time and discussed with her problems you were having in your relationship with ross? >> the only problems are shared were the problems in the e- mails. the only information i shared with her. >> you said maybe it is two or three times a month? >> yes. >> in any of those occasions when you were sharing those problems, did you tell her you were sharing them with her because she was an attorney? >> no. >> it is because she was a friend, and she considered you a friend. >> yes. >> on december 31, your discussion, which usa was initiated by her was not a

conversation where you had gone to her and said, i want to hire you as my lawyer and tell you about an incident? >> i did not use that. the same way as with pawlentula. >> on january 4, you had a discussion, or you texted ms. haynes because you wanted to talk to her about the incident. is that correct? >> yes. >> you were fairly consistent with trying to reach her for that purpose?

were you not? >> yes, i wanted to realize that was really a domestic violence. >> had you ever prior to the time you were texting her about is, had you ever spoken to ms. haynes about your personal relationship with ross democrats know, just comments during the campaign. everybody gets sick, and no one can follow iis reason. that kind of thing. >> you never had more than a 40 minute conversation with ms. haynes, and in that conversation, did you describe what had happened on december

31? >> yes. >> what if any response did she give to you when you told her those facts? >> what was her response to? >> what did she say in response? >> she was asking more questions, and she was explaining domestic violence is a lot of things, so to know you are in a domestic violence situation implied a lot of different things, so just one isolated thing, maybe it is not. however, that does not mean it is right. it is wrong, and you need to be very serious and take this very serious, and we need to take ross to counseling, because he has to realize this is wrong.

>> of the end of that conversation, did you ask her to do anything to assist you? >> if i asked her for assistance gunma? >> yes. >> no, i asked her about being private or public. then she called me again and said, that is public. goross is a sheriff, so maybe we need something private to help with privacy, and she called me later and said, i have been thinking maybe you need a family, not just a couple. you need something with the family. >> i am not sure i understood the first thing you said.

you said she suggested doing what? going to a therapist and? >> she was recommending a therapist? yes. it is better for a family. she said that is something public, and we want to keep it private. >> was she the one who suggested maybe you should keep it private rather than going public? >> i do not want anyone to know. i did not want to be exposed in this wave. good -- in this way. likes is she the one that suggested it was a private -- >> is she the one that suggested it was a private 7?

-- it was a private? perhaps i think it was a conversation between both of us -- >> i think it was a conversation between both of us. she said, that is public, and that is for everybody, and i do not want that. >> at that time you had that conversation with ms. haynes, had you told ross you had discussed the incident with your neighbor? >> i told him on january 4 in the afternoon when i met him on the street around 4:00 or 5:00. wax before that, had you ever advised him -- >> before that had you ever invites you had told two neighbors? did you tell ross at any time?

>> no. >> did you have a conversation with ms. haynes where you put your neighbor on the telephone? >> yes. >> why did you do that? >> i thought she was not understanding what i was trying to say, so i said lynn net new the incident, because i explained it to her -- linnette knew the incident because i explained it to her. >> in this second conversation wtiith ms. haynes was the first time you found out the police

had been informed? >> yes, five minutes before. >> you have learned that from ivory? >> she found me in the street and said, you are going to kill me. i just call the police, and the police is coming. >> you had a series following that conversation -- you had a series of conversations on the afternoon of january 4. what was the substance of those conversations amonte -- of those conversations? >> after i knew about ivory

calling the police, i felt betrayed. i felt that i'd betrayed ross. i was afraid of what was going to happen with theo. i was panicking. >> you were very upset this was possibly going to become a matter of public knowledge. is that correct? >> yes. >> is it fair to say all the conversations you had with ms. haynes from that point on, january 4, were primarily talking about how can we stop this from blowing up? i said that point, no. -- at that point, no. i was talking about what would

happen. she told me this was confidential, and when i was walking to city hall, she realized, the video, so at some point i was walking to the city hall. i had to know what i was going to do. i did not know what to do. >> all i am talking about is focusing on your conversations. there were a number of conversations with ms. haynes, some of which were on january 4, some of which were initiated by you, and some of which were initiated by her, and is it fair to say the substance was trying to figure out how you could deal with this problem?

