chairperson hur: ok. if your side is agreeable, mr. kopp, it might be helpful to narrow down the dispute based on the allegations and the charges. i do think we need to make findings of fact. when the you think you will be able to provide the commission with that, identifying the portions of the allegations that you dispute? >> before the next meeting. i do not know how much before that you could want them. if it is like the other document we are going to submit to you, it is going to be a couple of days before. chairperson hur: by the we keep the same date? i think it was july 17. ok. >> may i bring up the related issue, which i think fits index i do believe that, in addition to considering fact, there are also disputes of law here. i am wondering if there is a mechanism that can be put in place of the commission can start to consider getting more information from the parties about questions of law, which are certainly and clearly, just listening to the commissioners, unsettled. chairperson hur: we defin

chairperson hur: we will deal with it then. it sounds like the parties would like the commissioners to review the video. my suggestion is that the commissioners do so on their own time. i do not think we need to set up whatever audiovisual to show it for us to out -- evaluate whether it should be admissible. how will we get a copy? >> i have sent seven copies. they have delivered them. chairperson hur: we have them? ok. it sounds like i will be able to figure out a way. next we should not be -- address the objections submitted by the sheriff. mr. keith, i understand you have no objection. that is still the case? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok. what about -- >> i have three objections. i can make them all or early -- orally. chairperson hur: ok. >> if you look at the fifth paragraph of the declaration, and beginning i never suspected, there is a sentence beginning with the word " usually." we would move to exclude that for a lack of foundation and it is getting toward an expert opinion. commissioner renne: which paragraph is this?

chairperson hur: what part? >> the way i understand the entire paragraph is this is the witnesses' interpretation of the things that were said to her by the ileana -- eliana lopez. chairperson hur: some of this was statements made by eliana. what do you mean when you say impressions? >> she says "as eliana described it." it seems to me this is her interpretation of what's the comment means. that is why i think it is speculative. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. that is something you could cross-examine a witness to. again, it is hearsay. i would give it the same weight we otherwise would. i would be inclined to permit that. commissioner studley:>> i have y starting at the word that in mind 17, which appears to be her comment on what she had heard or read in the press about what mr. mirkarimi was saying. i think that is probably improper. one witness commenting on another as to whether or not they think their statement is consistent. chairperson hur: i apologize for my lack of clari

chairperson hur: i am talking about wrongful conduct that does not constitute official misconduct. do you understand my question? >> i am trying to understand it for you. >> commissioner? it may be easier for this expert, given the nature of his expertise, not to try to answer the legal question about what is official misconduct, but maybe to testify about the question he is here to testify about, which is the standard of conduct for law enforcement officer. chairperson hur: it is a good point, and i am going there, thank you. >> thank you. chairperson hur: what wrongful conduct could a sheriff engage in that does not relate to his duties as sheriff? >> i think all wrongful conduct would be problematic. the issue of whether or not it meets the criteria that you are asking, if it is official misconduct, i am not sure. chairperson hur: i rephrase, because council and a good point. does the wrongful conduct relate to the duty? what i am hearing from your testimony is that basically any wrongful conduct b

chairperson hur: ok. we can talk about scheduling and really figure out and and date to this -- an end date to this, if we can. ms. lopez is available the 18th and 19th. clearly, having heard here would be preferable, but i understand limitations. chicken be here the 18th or 19th? -- she can be here the 18th or 19th? >> yes. >> do we know those dates yet? chairperson hur: can people commit to the 18th? >> that is what i have been hearing. chairperson hur: the 18th is tuesday. the 18th is wednesday. i apologize. so, i am hearing that ms. haines is available to testify on july 18, in person. >> i have not heard directly from her lawyers, so i am relying on mr. kopp. chairperson hur: july 18? >> that is my understanding, yes. chairperson hur: we will have her on the 18th. you said ms. lopez could be available the 18th or 19th, so let us put in for the 18th. i think that is a good idea. >> both? chairperson hur: both. is mr. hennessy going to appear live? >> not as far as i know. chairperson hur: so there are

