now, you had a -- you did send another text to your husband at 6:05 that evening. it's in evidence and in fact it's on the lower part of the page i just handed you. it says, don't write any other thing. answer linnette call, she has some advises. did ms. peralta haynes advise you not to write anything about what was going on? >> i think this is -- tell me which time again? >> this was a message that was sent at 6:05. >> i recall to -- because that was from my brother in venezuela. he said you should close -- say

i told him what was happening and he told me close the facebook page, don't write anything. and don't talk anymore by phone because maybe they are listening. >> ok. so you sent this text message in response to getting that call -- to getting that advice from your brother? >> yes. and it -- >> did you actually speak with your brother on the phone? >> i don't remember if i did by phone or through skype. but i got that from my brother. and also, i was talking with linnette and linnette said, i have to talk with ross and he's not answering my phone calls. so i text him, answer linnette calls. >> did you send this text while you were talking with your brother? >> you know, i do not remember. at that point i was already with theo because i pick him up

at 5:30, so we were already at home, maybe i was in skype. >> ok. what i'm trying to figure out, did your brother give you the advice and immediately after that you sent the text? >> yes, yes. and actually we didn't talk any more because we were like so scared that someone is listening, someone is the big brother around and watching all this. he was right. >> were you on the phone with anybody else on your cell phone while you were talking with your brother on skype? >> no. the only people i was talking with was linnette, ross, and that's all. >> ok, my question was a little different. it was when you were talking with your brother on skype, were you talking with somebody else at the same time on your

cell phone? did you have two conversations going on at once? >> asked and answered. >> it was asked. i'm not sure it's been answered but i mean, if this is the way you're going to spend your time, mr. keith, i'm not inclined to give you a lot more. you can answer the question. >> usually what i do and how i talk with my family every day, we open the computer and they are there, so they see theo playing, they can entertain theo so i can cook. the computer is open and they're there so i can be walking and talking by phone and they can be playing with theo so i can -- >> ms. lopez, i think you may have misunderstood my question. when you had this call with your brother on skype. >> yes. >> did you have another conversation going on on your cell phone at the same time? >> you know, this time was so

busy, i was calling linnette, calling ross, calling back, talking with my brother, taking care of theo, so i don't know if actually so many times -- ok, goodbye, ross is calling. ok, ross is calling right now. no, linnette is calling. oh, bad, whatever, whoo. so i do not remember. and of course i think i did. and i was feeding my son, cooking for my son. doing everything at the same time. i do not remember exactly if i was -- i was panicking, also. i was betrayed. >> now, ms. lopez, did you release a statement to the press on january 5 to the effect of what was happening to your husband was wrong? did you make a public press release on that date?

>> january 5? >> yes. >> here or in venezuela? >> here. >> i think we got lawyers, the same, january 4, and they advise do not talk with anybody. >> ok. ms. lopez, i'm not -- i'm not asking that -- that's not the answer to my question. the question that i asked you was, did you make a release to the press, just making a statement that what is happening here is wrong, i have absolutely no complaint against my husband, my husband has never been abusive to me, ross and i are committed to our

marriage. our son and our family. on or around january 5 or 6? >> yes, we did that through our lawyers. but i didn't have communication or give any interview. that was january 5 or 6th >> i'm just asking, do you have a recollection? >> no. >> i'm going to approach the witness and show her a document to refresh your recollection. i'm happy to give it to the commission as well. >> show it to opposing counsel. is there an objection? hold on, mr. keith. is there an objection in showing her the document to refresh? >> no. >> ms. lopez, if you could just review that document and let me know whether it refreshing your recollection as to whether you made this release on january 5 or 6? >> the date again?