>> i think we start to think what we are going to do around 7:00 p.m. comment on -- around 7:00 p.m., when she called me and said, ross is not answering, and both of you need lawyers. i said, of course. and we need a lawyer. before 7:00 p.m. was just how this could happen, how i could trust it, how she could do this. called ross. did you get him? >> i would direct your attention to exhibit 80, which the council asked you about, and i think you have a copy, and if you would look --

>> i gave you that back, right? >> i am happy to try to locate that particular message. faxes from january 4 until 6:01 p.m. -- >> it is from january 4 until 6:01 p.m. >> if you read it, i know what you are talking about. >> you text, do not write any other things. answer because -- the call. what were you referring to when you said that?

>> i think it was about lawyers, or she was trying to reach him, so when she could not reach him, she was calling me, and at this point i was with theo, so i was not able to talk much. >> is it your testimony that the vices you were talking about was the suggestion -- the advice you were talking about was the suggestion that you need lawyers. >> i think so. i think she was trying to tell me, i am trying to call him, and he is not answering. i am saying, please answer lin nette. >> why it did you say, and do not write any other thing? >> at this point i was on skype with my brother, and he said,

close the facebook page, because after this, you do not know what people can write or say. do not talk about anything. do not write anything, and he never answers the phone, and he connects through text messages. i said, do not write anything. clearly he did not follow my advice. >> do you think your conversation with your brother was before you send this message? >> i clearly maremember my brother saying, shut down your facebook page. >> as far as the timing of that

call, would it refresh your recollection if you look at the document dated january 5, the next day, you have to close the comments in facebook so no one can make a comment. our phone may already be checked. was that the message you sent following the conversation with your brother? >> yes, because he did not close anything. >> that was a day later? ataxia's. -- >> yes. >> thank you, ms. lopez. >> did you have any questions?

new >> no. >> i have no questions. >> thank you for flying all the way out here. we appreciate you being here. the witness is excuse. we are going to take a short break for the court reporter, and we are going to do a little rearranging, so let's get back here >> ok, we are back in session. the next thing on the agenda is the objections to be testimony. mr. kobb, we be making those? >> yes, and there is an overarching declaration, we see this as a tangential evidence as

far as expert testimony. there is a specific objection. this is an undue consumption of time for everybody and a waste of resources, and if this i transcript of testimony is admitted, it will likely necessitate us offering at least one additional declaration from a witness that we had not thought that we would need as part of the record. so i understand the mayor has made numerous objections to other issues that we have proposed because of the 352. it is a waste of time, and that is what we think about ms. flores' transcripts. >> any questions for mr. kopp

about that? >> we don't see the unto consumption of time argument, because we submitted the transcripts and testimony within days of wendy witness declarations were submitted. we indicated that if we were submitting it in lieu of a declaration because it was already testimony that had been cross-examined on this issue, it is our position that it is too late now to say, oh, if you let it and we want to do some cross or have a rebuttal witness or this opens a whole new door. if that was going to be the approach, it should have happened when we were making those decisions about how to schedule this hearing. that is our position on time. in terms of relevance of the issues, there are a couple of things.

one is we are hearing a lot the last two days, this was an incident, but it was not real domestic violence. that is the defense we are hearing. the power and control wheel and the cycle of violence are the key indicators of whether or not an event fits within a pattern of domestic violence. in order to make that evaluation, you need information about the rest of the relationship and prior incidents and behavior patterns. so it is relevant for that purpose. the other thing is relevant to is is rebuttal evidence because the sheriff testified during his testimony he had never physically harmed a woman before and that he had never bruised a woman before perry i believe i have the transcript somewhere, very near by, if you would like me to get it, but i think he might have also been asked if he had blocked a new front.

if he had blocked anyone from leaving before. this testimony goes to all of those questions and the rebuttal evidence. >> mr. kopp, are you contesting there was an act of domestic violence that occurred on december 31, 2011? >> again, i think it did to it -- it depends on how you define the term. my position has been that what occurred does not need a label put on it. that what needs to be done here is you need to determine whether what he did, the act of grabbing his wife by the arm and leaving a bruise, is official misconduct under the charter. in my opinion, i think there has been an on to focus on that term, domestic violence. >> are you unable to answer my question, yes or no? >> i answered as best as i can.

