>> which agency will take certain responsibilities. >> yes. >> which agency is best positioned to undertake certain responsibilities. >> yes. >> these are all things that you are -- that reentry at realignment require you to work with your peer agencies as an equal. >> yes. >> ok. you're subject to the jurisdiction of the san francisco adult probation department. >> objection, has been answered. >> sustained. >> now, sheriff, during one of your answers, you mentioned that there was an uphill battle laid in front of me. those were your words, and uphill battle late in front of me. >> yes. >> ok. sheriff, who put that battle in

front of you? who is responsible for that? >> objection, calls speculation. what's overruled. >> me. >> nothing further. >> thank you. >> i believe the commissioners may have questions for the sheriff, so let me open it up for my fellow commissioners, for anyone who may have a question. commissioner liu? >> thank you, good afternoon. mr. keith read into the record a statement he made in a criminal court, in the criminal proceeding where you apologized to ms. mattison and her family. what exactly were you apologizing for -- to ms. mattison and her family. what exactly were you apologizing for? >> there was nothing specific laid out in the apology, does the tone and tenor of everything

that occurred. >> tone and tenor of what? >> the whole experience. >> what experience were you apologizing for? >> it was a general apology. >> were you apologizing for any actions you had taken? >> i had not taken any actions against ms. madison. >>. apologizing for actions by your representatives? >> no. >> i guess i am is unclear why you made a public apology to her and her family. >> well, it was suggested that i do, and i agree with it. >> de know the basis was for the suggestion that you apologize? >> no, that was provided by the district attorney, and i agreed to it. >> i see. ok. the only other question i have is, how did you come to grab your wife's arm on december 31? i do not want to belabor the point, but i do not think we have heard from you exactly the context of what happens. >> when my wife and i were

returning, because i had turned the car around from us going to lunch at about 11:45 a.m., 11:50 a.m. because we had been quarreling, we were both in a very heated discussion. >> while you were driving? >> yes, yes -- i mean, no physical or anything but a source of heated. i was driving. my wife was in the passenger seat. my son was in the back seat. it is a minivan. he was in his back child booster seat. i parked the car. we got home, parked the car. we were quarreling. both me and my wife for upset. my son was crying. and i was, stupidly, wrongly thinking that i can, you know, respond to this in a way that might calm things down and i

reached out to my wife while i was in the driver's seat while she was unharnessing our son. she was half in and half out of the minivan. he was upset. she was upset. and i put my hand underneath her right arm, and that is how it got bruised. >> ok, i see. last night, you testified that you violated your wife's personal liberty. other than the act of grabbing her arm, is there any other way in which you violated her personal liberty? >> i believe they are referring to what i pledge to, the false imprisonment, 236 refers to me turning the vana around against her wishes when we were on our way to lunch. i was concerned about us quarreling out in public, in a place that did not take

reservations, and i just thought that we would take a detour back and either have lunch somewhere else or at home. because our son is needed to eat. and so, we went home and he had lunch at home. >> ok, thank you. >> yes. >> any other questions from the commissioners? commissioner renne? >> good morning, sheriff. you have seen the tape that is exhibit four, have you not? >> with my wife and the neighbor? yes. >> and is there anything inaccurate that your wife described in describing the events of december 31 that you would say was inaccurate? >> maybe. there are some vague statements

that were made on that tape, and i would not know if they would say they are inaccurate but definitely vague. one statement in particular is that -- i am trying to recall because it has been awhile since i have seen the tape, that she refers to -- it was said that i was a powerful man. i never said that ever. referring back to the questioning earlier, bought by -- by both counsel, i was referring to the powers of the state as it pertained to custody questions. because of the nature of our argument about potential custody and taking our son away for a long period of time. >> but insofar as her making a

reference of your having used the term powerful or having something being powerful, that was, in fact, part of the conversation? >> yes, it was. the comment was never -- it is just not my style. but i never said "i am a powerful man." never did i say that. >> in that tape, your wife also made some statements about the, sort of, a condition about your marital relationship, that is that it is the trouble or there had been talk of divorce, things of that nature. were those inaccurate statements? >> no. >> now, have you read the declaration of ivory madison? >> yes, but since it has been changed, i have to keep up with seeing what the final product is, yes. >> and did you note that there were references to statements

that your wife made to ms. madison about the events of december 31? >> yes. >> and were any of the statements that were attributed to your wife by ms. madison, where they inaccurate descriptions of what had happened on the december 31? >> i believe that there was some embellishing. >> such as? >> well, the "powerful" statement, number one. as it relates to what ms. madison reported, there was no argument inside the house. there was no where my wife left the house, talking about the police. that never occurred at all. >> so it is your testimony that although you continued to argue

