-- mirkarimi. your text message saying that you need to talk to him to protect him? >> objection, calls for speculation, argumentative. >> overruled. >> yes, i just explained to you where i was coming from when i wrote to that. >> so if i understand correctly, when you met him, you met "he and eil -- eliana"? >> they are a family. ift but when i talked to them, i said they each need to have their own attorneys. that was my suggestions so that eliana was protected, ross was protected, and each --

>> ok. ok, here we go. qt=p$bdsend you texted ross mii -- so you texted ross mirkarimi, coming up on the 4:00 hour, and again, according to exhibit 83, there is a series of telephone calls -- actually, i am ahead of myself, but it is all the same

series really. there is a series of phone calls where sheriff mirkarimi joins this conversation that had really been happening between you and eliana lopez for the first time. the first telephone contact between the sheriff and ms. lopez is at 4:23, and then there is a break, where nobody is talking, l[m ñand then at 5:12,e calls you. at 5:20, he calls ms. lopez. he talks to her for four minutes until 5:24, and at 5:24, he calls you back. in the meantime, according to these records, at 5:24, ms. lopez calls ms. madison, so thereuw understand these records, and

you can correct me if i -- if you have a different recollection, and i am encouraging that, if i understand these records, this is the hour and a time when the conversations back and forth begin, and you are having them, year is finally my question. were you aware that the sheriff and ms. lopez had connected on the phone by the time the sheriff called you? >> no, i did not know that. >> you're on aware that they had talked. >> -- you were unaware that they had talked. >> i said that she really needed to talk to him, to answer her phone or call us and texts, and i told him that a friend called

the police about their argument where he gave her a bruise. that is what i told him. >> you told him nothing else. >> nothing else. >> did he ask you how you knew about this argument? >> he did, and i just said that i talked to eliana, but what we talked about is going to be between me and eliana. >> did you tell him you had talked to the person who called the police picked >> at that time, i did not, but later on i said i talk to -- i never talked about the content. this other woman, which now we know is ivory madison, but i told him that i talked to, i r a friend briefly, eliana's friend, briefly.riefly,

did not talk about the content. >> he did not ask about the content? >> actually, he did not. >> ok, so far i understand, and tell me if i have missed something. you told him that you were aware of something that caused a bruise, that a friend had called the police, and that is it? >> yes. >> was there anything else? >> no. >> what did he say to you? >> i think he was kind of shocked. not saying a lot, it's just a sentence or two, and it was hard for me to deliver that, but eliana had told me she wanted me to, and he seemed a little taken aback. >> did he tell you he already knew? >> he did not tell me that.

>> so that first phone call you had with the sheriff, that lasted seven minutes, ,eo wondering if there is anything else you remember from that phone call. >> i think that question has >> i will allow it. overruled. >> i do not recall anything else. >> and you do not recall anything else that he said? >> that was asked and answered. >> sustained. >> in that phone call? >> no, he did not. >>m9  did you make a plan to sk with him again? >> no, i did not. >> did he ask you about the text where you said "i need to protect you"? >> he did not specifically asked about the text. we just started talking. >> ok.

so you did not talk about how we needed to be protected or anything tofp7fi >> well, now that we are talking, you are jogging my memory right now, that is when i did say i thought it sounded really fishy, that it sounded better eliana was not being respected, and that was the extent of the conversation, and i told him that i thought that both he and eliana needed to get separate legal counsel. >> and did you make a plan to follow up about that? >> no. we did not make any plan. >> did he ask you to make a recommendation on legal counsel? >> he did ask me. >> and did you seek out recommendations? >> i gave a suggestion. >> did you give it in that call or in a subsequent call put >> i

believe it was later, later in the day. >> ok. so this first call that lost about seven minutes, that would have gone to about 5:19, and then at 5:20, the sheriff calls ms. lopez. i am wondering if at the end of your phone call it he told you he was going to call ms. lopez. >> i do not recall. all i know is that they were trying to connect with each other. that was my understanding, that ñzs and he was tried, so they need to connect. >> ok, so they speak, and then he calls you again right after he speaks with her for two minutes.

do you recall what that was about? >> i do not recall. i am sorry. >> did he tell you, by any chance, to jog your memory, that chance, to jog your memory, that he said he had spoken to eliana t and to talk to ivory madison? >> no, i do not recall that. >> , to more do you have left it >> i have got, let me check -- newmont half an hour? >> proceed. >> thank you. >> how much time have we been going >> maybe 1.5 hours of the time we got situated. >> ok.

kx newborn baby,jûn5] and i am breastfeeding, and i do want to have a englebright but -- have a little break to check on my baby. >> i guess, maybe check in on her? we will keep going unless i am needed. >> absolutely. no objection from me. >> update. thank you. >> unless i am in the middle of a really good question. ok. i am going to go back in time. i sort of skipped ahead to kind of explore what the sheriff and what you told him and what that comment, and i want to go back to a series of calls that the record she knows that you had with ms. lopez.

this is from page two. by the way, as we are going through these records, there are a number of attempts to call each other, like for zero seconds or 10 seconds, so i am not really counting any of that in this narrative. you can correct me with your recollection. c16iyou texted the sheriff. this is after the we have conversation with ivory madison, where eliana seemed very upset.

do you remember the content >> i just remember at that time that eliana was very upset. she did state that "that is not what i wanted", and she said that to me. >> did you give suggestions? >> no. i was there to a listen and be present and to validate her feelings. thinking of handling the situation projects know. she was just upset. business support.

nothing else. did she give you more support? but she did say she felt betrayed. n«m1yamñdp:does this help youd

that she was drafting this? >> objection. -- sustained. aha -- >> she did not talk about this in the phone call. t>> to keep the timeline it intact, you finished at 4:12.

that was 4:14. at 4:14, you called ms. lopez back for approximately one minute. -- >> i was hoping that she did connect with ross?

>> hello, dear. i have been calling therapistslz and lawyers. i do not want to make decisions victim as well. he could not escape from his circumstances. he could get married with a shy, quiet, but he got married to made. i want to teach that to theo as well. >> were you aware that she was drafting this email? >> no. >> did she discuss and the subsequent telephone call at 4 collect 18 it -- i am sorry. that was not to you. i apologize. the four-o'clock 14 call, substance to that call? >> no. >> all right.

is this email, the way that it is written, consistent with your observation of ms. lopez's language abilities? >> like i said, i think i have always said one weeks -- i have only seen one email, maybe two during the campaign, so i do not think i am a very good judge for the question you just asked. >> did you draft any portion of this email and send it to ms. lopez. >> absolutely not. >> did you draft any portion of the prior email at 4:14? >> no. >> ok. i am informed that you need to take a break. >> my son is probably crying right now. >> how much time do you need? >> i will try to speed him on.

probably 15 minutes. i think that is the shortest. >> absently. take y/óvrx[a time and let us kw when you are done. >> thank you. >> in the meantime, how is our court reporter doing? >> i need a break. >> let's take 10 minutes. i want to deal with the lopez declaration, and then we will put her back >> 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