chairperson hur: the same relevance. overruled. >> was this the first time you used physical force on your wife? >> yes. >> was it the first time you used physical force on anyone? >> yes. >> is it the first time you ever bruised a woman? >> yes. >> you have never brings a woman before? >> objection. chairperson hur: sustained. >> you also mentioned -- let me step back for a moment. before december 31, 2011, had you ever prevented a woman from leaving your home? >> no. >> after that december 31 incident with your wife, did you ever contact anyone for advice? >> objection. relevance? >> i will rephrase. on december 31, when you grab your wife and bruised her, did you realize you had just done something wrong? >> yes. >> and did you come to any conclusion that you needed to take these steps to deal with whatever it was that caused you to grab your wife and bruce heard? >> yes. >> what is the first step that you took? >> seeking a therapist. >> what they did you do that? >> the following week. in fact, before that. within a

chairperson hur: therefore says based on his conduct that he conducted official misconduct and is not fit to hold office. in paragraph 6, he decided that any actions necessary -- he seems to have put at issue his reasoning for why he issued the charges. >> i do not think the mayor submitting a declaration about the reasons that motivated him to file the charges put at issue his motivation on the issue of what happened with regard to official misconduct. what i think it does is says this is the judgment of the mayor about why this conduct is serious. i think there is a difference what is motivating the mayor verses' his judgment that conduct is serious. we're trying to provide the commission what he wanted and this is what the mayor had to get. it is putting aside for the moment what the ultimate relevance issues are. commissioner renne: have i missed something? are we on paragraph 19 of the declaration? if somebody asked a question of the mayor or the sheriff, one or the other, did the mayor tell you

chair hur: ok. there should not be any additional delay, or there is no need to further provide for a timeline for when they are available because they are automatically available, if and when an electronic filers files the documents? >> yes. as soon as we receive the documents, the staff has access to them. vice president studley: just to be clear. staff does not need to do anything with it? a person hits submit. it goes into the system and is accessible to staff and the public, or is there some intervening step? >> it is not an immediate process. we do not have to intervene at all. chair hur: commissioner hayon? \ commissioner hayon: does this go to the point that was made by mr. bush? vice president studley: x that not all of these are filed electronically. if they are filed electronically, then they have to be entered. chair hur: we are proposing that any thing that inspired electronically, and we are proposing that more be filed electronically, it will be made available faster than if we had to

chairperson hur: here is one proposal. there are factual allegations of charges, perhaps one through 31. upon reading, and see in the mayor's case, it does not seen many of those are disputed. it seems those that are disputed are the key fact we need to adjudicate. -- facts we need to adjudicate. what i would propose is that in the interim, while we have a few weeks before you put on your case, you let us know what paragraphs are in dispute, and which are not. that way, the commission could focus its resources on adjudicating the facts that truly are in dispute, and applying them to the charges that are issued. i am not saying that after you do that we will not let you propose findings, or let the mayor proposed findings. but that might help narrow the issues, now that you have seen the mayor's case. >> just so i am clear, we would go through the amended written charges and identify those portions in dispute. chairperson hur: exactly. >> that sounds easier than the alternative. i would be willing to try. chairperson hur: m

chairperson hur: counsel, what is it going to? >> this is going to the witness' state of mind and what her state of mind was on the 31st with regard to the situation with her husband. it's part of our claim that the witness had an awareness that she was being abused and after the communications we have been going over over the past couple of nights that changed. chairperson hur: we'll allow this question. overruled. >> can you repeat the question? >> you were concerned about your son growing up in an abusive environment? >> i think an abusive environment is when that kind of thing happen every day or every week. i would never be -- i would never let my son have that kind of experience. but, of course, if it happened one time --. >> a warning signal. >> that you have to pay attention and that is why i was mad of him. >> did you tell cali williams you were concerned about your son growing up in an abusive environment? >> i think to cali williams, you said? >> yes. >> can you repeat the question? >> did you tell cali williams you wer

chairperson hur: ms. cani, i appreciate that you need to be here but that's not acceptable. >> the problem is, your honor, that shepwas -- shep was distracted. chairperson hur: i don't want to hear it. can we have the question read back, please? [court reporter read back the question. >> that assumes facts not in evidence. chairperson hur: ask a foundational question, that's sustained. >> as of january 2, did you feel you were in an abusive relationship with your husband? >> of course, no. >> as of january 2, did you understand that your husband's behavior was a serious problem for you and theo? >> no. >> you and ivory madison sent several emails back and forth to each other during that trip to monterey january 2 and 3, is that correct? >> yes. >> i'd like to show you exhibit 50 and i have a copy so you don't have to flip to it. >> thank you. >> ms. lopez, exhibit 50 is a four-page exhibit. the first page is a response to an email that you wrote and then the next three pages show the full email that ms. m

