i am asking that they be removed from the proceedings. thank you. >> sheriff, where were you when you first learned there was a police investigation of the incident on january -- excuse me, where were you when you first learned there was a police investigation of the incident between you and your wife that occurred on december 31? >> i received a phone call from my wife some time after 4:00 p.m. on january 4. and she alluded that there was some happening involving the police. and the neighbor, and she wanted to come talk with me, so it was after 4:00 p.m. on january 4 that i first learned of any of this. >> where were you? >> city hall. >> where in city hall?

>> i believe my second floor office. >> your old office is this >> yes. but it was my supervisor's office still. >> who was with you when you learned about that? >> well, i'm sure the my staff was present. but it wasn't a conference call. so nobody specifically was with me. i received a direct phone call. >> had you received text messages from your wife prior to actually speaking with her on the phone about the police investigation? >> no. i don't believe so. no. >> had you received text messages from linnette peralta haynes that afternoon before speaking with your wife about that investigation? >> only in a very vague way. i believe if i recall correctly the text messages said, call me. it's an emergency.

call me. that's all i had seen. >> so sheriff, i want to go back to exhibit 83. we're on page two of exhibit 83. now, sheriff if we go down to 3:47 p.m., we see a text message from ms. peralta haynes to you that says can you call me, it is you are intelligent regarding illiana.

did you see that text message before or after speaking with your wife that afternoon? >> after. >> ok. >> how do you know you saw that after speaking with your wife that afternoon? >> because i was putting this all together when my wife informed me after 4:00, and it all became more clear what was happening. and that was within the next, if i'm not mistaken 20-25 minutes from when my wife had called me. >> now sheriff i want to be clear in my question about this. what i just understood you to say was at least you understood the import of this text message after you spoke with your wife. but i want to make sure i

understand whether you saw this text message before you spoke with your wife. >> no. i don't believe i did. >> ok. and then we have another text message immediately below that at 3:53 p.m. from ms. peralta haynes to you. stating i need to talk to you to protect you. call me. do you see that text message? >> i do. >> did you see that text message before you learned about this investigation from your wife and phone call? >> no. or else if i had seen the earlier one, i would have responded. >> when you say you would have responded, you mean you would have put in a call? >> i would have reapplied in some fashion, i guess. >> ok. so upon seeing this type of message, you're natural

response would have been to reply to it whether by text message or telephone? >> yes. generally. >> now sheriff, earlier we discussed whether you had ever referred to linnette peralta haynes as a domestic violence advocate. you said you had never personally described ms. peralta haynes that way. >> i don't believe so i had. i believe i knew that was in her background, but that was not her relationship with me. >> ok. now this text message from ms. peralta haynes at 3:53 p.m. says, i need to talk to you to protect you. call me.

>> do domestic violence advocates usually protect the frarptse or victims of the violence? >> objection. >> objection sustained. there's no foundation. >> so sheriff you are aware of the portrayal of ms. linnette peralta haynes as a domestic violence advocate. >> i have heard of the references. >> but to you she's a political consultant. >> i think you've established that fact.

>> now sheriff, if we look further in exhibit 3, -- in exhibit 83. if you look on page three. we see a text message from your wife to you at 4:18 p.m. in the afternoon. stating call me, it is an emergency.

do you see that? >> i do. >> do you recall receiving that text message from your wife? >> yes. >> and when did you -- what did you do in response to that text message from your wife? >> i believe we spoke. not long after that. >> actually, if we look down on exhibit 83, at 4:23 p.m., we see a call from you to your wife. >> yes. five minutes later. >> right. so was that -- would that call be in response to her text message? >> i believe my wife was following up, correct. from her text message. >> well, the call shows it's from you to your wife not from

your wife to you, do you see that? >> it says zero seconds, though. >> there are three calls at that time. so if you could. >> oh, right. ok. >> sheriff, it shows so there's three calls shown at 4:23 p.m. >> yes. apparently i was trying to return my wife's call, unable to get through. so i had made several attempts. >> right. and then she ends up calling you, and that's where we see a -- >> at 4:23 p.m. i had called her twice. at 4:23. did not connect with her. because it says zero seconds and 17 seconds. then i supposed within that minute she called me back. >> ok. so you attempted to call your wife, and then she basically called you whether it's lines

crossed or any other explanation, but immediately after you tried to call her? >> yes. >> ok. so when you called your wife, had you just read the text message from her is this -- from her? >> when i made the phone call, yes. >> and at that time had you also seen the text messages that had come in from ms. haynes earlier? >> quite possibly when i was able to review my phone, yes. i saw that i had text messages and i guess i needed to respond. >> ok. >> and what did your wife tell you in that 4:23 phone call? >> that she told me that the neighbors next door, ms. madison was pursuing a

complaint with the police. she had made mention of a video, which i just learned about for the first time. and she was very concerned. very, very concerned. and wanted to come and meet me and talk with me. and that was pretty much the extent of the conversation. >> and were you in your supervisor's office when you had that call with your wife? >> i believe i was either on the second floor or fourth floor, because i was going back and forth. >> was there anyone around while you were speaking with your wife for that 5:00 minute telephone call? >> there were numerous people around, because the moving -- >> do you recall anyone in specific? >> my staff. >> was there anyone else in the room? >> well, our doors are never closed.

