back, you will conduct yourself. in light of this, we would like the other members of the department to do so. we wish you good luck. we hope this is not an onus on you at all. secretary -- commissioner: do we need anything else? do i have a motion for nondisclosure? any objection? hearing none, and i am sorry, just on procedure, lt. falvey, city attorney, do we need to open this up for public comment? >> you did some public comment at the beginning of this item, and you are about to do the next item, and that could be combined. commissioner: so can we call the next item?

>> if there is any further comment on this one and the next one. commissioner: i am not following you. >> we need to call item no. 11, but public, it is allowed. commissioner: lt. falvey, could you call the next item? secretary: discussion and possible action to grant or deny motions for dismissal of disciplinary charges filed against officer james lewis. the commission may decide to consider this item in whole or in part. item a includes public comment on whether the commission should hold item 11 in closed session in whole or in part.

commissioner: is there any public comment on item a? >> you should all be extremely ashamed of yourself, and i look at each one of you individually. you know why a.m.. you know what i have done for the city. -- you know who i am. mayor newsom and chief fong, and you know it. the video was done with good intentions. you can ignore it with you want -- if you want. you can overlook it if you what. wendy deserve nothing but a dismissal.

jimmy deserved nothing but a dismissal. i am the one who took a fall for this. i am the one who deserve a dismissal or perhaps a slap on the wrist. i am not ashamed. we did nothing wrong. you can sit here and say you have made a point, or you can say it is a showcase to the department as an example, but that is ridiculous. we are good officers. we spend a lot of time on the streets, working with the community. your community, dr. marshall, appreciated us very much. we put our lives of the line every day, and it was necessary -- we put our lives online. it is a shame. -- put our lives on the line.

it is one thing to say she should be disciplined at all. it is another thing to say that we hope we learn something from this, or good luck. which we learned something from this. she is gone -- that we hope we learned something from this. she is gone. jimmy is gone. i am off. i am doing my own life, and i enjoyed it thoroughly, and i cannot wait for them to get on with their lives, too. it is incumbent upon you to realize what you do officers when you start talking in this way, saying, "shame on you." it is irrelevant. nobody deserves anything more than to say do not do it again. -- nobody deserved anything more.

five years of public dollars of this ridiculousness, and for what? a video that i created. i can go on forever and ever and probably would. thanks for listening. i will get it off my chest and another day. commissioner: thanks for the public comment. on item 11. >> i have set through a couple of the hearings when commissioner hammer was there -- i have sat through a couple. the public knows, the public sees, the public is not ignorance, and before we got here tonight, in your minds were already made up -- the public is not ignorant.

in your minds were already made up. -- and your minds were already made up. i am the mother of james lewis, ok? he is coming up next, so i am more than sure you're going to have something really interesting in store for him. i know your minds are already made up. such a waste of taxpayer money, ok? for you people to sit up here. officers, you know, that puts their lives on the line, protecting san francisco, because you have the power to do it, but shame on you, every last one of you. commissioner: any further comment? hearing none, we will proceed on with item 11. we have a motion to dismiss, and we will hear arguments. you will have five minutes to

argue on the motion to dismiss. >> well, officer louis filed -- lewis final the motion to dismiss. the record is clear that we want to bring witnesses if it is agreed not to your motion. we want to bring witnesses if you decide that the prosecution brought enough evidence in this case. now, again, the prosecution has the burden. officer lewis does not have the burden. he does not have to say a word they have to prove each and every thing in this case, and they fail to do that. -- he does not have to say a

word. none of them testified -- they failed to do that. they came in after the video was made. in december 2005 is when he took charge of the station. so let's go through the specifications real quickly. number one, leading an assigned area without permission. the prosecution did not bring one witness to testify that he left. he did not proved it was a particular day, a particular time, nothing -- he did not prove it. there is no written document, nothing. they just showed a video. that is all. it was not even authorized. let's go to specification number two. he did not devote his entire

time to the achievement to protect life and property. obviously, this specification is vague. there was no evidence that was presented. there were no witnesses that they presented on this specification. a lieutenant came and testified about hearsay upon hearsay upon double hearsay, which is a violation of his constitutional rights, because there should be direct witnesses to come up and testified so that you can have a full transcript. -- in and testify -- in and testify -- and testify. this is hearsay. that is why you have a trial, so the witnesses that were being investigated as part of the investigation, so the officer lewis could cross-examine. he was not able to.

there is a declaration from cafta note bruce, -- from capt. bruce, and i want to read this again. capt. bruce said the duties include him carrying his video camera at any time and taking whatever video he felt was appropriate. he said he a blanket authorization to use police vehicles and implicitly have the authority to use the videos. you cannot ignore these ducks. -- these facts. if you do not, you denied that there was authorization. -- new tonight -- you deny that

there was authorization. again, specification number four, courtesy and respect. there were no witnesses to testify to this specification. if you ignore that fact, you are violating his constitutional rights of due process. so he can cross-examine those witnesses. you just cannot bring an investigator who was not there when the video was made, who had no direct knowledge of anything. he had no direct knowledge of anything. he said that he was regurgitating what was in the report, which is not fair to officer lewis. the last is the harassment charge.

not one witness was produced. no investigation, nothing. commissioner: thank you. >> i also believe i am not able to completely state my position. you only gave me five minutes to state my position when this case has been going on for five years, so i just want this to reflect that. commissioner: understand that. >> in order to make this as short as possible, a report of vote -- point out that what you have just heard, -- i would point note -- point out that providing authorization or note

-- or not, i do not know why it would be any different. same facts, same evidence, same arguments. with respect to the challenges to specifications one, leaving his assignment, and two, attention to duty, the main witness to all of those was officer lewis himself, who admitted, in fact, he had left his assignment and went into another district, and he also admitted he was on duty during this this of videos that we listed in our closing arguments, so i do not think there is really any contested fact there really. korea open to answering any questions you may have of about the motion to dismiss. commissioner -- i am open to answering any questions. commissioner: i think we need to

make the record clear that each of us does not only read the motion but the transcripts a seceded withy -- transcript associated with the lewis case. commissioner: i would move we go to closed session. secretary: we want to make one comment. with respect to the arguments that the defense did not have an opportunity to put on evidence or witnesses that the record is clear from the transcript that the defense was given ample opportunity, and the defense

chose to assert legal objections rather than to put on evidence at that time, and i wanted to that to be clear to the public. let's move on now to hear the arguments on whether to sustain or not sustain this. if you prefer to go first, if you can. if you prefer he have his five minutes first, i will leave the up to you. ok, five minutes. >> commissioners, the arguments in this case are very similar to those before. he injured -- he confessed.

-- admitted to those in his testimony. commissioner: can you describe the differences? >> specification and one is only for one video, which is the i am not a dog video, which is a mota of. -- montage. he left the district. he left the bayview district and went to another part of the city. that is a separate violation from in attention to duty. if you sleep in your patrol car on duty, you are in violation of specification number two. hong if you are listening to your radio in and are available to calls but choose to go to the district next door to do whatever it is you want to do in the district next door, you

have violated number one. separate behavior. i would say that specification number one is probably not the most important one, but it is no question that they would leave there without permission. i wanted to touch briefly on specifications three, four, and five. this relates to the behavior on video, and i think one of the things that is important is his conduct on video is, i think, substantially more egregious than what you saw officer