>> good morning and welcome to the continued special meeting with the ethics commission. we are dealing with the misconduct charges of the sheriff. we apologize for the slight delay. it's not particularly set up well for witness testimony. so we had to adjust the seating. when we broke last night the sheriff was giving his testimony. sheriff, if you wouldn't mind taking the witness stand. please, be seated. >> thank you.

ok. before we begin questioning, let's take the role. >> commissioner dudley, lou, renney? >> here. >> all members of the commission are present. witness is seated. council is ready. sheriff, i remind you that you are still under oath. >> please proceed. >> thank you. >> good morning, sheriff. >> good morning. >> sheriff, you were called being directed by chair of the commission last night not to discuss your testimony with anyone between the time you left the stand last night and this morning. do you recall that direction? >> yes. >> who have you spoken with since last night? >> my attorneys. >> what did you say to them? >> objection. >> objection sustained. >> ok. >> did you speak with anyone about your testimony? >> objection, relevant. >> i'll allow that.

>> no. >> this morning did you stop for coffee? >> yes. >> who was there? >> objection, relevant. >> sustained. >> sheriff, i want to go back to your relationship with lynette. what is your relationship with lynette? >> professional and social. >> when did that relationship begin between you and ms. peralta haynes? >> i would say a few years ago when she was a legislative aide here at the board of supervisors and maybe before then. >> and when did she join your campaign for sheriff? >> about five weeks before the

election. >> and can you describe your wife's relationship with lynette peralta haynes? 2011. >> i would say friendly, social. >> did you introduce them? >> i believe they just met themselves but since ms. peralta haynes worked on our campaign, that must have been one of the ways that they met. they could have met even before. >> have you referred to ms. peralta haynes in the past as a domestic violence advocate? >> me personally? >> yes. >> no. >> is your relationship with ms. paulettea haynes in the professional capacity as a political consultant or a domestic violence advocate? >> it's always been on a

political/social level. >> sheriff, exhibit 82, which is an exhibit that's in the record is at&t phone records. that exhibit shows the 11:18 a.m. on january 4, your wife and lynette peralta haynes had a telephone call that lasted over 39 minutes. tell us everything you know about how your wife and lynette peralta haynes came to have that conversation on january 24. >> i'm sorry. i cannot tell you, because i didn't have a conversation with them about that conversation.

>> so you have no idea how your wife and lynette peralta haynes ended up having a phone call on the morning of january 24? >> well, i would suspect we are four days from me being inaugurated as the 3r5th sheriff of the city of san francisco. that was also two days before where a rather sizeable dinner was being planned in honor of the people and volunteers who worked on our campaign. and there was a great amount of detail in transitioning from my office as supervisor to the fourth floor here in the sheriff's department. so there was a great deal going on. any one of those topics or themes could have been part of their conversation. a great deal was going on in my family and the people close to my family. >> commission, i'm going to make a conditional motion to

strike the lack of foundation and i'm going to see whether this is speculation on the part of the sheriff. >> conditional motion to strike is overruled. >> i'm going to make a motion to strike as lacking foundation. >> i think you invited the answer. i'm going to overrule it. >> sheriff, you've discussed some of the things that were happening that week as potential reasons for your wife's call with lynette peralta haynes on the morning of january 24. >> as i just shared. >> ok. do you in fact know why that call occurred on the morning of january 24? >> no. i cannot speak for my wife or ms. peralta haynes. >> between december 31, and january 24, did you ever

mention lynette peralta haynes to your wife? >> i'm sure i had. >> and in what context did you mention ms. lynette peralta haynes to your wife between that time? >> as a principle partner in our post campaign infrastructure in preparing for the gnawing raul and the dinner that i just mentioned. >> did you ever mention to your wife during that timely net peralta haynes' background in domestic violence? >> no. >> what contact did you have with lynette peralta haynes between december 31 and january 24? >> very minimal. some text messages and some phone calls. strictly related to the transition of our office from

supervisor to sheriff. >> did any of your communications with ms. peralta haynes between the 31 and the morning of january 4 mention any issues surrounding a conflict between you and your wife? >> no. >> that was completely absent? >> yes. >> now sheriff, last night we were looking at a text message you sent to your wife. >> yes. >> left you a v.m. but didn't hear back. what happened? and your testimony was that you were following up on a voicemail message that you had left, correct? >> in response to my wife, yes. >> and so you did leave a voicemail message that morning for your wife? >> yes.

