official record. is there an oto the court reporter not taking public comment from the parties? >> no. >> no. >> we will continue to record as we always do public comment, but it will not be tribed because it's not part of the evidence in the case. thank you. >> can you go. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is valerie tullir. you have heard the same points over and over again. i want to say what sheriff mirkarimi did was accept responsibility for what he believes was his wrong. does it raise to the level of misconduct, official misconduct, no, it doesn't. i'm a little bit concerned as a latina that eliana did not give permission for the d.v. community to make her a poster child. i understand why the d.v.

community is connected, their pursestrings and grants are connected to the city commission and the city politics and i respect that. i respect people wanting to stick up for their purpose and for their funding. however, i do ask -- and i'm a former commissioner on the commission on the status of women, so i speak from experience. i do just ask for equity. i just ask for the justice to be even-handed. i know that the case for far chief joanna hayes has come up and that was to the level of a 911 call. i just ask that if we are going to do justice that we do it fair across the field and that one person is not isolated and targeted as a feel that sheriff mirkarimi has been. the last time that i was here at the commission meeting, you all were very reasonable.

i pray that you continue to be reasonable and fair. thank you very much. [applause] >> good afternoon. domestic violence is not a private matter as a woman and as a mother, i agree with that statement. however, an argument between a husband and a wife is. this was nothing more than that. i am more concerned with the mayor who perjures and himself gets away with it. i'm more concerned bay bomb threat that put everyone's life supposedly in danger other than mayor lee's wife. this family loves each other, they are united, they are stronger than they have been and want to be with another. the political witch hunt is bent on destroying them. people are incorrectly saying that he was convicted of domestic abuse. he was never convicted of domestic abuse. he must act with ethics and justice and reinstate the

democratically elected sheriff mirkarimi. thank you. [applause] >> good ann, i'm in the japan south community. i am astonished that this has gone on this far. if you want justice, if you want an equal playing level, i can't believe this is coming up before this commission. as previous speakers have said, there was a fire chief that had a 911 incident. we had someone who pledged they will not run and i think those are more serious than this. so i think this needs to be dismissed. unbelievable. please dismiss this. [applause] >> just for the record, i don't

live in san francisco, but i believe it's important for me to be here because whatever happens in san francisco can pass by in other cities or states even. so i am making a point about the bomb because it's really important because, you want to talk about ethics, how come you can talk about ethics and say to the people that were here they can die but nobody care about the lives of others, only for the mayor. i believe that is not fair to hear that. about the family, the mirkarimi family, i really believe that he has to replace on his position because he was elected. this is a lovely family. they're finally after seven months, they are together for the first time, these persons

are together. so think on justice for this family and for the people from san francisco who elected him to get that position and give back his pay because this man can't pay for a coffee at this moment. his son can't go school because he doesn't have money to pay for the school.4k( thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, my name is roger scott, i'm a teacher at city college and a long-time union activist. i have a high personal regard for sheriff mirkarimi. however, i would be here speaking on behalf of either of his two critics, the mayor and the district attorney if they were in the same position because i think there is no

legal or procedural justification for removing him from his job. i think he has been treated especially in a very negative way that negates the popular choice of him as a sheriff. i also think that he has, there has been too much adverse publicity in the press owned by the distinguished 1%. i believe that the most revealing misstep in terms of justice for sheriff mirkarimi was the press conference by the district attorney when he said with a straight face to the "chronicle" and other major media people, i had serious misgivings about the sincerity of his plea bargaining, of him during the plea bargaining. have you ever heard of a district attorney anywhere in the world question the sincerity of the defendant who chooses to make a plea bargain? i think that's the most revealing misstep in this whole

history of denying him the due process based on the voters' choice and the due process he is guaranteed under the law in your procedures. thank you.t( >> good afternoon, commissionsers. my name is jose morales. i'm a member of many organizations in the city, especially action network, san francisco union and of course this is not justice what is happening to ross. we stand for ross, you know, who i'm standing and i believe that he has been abused just