>> january 5 or 6. >> and what is your question? >> does this droument refresh your recollection whether you made a press release on january 5 or 6? >> yes. >> ok. and you did? >> yes. >> when? the 5th? is that what we've established? >> yes. now i remember. they closed -- >> that's fine. thank you. i just was confused. >> ok. so there was a release on the 5th? >> yes. >> ok. and did jim stearns assist in that release? >> i wrote this with my lawyer and then they -- i think they check everything and they were

agree. >> jim stearns was agreed? >> i was not present. >> objection, relevance. >> ok. >> sustained. >> the relevance was going to become clear in just a moment. i have to lay a foundation to get there. >> well, what -- >> ok. did mr. stearns work on your husband's campaign for sheriff? >> yes. >> and was he involved in getting this release out to the press? >> i think he was trying to help ross that i made this with my attorney. >> ok. >> sounds like there's no personal knowledge. i'll move to strike the answer. >> i think her lack of personal knowledge is apparent. >> ok. was linnette peralta haynes involved in getting the statement out to the press?

>> i think you have my phone records but after this day we didn't talk too much again and actually, i don't have any other -- i don't have any contact with her because she was in a high risk pregnancy and all this was so stressful for her. >>o the -- so the police called you on january 5, correct? >> yes. >> and you told the police your neighbor was nuts and your neighbor was broke and trying to get attention, correct? >> broke, yes. >> ok. you never said to the police that your neighbor was your attorney, did you? >> at that moment, no? >> on the 5th to the police? >> no, in fact i know i didn't. >> you told them to contact your attorney who at that time was cheryl wallace? >> yes. >> and cheryl wallace shared office space with the attorney with your husband's first

attorney, robert waggoner? >> yes. i think so. i think so, yes. >> you gave an interview on a venezuelan radio station on january 14? >> yes. >> you were asked in that interview what your relationship was with ivory madison? >> yes. >> you said that ivory madison was a friend? >> yes. >> you said that ivory madison was a neighbor? >> yes. >> and in that january 17 interview, you never referred to ivory madison as your lawyer? >> that is correct. >> now, after ms. wallace you got a new attorney, ms. canny? correct? >> yes. did you direct your attorney to go to the criminal court to try and keep the video from being used against your husband in his case? >> objection, that appears to

infringe upon attorney-client communications. >> with the direction to an attorney, it's not a request for legal advice. >> ms. canny, you're her attorney, i'll allow you to speak to it if you want to [inaudible] >> i think you're right, sustained. >> now, i >> i go think the privilege is waived if you look at page 23 of ms. lopez's declaration. and i should say paragraph 24 as well. >> what part of 24 are you relying upon? >> it says ross was not ever involved in my efforts to assert my right to retain the attorney-client privilege with

my conversation with ivory as well as my dissemination of the control of the video. perhaps i can explore -- >> that was -- i thought that was -- i thought you agreed to strike that. from the declaration. i don't think it's -- >> that's right. they objected. >> still a basis to claim waiver. >> we accepted it. >> it may >> id may not be in, but -- >> we are not going to do away with the attorney-client leverage. -- privilege. >> did you meet with your husband goes the first attorney? -- the husband's first attorney? >> we were all together, yes. >> your husband's first criminal attorney, robert wagner.

>> objection, relevance. dr. did you provide your husband's attorney with information about 53 madison? >> i can explain the relevance. >> and briefly. >> one of the claims has been that the sheriff, one of the act of the standard of decency was the way he treated the complaining witness. i am entitled, i think, to explore the attorneys that acted on his behalf. >> this will implicate all kinds of attorney-client privilege. dodge there is no attorney- client privilege. >> how does he know there is -- >> i will sustain the objecti ion. it is far removed from the foundation of the question.

>> at any time during the defense of your husband's criminal case did you meet with people that were not attorneys and provide them with information about ivory madison? >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> what's the question? >> during the defense of her husband's criminal case, did you meet with people that were not attorneys and give them information about ivory madison? >> [inaudible]

>> use a communications with non-attorneys are going to be covered by attorney-client privilege? >> i can explain, if you want. >> i can rephrase the question. >> is that right? thank you for working that out. >> during the defense of your husband's criminal case, did you give information about ivory madison to political consultants? did you give information about 53 madison to political consultants? >> i will interpose a relevance objection to this entire line of questioning. whatever this witness did, it

doesn't have any relevance to the inquiry. >> i presume that when you say that you will be able to tie it to the sheriff. >> i think the legitimate inference can be drawn given the attorney client privilege. i can't explore whether there were conversations that went from person to attorney or a journey to a person, but i can't argue the inference if i established these facts. >> let's see what the answer is. but we are about to cut you off. >> i am close to being finished. >> you want to know if i talk with the consultants, if i gave the information? >> about ivory madison to your

husband's political consultants during the defense of this criminal case? >> i was always talking with my attorney. are you referring to gm? -- jim? >> the witness may have a hard time understanding. >> i don't know which consulting. >> any of them. >> we don't have money even during the campaign. >> are you saying no? >> yeah, no. >> miss lopez, there is still a stay away order? >> objection, relevance.