>> and that voicemail message that you left for your wife was in response for what? >> as i said last night in the testimony, it was very vague. and as i said, i was speculating it was routine, probably having to do with our son. >> so is it your testimony that your wife had left you a message early in the morning on january 4? >> objection. asked and answered. >> i'll allow it. it is similar ground he went over, so i hope -- >> i'm just trying to get up to speed here. >> overruled. >> i believe i was returning her call. >> ok. and when had she left that message for you? >> i do not have the record in front. so i cannot tell you. >> was it a message that she left for you on january 4? >> if she had, it would have been in the morning, yes. >> i'm going to ask the

commission and the sheriff to turn to exhibit 83. do we have a set of binders for the witness? >> so sheriff would you please turn to exhibit 83. it should be the last tab in the volume that you have which is volume two of the mayor's exhibit. and just to explain to the commission, this is an exhibit of the mayor that is evidence.

it is a compilation of information that in the mayor's possession regarding communications on january 4 among -- i should say between sheriff and ms. lopez, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes, and likewise communications between ms. lopez and the sheriff, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes. it's a conferencelation taken from the telephone records from at&t as well as those text messages that the mayor's office has. so that is exhibit 83. >> so the names have been substituted for phone numbers? >> that is correct. so sheriff, i'm going to ask you to turn to page two of

exhibit 83. now sheriff, can you see on the top line of that exhibit? >> yes. >> does that reflect the text message that you sent to your wife at 12:03 p.m. on january 4? >> on page three, i have here. page 3 of 17. >> sheriff, you should be on exhibit 83, not 82, sorry.

>> yes. >> ok. are you on page two of exhibit 83? >> yes. >> you see that top line reflects that 12:03 p.m. text message? >> yes. >> and that's referencesing a voicemail that you left for your wife? >> yes. >> ok. looking at page one of exhibit 83, >> yes. >> you have communications on january 4 that occurred before 12:03 in the afternoon. these are in chronological order. do you see those? >> i do. >> now as we go up the page, starting from the bottom, the previous -- the next call prior to the 12:03 text message that we see here that you sent. that we see here from you to

the 9:33 a.m. phone call that lasted 36 seconds. do you see that? >> i do. >> ok. does that square with your memory of when you left the voicemail message for your wife? >> i do not know if that was voicemail or direct contact. >> ok. do you have any reason to doubt -- were you making calls to your wife on the morning of january 4 from any other phone besides your cell phone? >> no, i don't believe so. but maybe one from city hall -- but i doubt it. i think it was all cell phone, because i was en route to san bruno. >> ok. do you recall being en route to

san bruno when you left the voicemail message for your wife? >> again, i -- i'm not sure. >> ok. now sheriff, as we look at page one of exhibit 33, -- >> i'm sorry 33? >> i apologize exhibit 83. page one of exhibit 83, are there any calls from your wife to you? shown on that exhibit? >> not that i see, no.