so people come in and out. staff like brown and sell may are two of my principal staff people and rick gal brith. but as i said, i was going back and forth between the second and fourth floor, and on the fourth floor would have been sheriff secretary susan and undersecretary who may have left already that the time. >> sheriff, you've give analyst of several people who may have been around. do you have a specific recollection of any specific person who was around? >> could you be more clear when you say around? >> ok. next to you when you made that call with your wife. >> next to me -- no. i do not. no. >> ok. >> but i do believe there were you know what i mean and out of our office quite a bit, because they were working. >> were there people within earshot when you made that call at 4:23?

>> i'm sure there were. >> can you identify any of those people who were in earshot? >> i cannot. >> now sheriff, you sat down with the bay guardian in april for a story about the events that had occurred on december 31 and the ensuing police investigation? >> yes. >> which reporter did you sit down with? >> objection. irrelevant. it's about the subject matter. >> there were three people present. tim red mand, steve jones and actually there was a woman present, but i didn't know her. >> who else was present? >> oh, um, -- a man named jeff

guillen kirk. david wagner and katy clice they are in i think is her last name. >> and how long was that meeting that you had with the bay guardian reporters? >> it was about a little over an hour. >> ok. so sheriff i want to read you a short passage from that story, and you can tell me whether it's accurate or not. >> please. >> ok. now this is referring to what happened after you found out about the police investigation from your wife. and a series of contexts. >> objection. >> sustained.

>> sheriff, i'll simply read this passage and you can tell me whether it's true or not. >> objection. lack of foundation. >> sustained, council, you haven't established what it is. there's no foundation. >> can we establish -- can you establish what the document is? we haven't seen it. witness hasn't seen it. i mean, we have no idea what you're reading from. >> i'm not offering this into evidence. i just want the witness' telling me whether this is true or not. i'm not offering the document. >> that's fine but i think it's more fair for you to show it to the witness and frankly i'd like see it, too, if you're going to be reading it. >> i do have a copy for the witness. >> ok. >> do you have a copy for

counsel as well? >> no. but i'm happy to show it to counsel. >> sheriff. i'm going to make a box around what i'm going to read, so that you can follow it. so sheriff again, i wanted to read this to you and you can tell me whether it's accurate. they made a couple calls to find an attorney.

and he said lopezed that idea of having their friend, linnette peralta haynes, a domestic violence advocate with the our family coalition reach out to madison about why she had gone to police and what could be done that the point. i had no idea what they were going to talkability, mirkarimi claims. >> what's the question? >> the question is, is that an accurate account of what occurred in the conversation between you and your wife after you learned about this incident ? about the police investigation. >> which senator >> well, let's take it step-by-step. >> ok. >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry to interrupt you. do you have a copy you can put on the -- >> i do not. i'm sorry. i just have to copy for the witness.

>> that's fine. sorry to interrupt you. go ahead. >> ok. so sheriff after you got this call from your wife, did you make a plan about what to do next, about meeting your wife? >> my wife asked if we can meet, and i said, yes. so to the extent of a plan, yes. >> and did you meet with your wife shortly after this call? >> i think it was within the next 20-25 minutes, she had walked to city hall, and i met her outside. >> ok. and when you met your wife outside of the grove side, did you have a conversation there? >> we did. >> ok. how long were you on the glove side of city hall speaking with your wife? >> well, it was one block up. i saw her coming down. she seemed concerned. i could feel that. especially from the earlier conversation that we had just had on the phone. so i met her about a block on grove.

