clarification on this point, i'm not sure how to proceed on that. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection. any decenting view from the commission? hearing none, paragraph 15. >> yes, again heresay sazz to the entire paragraph onlines 10 through 13. the entire sentence beginning with "she" and ending with "argument," that's irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. chairperson hur: line 10 begins with "she" and ending with "argument." ok. mr. keith? >> just a moment.

chairperson hur: sure. so this is relevant for this reason -- sheriff has claimed in his public statements that she's refered to the custody laws as being powerful that he never called himself a very powerful man. the fact that this exchange happened and that ms. lopez was communicating that she had asked with her husband how this is a problem in the past that he had made the statement that he was a powerfulman and could use that to get custody with theo. the fact that there has been a previous discussion of this issue and her understanding of what he said tends to defeat the sheriff's claim that there was some kind of a misunderstanding that he was refering to the

custody laws. if there were that misunderstanding would have been cured by that conversation. so the facthat she's saying we talked about -- this prompted a conversation before and she still had the same impression that he was threatening to use his power to use theo's shows that there wasn't a statement that the sheriff made that the custody laws were powerful. questions for mr. keith. comments from the commissioners? you know, this paragraph to me starts to get to statements that occurred on january 1st but we're reflecting -- it's getting closer to heresay, clear heresay to me. >> we're not offering what he said or what she said in that

conversation. we're offer it for the fact that there was a conversation about these comments in the past. if there was a conversation about these comments in the past then it's likely that any misunderstanding about what the sheriff meant would have been clarified that point. so again it's not about what was said in these past conversations it's that a conversation happened that is relevant. >> i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on this objection. >> i mean, i would agree that i think we're getting a little farther feel from the utter rans exception that you've been relying on mr. keith to -- >> well, the excited utterance exception would be if this would be admitted for truth of what

was said in the truth of these conversations that happened in the past. if we wanted to admit it for that purpose. but we don't. we only want to show that this issue about what he meant or what he said he was a very powerful man or the fact that he had said it had come up in the past. and that is a nonheresay purpose just to show that there was a conversation because if there was a conversation, the reason that this is relevant -- if there was a conversation that would have carried any misunderstanding. i mean, the claim here was that there was an accident or a misunderstanding of what the sheriff said. chairperson hur: right. so -- i would understand the -- that it's not for the truth if we were trying to evaluate whether or not he was a power. man who could take theo away -- who could take the child away. but the statement itself whether or not it was made is relevant to our inquirey as to whether it relates to official misconduct. so i do think it's still a

heresay purpose. >> this is about prior discussions where -- that were prompted by similar statements and the argument is well if she misunderstood him certainly those prior discussions would have clarified it. i would -- i would be inclined to overrule the objection on paragraph 15. you know, and -- i would caution both parties again that when it comes to heresay we're going to need nonheresay evidence but heresay might be used to bowlsster but if the evidence is only heresay i think you know the commission is going to weigh it less. is there any objection to the overruling of the objection on paragraph 15? >> no.

16? >> actually -- i -- i'm sorry i wasn't quite through. >> you had more objections to paragraph 16? >> i wish i had less. >> 15, i'm sorry. >> the last sentence in paragraph 15 beginning online 14 and concluding online 16 starting with the word "she," i believe that's speculation and there's no foundation. it looks to me like this is ms. madison giving her impression again as to the reason why ms. lopez brought this issue up during this conversation. >> mr. keith? >> i agree. chairperson hur: ok. that is stricken. the sentence beginning with she and ending with threat online 16 -- on line 16, paragraph 16?

>> yes. the -- let's see. it's the fourth sentence beginning online 14 ending online 21 beginning with "i" ending with the word "that." the minute miening of this sentence -- the meaning of the sentence isn't clear to me so i guess the proper objection is unintelligible. maybe it's dense but i can't tell what that sentence says or means. chairperson hur: ok. mr. keith? >> well, the sentence -- what i think it means is that she didn't ask and she didn't know why ms. lopez kept saying in 2011. i mean, i think that's the meaning of the sentence. it could have been conveyed in fewer words but she's honestly reporting, i didn't ask about this but she kept saying in 2011. i think as cryptic as this is,

the meaning is clear that she didn't know why she kept saying 2011, it wasn't clear. >> i'd be inclined to strike the sentence that begins "i" online 21. i think that's speculation. any objection? any decenting view from the commission? mr. kopp anything else on paragraph 16? >> yes. the next sentence now sounds like another level of heresay that is what this person venezuela said to ms. lopez and again it's not rem vant. and then the very next sentence beginning online 23 i don't

believe there's any foundation that looks like speculation and it's not relevant. this is offered to show ms. lopez's state of mind and, you know, perhaps indicate why -- what spurred her to action here. we're certainly not offering it for the truth for the conversation she had with somebody in venleds. it's -- in venezuela. it was to explain the way she was feeling and why she was feeling the way she's feeling. i think a person can interpret a look that they're given like that didn't work so well and that explains ms. lopez's state of mind and explains why she chose toe do what she did which is to confide in a friend and make a video. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection to the sentence beginning she and ending withed a -- with advice.