for something that you call it domestic violence, but domestic violence, it was just an altercation, squeezing the arm of his wife in the heat of the argument and caused a little bruise. about why should that be considered domestic violence and battery when you believe that someone has been battered, you hit her with a bat. i would like you to really reconsider what you are saying because i was in the room that you were questioning if this was domestic violence and all those problems. he has been an excellent, wonderful person as a supervisor. he has passed many laws and he has the ability to produce those laws and will be -- and i

would like to say that, as the sheriff, he will be much superior to anyone, he wants to become as great as the previous sheriff hennessey. so i would like you to be really fair. do not be afraid of your position or the political. this is all political. eliana said she wasn't considered in that. >> thank you, sir. you're done. [applause] i want to thank the public for your comments. we will be adjourned until 3:30. i would like to inform the parties, we're going to go, hopefully we're going to go as long as it takes, so we expect you will be here for as long as it takes.

anything else from the commissioners regarding the schedule? we'll see you at 3 gosh we are back in session after the lunch recess and we will enter the deliberation phase of this herein. i want to remind the public or one the public, this will be no surprise to you that given the divergent views that we heard during public comment, i can almost assure you that you will hear something that you don't

like coming out of them out as of the commissioners. i ask, that you respect the process. do not get in the clapping, during, or sounds from the audience. we need to focus and try to reach a resolution of this matter. i am instructing the sheriff. excuse me. law-enforcement in the room, if you see anyone make an outburst, please remove them from the room. i would prefer if you had somebody else in here, too. we will have to have been no tolerance policy on this. i apologize in advance but this is what we really have to have.

my proposal for how to go about deliberating on these issues is to start with v factual issues. and move to the legal issues. and ultimately discuss our views on the ultimate issue of whether the facts constitute official misconduct. that is not acceptable to my fellow commissioners? i will introduce each of what i consider to be the salient facts. i will express a quick summary of my view and invite discussion on whether we think of this particular fact is established. there are a number of facts that were presented in front of us over the course of the last several months. but i think we should help in on

the one that could possibly sustain a charge of official misconduct. i think those facts are as follows. first, whether the physical abuse of a share of --share of -- sherriff mirkarimi occured. if he abused the office life- threatening to take away custody of his child. i think we should address the dissuasion of witnesses. fourth, i think we should address the issue. the failure to support and

encourage victims to come forward. first, the violence against miss lopez. i think it is without dispute that it occurred. the conduct was clearly wrong full and clearly unlawful. i found it disturbing that the share of -- and the sheriff testified in a way to minimize the conduct. is there a discussion as to whether or not the mayor was able to establish that the sheriff will fully abused his wife on december 31, 2011?

>> the evidence shows that a more serious incident occurred than just what has been characterized as an army brat. i think there was a tremendous amount of evidence that shows the severity of the seriousness of the incident that took place. we have the video that was more or less contemporaneous accounts of what happened. it was corroborated by what miss lopez said. what the own witness and the campaign manager described as domestic violence.

i think the evidence shows more serious incidents than what the chef and a modest at the proceedings. >> i think this is in addition to what commissioner lou was saying. thew3 video was also the more credible source as to whether there were previous attacks -- acts of physical abuse to use your phrase ha. i thought that they were the contemporaneousl and and clearer emotion as to whether physical act had taken and the testimony that we got in this proceeding. >> any other views from the

commissioners? >> let me add my views as a layperson. hull and all the legal issues that had been discussed, it is very simple. number one, the video. that we have seen, miss lopez taped with the assistance of her friend and neighbor. there is no way to look at that video. and not believe that something serious occurred. and an indictment of her husband.

