>> we are back in session. we still do not have ms. haines, so let's turn to objections for lopez. >> if i may raise an objection,

there is a least one member of the audience who has a small recording device, and i have requested her not use it in our proximity so she does not over here attorney-client conferences'. she has declined to stop doing that, and i think given the past of the various people using recording devices to infringe on attorney-client privilege, i would like to get3jz)f of the only person alive with the video recording device are those members of the media who are here. g? i am sensitive to that concern, and i would ask members of the public do not record proceedings, particularly in if you are sitting in proximity of

counsel. can we switch her seat with k]t'isomeone? if you are willing to turn off the device, we will not have a problem. thank you. no recording devices used by members of the public out of respect for the attorney-client privilege. the lopez declaration. first, thank you to both sides. i appreciate you working together and finding reasonable accommodation. you did narrow it down quite a bit. my understanding is there are ñ62ixonly four paragraphs stillt issue.

>> one moment, and i will check. >> it was not in the format anybody prefers. >> i was able to follow it. the first dispute appears to be with respect to paragraphlx7% 6. /éhs>z>> they have made their objection, so i would like a chance to expand?,r6 >> please. >> go ahead. >> the way i understand the mayor's case, which deals with the legend attempts. >> i am not sure about microphone works. gootracks the way i understand e

portion of the mayor's case is that the mayor contends the share of persuaded his wife -- and the sheriff persuaded his wife to not have an ivory madison communicate with the 'aauthorities, to not disclose e video, so the reason why this portion of our raw 6 is admissible is link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c believed he was an attorney, and she believed her communications were confidential. it does not matter whether that view has been upheld in courts.

it explains her actions in a way that is consistent with innocence, so that is why the remainder of that paragraph is admissible. >> with regard to miss lopez's belief as to whether attorney- client privilege existed, it is stated elsewhere about this level of detail about the thoughts that pertain to whether there might have been an attorney-client privilege and would be a waste of time and not relevant, where the existence of attorney-client privilege is not an issue. >> any other statements? the objection. >> i would be inclined to, but i think the relevance maybe

tangential. i would be inclined to stay there has not been a stipulation, and in line eighth they stipulated that would go out. i would be inclined to overrule the objection. >> i understand the portion of has been stricken begins with online 7, and the rest of it is what is in dispute. any other comments from commissioners used on this particular paragraph? >> i think i would allow it. for background evidence, i think it is fine.

>> any dissenting view on that? i think it should be overruled in light of the view of commissioners. we can waive that evidence as we will. para dr 10 -- paragraph 10. >> yes, thank you. again, part of the disputed portion of this apparel ross -- of this paragraph supports miss lopez's believln dealing with her not just as a friend but as an attorney, and it explains in large part why the videotape itself was made, so i

think it is highly relevant to dispute the mayor's assertion that the attorney-client relationship was made up after the fact by lawyers, so that is why we see this as highly relevant. >> i think our argumentso are that these go to attorney-client privilege rather than a reasonable belief. >> i would be inclined to overrule this objection. any dissenting view from my fellow commissioners? e8r. paragraph 21. do i understand the only portion of 21 you are objecting to is the portion that says, as that

is the way the law is in venezuela? >> that is correct. >> we offer this not to show what is a lot in venezuela -- what the law is in venezuela, but to support the belief the because of miss lopez's knowledge of what the law is in venezuela, but supported her belief, and i do not want to repeat the arguments as to why that is relevant. >> if this is offered with a caveat that she does not actually know what the law is but this is what she believes, that ist

>> yes, and we would agree to that. >> the objection is overruled with the understanding that we will interpret miss lopez has not actually knowing what the law is in venezuela. paragraph 25. >> it is much the same argument, but in response to the mayor's suggestion earlier but we do not need to get bogged down in the details about this, i have to disagree, because if miss lopez knew these things, it would add credence to her beliefs but miss madison was an attorneytrzn need facts to build a foundation for believe, and we think these are the building blocks for that belief. >> with the exception of the

first sentence, which those state the facts of miss lopez would have personal knowledge, and the rest is collecting stuff from the internet without showing that miss lopez ever saw this or that it influenced her view as to whether miss madison was an attorney in that timeframe. ]n÷÷çávthis is the from the intt appears to be cobbled together and added to the declaration, so that is the reason we raise the objections. >> i am inclined to agree. other than the first sentence and the last sentence, i would be inclined to sustain the objection. any dissenting view from my fellow commissioners? >> may i speak briefly?

