that these factual statements were irrelevant to the issue that we have to decide. and so therefore, i mean, i just cannot conceive -- i have tried a lot of cases, and i cannot conceive of a judge saying, i have decided these facts are irrelevant to the issue i have to decide, and that an expert says, relied on these facts in informing my opinion and that you should reach "x." >> commissioner? >> the way i'm looking at it, we decided that was not relevant to our findings whether what was then the declaration as referred to here was relevant to what we were doing. i will just refer to the things, the names on the becker account

or where the child slept may not be relevant, but we may feel we have to make a judgment about the nature and consequences of domestic violence or what was going on in this situation. so i feel as though i could come to a different conclusion about whether i wanted that and whether it was relevant as a factual matter in the context of the declaration, but come to a different result here about whether i want to understand what goes on in domestic violence and how that might affect the victim or alleged victims. i'm not going to get into that issue. whether that might affect the nature of the testimony by the individual about what went on. in short, i would be with ms. kaiser. >> commissioner, the thing is

that mr. kopp -- >> microphone. >> i'm sorry, mr. kopp, if this evidence were to come in, part of your expert, he would have a right to try and prove those facts are not true. to undercut the experts, right? so i guess another reason why i am reluctant to join commissioner studley letting it in is to say i do not want to open up this hearing to all of these peripheral issues that we have decided are not relevant to what we have to decide. so that if your expert is going to rely on this information, mr. kopp could

legitimately say you have to give me a chance to show those facts are not true. >> i would respond he did have that opportunity. he had that opportunity -- he has the opportunity to cross- examine and make this points regardless of your ruling. he knew that was a possibility that you might decide that it was relevant in terms of how the experts reached her conclusion and decided he did not want to cross-examine her even then. >> it would be difficult for your opponent to anticipate cross-examining on a subject that we excluded. i am with commissioner renne. the point is to help the fact finder determine if there was

official misconduct and if the facts on which that expert relies are not facts that we deem relevant, it is difficult to do find this paragraphs. it would be inconsistent to find this paragraphs helpful in our determination if we thought the underlying facts were not. >> it is possible that with the understanding i need is in her more general description of the nature and elements of domestic violence and it troubles the rest of you. maybe i am in the minority and i am not trying to prove that these things are true and i do not think she is, either. she is saying if we thought these things were going on, it would fit into a certain pattern. i understand we are saying. >> i think it is addressed in the rest of her declaration.

135. >> what was the ruling on 128? >> that it would be stricken. >> i would like to remind the commission that even mr. kopp said when you are making evidenciary release about fact witnesses, information did not need to be admitted into reliance -- into evidence. i will not belabor the issue. >> mr. kopp, 135. >> i think, i do not have the

williams declaration before me with the portions that were struck. i am not sure if part of this was not in evidence. i do not have any particular comments on this paragraph. >> i think i thought was the relevance problem is we struck paragraph four. i think -- i think the first two sentences rely on paragraph 3 might be ok. ms. kaiser, do you have a response with respect to paragraph 135? >> i guess i would say that even the part you want to strike is consistent with what she was testifying to, the ease with which sound travels. i do not have feelings about it.

>> i would recommend we strike lines 23 through 25 of paragraph 135. is there any dissenting view from the commissioners? 139. ms. kaiser? >> this is the portion of the williams decoration that was readmitted by agreement. >> ok.

135 -- 139 is in. 139 relies on 142. is that i invite this position? it was not in previously. >> that is not part of the stipulation. i will grant you you're standing objection on evidence being not admitted. is there any objection from the commissioners to excluding 142 which relies on paragraph 13 of volumes which was excluded from evidence? ok. that will be excluded.

i think i had said 146 to 150. in light of us having admitted flores, this probably should come in. ms. kaiser, i truss to agree. >> yes. >> mr. kopp. >> i will submit. i do not have any argument. president of the we should strike 1463150 unless there the -- there is a dissenting view -- 146 through 150. i had 182 to 184, which is a big chunk.

