lopez. mr. merton testified to getting a message from buzz lopez to dissuade him -- ms. lopez to dissuade him from testifying and he heard sheriff mirkarimi in the background. that the sheriff was aware of these dissuasion efforts and participated in them. chairperson hur: in -- is there any more in respect to ms. williams' testimony? thank you. we will invite mr. wagner or mr. kopp to address this issue and deal with a declaration issued. >> we would concur with what chairperson hur state. th- -- stated. that -- i don't thnk that -- think that live testimony would serve any other purpose. i want to respond to something that mr. keith just said. this red herring of witness dissuasion has consumed an incredible amount of time and effort and energy and it does not -- should have no place here. what mr. keith just told you is not true. mr. mertons was interviewed by the police and was asked, did it sound like the sheriff was feeding his wife lines to tell you, to try to dissuade you? the respon

lopez. so it's more in the nature of an interviewing process rather than a torrent of words that just came out of ms. lopez because she couldn't control herself and that's really what the heresay exception is aimed at. chairperson hur: yeah, mr. kopp, one thing that comes to mind as we discuss this issue, i think we asked if you would -- if you would be prepared today to tell us whether ms. lopez is going to submit a declare ration. do you have that information? >> i do. i do not speak directly to ms. lopez. i talk to her lawyer. i am informed that she is willing to submit a declaration. i don't have a firm grasp on what the timing of that would be. but i hope that it would be within the next week or so. part of it is because it's responsive to these declarations that were responded to the weekend or friday an then again on sunday. no decision has been made as to whether or not she is willing to appear for live testimony or cross-examination or appear remotely. that's all i can tell you at t

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 wh

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 h

lopez, and at 5:57, you talked to ms. lopez again for seven-.end -- to you recollect now the purpose of that call? >> i do not. Ñ she suggested calling mike hennessey? >> she did not. >> in the middle of that phone t a response, i cannot and neither can he. you have to reject the actions. we both do. i cannot involve new people. did she tell you about getting that text? . >> the you know what it meant -- did you know what it meant? >> that is speculation. >> i am asking. >> i did not. >> ok, so that comes in at 5:51. no, that is wrong. i apologize. that comes in at 6:01 in the middle of a phone call you are having with lopez the glass until 6:00 for -- that lasts until 6:04, so you hang up and then call sheriff mirkarimi. you know what that is about? >> i do not recall. eheriff, and says, do not write any other thing. answer the call. she has advised now. you know what that is about? >> i do not know what that is about. >> what advice did you have? >> the only advice i had is that they both needed to get attorney's separately. >> did you tell he

de urna demuestran que enrique peña nieto llega a superar incluso por dos dígitos a andrés manuel lópezolo encuestas . >>> así es, una encuesta de milenio muestra a enrique peña nieto con 42% a manuel lópez obrador con 31% a josefina vásquez mota con 23%. >>> esta encuesta del universal muestra a (información en pantalla) >>> otra encuesta de reforma muestra a enrique peña nieto con (información en pantalla) >>> muy bien, a las 6 de la tarde, es hora de méxico, se comenzó el conteo de los 40677 federal electoral dice que esta cantidad supone un 26% más de votos que en las elecciones en méxico de pasadas >>> bueno, tenemos algunos resultados preliminares, con el 17% de las actas contadas, enrique peña nieto con el 37%, josefina vásquez mota con 30% andrés manuel lópez obrador con 27% y gabriel quadri con 3% >>> fíjense, el contraste, esto es importante, en las encuestas que se hacen a la salida de las urnas, les presentamos de 3, 5 encuestas coinciden que el primer lugar sería de enrique peña nieto, el segundo lugar de manuel lópez obrador y el tercer lugar de josefina vásquez mota. >>>

lopez's story. areas important that her testimony be heard on that matter. -- is important that her testimony be heard on that matter. chairperson hur: what is she going to say that is related to the dissuasion allegation? >> she received either e-mail or text messages telling her to not go to the police, what i told you earlier was confidential which is different from the conversation she had with ms. lopez at 1:00 p.m. >> what is the connection between the statements and the allegations against sheriff mirkarimi? >> that he encouraged ms. lopez to dissuade ms. williams. chairperson hur: please. we welcome the public here and many of you waited to get in. it will have your opportunity to speak. please allow us to go through our proceedings. i would appreciate it. you have a witness that is going to make that connection? between suggesting that the sheriff' encouraged ms. lopez to dissuade other witnesses? >> it would be the inference that would be drawn from the fact that ms. lopez so dramatically

