as to vicki hennessy, vicki hennessy was a political appointee of mayor lee. to the issue of whether they are redundant, michael hennessey can provide testimony that relates to the charges. is not clear how the key hennessey, her testimony is in any way relevant. on page four of the list of fact witnesses under vicki hennessy, she testified about the role of the sheriff. the role of the sheriff again as the conversation we had about paul henderson, that is not relevant to the actual charges and as to the actual charges, there are no actual counts. it is nine pages of a narrative save it. what would request the production of a bill of prison -- particulars as to what exactly the charges are so we can defend against them. and the mayor and city attorney can say what -- which charge the witness would allegedly testified to? on tiki hennessy, i am fine with the suggestion of commissioner hayon. the prejudice of having vicki hennessy is not high. if she is going to testify on the matters that are listed here. i agree. i do not think it is relevant. i am in the mino

i welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners, with respect to the hennessy declaration. commissioner liu: i agree that the job duties of the sheriff are at issue, so it seems like both parties are agreeing that is an issue. whether we have competing and differing facts about that, i think that is relevant, and that should come in. chairperson hur: any dissenting view as to the admissibility of the declaration? like we did last time, i think we should do is not take a vote on every one of these, but at the end, we will take a vote on all the decisions we are making. i would ask ms. eng or mr. emblage to help us keep track of the decisions we have made. >> it seems to me it probably would be better if we did, for example -- i think there is no objection from any members of the commission to the introduction of interim sheriff vicki hennessy. we have an awful lot of these we are going to have tonight. some may get lost. i think if there is not any objection, or if we agree with your ruling, i would prefer that we indicate on the record that there was no objection. chairpers

hennessy? in light of what we just discussed? >> we would ask that all experts opinions be disclosed by declaration the same way as other witnesses so we can fully prepare for each others' cases. just to clarify, it is not that i have no ideai am not coming wf opinions to disclose. i have some idea what they will say, based on a preliminary conversations. on this short time line, we are not able to do this sort of expert disclosure you would see in civil litigation. >> mr. wagner asked specifically to speak to chief smith. do i have that title right? sheriff smith. the chair has just indicated the view, which i share, about each side having a standard of care expert. if you have a specific objection to sheriff smith, as opposed to a general one, say that now. i do not want the mayor to choose among three and then learn later there were reasons she would not be appropriate that might not apply to the other two. >> thank you. to make sure i have these clear, we are talking about chief landsdowne and sheriff smith. >> that was your

i would invite the mayor to respond to the objections propounded with respect to vicki hennessy. >> i am appearing for the mayor. i am sheri kaiser. honestly, i am a bit at a loss to address the objections to the declaration of share of -- sheriff hennesy. sy. the declaration is that the duties and powers of the sheriff, contained in this declaration, are relevant. i do not understand that objection. one of the elements we have to prove is that the misconduct occurred in relation to the duties of office. in order to do that, we need to provide evidence to you of what the duties of office consist of. the acting sheriff certainly has a foundation and the knowledge to tell you what the duties of the office of sheriff are. i believe, unless you or sheriff mirkarimi has questions, this is limited to a declaration of how the office functions, and standards of professional conduct for the share of as the sheriff understands them to be a duty of her office. chairperson hur: questions from the commissioners for ms. kaiser? mr. kopp or mr. wagner, do you have a response? -- or mr. maggonerwaggo

the prejudice of having vicki hennessy is not high. if she is going to testify on the matters that are listed here. i agree. i do not think it is relevant. i am in the minority on that. if the mayor wants us to submit a declaration, we shall allow it and we can evaluate further as we need. is there any objection? vice-chairperson studley: it would help. i think it might illuminate the difference, if there turned out to be any. >> next, the inspectors. is that an end-or or is that an or. >> we do not need to call either of them. chairperson hur: next, mayor ed lee. ivory madison, abraham mertens, the sheriff, we have discussed him. chief wendy stills. why do we need to hear from her? >> to provide a factual basis about how it is the sheriff's department interacts with the probation department also particularly how the probation department interacts with probationers. which is something -- not something that most -- it is through that that the conflicts inherent in the relationship will become crystalize. we need to put in a fact- findin

vicki hennessy? richard danielle? i guess we are waiting on exhibit 4. are you going to be challenging the chain of custody of the video, or anything like that? >> no. chairperson hur: no need to cross-examine? >> correct. chairperson hur: that is helpful. thank you. >> i thought i put this in an e- mail. it is possible not everybody got it. chairperson hur: you did? i may have missed it. thank you. the other thing i wanted to ask was about christine florence -- florez. there was potentially a loophole in the order. we did not request objections to testimony. we did not receive any objections to the transcript. does that mean you are not checked into the -- objecting to the testimony submitted with respect to ms. flores? >> i may have misunderstood. i think i made clear our objections at the last hearing, that we would continue to maintain an objection to her testimony as being not relevant to the issues, given the fact that the sheriff has already submitted his declaration concerning misconduct. the only reason i can see that ms. flores, her testimony m

