not. you are not going to waive your objections with stipulations. you can express the reserve that in whatever document. based on the interim decision we have made here, could you please identify the parts and that we have indicated will be relevant, and then tell us the parts that are not relevant, based on the discussion we have heard here? does that make sense? >> with all due respect, i am not sure you have made an interim decision. i heard commissioners discuss something, but i did not hear other commissioners expressed their views about whether there might be other topics that might be relevant. i mean you no disrespect. this is a very significant issue in this case, in my opinion. i do not want to be hasty about retreating from it. chairperson hur: a fair point.

i apologize if i was tasty. is there any disagreement that we will permit missileman, for the purpose of helping us a guy with the credibility -- miss lemmon, for the purpose of helping us with the credibility of the conflicting stories, but not admitted for purposes of telling us why his conduct relates to his duties as sheriff, and that we will not allow it into the legal question of what domestic violence -- what constitutes domestic violence? is there any dissent from that? >> can i clarify it? in the first part of that, you would expect that we would -- that this process would keep the information about the nature of domestic violence and the

background of how to interpret specific elements are factions within it. the syndrome of domestic violence might be a way, a phrase i would pick up on. chairperson hur: i would agree with that. i think some of that background is necessary to inform our opinions about what a witness may not be reliable later on. >> i agree. not for the ultimate conclusion, but for how the behaviors may affect domestic violence. i agree with that. >> and the dissenting view? >> not necessarily but one of the concerns that i have is that much of what miss lemmon relies on in coming to our conclusions

are alleged facts which we have excised from the record and said that they are not relevant. they can rely on what is in the record or whether it is hearsay or not. here are events we have said we are not going to consider. the opinion is based upon what she says are prior acts, which color the conclusions she reaches. it may be for the limited purpose you are talking about, and that is credibility of a witness and why things could happen. it is not an important issue. but if we are going to consider it at all for whether or not the

acts that took place on december 31 fit the definition of domestic violence as she describes it, i would tend to agree with you that we keep it in, but recognize that we are using it for a very limited purpose. i am not sure it is necessary to go through it, paragraph by paragraph. we can make a judgment about whether we want to pay any attention to 90% of it. >> may i speak? i am not sure if you are thinking or not. that was one of the objections the sheriff raised. i looked carefully at that

question. you are absolutely right on pretty much every account. the law is very clear about that. that is pretty much the pipe, about spending more energy on it. a person who has made an allocation -- allegation of abuse and takes it back, the statements are important, or else you can't evaluate what happens. that is typical. it is also fine, under the established law, to put the it inadmissible evidence into the export declaration to explain the evidence. -- it in an miscible evidence

coming into the export declaration -- into admissible evidence, into the expert declaration. if people will be confused, there is a limit. that should not even be necessary, because you are the decision makers. chairperson hur: i hear that, and i think ms. kaiser is correct on the law. i still think it would be helpful for you all to get together and see if there are portions of this that are not relevant, based on what we have discussed. you can tell me if you are unsatisfied about the view of the commission on this.

when you tell us down the road what the bases are for certain findings of fact, it is going to be helpful for us if we are clear what is in the record and what is not. i am very tempted by it, because it is such a long declaration, and it is very time consuming. some of the things to bleed over. i think we should make the effort to cut it down. given that i think mr. kopp has called us he is not one to cross-examine, regardless of objections, i would like to give you the opportunity to meet and confer, bring us back something that looks like what you did for madison, and we can evaluate it later, since she is not going to testify anyway. does that sound acceptable to my

fellow commissioners? >> i am happy to do that, just so you understand and do not get mad at me next time. i hear a range of viewpoints. >> i am not mad. >> i will do my best to accommodate those instructions, but i may not match every view of where we should have been. >> this is where i see a dividing line in her declaration. there are a lot of progress explaining the characteristics of domestic violence, and of the relationship, and so forth. there is also a series of paragraphs that go toward her opinion of characteristics of an unreformed batterer.

to me, i don't think that that line of paragraphs would be helpful to me in evaluating credibility and overall evidence. that is where i see a distinction. there were a lot of progress going toward the sheriff's conduct and whether, in her opinion, that is consistent with the characteristics of an unreformed better. those paragraphs i did not see as very helpful. i did not know if anybody else had views on that. chairperson hur: i agree. >> thank you. that is helpful. chairperson hur: should we pick some dates? i know there have been lots of states, and i apologize.

my latest thought is to try to make the dates mostly the same, so you do not have to keep remembering different deadlines. can we stick with july 10 and july 17 for getting us? i suppose you can pick whatever dates you want for negotiating your stipulations. but if we are growing to meet on the 18th, it would be great if we could have at least the day before. is that possible? >> you mean to get something to the commission similar to the madison declaration by july 17? chairperson hur: right. >> that would be preferable. i will just be gone at four or five days. chairperson hur: that is a couple of weeks. i am hoping that can be addressed.

>> assuming that we can start very shortly before that time frame, that is doable for me. we will make it work. chairperson hur: hand you very much. appreciate that. how is our core report pursuing -- court reporter doing? let's take a break.

chairperson hur: we are back in session. wanted to update you everyone watching -- the plan for the rest of the evening is as follows. because i think these issues potentially relate to the sheriff fifth testimony, -- the sheriff's testimony, we need to reconsider the fourth paragraph of danielle. then, i want to talk, hopefully briefly, about the additional exhibits the parties submitted.

i intend for the sheriff to begin his testimony. are the parties comfortable with that schedule? >> yes. chairperson hur: as far as timing, i am willing to be flexible on when we stop. i do not anticipate this to be a night where we go on forever, because i think the sheriff will obviously be here, and we will be able to continue tomorrow, if necessary. >> we will start -- we were going to stop at 9:00, based on our scheduling conference call. chairperson hur: that is the goal, but we will be flexible based on what the commission felt they could do. >> i think we would prefer to

stop at 9:00. we all start to run out of steam. it may make more sense to get back together tonight -- back together tomorrow. there are only three witnesses. i am not counting the sheriff. chairperson hur: ok. richard danielle -- the mayor made a request to reconsider our exclusion apparent rapid -- of paragraphs 72 through -- 27 through 31. is there a dispute about paragraph 26 fax the other any disputed f