two sentences. is there a decenting view among the commissioners? ok. paragraph 17. >> yes, this entire paragraph is irrelevant and -- i don't know how this could be more prejudicial than probative. i mean, the probative value in here in my opinion is nil. the prejudicial value is extreme. >> mr. keith? >> one moment.

this is the reason why i felt ms. lopez felt she had to make the video. we're not offering this for the truth of the matter. it explains her motivation for making the video, her conditions for making the video and her state of mind and why she chose to make it. again, we're not offering this for the truth of what's said. again, it's to show why somebody did what they did which is a proper nonheresay purpose. >> i would sustain the objection on paragraph 17 and its entirety. i think it's irrelevant and to me it constitutes 352. is there a desening view among the commissioners? >> i agree. chairperson hur: paragraph 18?

>> easier if you just pull it out. >> oh, ok. the first sentence on paragraph 18, the second clause, but as she new, comma, there's no foundation and it's speculation. i don't have any objection to the remainder of the sentence. just my second objection is kind of along those lines. the very next sentence online 12 to line 13 beginning with the word "since" and ending with attorney". it's speculation. there's no foundation. do you want to take that up first and then i can continue or should i just lay them all out? mr. keith any objection to those two?

>> yeah, i think that ms. madison certainly has foundation to discuss what a friend knows about her because she has a relationship with that friend and has given her friend that information in the course of her relationship. and certainly a person is capable of saying that somebody who they know for a long type, oh, they know that i am this and that i'm not this, it comes with knowing somebody. it is something that's within ms. madison's personal knowledge.

>> that very well may be through but i don't see anything that establishes that foundation. had she said, i had told her we had discussed it, but there's no foundation for why -- why she knew. you can tell me where is that foundation. >> ok. let me check for a moment.

there is some foundation to that. in addition to the fact ha the earlier paragraph established the existence of their relationship on page 21, lines six through eight there are references that sort of pass details of what she had told her friend. ok. i would -- i would sustain the objections, the two oks. i think if those statements on page 21 come in, if there are -- if we could find those come in separately, if we get to them but i would sustain the

objections and strike the phrase "but" ending with attorney on line 12 beginning on 12 and ending with attorney on 13. any decenting views from the commissioners? >> point of certification. i felt the first objection was to the clause "but as she knew" as opposed to -- >> ah. >> that actually would be -- yes, my mistake -- ms. madison is probably able to say -- >> "as she knew" probably should be taken out. chairperson hur: thank you for the clarification. on the second one, was that -- did i get that right? let's get through paragraph 18 and then i think i'm going have

to propose a different mechanism for resolving these objections. any further objections to 18? >> yes. irrelevant as to the rest of it. and more this is to the point i made earlier ant the fact that none of this was a spontaneous statement because it was made in the anticipation of litigation specifically child custody and or divorce. but in any evpbd -- event, the rest of the paragraph is not relevant. chairperson hur: mr. keith?

>> i agree, it may not be relevant. >> so, can you give me the line numbers again? mr. ko prving p, i didn't mark it. >> it would be lines 13 to the end of that paragraph which is on line 22. chairperson hur: so beginning with "i" online 13. >> and ending with "ok." chairperson hur: ok that objection is sustained. ok. i mean -- >> i'm sorry. i would like to keep the last sentence just as it says. it's the course of the communication. i think i spoke to -- i spoke quicker than i should have. no problem. >> you're talking about the sentence -- >> i asked her to let me know. it just described the course of what happened next in the conversation. any objection to that, mr. kopp? >> yes. i don't think it's irrelevant. chairperson hur: i'd be incline

to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? ok. , we'll literally be here all night if we do this and we have other declarations. so, i welcome views from the parties on how to handle this and from my fellow commissioners -- >> i would propose that we do written oks and back and forth. and there may be very well be many that we agree on and don't contest and that could speed things along, and plus, we won't have to do this on our feet and we'll be able to go much more quickly. chairperson hur: mr. kopp, what do you think of that? >> we're willing to do that. our objections would probably be similar to what we've done already, which is to state the legal objection and not really expand upon that.