i think it could be characterized as a domestic violence incidents, yes. but to me, that is immaterial to the question. >> i guess here is where i come down on this. in my view, i always understood that the domestic violence was not really being challenged, that it was an incident of domestic violence that occurred on the 31st. if it is not being challenged, to me, it is more prejudicial, and i don't see the point. if it is being challenged, ms. kaiser has a point, if you are going to contest, that this was an act of domestic violence -- >> that it was not? >> that it was. if you're going to say that it was not, then they are entitled to support her claim with evidence. for claim is if there was

domestic violence, that is official misconduct. i think her view also is if it was not domestic violence, then it is possible the commission could deem that to be some lesser degree of harm that would go into our determination. >> i can tell you that you will not hear from me this was not domestic violence. i will be focusing on the actual act itself. >> i understand. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> assuming the events happened at as it appears there but to be little dispute over what happened, you are saying whether you call it domestic violence or anything else, it is not an act which rises to the level of official misconduct. >> absolutely. sorry i cannot answer your question that easily. >> any other questions for mr. kopp before we allow ms. kaiser

a rebuttal? >> the man the facts are not disputed in terms of the incident in the car, but is there a dispute -- i suppose there is a dispute that i thought i was hearing in some way about whether there was pushing, pulling, other acts that took place on that same day tte. >> yeah, the allegation that something physical occurred inside of the house. that is in dispute. >> so if we just take the incident in the car, is it your position that that was an act of domestic violence? i know that you don't put a label on it, but are you answering the question of whether you are contesting it or not? >> i am not going to argue that one specific incident was not an act of domestic violence because, to me, that is not the

import question here. i wish i could help by saying this is our position, it is or is not, but i cannot because i just do not think the label is as significant. but i will not say that was not domestic violence, no, i am not going to say that. >> you would not stipulate that it was? >> no. >> any other questions for mr. kopp? ms. kaiser? >> i frankly think that even as mr. kopp would stipulate to the term domestic violence, that would not make car of evidence irrelevant or cumulative because it is not really the term that controls, it is the act we are trying to show and the significance of the act. we believe that the act is a true act of domestic violence as placed within properly

understood within the context that was supplied by nancy lyman and again by linnette peralta haynes. i have to agree with mr., bu ko that whether we leave that, neither of us really want that. we want you to understand and explore the significance of the act. to do that, we are permitted to submit this relevant evidence, and it is relevant. >> ok, but what fact in dispute are using miss florez's testimony to help prove? >> we are trying to prove that this is not an insignificant -- >> ok, i don't want descriptive words. i want what fact, the actual piece of evidence, the thing that happened that will -- that

this will help us decide. >> well, it will help you determine whether or not the act was more likely just a crab and indignant pull, or more likely in fact a grab and a push against the wall. if i cannot attach significance, i can point you to that factual dispute. i believe the dispute is very significant. that happens within context. we have various descriptions, one minimizing, and one -- >> any question for ms. kaiser? ok, my view it is in light of the argument of counsel and in light of the fact that we are not a jury, though i think it is very close, i do not think it is

particularly relevant in light of the representation of counsel. i would be inclined to let aid and for the purpose to the extent that it is relevant for helping us determine the severity of the combat on december -- of the conduct on december 31, 2011, and to the extent that it impeaches the sheriff's testimony. i did not recall that testimony specifically, but we will let you are rheostat. -- we will let you argue that. at least that is my view. i welcome the feel of my fellow commissioners. >> i would be inclined to agree with you, mr. chairman, but i would caution the city attorney, when you file your proposed findings of fact, that that is the form they are going to be in.

and you are relying on any portion of the flores testimony, you point specifically to that part so we can decide whether or not it is truly relevant. there are many portions -- i have read the testimony, and are many portions that i think have nothing to do with this case ought -- that have nothing to do with this case, and particularly the allegations there was some prior location with mirkarimi with ms. flores. i will tell you now that i do not think that should be in at all. so, you cite need that for some reliance of finding of fact, you'll have a tough time convincing me. >> i would agree with both of you about letting in on a limited basis.

the background is helpful relative to some of the pattern in miss lopez's testimony as well. >> ms. kaiser, we are ruling your way. >> ok. >> ok, so is there any dissenting view from the commissioners? ok. next item are the rebuttal exhibits from the sheriff. mr. kopp, the you have any objections to them? >> if he could hold them up, because i did not have a hard copy? >> while he is pulling back up, we conferred during the break and i raised an issue of a portion of the declaration that had previously been excluded