she is an actress. was that back? i have no way of knowing. i believe what i saw. number two, in the end, ross mirkarimi made a plea bargain. so he pleaded guilty to perhaps something lesser. i don't know if it would be a lesser or greater in terms of false imprisonment. there is a lot of discussion and perhaps by pleading to this he avoided a much more serious issue. we did not hear what those discussions were between all the attorneys in coming up with that plea deal. those things are an indictment of what occurred. none of us were there and we don't know what took place. lpsomething serious did take ple in the share of ultimately pleaded guilty -- the share oerf

pleaded guilty. >> next, we discuss abuse of office to take away custody of his child from the slope was spirited -- miss lopez. there was evidence about use of the term "powerful" in terms of what the sheriff said to miss lopez. my preliminary view is that there is not enough to sustain a charge of officialñilp miscondut based on this allegation. i do not think the mayor has proven beyond -- that there was a threat to use the power of his office to take away his child. the allegations are too vague to be proven in this case. i welcome the view of my fellow

commissioners. >> i would agree with you. i found the testimony unconvincing. i was not convinced by the explanation that manpower of the custody laws. even if i read that i am a powerful man or that i have power, it was not connected enough to anything else to make it around for a conduct violation. there may be a number of ways to interpret it. even if i leave aside the unconvincing power of the laws, connections, a financial power. the articulateness, english

lemons speaker, whatever it was. i think we would need more of the nexus to think that it was the abuse of office by threatening to use that specific kind of power. >> the next fact i think we should consider is the dissuasion of witnesses. there were two witnesses the mayor identified as being dissuaded. the first was miss lopez. let's take them one witness at a time. miss madison testifies in her declaration that miss lopez told her the sheriff instructed her not to go to the police or tell anyone about the abuse.

the share of chose not to cross- examine ms. madison on this point. i think we need to take it as credible. but subject to the fact that i think it is here say, i did not see any non-hearsay evidence from the mayor's side to show that the sheriff made attempts to dissuade vessel does from going to the police. -- miss lopez from going to the police. the telephone messages, text messages and e-mail.

he instructed her to try to dissuade miss lopez from lptalkg to the police or reporting this incident. that is a plausible reason of the fact. this is a preponderant of the evidence that those actions occurred. i did not find her testimony with respect to the conversations with miss hanes to be a particularly credible at times.

the mayor was not able to sustain this piece of evidence. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> i take it that you are talking about it as a separate charge of misconduct. because as we get further in discussion, i think there is some relevance to the conclusions i reached about the pattern of phone conversations between miss hanes, lopez, and the sheriff. and when i pressed her on saying whether discussions about how you strategize, they just want to support ms. lopez. in the real world, the sheriff

was facing the fact that this was going to go public. how do you spin it? that is what i think those conversations were probably about. how can we deflect what is going to be obviously our political enemies using it to their advantage? i don't think there is evidence to support a separate charge of misconduct. >> any other views? i felt that that was the part of the testimony that was not credible. this notion that they get these conversations and the share of -- sheriff was clearly involved.

i did not find that incredible. >> in addition to which she testified that she could not remember the substance of many of those phone conversations. there were 20, 30 phone calls? to say you don't remember what you were talking about is not credible. she may believe she does not remember it but i was not convinced at all. >> i would agree with your conclusion. there is a very plausible or possible chain that would explain better than miss lopez calling someone she did not know very well and hremembering her

having something different than the testimony but i don't think we have enough for a separate charge. >> i next think we should discuss the witness dissuasion charges with respect missw3 madison. here i don't think it's close. agianain, it's plausible the sheriff instructed miss hanes to tell miss madison not to cooperate with the police. i do not think we are close to that kind of evidence we will need to find that sheriff sought to dissuade miss madison from cooperating with the police or reporting the incident. i welcome the view from my fellow commissioners.

>> i think there was an unbelievable amount of text and phoen clal -- phone calls. we counted between 20 and 40. over 30 calls a text with miss lopez threw up the day -- throughout the day. in the end, it looks like the campaign manager was at the center of all of the activity that day. i did not change that there was enough evidence to take that and infer via preponderant of the evidence that the sheriff was orchestrating it. t i thin there was an interesting coincidence -- i interesting coincidence -- i think there was some interest in