>> so three through nine would come out and the part you identified from but on line nine to him on line 14 would come in? >> come in. and the following sentence would go out. >> right. any objections from my fellow commissioners? ok. so that disposes of 3b2. do we feel like we have that clearly? let's go back to paragraph 45. this paragraph, my problem with

this paragraph has actually little to do with the charging document. my concern here is this paragraph is about what didn't happen or what was never told to miss madison. i'm not sure why we need that. >> commissioners, this is -- this is, again, one of those things where when the testimony is coming in by declaration, you don't know quite what's going to come in. so what's happening here is the witness is responding to some of the media, some of the accounts the sheriff had given in media interviews about what has occurred and basically stating what her response would be to questions, did that happen? did miss lopez tell you this or tell you that? it's just trying to anticipate a potential conflict that's coming from the other side. i think that's a function of doing this by way of

declaration. >> i see your point. >> well, certainly, there's no foundation for the very last sentence there. and some of this i would agree with your concerns with it not being relevant because it talks about things that didn't happen, but it does appear to repeat some of the things that had been previously been admitted earlier in the declaration. other than that, i don't think i have further comment. we maintain our objection to the entire paragraph. >> commissioner renne? >> i'm not certain where we are on that. >> yeah, i thought you were going to withdraw the objection after you just -- >> no, we think it's cumulative,

argumentative and prejudicial. the entire thing. >> where is it presidential if it contains everything state brd? >> for example, the last sentence miss madison's opinion about whether or not statements made in the press are consistent with things that happen -- >> we stipulated to that objection. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> it certain lay peers to be a partisan paragraph. let's put it that way. >> this is a partisan process. you are on opposing sides here. >> i'll submit to the commission on this. >> commissioners, any views? >> we're talking about lines 19 through -- >> we're talking about paragraph 45 -- >> 19 or 25 with the word

custody, is that the section? >> it's line 19 through line 1 that ends with video, i believe. i would be inclined to sustain the objection. i don't think it's at issue now if there comes a time when when this testimony is relevant because it's rebuttal, maybe that's something we can revisit. but to me it's just not relevant now. >> i agree.

>> let's go to d-2. i know miss lopez submitted a declaration where she has made statements about the allegations about the relationship that she had with miss madison and this attorney/client issue. but what does -- i mean, we're not here to adjudicate whether there's an attorney/client privilege and frankly given the public disclosure, seems like there's really -- that, that ship has passed and it was adjudicate brd we were involved. so i'm not really sure what

paragraph 49, lines 20 through 21 line 8 go to. >> this goes to a specific instance of essentially harassing a witness who reported a crime that the sheriff knew what happened and this is just one instance of that harassment is that miss lopez's attorney sent her these threatening letters. >> i think you just said miss lopez -- >> that's correct, i did. >> i'm sorry if i missed it but how does that relate to the mayor's official misconduct? >> as if the sheriff did nothing to stop it and the sheriff funded miss lopez's attorney. >> please, we cannot have comments from the audience.

>> to me, that is not relevant. i will sustain the objections and welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. ok, hearing no objection. mr. murton. first objection is to paragraph 6 through 9. i had a hard time seeing the

relevance here. i would sustain the objection. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. if there are any where you would like to be heard, we will certainly give you that opportunity. >> thank you. commissioners, i want to say this, i recognize things discussed in these paragraphs. they are not flattering but we take to the fact as they come. from our standpoint, information like this about the past relationship between -- between miss lopez and the sheriff are relevant to our theory that domestic violence would occur, and our view of the fact domestic violence would occur. our it is extreme thrirs, the couple sentences about his account of what happened on the 31st. i don't know if he's going to expand on that. >> you will be able to ask him. >> yes. >> you're calling him as your

witness. you could not get a declaration if him so you're not limited by his declaration, as long as the topics are relevant. >> right. so we know from the public statements that the sheriff has made, i can't say we know but we suspect from the public statement the sheriff made what hiss story will be, which is this is a short, innocuous incident, which is contrary to the statement miss lopez gave to miss madison on the 1st about how this incident occurred. >> but these are not about statements on the 1st. >> that is correct. these are not about statements on the 1st. as miss lenin's testimony shows and is generally accepted in california, testimony from -- testimony about the existence of a battering or abusive relationship is rell vents to assessing the credibility of a witness who later recants and this goes to the distance of that relationship and with the declaration this just received