i would say about 20 minutes. 20-25 minutes. >> and did anybody join the conversation between you and your wife in those 20-25 minutes? >> no. >> ok. just you and your wife? >> yes. >> so going back to that path. they made a couple calls to find an attorney. is that accurate? did you and your wife make a couple of calls to find an attorney at that time? >> no. that was not accurate. it was much later. >> ok. when did you make a couple calls to find an attorney? >> probably had to be after 6:00 -- 5:00-5:30 or 6:00. >> was it before or after the sflenches >> it was a conversation in the first conversation of the date. linnette peralta haynes was a recommendation as i was on my way to the lafco event with an

attorney but i was already terribly late for that event. >> ok. and then the next part of this passage after the part that says they made a couple calls to find an attorney. the next part is, and he said lopezed that idea of having their friend, linnette peralta haynes a domestical violence advocate with the our family coalition to reach out the madison about why she had gone to police and what could be done at that point. is that accurate? >> not entirely, no. it's not. >> how is it inaccurate? >> that i only had learned later in the day when my wife, eliana had informed me of her conversations between she and linnette, and their contact then with the next door neighbor. >> and did your wife have the

idea of having linnette peralta haynes contact ivory madison? >> i am not sure about that. ifs that the case, that is something that my wife had simply exchanged with ms. haynes, but i don't know. >> so did you have any part in the decision to call ivory madison? >> not at all. >> ok. so to the sternt that this story characterizes you as having participated in that decision to call linnette peralta haynes, you disagree with that? >> i do. in fact as the guardian can probably tell you i later made a call when this hit the web, and i had articulated my concern about some of the

accuracy on this. but it remained. >> were there other aspects of the article that you expressed concerns about with regard to accuracy? >> i just want to know were there other inaccuracies? >> i believe this is the part that stuck out most to me, but there might have been, yes. >> so sheriff, tell me more about the 20-minute conversation that you had with your wife when you were outside city hall. what was discussed in that conversation? >> well, i was listening mostly. my wife had preceded to tell me about what was happening with the neighbor. she informed me about the existence of this video. i did not know about it. and then she told me that she

felt betrayed by the neighbors, because they went forward to call authorities. i could see my wife was scared. concerned. and angry. of what the neighbor was doing. i was informed that my wife had this relationship with the neighbor as if the neighbor was her attorney. i did not know that. in the respect that ms. madison had been either contracted or that there was an arrangement for her to act as an attorney with my wife. and my wife was suggesting to me that you know, she was asking me, because she was not familiar with the system of

what can we do about this? and i was just trying to absorb it all, process what was happening. but i was very clear with my wife that -- and i remember the quote that i said to her. i said this bell. you can't unring this bell. and we must follow through with this process. >> there was a call you have later with miss hayes. what was discussed? >> this was the first direct contact i had with her. it was also hurt informing me of what she knew about -- it was also her informing me of what she knew about what occurred

with my wife eliana and the next door neighbor. it was not a long conversation. i was listening. i was learning of all this for the first time. 1st about my wife and then miss peralta haynes. >> let me step back about -- let me step back for a moment. dishy inform you of the conversation with ivory madison? >> she did. >> was that in the first call? >> it was in the evening. could you be more specific? >> was it in the first call you had with her that she informed me she had had a conversation with ivory madison? >> i do not remember if it was the first or second but i could refresh my memory. is that ok?

counselor, maybe you can help me as to which time we are talking about. i see 5:20 p.m., there is a five-second call. the first phone call i had with miss haynes was at 5:24 p.m. are we in agreement? >> i want to let you testified to your recollection. parts i want to be accurate. -- >> i want to be accurate. >> i do think it is important accurate. i see a call at 5:12 p.m. from ross mirkarimi to linnette haynes. is that the call the question is about?

is there when you are referring to in your questioning? >> if i recall what exactly was, the question was, what time did the sheriffs have a call with miss peralta haynes where he found out she had a conversation with miss madison. i was trying to pin down when the call was regarding this specific conversation miss peralta hayes had with miss madison. >> i believe this was the first time of learning between contact between my wife, miss haynes, and miss madison. >> was in the first call we have reflected in exhibit 83?

>> at 5:12 p.m., maybe. there was not a lot of time to go into details. i will say maybe. >> ok. was it in the first or second -- was in a call if you had with her before you got to the lafco that you found out she had a conversation with miss madison? >> i remember i was walking feverishly to the lafco meeting. i was getting calls that i was late. i did have a phone call with miss peralta haynes while i was on the way. >> was it in one of the conversations before you got there that she told you about

the conversation she had with ivory madison? >> maybe. there was only really one phone call i had with her where we connected. there had been attempts. only one atomic out there. >> was there some point in the late afternoon or evening of january 24 that you learned from peralta haynes she had a conversation with ivory madison earlier that afternoon? >> yes. >> what did she tell you about the content of the conversation with miss madison? >> it was very brief. she said that miss madison was apparently trying to -- she was not listening to eliana. eliana was very concerned, scared, and bought the neighbor was crazy. >> this was miss peralta haynes? she ime