>> sustained. >> do you intend to testify against your husband before you go back to venezuela? >> objection. >> sustained. >> may i make a suggestion? we need a break, but i will suggest and maybe you will think about it. the commission may have some questions. after the commissioners have gotten their answers, that might be more efficient. >> as long as i get to do re- cross after the redirect, that's fine. >> what do the commissioners think?

do you need a break? how much longer can you go before a break? >> i think all of us are in the same situation. i am open to whatever is better for all of you. >> let's take a break. can we be back at 7:15? 7:20. thank you.

>> we are back in session. but we are missing our witness.

>> council, while we're waiting, my plan for the rest of the evening is if we finish ms. lopez, go to the floor as testimony, the rebuttal exhibits, levon declaration, the chair's request for testimony, and want to talk to you about

what findings and a brief that we would like in advance of august 16. >> you understand you're still under oath? >> yes. >> edison for the interpreter. >> good evening, miss lopez. have you had a chance to lead -- or read the declaration that ivory madison submitted for these proceedings? >> yes. >> did you see what she said about the conversation that the to have you had on january 1? >> yes. >> are the things that she said you said during that conversation accurate?

are they true? >> no. there is some misunderstanding. >> you remember where she wrote in the declaration that you told her that after you and ross return to your house, inside the apartment, he was pushing and remember that? >> yes. >> you already testified that when you were grabbed the one time in the car, you had a >> yes. >> if he was pushing and pulling and grabbing you, wouldn't you have had a few more bruises? >> objection, argumentative.

>> overruled. >> i am sure because i bruce really easily. but i get bruised. >> did he ever push or pull or grab you inside your house that day? >> not that day, and never. >> hugh went over to miss madison's house, when you made that video, correct? >> yes. >> and before you made the video, you had had some conversation with miss madison, is that right? >> yes. >> what kinds of things did she tell you on january 1 about what might happen if you did not

stated other hand if there was a divorce and custody dispute? >> she said that i was right to feel concerned about my immigration status. a lot of immigrant women are deported for so many reasons, and the government takes the kids. she told me she is an american citizen, and imagine if he goes to a lawyer. and also thank god that did not have been and he was not accusing me of domestic violence because i could be deported immediately. >> how was it that you made the video?

whose suggestion was it? >> i have a tv producer in venezuela, a little company. i record myself all the time, casting through venezuela and miami and mexico. if i wanted to record myself, i could do it. when i was with her, she told me, you have to record this. you need evidence. i will keep this evidence. this is just in case he tries to take the kids away from me. if he doesn't go to therapy or if this happens again, who knows? if he gets mad and decide that he wants his child for him, i am

covered. >> on the video you do appear to be upset, either crying or you had been crying. is that correct? >> yes. >> were you crying about what happened between you and ross commo, or were you crying aboutl the possibilities of what might happen? >> if you see the video, i started a video of set -- upset. i was angry for so many reasons, but the moment i start to cry is what i talked about here. that is the planoint.

if you see the video clearly, that is the moment i feel that in motion. >> as you sit here, do you regret making that video? >> absolutely. >> why? >> objection. >> i am going to withdraw that. you were president hu for quite a long time about conversations you had an interview were questioned for quite a long time about conversations you had. is that correct? >> yes. >> did not share of mercury me -- did sheriff mirkarimi ever

tell you not to talk about this? >> no. >> when you made the video, and what was his reaction? >> he sat down on the floor. good >> citi talk about whether or not there is anything he could do that could stop an investigation that might be under way in? >> he did not want to answer. he was completely demoralized. good >> when you suggested to call somebody to use your power to do something, he told you he could not and would not, right? >> objection. good >> what was his response when you called to get somebody