from miss lopez, we have an issue of a victim recanting, which is not unusual in domestic violent situations. we have a statement given right after the incident. that the credibility of which will have to be tested against whatever the sheriff says now and whatever miss lopez says now. and it's accepted that the kind of relationship that exists that pre-exists and predates the violent incident is welcome to make that determination. >> mr. keith, isn't it your position that the mayor -- that the sheriff having pled guilty to false imprisonment, that was pleading to domestic violence? >> yes. >> that's your position, isn't it? >> it is. >> why do you need anything about conversations or incidents that happened back in october if it's your position the official misconduct is proven by the mere

fact of entering a guilty plea. >> commissioner, it's the mayor's position that the conviction alone, when we put it together with a sentence and probation consideration, et cetera, that's official misconduct. but we -- but there's also an argument to be made and we expect the other side to make it, that it's not official misconduct. at which point we then have to start getting into questions of degree, where we might look at the facts and circumstances of the conduct that led to the conviction. and my concern again is i -- i think we would argue for categorical rule that whenever a tough law enforcement officer is convicted of it any kind of offense involving domestic violence, they have to go. i don't know the commission is going to accept that rule or commission is going to say we have to look at the facts and circumstances. so that's why we're focusing on some of these factual disputes

because it may not be enough. >> how do paragraphs 6 through 9 advance a position saying what took place on january or december 31 was an act of domestic violence. >> it puts the -- it says here are the relationship that predated the incident and the california supreme court says when you're talking about domestic violence type incident, that is important. our colleague miss kaiser submitted a brief on the lemon declaration, which the other side objected to in its entirety that discussed the issues in great detail. >> it's all hearsay. >> it is. >> you have to assume what statements are being made are true so in addition to the question of the potential relevance or how your expert witness may tie it in, have you to make the assumption that everything that witness is

saying is crew. how do you get by that hurdle? >> i acknowledge the hurdle and it's there and i think evidence code 801 gets us over the hurdle which gets us to say it's the kind of hearsay experts rely on. statements by the victim about the relationship and in the context of these types of experts and this type of testimony, that is hearsay that the experts rely on. i would say much of this is hearsay and there is nonhearsay purpose for it. really addressing the relevance points here. but there's not a problem with an expert relying on here, particularly this kind of hearsay for this kind of expert. >> mr. keith, we don't have to determine whether these past acts were -- whether they had domestic violence connotations. we jvuft to determine whether

the incident on new year's eve constituted violence, correct? we don't have to go into the facts being portrayed in paragraphs 6 through 9. >> you do not have to make findings about that. i think with any expert opinion, you want to look at what the expert is relying on. if you doubt that that's true, you might doubt the opinion. if you believe it's true, you might believe the opinion. tomes relevant in that sense, the expert opinion helps us understand how this victim recanted and helps us understand why she was telling the account that she told to miss madison on the first and to miss williams on the fourth about what happened and helps explain why those are more credible than the subsequent statements. so it does go to bhapped on the 31st. that is what the commission has to decide with regard to the facts and circumstances that led to this conviction.

>> i think we're far afield here. i would sustain the objections to paragraphs 6 through 9. any dissenting view? ok. paragraph 13, stipulation. paragraph 20, stipulation. ok. the objection in roman iv is

that these paragraphs contain testimony about the harassment that mr. murton and miss madison experienced. and we did permit some allegations or some statements from miss madison's explanation that relate specifically to statements about the sheriff's alleged harassment of miss madison. are there -- you know, there was a lot to read so i have read it but i have not marked marked out the portions by 21 through 28 that go to whether or not the

sheriff harassed mr. murton. given that it's your objection, can you point us to those portions? >> you would like it see the portions here in which mr. murton's alleges that the sheriff said something that's deemed to be harassment? >> actually, yes, but i probably should put it to mr. keith, because i want to know -- because we allowed it for miss madison to some extent, i would like to be cautious about strike ing it from mr. murton's if it is there. >> so there's basically three different things or categories of harassment mr. murtons is

discussion in this portion of the declaration. have you in paragraph 21 he's getting phone calls from journalists who are basically telling him things that he knows to be untrue and are offensive and that essentially he's being pursued with these story ideas by these journalists getting them from somewhere. that's what's in paragraph 21. and also just a general view of here's all of the things that are being said about me minute wife and how it's affecting us. paragraph 22 is about a subpoena received in the criminal action by their business and paragraph 23 is the cease and desist letter we already discussed earlier with regard to miss madison. those are the three -- those are the three main acts that are discussed there. with the remaining paragraph, much of those we stape lated to take out but looking at paragraph 28, it basically -- we

get back to the impact on the witness. some of the intervening paragraphs have to do with the existence of this attorney/client relationship issue, which the commission isn't going to consider that. those paragraphs won't be relevant. >> frankly, i don't even see allegations in here, admissible statements about harassment from the sheriff. are there any statements that -- even hearsay where he says someone told me that the sheriff told me not to come forward or

