mentioned, yes, my attorney to the inspectors. >> while you were there, was it mentioned, while you are there, by your attorney to the inspectors? >> objection, asked and answered. >> to me it is clear he has said they were there. he was there, the attorney was there, inspector danielli was there. it was discussed. that is my impression of the testimony. i think you have got that. get to whatever point you are trying to make.

>> so sheriff, what did you understand your agreement to be with those police inspectors when you finished the discussion with them? >> regarding the weapons? >> yes. proxmire understanding -- >> my understanding as it was laid by the inspectors with my attorney present was that the weapons would be located by my attorney. the attorney would acquire the weapons and then facilitate an exchange with a representative in the sheriff's department and then hand them to the san francisco police department. >> part of the agreement was that the attorney would go to your home and retrieve the weapons? >> he or a proxy to do so. correct.

>> did it come to your attention on saturday that the police inspectors wanted to get your weapons? >> no. >> did you make any calls to anyone in the sheriff's department with regard to your weapons on friday or saturday? this is the 13th or 14th. >> i do not recall if i told anybody in the sheriff's department. i do recall asking my attorney if they were successfully acquired. >> did you give your attorney any direction with regards to contacting people in the sheriff's department? >> no, except the fact that my attorney knew already beforehand the contact of retired undersheriff dempsey.

he made contact with her, i believe. >> i am going to move to strike everything after the word no. >> read back the question. >> did you give your attorney in any direction with regard to contacting people in the sheriff's department? >> overruled. open-ended question. >> were you contacted by anyone on saturday, january 14, with regard to the status of your weapons? >> i believe my attorney, yes. >> anyone else? >> i may have been contacted by

undersheriff jan dempsey. >> what conversation did you have with undersheriff dempsey on saturday, can we 14? >> i am trying to recall. it might have been that they were in conversation with our attorney. that is it. with the attorney about the weapons. >> who initiated the call with undersheriff to see? did she call you or did you call her? >> i do not recall. i am sorry. >> did you give her any direction in that call? >> no. >> did she ask for any direction in the call? >> no. >> did she give you any information about what was going to happen as a result of that call? >> no. >> did she give you any information about her intentions of what to do after the call? >> the order in the normal

procedures of acquiring weapons. >> now sheriff, the weapons were not actually transferred to the police department until after a court order was issued. >> i believe so. >> what conversations if any did you have with members of the sheriff's department with regards to your weapons between saturday, january 14, and the issuance of the court ordered later the following week? >> i believe none. >> did you get any information from the sheriff's department about the status of your weapons during that time?

>> only that they had received them over the weekend. that is it. i never asked further. >> did you give any direction to the sheriff's department with regard your weapons over that time? >> no. >> now sheriff, to prosecute crimes, law enforcement depends on witnesses to come forward. correct? >> u.s. -- yes. >> domestic violence is an under-reported crime. >> i believe it is, yes. >> witnesses are needed to prosecute domestic violence crimes. >> overruled.

>> yes. >> if witnesses do not come forward, domestic violence victims remain in the shadows. >> yes. >> now sheriff, in open court when you pled guilty, you may be statement -- you made a statement. >> objection, lack of evidence. >> i think he is establishing it. is that a question? >> yes. >> yes. >> commissioner, the statement is exhibit 36.

i believe. i am sorry. is in volume one -- it is in volume one. >> thank you. >> sheriff, having found exhibit 36 in matt binder? -- have you found exhibit 36 in that binder?

>> almost. yes. >> commissioners, i would like to read the statement the share of made as a party admission. then i will proceed in asking questions about it. this is exhibit 36, page four, line 18 through page 5, line one. it begins with the defendant as the speaker. the words are, thank you, your honor. i want to be back with my family. i want this to end. i would like to offer my sincere apologies to miss madison, her family, my neighbors, my department, the sheriff's department, and the people of san francisco. i realize that what was reported to the police was out of desire to help my family. i truly regret that these proceedings may have caused the madison family or anyone any suffering, greece, embarrassment, or harassment, or

damage to their reputations -- grief. i want to think the district attorney and my counsel for their professionalism. sheriff, when you made that apology to ivory madison and her family, did you mean it? >> objection, irrelevant. >> overruled. >> yes. >> then you realize that what occurred during the criminal proceedings included a lot of stories in the newspapers regarding ivory madison? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> the question again. >> of the time you did this apology, you knew there would be

many stories in the newspaper about i very madison that painted her in not a very pleasant way? >> i believe so. >> she was blind to it -- painted as a fake lawyer. >> objection, speculation. >> you may answer. >> i believe so. >> ok. she was portrayed as a crazy feminist radical. >> i do not know. >> ok. >> she was portrayed as a tool of your political enemies. >> no. >> you do not think she was portrayed that way in the media? >> i do not. >> objection. [inaudible] >> we have allowed some testimony with respect to how she was portrayed in the media.