lopez made to ms.on, consistent with our prior rulings, i would be inclined to admit those statements. the mayor is not introducing them for a hearsay purpose. they are going to show ms. lopez's state of mind. does that mean that if we disagree with your non-hearsay purpose, you do not want us to permit it? we are allowing here say into the record. you do not want it in for perce purposes? -- for here say purposes? -- for hearsay purposes? >> for this time friend, it is relevant for mind set. it is hard to say i would not want any of it admitted. i would offer it, but it is hard to say which of these is covered by other evidence. >> if we find it does not go to a non-hearsay purpose, there are things you would not want to come into the record, which you otherwise want to come into the record? >> i want to be frank about the other evidence the hearsay evidence might supplement. since we are covering different topics, we would offer a generally. as far as the truth of the matter, i think the state of min

it was corroborated by what miss lopez said. what the own witness and the campaign manager described as domestic violence. i think the evidence shows more serious incidents than what the chef and a modest at the proceedings. >> i think this is in addition to what commissioner lou was saying. thew3 video was also the more credible source as to whether there were previous attacks -- acts of physical abuse to use your phrase ha. i thought that they were the contemporaneousl and and clearer emotion as to whether physical act had taken and the testimony that we got in this proceeding. >> any other views from the commissioners? >> let me add my views as a layperson. hull and all the legal issues that had been discussed, it is very simple. number one, the video. that we have seen, miss lopez taped with the assistance of her friend and neighbor. there is no way to look at that video. and not believe that something serious occurred. and an indictment of her husband. she is an actress. was that back? i have no way of knowing. i believe wh

lopez. -- >> your brief mentions ms. lopez. it also references a lot of other testimony that we heard. are you alleging official misconduct based on dissuasion by the sheriff toward any other individual? >> yes. the sheriff worked directly on ms. lopez. he coupled his pleas not to go to the police with threats regarding custody, and he got his campaign manager involved. this is all in an effort to try to get ms. lopez not to go to the police. that is ms. lopez. then the sheriff became aware of what's the ladies what we're doing on his behalf. ofwe spent so much time lookingt the records of what happened on territory for, how close to the other end of frequent the calls were, how were they interspersed with miss lopez's communications. it is inconceivable the sheriff did not know what was going on in did not act in response to what he had initiated. >> the argument he found out about it and told ms. madison that she should not go to the police, that something bad would happen to her if she do

lopez, did you tell ms. peralta haynes your lawyer was thinking about calling the police to report the december 31 incident with your husband? >> no. i didn't say that. >> so you never asked her any advice with regard to that possibility of your lawyer calling the police? >> what i told her my lawyer is suggesting, her plan is. her plan is like her advice, i thought that was her advice, no, actually her plan was accuse ross of domestic violence. >> ok. so you told ms. peralta haynes your lawyer was advising you to accuse your husband of domestic violence? >> uh-huh. >> yes? >> yes. >> what was ms. peralta haynes' response to that. >> i think she was asking me questions about if i was afraid of ross, how was the incident. and i told her actually is that what i was looking for is for therapy. and i asked her for a therapist. for counseling. because actually, i think that is the first step that when you go through a problem, you look for a professional that can help you. >> did ms. peralta haynes say anything t

lopez? >> we do have phone records which show a series of telephone calls, including long telephone calls with ms. haines, on the fourth, continuing to the afternoon. we also have text messages between the sheriff and ms. haynes that day that would tend to show what role ms. haines was taking monday. it is proved, more or less, that she was intending to protect the sheriff, based on what was coming out of this incident. chairperson hur: you have conversations suggesting the sheriff had talked to ms. haines about providing pressure? >> we expect to get something out of this testimony, at least about contact regarding this incident, and also their relationship and ms. haines statement of their purpose. the kelly williams statement is first offered to show state of mind with regard to reporting this incident. less so, what happened on the 31st. the second reason the statement is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose is that there are substantial similarities between the account that ms. lopez give

lopez, is the video. i understand that you did not submit a brief in response to the mayor's brief. >> correct. what is your position, with respect to the video? >> i would stand on the objections i believe we made previously, that it is here say, not subject to an exception. i know commissioner randy was interested in why you might decide this differently than the superior court. i will reiterate that i do not think the superior court ruling on this issue provides any sort of collateral. i think there is no probity between parties. i think you folks are a completely different body, and you can decide this issue for yourselves. we believe the superior court wrongly decides the issue. i submit. >> having reviewed the brief, and having reviewed the video, i think the video is admissible. i think that, under the case law, it does qualify as an excited utterance. i think it also could be admissible to indicate physical injury and describe it. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on the admissibility