hennessy going to appear live? >> not as far as i know. chairperson hur: so there are two witnesses, and they will appear july 18. >> we need to go over the sheriff mirkarimi's testimony to find out if we need rebuttal witnesses. i do not know whether we do. we might. we will look into it as quickly as we can. chairperson hur: everybody hold the 19th. do not release the 19th. i would like to know by july 6 -- is that doable? that is next friday. we can do the 10th, if that is a problem. >> we might be able to identify the witnesses by july 6, certainly. i do not know if they are going to be any part of it. it depends how quickly the court reporter may be able to get us a transcript. chairperson hur: let us to july 10, ok? let us know by july 10 whether you have a rebuttal case you want to present. is that reasonable? >> yes. >> two issues, actually. one is we would like to have some date certain by which we will now -- know whether or not sure if tennessee -- sheriff hennessey will be here on the 18th. chairperson hur: it sounds like he is

hennessy has been consistent throughout, and that is no surprise to the mayor. if something changes, i will certainly let you know. chairperson hur: meaning, if he will show up in person? >> if he can find care for his family member, i certainly will let everyone know. up to this point, his position has been consistent. chairperson hur: he is the primary caregiver? >> yes. chairperson hur: and there is no secondary caregiver? >> from what i am informed, that is correct. chairperson hur: he told you that? >> correct. chairperson hur: we gave you notice of what we were going to do at the beginning. i would stand by it. miss lemmon. the declaration is extensive. i have read the declaration. i have also read people versus brown. my understanding of that case, and i am happy to have my fellow commissioners or council tommy i am wrong -- it appears that that case allows, in a domestic violence action, the expert testimony of a domestic violence experts to explain why a witness may change her testimony, if she testifies, if a certain amount of time passes. the opinion

it's in one major saying the captain hennessy captured a colored rebel scout well mounted who had been sent out to watch our movements. and in another, p.l. power says we've turned up 11 bush whackers to dry. here's a brief summary of why blacks would fight as soldiers. first as i mentioned, no more than a few thousand. statistically insignificant. they were not legal, wasn't a legal isstatus until the last month of the war. the slaves who were put to work as laborers, most cases of the eyewitness accounts of soldiers, the masters were making them laborers. saying, you know, i don't want to be on the frontline because i'd rather not die. chances of dying are greater when you're on the frontline. i'm going to put a gun to your head and put you on the frontline. the reason for free blacks in the south showing loyalty is because they wanted to retain what rights they have. remember, on the eve of secession, every free state -- chief justicen en tn t en ttaw clear in dred scott. there were debates about enslaving all three blacks and the desire to retain what rights they had, they showed p

and today prosecutor michelle hennessy read into the war record what his condition is today. >> brian stowe is unable to walk, has lost motor skills in his arms and hands. is unable to carry on a normal conversation. >> what was the demeanor of these two men? >> they were drunk, i smelled alcohol on their breath. this morning, witnesses are not allowed to be shown on camera, she never referred to sanchez and nor would by name. she called them " the shorter guy and a bigger guy ". >> the shorter guy took off running first and the taller guy went after him. >> she described how a group of four giants fans, brian stowe believed to be among the group, were chased by the shorter guy and the taller guy. she said she never saw the beating >> what were they doing? >> there were running towards the white car. >> could you describe their demeanor? >> they were out of breath, one of them have his jersey in his hand. and they were saying " drive ". " get into the car and drive ". >> the crime scene photographs showing her his body was found in other stadium. this detective testified at a distance

first, as hennessy notes, the presidenpresident's claim is baa discredited article that he isn't accountableor anything that happened before october 1, 2009. that's the start of the fiscal year, but of course he took office almost nine months before that time. in other words, that timetable excludes the auto bailouts, the first year of the stimulus bill which, of course, was president obama's legislation, the bailouts of fannie mae and freddie mac and a lot of other things. as hennessey writes, this date was cherry picked to make president obama's record look good. and i would just ask does president obama also disclaim anything to do with bailing out the auto companies, for example, that occurred in that period of time? no, last time i checked he was bragging about that. that's the height of cherry picking. things that make you look good, you take, the things that don't, you reject. you can't have it both ways. second, the president actually proposed spending far higher than what was enacted into law. for example, his latest budget request proposed spending of $3.72 trillion in fiscal year