mr. keith committed to the point. >> part of your criminal strategy was a double- >> objection. >> share of, during the time to urges are pending against you, you spoke with political consultants outside the presence of attorneys, didn't you? >> maybe. >> in those conversations with the political consulting, you discussed media strategy? >> sure, yes. >> and the the media strategy was part of your defense strategy? >> i do not know if i can say it was or not. >> that question was asked and the objection was sustained. >> now, ms. madison reported an

incident that occurred between you and your wife on the december 31. >> yes. >> and that is an incident in which you committed a violent act against your wife. >> objection. >> sustained. you have gone well over your time estimate. if you're going to ask the same questions, it is problematic. >> sheriff, but -- before march 12, did he make any public statement to disavow any of these portrayals of ms. madison that were in the media? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> i do not believe i made any

public statement at all. >> did you ever direct anyone not to make attacks on ivory madison? >> i never direct anybody to attack or not attack. >> share of, is it your testimony that on december 31, after you and your wife returned home from that trip to the restaurant, there was no argument at all in the house?

>> my wife and i did not go to the restaurant together. my wife went to the restaurant on her own. >> i am talking about this lunchtime trip to the restaurant in the van on december 31, were you turned around in the event. >> there was no argument in the house. >> none whatsoever? >> none whatsoever. >> and it was your testimony there was no physical contact in the house. >> no, not on welcome to -- not unwelcomed. >> your testimony, there was no pushing, pulling, or grabbing in the house. >> none, no. >> just a single grab by end the ban. that is your testimony. >> objection. >> sustained.

>> sheriff, after you were convinced -- convicted and sentenced, the mayor met with you? >> yes, he met with me twice. >> there is a meeting you had with the mayor where he gave you a choice. he said you could resign or you would be suspended and he would initiate misconduct charges against you. >> that is right. i am sorry, i misspoke. when i said it twice, i met before and after. >> sounds like when the mayor gave you the choice, that was after it was the second of those two meetings. >> that is correct. >> and that meeting was act -- after you are actually sentenced them on march 19, your sentence. >> yes.

>> and that second meeting with the mayor when he gave you the choice between resigning or suspension was after you were sentenced. >> that is correct. >> after that time, you had been convicted. >> sentenced, yes. >> convicted and sentenced. you are on probation. >> yes. -- you were on probation. >> yes. >> and it was the very beginning of your three years probation. >> yes. >> you had let down the sheriff's department. >> yes.

>> under those circumstances, wasn't the honorable thing to do to resign? >> objection, irrelevant. >> a chief law enforcement officer can certainly testify to what is considered to be honorable under the circumstances. >> i will allow the question. >> that is a hard question, and the answer is a hard one, too. i believe that, given the choices that had been presented to me by the mayor, i did exactly as i should. >> nothing further. >> thank you, counsel. >> redirect. >> may i request a five-minute recess. >> actually, that is probably a good idea so we can

>> are the microphones on? ok, please proceed. >> good morning, commissioners. i will try to keep my questions brief. sheriff, i would like to take you back to the morning of december 31, 2011. you testified earlier that you had an argument with your wife. can you tell us, what was that argument about? >> it was about an impending trip that my wife, eliana, had

informed me of that she was going to take to venezuela, potentially a rather long trip. and this is not an unfamiliar discussion that we have had in the past because of previous trips that had taken place. >> and why did you become upset? >> i became upset because of the trip that took place about five to six months earlier where my wife had taken our son, which i was very supportive of, was under the impression that that trip would be for several weeks, and it turned out to be over two months. and that is not the first time that that had happened, and i was sad and scared to be without my family and be without both my