whatever the commission's ruling on this, if the testimony of mrs. lopez thosdoes prove she hd stated all of this, i would like to be able to revisit this after her testimony. >> in other words, in order to be able to establish foundation for her knowledge of these matters. it is the direct, -- it is redirect, so we will see. the objection will be sustained starting with line 5. her words through the custody of theo on line 16. otherwise, overruled. i do not think there are any other objections to ms.7"ntn4 f i understand the stipulations

correctly. >> there is one. >> did i miss one? >> 28. qn7fxnwz>> sorry, i did miss ab. >> this is a different issue. >> we do believe that one phrase can go out. the reason i think the remainder of this paragraph should be admitted is because the opinion of the domestic violence experts is that sheriff mirkarimi has the characteristics of an unreformed adapter error -- batterer.

i have a pretty good sense to the commission is going to accept a majority of it, and if it does, it would support the testimony. >> given there has been an order since february, i do not see a foundation to offer opinions about a 10th to be a better parent orange and not -- opinions about being a better. it is mostly argumentative and seems to lack foundation. >> i would be inclined to overrule the objection. any dissenting point of view sonoms?

that objection is overruled. w?d7tslet me remind you youl under oath. >> hi, welcome back. i am just going to spend 30 seconds to slip this together, so i will be as speedy cross examiner. i know that is what you all

like. >> i will hold you to that. >> i was in the middle of questioning, and permission to go back over some sheets to cover where we were. >> i was following along closely, and i feel like i know where we are. rewind one question, and let's go forward. >> i believe my last question was along the lines ofke3egpñ du help -- is this working beaumont -- is this working amont?

ykh thank you. i believe my last question was along the lines of did you help drive the e-mails she sent out for caught 14 and at 4:16? >> no, i did not -- she said at 4:14 and at 4:16? >> no, i did not. ása thing these revl is at 5:27, and it lasts four minutes. the you have any recollection about what that is about? >> no, i do not. >> it would be over at 5:31. five minutes later mrs. lopez e- mails mrs. madison and says, i am so sorry. does that jog your recollection

about what your phone call was about? >> no. >> the new draft that e-mailed? >> no, i did not -- did you drive that e-mailed? >> no, i did not. >> at 6:41, you call miss lopez again, and the call lasts five minutes, so maybe until 6:46, and half an hour later, ms. lopez e-mailed miss williams, and she said, all i told you today was confidential. it was too dramatic. with anything about that 7:13 p.m. e-mail the subject of the phone call? >> it was not. >> the remember what that phone call was about? >> no, i do not.

>> at 7:23, and you call ms. lopez, but i am assuming that is a missed connection or maybe a message. >> a drop call maybe. >> she calls you back, and a call last for 11 minutes. do you know what that call is about thomas -- what that call is about? >> i do not. >> that call ends at 7:39 and at 7:47 miss lopez e-mails kellie williams and says, do not talk to the police if they ask you. as bad jog your recollection of any portion of the phone call at 7:28? >> no. >> did she ever tell you she was going to send an e-mail like

that to ms. williams? >> no. >> the view held draft that the amount? >> no. -- did you help draft that e- maile? >> no. >> commissioner, is it a recording devices? >> is it also of recording devices? you told me it was earlier. >> counsel, let's not engage. >> the citizen said to oppose this plan was a recording device. -- the citizen said to us this pen was a recording device.

>> i am talking to the council. if you could just give us a moment. can the shareiff look at the pen? let's proceed, counsel. thank you, ma'am. sorry for the inconvenience. >> if i may just point out, i do not know if the full commission is aware because the correspondents in not go to the full commission, but there was a community member who surreptitiously sofilmed my texting during a meeting, and it was attorney-client privilege.

that is one reason we are upset. >> may i say something? >> we are done with this topic. i understand your concern, but let's focus on what we are here for. >> your declaration mentione- your testimony and your declaration said that you talked to ms. lopez on the morning or early on the day on the 14th. stç4q.aare you surprised to ses large number of phone calls on the fourth? >> you have any recollection of the content of any of the