>> so as you're looking at these, there was no call from your wife january 4. >> yes. >> and if there was no call from your wife to you there would be no voicemail message from your wife to you on january 4. >> unless i received a message through my office. here at city hall. because i was here in my office, too. on the -- >> did you steve message from your wife through your office on the morning of january 4? >> quite likely i could have. >> did you or didn't you? >> objection. asked and answered. >> overruled. >> quite likely. >> did you or didn't you? >> objection. asked and answered. >> sheriff do you remember whether you received a call or

not? >> yornl if the call came either through my office, because i was going back and fourth from second to fourth floor quite a bit, and a lot was happening that day. >> so you don't have a specific recollection of receiving this message? >> from my wife? >> yes. >> i received probably many messages in some respect throughout day and days, but that the specific time, no, i do not. >> i think you have what you need. >> ok. >> sheriff was that 9:33 call from your wife, was the subject matter of that call about her calling lynette peralta haynes? >> no, not at all. >> so sheriff, if we're looking

at exhibit 83 and we look at that 9:33 a.m. call from you to your wife that lasted 36 seconds, the next entry that we see at 10:55 a.m. is a text from your wife to lynette peralta haynes. do you know what that text message was about? >> no. i don't. i don't have any text messages. between my wife and linette peralta haynes. not here. >> did you talk to your wife later and find out what that text message was about? >> later? >> at any time. >> well, not until the end of today of the day when i was

informed later in the afternoon i was informed of all the happenings that were occurring. and no. there was no specifics provided to me about any conversation between my wife and linnette peralta haynes. >> now sheriff, let's go back to the second page of exhibit 83, and that's the page again that shows on the to -- on the top. your text message to your wife. left you a v.m. but didn't hear back. what happened? sheriff, was that 12:03 text

message to ask what happened with your wife and linnette peralta haynes? >> objection. asked and answered. >> overruled. >> no. i do not believe it is. >> and if we look at the next exhibit after the 12:03 text message asking your wife what happened, we see a 12:24 p.m., 21 minutes later a text message from your wife to ivory madison saying she is not going to call police, she is going to open a record with her doctor. >> i see that, yes. >> ok. >> and it's your -- there's no connection between text message to your wife and -- >> no. >> all right. sheriff let's go back to where

we left off on january 4. you told us after your bridge et committee meeting, you were moving from office to office from your supervisoral office to the sheriff's office. did you go home after that move? >> i quickly went home to grab -- i'm trying to recall what time of the day. but i went home to grab some papers and then just left. >> ok. so when you went home, did you go out to the back steps area of your house? >> i did. the back door was open. >> ok. >> and what did you see on the back steps area of your house? >> my wife engaged in a conversation with the upstairs neighbor. >> and the upstairs neighbor is talenty williams? >> yes.

>> at that time what did you understand their conversation fob about? >> i didn't. i didn't stay long enough to have a conversation. i said hi and by. >> did you ask your wife to come in and talk with you after she was done? >> i didn't ask her to. she did, and it was just simply to talk about the rest of the day as it relates to picking up our son. >> so you didn't ask your wife to come back in when she was done talking to cali williams? >> i did not. i believe my wife decided on her own to just come in as i was leaving because i was quickly departing. >> now, when your wife came back in, how long of a conversation did you have with her? >> maybe two minutes. maybe a minute. >> did you talk at all about what your wife and cali williams were discussing on the back steps? >> no. >> did you talk at all about your wife's earlier

conversation that morning with linnette peralta haynes? >> no. >> you mentioned your conversation involved picking up your son later in the day? >> yes. it was a quick conversation. >> was there anything else discussed? >> probably just me la meanting all the preparation and kind of the normal chaos of transitioning offices and being inaugurated a couple days away. >> and what was your wife's demeanor when you were home briefly? >> warm. >> she didn't seem concerned? >> i think she was concerned about the overall stress because of a great amount of demands that were placed on us in preparing for a big transition. >> ok. sheriff. i just want to know your

impression of how your wife seemed to you. not your view of why she may have seemed concerned. did she seem concerned during that conversation with her? >> concerned about what? could you -- >> did she seem happy or worried? >> as i said, i think she seemed warm. >> so she did not seem concerned in that conversation when you were home preefl on the 4th? >> no. >> and did your wife inform you of what her plans were for the rest of the day during that conversation? >> no. >> did you inform her what your plans were for the rest of the day after that conversation? >> well, as i said, to return to get papers to go back to city hall. >> ok. >> ok. anything else?