if you are going to want us to speak further on it, i'm not sure that it will speed things up, but we can certainly try it. chairperson hur: commissioners views on handling this? hoip i would just go back -- chairperson hayon: i would go back to what commissioner renne propose and we could go back to this second declaration that we haven't gone through yet. chairperson hur: i think we should discuss that proposal. and think relevant to that discussion mr. kopp would be whether you want to cross

examine ms. madison based on what you learned so far with respect to the objections.>> mye portions of the declaration that i shot -- thought should be excluded were excluded, i did not intend to cross. chairperson hur: with respect to the statements made to ms. madison by ms. lopez of coffee -- ms. lopez, we have under rule that a lot of those. you are saying you would not want to cross-examine? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok.

the proposal to simply permit ms. mattison to testify and handle commission views on her declaration -- i would welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners on that. >> i would be fine with that. that would be a fine way to proceed. that would be a fine way to proceed, we think. >> if mr. kopp does not want to cross-examine ms. mattison, given what is in and what is out, we may not need her to come in at all.

chairperson hur: that is kind of what i was thinking, mr. keith. >> i think we can try to do this on paper. if we come back, we can go to the rest more quickly. >> i should relate to the commissioners that i, about a half an hour before the hearing, received a call from an attorney who identified himself as ms. madison's attorney. for what it is worth to the commission, he expressed a concern by ms. madison about her continued public involvement in this proceeding, and wanting to minimize that. ok. in wanting to minimize that. chairperson hur: here are my competing concerns with this issue. i am cognizant that objections

to the rest of this declaration may be so general that they may not really help us actually that said, i really do not want to inconvenience the witness. finally, i am reluctant to push off testimony, if we need it, from miss madison, further than the days we have allocated in june. it seems to me that written objections would virtually necessitate that. although maybe not, now that i am thinking about this out loud. perhaps we could subpoena ms. mattison to appear. we will take the written objections. if they are hopeful and we can resolve the issues with the declaration, miss madison could

appear, and if mr. kopp does not want to cross her, we would excuse her. if we determined it would be more efficient to simply proceed with direct, we would ask that you be prepared to direct examine her. you could decide after that if you want to conduct cross- examination. >> that is a possibility. as a reported one we had a conference call regarding scheduling, my understanding is that the council is unavailable to the 30th and once you have the opportunity to prepare his client, if she is going to testify. there may be other testimony issues with ms. haines as well. it may or may not be possible to finish by the 29th. i know that taking a witness out of the question gets us there faster. i would like to take a good run at trading objections, meeting,

and conferring, and trying to bring back those objections. this is this type of testimony, so we can get some quick rulings on the 28th. chairperson hur: i propose to do submit objections, and that you respond to them. when can you submit objections? >> to be safe, not before monday. i can try to get in before then. chairperson hur: how about friday? >> i do not want to promise something i cannot deliver. if i can, i am happy to get those objections to the parties. i would much prefer monday. even if it was monday early, so i could have the weekend.

chairperson hur: are you comfortable, if miss madison testified, that it occur in july? you have been pushing for the schedule. i want to be clear that you are fine with testimony occurring later. >> i think we are probably going to have to agree to that, unfortunately. if it does turn out that, according to a her attorney, she can not be available before july 9 -- i do not know if that is because she just had a baby, or there are scheduling reasons. unfortunately, it sounds like there is going to be one date in july where there may be witnes'' testimony. chairperson hur: that being the case, i have no objection to monday, the 25th.

mr. keith? when can you respond? >> i am trying to build in time for us to meet and confer, and bundle the objections, so we can hopefully bring five or six for the commission to rule on, instead of 20. chairperson hur: it would be greatly appreciated. >> it will be hard, if i do not get them until the 25th. but i understand that we all have other cases. if i get the objections by the 25th, i could probably respond to them. if the commission is going to decide these on the 28, i think i need to get them on the 27th. and we would meet and confer. we would have something to say, here is the package of objections. >> but if you got them at 9:00 a.m. on the 25th?

could you get them to us by close of business on the 27th? >> sort of an objection, response? that would work. commissioner renne: why is it that you cannot sit down tomorrow with a declaration in front of you, cross out all the lines you do not want in, i mean -- i practice law a lot longer than you. my sense would be that you could do that in the space of an hour. i really believe you could do it in the space of an hour.