and have a heated discussion when he returned, turned around and returned back home, once he got out of the automobile, there were no longer any heated discussion? >> that is correct. absolutely correct. >> commissioner hayon? >> good morning, sheriff. in the text messages that we looked at earlier this morning, there was characterization of the domestic violence advocates with beverly upton in particular where the protests that took place following news of the incident on in december 31 where you characterized those efforts as a political witch hunt. is that correct? >> it was in response to the

message i received previously from linnette peralta haynes, and i had repeated the term that was in her previous message, yes. >> i guess my question would be then, in terms of domestic violence advocates and the kind of protests that certainly have been prevalent in the city of san francisco and with our very progressive record on how we deal with domestic violence in this city, do you consider all of those of vehement protests or anger about domestic violence a political witch hunt in every case? >> no, but in this particular case what i was informed of is that people who were part of that protest were also well- connected to my opponent's campaign for sheriff, and at the time of limited information, that is what people were

speculating. >> and if others were speculating, so did you agree with this speculation? was that your conclusion as well? i mean, does the fact that they may have been connected to political opponents in the race automatically make it a political witch hunt? >> not at all, no, but at that particular time we're taking in information and processing it as we go along. >> ok, thank you. >> commissioner studley? >> you mentioned that at your meeting with the "big guardian," i believe it was, that mr. jeff gillenkirk was at the meeting, correct? >> yes. >> and i understand that you invited him. >> yes. >> what role did he play -- for what reason did you include him

in that meeting? >> he had called me and reached out and noticed, i think, that we do not have, really, any media strategy at all and offered any kind of advice, and we did not really know each other at all, but i invited him if he wanted to come join us. he said hardly anything at that meeting. >> what is his professional background? >> public relations, i believe, or media relations. >> after that meeting, did he work with you on media relations or public relations strategy? >> very little, very little. we have no money to pay, so it is volunteer call here and there. >> did you have a media strategy or public relations plan, in formal plan about what you would do as a media matter? >> they had suggestions, but we really had no plan per se.

pretty ad hoc. >> what were those suggestions? >> write letters to the editor, write an opinion piece. i was constantly being asked to do media interviews and, frankly, quite insecure about doing so for a great many weeks. simply any pointers on doing one. i was not a stranger to the media. in this particular case, it had been someone else's i engaged in media interviews. -- it had been some while since i had engaged in media interviews. >> this relates to one of the text messages. on january 4, we have a text message from miss lopez saying you have to call him a seat -- hennesy and stop this before

something happens. use your power. do you know what miss lopez was referring to when she said use your power? >> i believe my wife was trying to make sense of what was crashing all before. she thought i might be able to do something about it. i think it underscores my wife not familiar with the process, and i was clear with her that i just cannot. >> the phrase "use your power," i am wondering where you think that phrase came from, why she used that particular phrase. >> that was just my wife using her own -- that is her vocabulary. >> had you referred to your power previously? >> no, i did not.

>> thank you. >> mr. sheriff, a good morning. i want to fall upon something commissioner renne asked you. why is it that once you and your wife got out of the car on december 31, why did the argument suddenly stop? >> frankly, because of our child. i think i stayed in the car to reflect on what happened. my wife collected our son and went into the house. i was still in the driver's seat and took my seat belt off and collected some of the things like the child's bad, some of the other belongings inside the car, and women to the house. it was lunchtime.

if you live, she is extremely regimented about eating at certain times. -- if you know my wife, she is extremely regimented about eating at certain times. i did not want to add to the attention. that was something we honor. it was lunchtime. my son was being given lunch. >> any of the questions for the sheriff? -- any other questions for the sheriff? commissioner hayon? >> in terms of the timeline of when your wife called you and spoke to you and acknowledged and explain to you that she had visited the neighbor and that there had been a videotape and that she had recounted the events of december 31 to miss madison, given your reaction december 31 and your anger and

volatility, from what it sounds like, i have not heard anything at all about how you reacted upon hearing that news, that your wife had not only gone to the neighbor but had allowed a videotape of these events. can you talk about that more? >> my wife did not go into detail about the videotape when i was first informed. i did not see the videotape until sometime later. i was, just as i said earlier, processing what was occurring. i was kind of in the state of shock when she was informing me about what was going on. when she called me and we met about a block away from city hall, i was simply trying to abort -- absorb what she was telling me, trying to make sense out of this. it was surreal.