wife and son. >> why is that? >> well, i think for any -- at least for myself, any parent, i mean, i love my family and i did not want to be without my son for that long period of time. >> wide is talking about your son of said you? -- why it does talking about your son upset you? >> objection, lack of foundation. >> i am not sure actually got upset. i will abstain the objection. you mentioned you testified that that morning you became upset. you had an argument about a

possible trip to venezuela. >> well, my wife had declared -- i am sorry, i should let you finish. >> what was it about that particular argument, what was said that made you so upset? >> of experiencing the loss and separation again for an undetermined period of time of how long we would be a part. this springs from a previous quarrel that we had and longstanding conversations about long trips abroad where she would take our son theo and it would be a lot longer than had been initially agreed upon. >> and prior to the morning of december 31, 2011, had you discussed with your wife another trip? to venezuela? >> in a general way, yes.

in a general way, but it was only in that morning on our way to lunch had informed that there was an impending trip. >> what was it about that particular trip at that time that made you upset? >> well, we had discussed and argued -- and wanted to make sure that there was a plan. this was something that i spoke with in correspondence e-mails with my wife last time that they were in venezuela, that we would have a plan as to how long, you know, there would be this separation for, and i had been concerned as a parent not knowing the previous trip, all the immigration issues and custody issues that had been involved win another parent takes a child for a long period

of time, and i was really insisting, hoping that we had a plan about what the duration of time would be. that was the body of the argument. >> how do you feel about what happened on december 31, 2011 and now? how do you feel about what you said and did? >> i wish i could turn back the clock, of course. i fear -- i feel horrible, ashamed. just all that. >> let me move forward now, sheriff. we have heard testimony about conversations you had with ms. linnette peralta haynes, your wife, and others. let me ask you very directly. at any time did you dissuade anyone from any law enforcement investigation? >> never. >> at any time, did you ever ask anyone to destroy any evidence? >> never.

>> thank you. we have also heard testimony about your weapons that were turned over to law enforcement. let me ask you first, how did you store those weapons? >> the two semiautomatic, at the six and the beretta, they are -- their slide chambers were completely setback. they were neutralized by a lot of tape. there was never ammunition in the weapons themselves at all. and it were completely immobilized from being of any use, and they were stored in a cabin vent -- cabinet in a storage room that would take both the padlock and a bald what, two keys, in order to

gain entry. on at the smith, it was an open a cylinder, no ammunition, a taped so that the cylinder would not be -- so that the cylinder cannot be engaged, so that, again, they would be rendered neutralized. >> thank you. at any time after your address in january -- arrest in january, at any time, did you have control over those weapons? >> objection. >> do you understand the question? >> yes, i believe i do. >> overruled. >> i had no control and no contact at all with those weapons. >> thank you. going to move on now to -- i believe that your inaugural, you testified earlier that you used the phrase at some point during the media interview or

conference, you used the phrase "private family matter" in its reference to what was happening to you at that time. what are your feelings about that now. >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> naturally, i completely regret that i said that, and i made a mistake. i made a terrible mistake in saying that. it was not in the context of what i had meant, and went the statement that was given to me, i should have rejected the statement. >> thank you, sheriff. i am going to move on. only a few more questions. sheriff, between the time that you were inaugurated, for those couple of months that you were

acting sheriff, what did you accomplish as sheriff? >> objection, relevance and beyond the scope. >> what did you accomplish as sheriff? >> i will hear argument. >> part of the mayor's allegations is that the sheriff cannot possibly be sheriff because he is not capable of performing the duties of the office. however, given what the sheriff was able to accomplish while sheriff, that is certainly relevant to that argument into those allegations. >> the argument regarding performance of sheriff does not go to whether he can perform the basic duties or make any certain accomplishments. the argument regarding the duties of share of it goes to the relationship of the duties of sheriff. the basis for our charges is not that he is ineffective or that

the sky will fall if he is reinstituted. the basis of the charges is that he fell below the standard of conduct, and his conduct was also in relation to the duties of the office. >> if i sustain this objection, you're going to maintain the position of whether or not he can perform the duties -- and his effectiveness on the job going forward is not relevant to this investigation. that is what it sounded like you just said. >> commissioners, i do not want to engage in line-drawing on this issue. i know what our position is going to be, but i will give them an opportunity to put in the evidence that they feel they are making it. >> so you are withdrawing your objection? >> yes. >> do you have the question in mind, sir? >> again, please. >> at the time that