intimidated me or something. where are those allegations? >> the allegations would be they're getting these calls from journalists with these story ideas that they know to be completely false, that the reasonable inference to draw is these story ideas are being planted by the criminal defense. that's the inference to draw. certainly, when the reporter says on the phone, oh, you know, ross said whomever told me this, that is hearsay. but just the fact they're getting the call what's can infer that they're being -- these story ideas are being put out there by the sheriff. i mean there's no other reason for these calls to be coming to these witnesses. >> i do not think that's relevant. but i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. even if there are hearsay --

even if there is something to point me to where it says someone told me that the sheriff -- >> it is there in paragraph 21, that the people who called told him that. and i recognize technically that's hearsay. but nevertheless, what can confer with the fact he's getting the falls with the idea he considered outlandish and false that they're being prompted by something. >> we actually have evidence

elsewhere in the record that shows an intent on the part of the sheriff to paint this as a political witch-hunt. and so, again, it's connected to these particular calls, it's like trying to get evidence of a conspiracy. you have to infer. you have to infer from the fact that you have thing that's nobody would ever testify to. >> i open it up to my fellow commissioners. i appreciate the argument, mr. keith, but to me i do not see how this is relevant and i see that there is some hearsay but it's so general that i'm not even sure i would give it any way -- but i know there's a lot here. i welcome these from my fellow commissioners. >> when i was going through this, i read this a couple different times and i still

don't really see the connection. so i would -- i would vote to exclude it on relevance grounds. i mean, i understand your witness disuation theory but i still don't see the connection here with the journalists and press coverage. >> any other dissenting views if other commissioners. ok. hearing none, i think we should move on.

>> need to know what specifically to sustain the objections? >> i think the whole -- >> 21 through 28? >> 21 through 28. mr. keith, why don't i do this. why don't i give you a chance to tell me that if there's anything different -- i think it all relates to the same issue. unless there's something different in there that we overlook that needs to come in. >> the fact is these witnesses experienced harassment. it seems that how witnesses are treated in a criminal action when they're getting calls like this -- again, i don't think the complaint is about press coverage. press coverage is inevitable in a case where you have as well

known a defendant but they're getting the kinds of calls that suggest a campaign against miss madison and that's -- it seems to me taking all of that evidence out it simply takes -- it seems to me to be too much. i can understand taking out the the cease dean sift letter on the theory it come -- cease and desist letter that it comes from another attorney. i think it's too much to take out all of it. that would be my argument. >> when you go to paragraph 22 though, just in connection with the argument that mr. keith is making, is it was the sheriff's attorney who sent a subpoena which they describe as being intrusive, overbroad and harassing subpoena to this red room omnimedia corporation.

that certainly unless there's some justification, one could say that is clearly done in retaliation to miss madison's involvement. which i think if one accepts the mayor's argument that it is evidence of some kind of intimidation and conduct by the sheriff that inconsistent with his duties as a law enforcement officer. but don't know what that subpoena was. it may well have been very relevant to the criminal proceeding. but the way it's characterized here is being intrusive, overbroad and harassing. and that apparently went into court or did something. >> they hired an attorney. they went into court and there was media conferring and they finally narrowed it down and

produced some documents. that's what i understand to have occurred in the criminal case. >> if i could just -- >> please. >> exactly what happened here with a lot of the mayor's subpoenas. there were objections because they were overbroad, intrusive, et cetera. those objections were sustained and finally when they were narrowed down, documents were produced. >> was the subpoena issued through the sheriff's office? >> criminal action. >> it wasn't the sheriff's authority, subpoena as a defendant in a criminal action? >> correct. >> to me, it's not uncommon if this was a subpoena that was issued in the court of criminal proceedings, again, i think that is probably subject to some litigation exclusions and is part of devil's advocacy. if it had been the sheriff himself using his subpoena

power, if he has any to harass the witness, i totally agree with mr. renne, i would find that highly relevant. if he's aville defendant and he's seeking discovery, i'm not sure i see the relevance. i don't know, mr. renne, if you have any further thoughts on the issue. does any member of the commission propose to not exclude paragraph 22? >> have i no problem with excluding it. >> unless there's dissent from the commission, it sounds like 21 through 28 will be excluded.

ok. let's go to mr. hennessey. the first objection is to the full paragraph on page 2, second full paragraph on page 2. by the way, if we ever have to do any more declarations, can you please include paragraph numbers? this is extremely painful without paragraph numbers. >> yes. >> thank you. first full paragraph on page 2 of mr. hennessey's declaration beginning with i am aware