this seemed to relate more to events that occurred after what we're concerned about but i opened it up for argument from mr. kopp and ms. kaiser and the commissioners to express their views. >> my only comment is this goes along with my objection to that bullet point that still i do not think has been ruled upon. sheriff mirkarimi's post december 31 through january 13 statements, january 4 statement. -- statements. i do not see the relevance. >> i would like to address the two portions that are encompassed your separately. >> ok. >> the this one -- first one is

ms. lopez's statement. 1523157, i -- 152 through 157. it goes to the victim was the credibility and finds that she is recanting. she is describing things that suggest the testimony you heard was a recantation rather than finally getting to the truth. i think this is relevant for the direct point i and brown -- in brown. >> the core of it, actually. >> i would overrule over that. >> objection. >> any dissenting view? it is tangential but it is along

the same lines. ok. >> you're talking about 151 to 157? i would agree. in terms of the next batch, 158 through 180, this goes directly to what commissioner liu was talking about last time. whether or not these indicationn unreformed better at this point, has not fully rehabilitated himself if indeed he was a better in the first place. -- a batterer in the first place. it is rebuttal evidence more than anything else. you heard the sheriff come in and testify after you gave me these instructions. you heard him come in and testify that there is a new professional standard that he can help set as the chief law-

enforcement officer by modeling the power of personal redemption. frankly, that may be true. that may be a valuable standard but a chief law enforcement -- that a chief law-enforcement officer could model pre we do not dispute that. what we do dispute is whether or not he is ready to model it. now, i agree, i know you're thinking, what does that have to do with whether he committed official misconduct in the first place? libya had -- maybe it has nothing to do with it. if you are going to entertain that line of thought and that line of argument or be sympathetic to it, i think this evidence needs to come in. >> ms. kaiser, what i want to say for the record is that i did talk about these paragraphs at the last meeting will lead discussed dr. -- when we

discussed dr. tillemann -- lemmon's testimony. i do not think that we're here to determine whether he is acting like an unreformed batterer. we're here to determine what conduct took place and whether that conduct, whether those actions rose to the level of official misconduct. and want to make the record clear that that was my position and still is. >> you are right. i should address that. i got a little in love with my rebuttal argument which i think it is a good argument. to go back to your point, i think that is relevant in the same sense that some of the other evidence that you are striking is relevant. it goes to the likely head again, this is a major domestic

violence relationship, his conduct before the event is relevant to try to figure that out and his conduct and stevens after the event are also relevant to try to figure that out. it is the same rationale, just a different. in time. -- a different period in time. >> those arguments, you are correct, i think they are irrelevant. that might assuage your fears as to whether this is going to help us are not. at least in my view. >> i would ask then that testimony that i am happy to identify it be stricken. it stays in the record but my rebuttal evidence is excluded, a different decision maker could come to a different conclusion. >> i think you -- did you object to it at the time? >> no.

>> then, it is in. any dissenting views for my fellow commissioners as to what 58 -158 t-- to 158 to 159. >> thank you. i think that is right. a -- i definitely will come -- welcome being corrected. if there are others i have missed. >> i believe the apology to miss madison in court is already in.

that is in paragraph 161. and 162 is also already in as an exhibit. 163 is the same. >> 1/5 -- 164 is the basis for [inaudible] >> ok. so we have got -- you have identified once see one, 162, 163, -- 161, 162, 163.

yes, and went 59, i do not know if we have already -- were down with that. -- 159, i do not know if we have already -- were done with that. 160 is out and i regard to 164 is out. i'm not trying to strike mila testimony here. i am trying to keep track. >> if there are others where you find -- there are others as you are going through them where you feel we have relied on the testimony. i think we should reconsider that. >> 166 is prior inconsistent statement. it is inconsistent with sheriff

mirkarimi's testimony that he was seeking couples counseling. >> i would be inclined to exclude that. i think using an expert as rebuttal testimony, i do not think is going to be helpful to us. >> it seems to me that the commission is concerned about the opinion being based on admissible evidence. and that is admissible evidence because it is a prior inconsistent statement. none of the expert's opinion is being offered as fact evidence. it is offered as an opinion about the situation based on the indicators that the expert consider reliable. this is not being offered for -- as factual evidence. it is being offered as the basis of an opinion and it is the

basis of an opinion that is found in our admissible evidence in this proceeding. >> is the march 19 press conference in evidence? ms. kaiser. >> that is a good question. you are talking about 164 and 165? my understanding is that it is not. >> you cross-examined him, did you use it with him? >> i think not. either any there paragraphs where she is lying on admitted evidence. >> the main 164 and 165 or are you speaking about 166 fax >>