little attention was being discussed about a videotape at that time. what was on my wife's mind, was i felt like i needed to protect my wife because she was the one who was scared and panicked, as well as i was becoming that way. but i was not fully being able to take time to comprehend everything that was going on. i was just listening. >> why do you think your wife was so scared and panicked? >> i think scared because she felt betrayed by the neighbor. that was the nature of what she was rushing to and telling me about, with his neighbor was doing. this is the first i am learning of all of this. i am trying to understand it myself because it sounds so amazing, so crazy. >> is it possible she was scared

and panicked in anticipation of what your reaction might have been? >> no, i do not believe that because she was very clear about what she was scared about. that was what the neighbor and whatever was occurring between she and the neighbor. my reaction, if you noticed, was very measured, as it related to even when she asked me to see if there was something i can do about it later that day. my reaction was not anything more than just really listening, trying to process the details being provided to me, and trying to then respond with what i thought were responsible decisions, that i was not going to interfere with the investigation and not interfere with the process that had internally been unleashed. and at the same time, my wife was looking to me for some

response because she felt obviously concerned and troubled. all this confluence at the same time was where i was trying to make sense of how i can maintain the professional standards and integrity of what i am hearing third party now that is occurring, and at the same time addressing the concerns of my wife. >> i have one nerve -- one more question. to follow up on commissioner studley's question about your media strategy or lack thereof. in crisis management, a basic is to acknowledge, apologize, and assure the public that what has transpired in terms of the

crisis will never happen again. generally speaking, i think in most critical media situations where this has been followed, it tends to diffuse the situation and end the situation quickly so there is not a long drawn-out media frenzy such as we have experienced in san francisco over this case. i am wondering whether or not anyone you consulted, your campaign manager or any media strategist with whom you spoke, advised you to do something like that immediately, get it out of the ways of the could move on and not have to get to this point as we are here today. >> the answer is at a higher price, there were a couple of media strategists we talked to that suggested we do something

like this. again, it was very ad hoc at best. there was no media strategy and no media plan. in hindsight, i sure wish we did in many ways. i really admit that we failed in being able to explain and present in the way you just suggested. it was an overwhelming and continue to be an overwhelming event to be branded by the paper of record and others. it became where in essence, i kind of shut down. i did. personally speaking, i was sad. i was humiliated and ashamed. high was losing my family -- i was losing my family. i still have not been able to see my wife since january 13. the separation of my son.

my past had been completely tarnished and solid -- sullies, and my future now completely in question. my family not sure when i would be able to get back together and repair with a wife and son. all of these things coming together. in hindsight, i absolutely wish that we were more on top of it in demonstrating the wherewithal to do something like what mayor newsom did when his scandal erupted and he had the resources to bring together the kind of resource he did or when others do so. >> let me add, i would have to say to issue an apology and be forthcoming about the events, there need not be any cost involved whatsoever. it is just a common-sense approach to being honest and forthcoming when you are in a crisis situation. you do not have to have a high-

priced p.r. person to do that, as an aside. >> except in this regard, -- >> do you what his response? >> no, that is fine. >> any other questions? thank you, mr. sheriff. >> there was a new matter raised i would like to follow-up on. it was raised by commissioner liu. i would like to do a brief follow-up on that issue. >> i will hear arguments. >> we would object to that. commissioners, the mayor has already went over twice the time estimate he gave us last night. i do not think there is anything left at this point we would object to, any further time being spent on the. >> i open this up to my fellow commissioners, a process issue

that may come up again. i am inclined in light of the opportunity council had to examine not to allow further examination by counsel after the questions of the commissioners, but i am open to suggestions. >> what is the new matter you say we have not already covered? >> the sheriff mentioned what he considered to be the factual basis for his false imprisonment plea. i wanted to ask him a follow-up question about that. that is not an issue we have gone into with either counsel. it was raised in response to a question by commissioner liu. >> commissioner studley. >> i guess i do have a feeling that when -- if commissioner questions open a new area, either counsel might be allowed

to clarify. i do not think this is a question of total time. i think it is a question of whether it raises new territory. >> i would agree with commissioner studley. >> why don't we allow some questioning, very limited? >> commissioner, i am sorry. sheriff, you mentioned in response to a question from commissioner liu that the false imprisonment you committed against your wife consisted of turning the van around. do you remember that remark? >> the term was restricting liberty. that is what i was thinking she was referring to. >> ok. but in any case, your answer was in your mind that was the factual basis for your plea to false imprisonment? >> well, i was answering a question about if there was

another time of restricting the liberty. that was on december 31. >> sheriff, did the district attorney ever state to you that we are expecting your plea of false imprisonment because you turned a dam around? >> objection, relevance. >> i will allow it. >> nothing further. >> mr. wagoner, anything? ? no, thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> i think at this point, we should take the lunch break. i would like to take a 45-minute break if that is acceptable to the parties. >> yes. >> yes, that is fine. >> i understand we need to clear

this room entirely during that break. also would expect -- i also would expect we would get back at 1:00 and have testimony from that point. let's take a lunch break. >> good afternoon. welcome to the afternoon session of our meeting. again, are want to reiterate, in light of the fact that we are in testimony, we really do need silence in the audience. no need to wait for my direction. if you see someone who makes an outburst, please remove them. next up, we have mayor ed lee. is mr. lee available?

good afternoon. please take the witness stand. with the court reporter please swear the witness? >> [inaudible] nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. >> please proceed. >> good afternoon. i represent sheriff mirkarimi in these proceedings. how did you become mayor, sir? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> i became mayor of san francisco in the capacity of being appointed