166, too. is there a dissenting view. >> paragraph 184. relies on sheriff mirkarimi's decorations. >> good point. that should be in. ok, if that was confusing -- i know that was confusing. i figured when you said 184 and 184 is the last paragraph, that meant that you had covered all of them. >> he was doing 52 through 180. >> we're confused.

>> -- through 180 and i was giving ahead to 84. >> the range is at 1 feet. we're half at the range. my understanding was she said 152 to 180. >> we're at 158 to 184. there were interim ones that we admitted. 159, strike 162 when a three-

184, ok. you had an objection to appoint seven on page 3. >> i accepted it. that should go out. six. >> and relevance, i do not think i can expand further than enough. -- further than i have. >> i cannot expand further on that point either but i did want to make clear for the record that the fact that we agreed she removed some parts of the declaration does not mean we did not agree. we were trying to implement the commission. tixla ehud -- to the extension

that you [unintelligible] that it was irrelevant or unfounded. >> ok. does the commission had a view as tubal 0.6 -- a bullet point six? >> that is the opinion about the uninformed batterer, i do not think it is relevant to what we have some new. i would be inclined to exclude it. >> i would agree. did any of the commissioners -- there are a number of parikh grubbs i reviewed and thought were relevant and should be in. i get -- identified the ones i thought were not. did the others have passe[inaud]

ok. we will isue our [inaudible] we are moving pretty quickly through a fairly large amount of text. i would like the ability to bring something to the commission. attention basin that he says, based on whether there was something in evidence the defense fought -- i did not spot. i you are doing with the share of's retest -- sheriff;s request for a dr =t y ceremony. que>> the request for impeachmet

testimony? >> i hope i communicated our concerns in the written rest. if we were not the chance -- the mayor did not testify truthfully under oath. there is going to be a cloud, for black and there -- lack of a better term. the mayor has stated his belief under oath that he has a civic duty to do this and he is doing this for no other purpose. if that is the case, there should be no need for false testimony. if there was, that raises a big question in my view about what are the true motivations behind the ringing of these official charges of misconduct? i do not think it is -- solves

the problem to say, this is impeachment on a collateral issue. the mayor has said on numerous occasions he is doing this because he thinks it's the right thing to do and that we have these high standards of official misconduct and the sheriff has fallen below that. everyone could agree that testifying truthfully under oath is -- that is what we expect a public officials and if you do not do that, those falls behind those standards. if the mail -- if the mayor felt, we ought to able to show that. >> ms. kaiser. >> i think this is an invitation to a side show. i think you have noticed that one of the sheriff's defense is

has been pointing fingers at the mayor. if you look at it, that maybe a good strategy with the public but is a legal matter. it does not matter what the mayor's motivations were. the turner cares whether or not the official committed official misconduct. the charging authority is the mayor. the way to test the allegations that -- is with this hearing. it is with thitheir witnesses ad the charter does not care if the mayor's best friends are bitter enemies with the person charged and it does not matter whether or not deterred the official was dishonest -- charging official was dishonest in some way because of the test of the truth is that -- the test of the

truth is this hearing. the reason that mariposa testimony was relevant is because it should -- showed his to rotation and of what official misconduct met under the charter. whether he did it truthfully or falsely, that is up for you to determine at this hearing. not bring in experts. i would be doing my kids to service and i did not tell you straight out i believe if we had this hearing, it would be quite apparent that the mayor did test, -- testified truthfully. we only have a war of media articles and the only people saying they mayor trusted on tressler are the people had no knowledge. people with knowledge confirm