chairperson hur: yes. ok. i do not know if that changes or could change your view of whether he is going to show up or not. is it possible that changes your view? >> it does not change my view, because mr. 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 cou

chairperson hur: i am sorry. starting with the word "she" on line 10, and ending with "then o" on line 12? >> yes. those of the portions we object to. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. again, cautioning that it has been conceded that it is here say, we could be -- is here say -- hearsay, we likely would not rely on it as sole evidence to establish the fact. is there descent from the commission? -- dissent from the commission? that objection is overruled. paris graphs 7? >> hugh -- paragraph 7? >> hearsay, as to the entire paragraph. also, withdrawn. just here said. -- hearsay. >> as i stated before, this is offered as an administrative hearsay, and to bolster the reliability of the other statements, not for the truth of the matter. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule. any dissent from the commissioner specs -- commissioners? paragraph 8? >> i am sorry, chairperson. i am not sure if you want me to -- i have already launched these objections. i could probably tell you -- i

chairperson hur: sure. so this is relevant for this reason -- sheriff has claimed in his public statements that she's refered to the custody laws as being powerful that he never called himself a very powerful man. the fact that this exchange happened and that ms. lopez was communicating that she had asked with her husband how this is a problem in the past that he had made the statement that he was a powerfulman and could use that to get custody with theo. the fact that there has been a previous discussion of this issue and her understanding of what he said tends to defeat the sheriff's claim that there was some kind of a misunderstanding that he was refering to the custody laws. if there were that misunderstanding would have been cured by that conversation. so the facthat she's saying we talked about -- this prompted a conversation before and she still had the same impression that he was threatening to use his power to use theo's shows that there wasn't a statement that the sheriff made that the custody law

chairperson hur: ms. lopez, i'm going to stop you right there. >> i'm sorry. chairperson hur: you're starting to be nonresponsive to the question and i don't think we need to go into the details of that. i think you have your answer. move on. >> ok. >> and when you told your husband to stop in the kitchen, what happened after that? >> he moved to another room. >> how soon after he came into the house did you tell him to stop? how soon after your husband came into the house did you tell him "stop"? >> immediately he came inside and i say, you don't talk to me and stop. >> did you continue to argue with your husband inside your home? >> no, i just said that. >> didn't you tell cali williams that the argument with your husband continued inside your home? >> no. >> didn't you tell ivory madison that the fight with your husband continued inside your home? >> no. i told them exactly what i already told you right now. >> so did your husband push and pull and grab you inside your home? >> never. >> ok. didn't you

chairperson hur: no. i understand the parties have a different view whether and to what degree the actions in this case relate to the sheriff's duties. given that there is a legal dispute about that, and that the declaration of sheriff vicki hennessy does purport to relate to the duties of the sheriff, that it should be admitted, and the sheriff should be given an opportunity to cross-examine if he so chooses. 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. em

chairperson hur: ok. >> during the day, i do have a couple of hearings. i have to look and see exactly what dates i have hearings in august, if it is during the day. >> i have a charger if it is an iphone. >> it is a phone i have had problems with, so i think it will take forever. thank you, though. chairperson hur: do the parties have any unavailability, where absolutely things cannot be moved? >> no. chairperson hur: if you can hold those, why don't we plan to talk on monday? i will talk to the parties about scheduling. we can get a commissioner -- get commissioner liu's calendar and look at when we can have our last meeting on this. commissioner liu: thank you. chairperson hur: any comments from the commissioners or objections from the parties about the schedule we have discussed? >> neither of us is available to consult with you on monday. chairperson hur: ok. we can do it tuesday. >> or tuesday. >> we can work out a time. >> what time are we scheduled to start on july 18 and july 19? chairperson hur:

chairperson hur: i agree with that. i do not think we need the conclusions of law, and i do not think we need her to tell us how his actions relate to his duties. we have an expert for that. any dissenting views? >> may i speak to the issue? i think the question is not whether it missileman's declaration is cumulative -- -- whether miss lemon's declaration is cumulative. it is about their relationship between a sheriff who has committed an act of violence and the duties of the sheriff. i think those are things for which there is a story. in terms of the ultimate issue, there is a difference in criminal law and in civil law. in civil law, there is explicit evidence that says it is admissible for an expert to offer you their opinion on the ultimate issue. that does not bind you to the expert opinion, but it is not an inappropriate opinion to make. it certainly is admissible under the evidence code. under criminal law, that is different. you cannot give an opinion about the ultimate issue, or the fact of the defendant pick

chairperson hur: i'll allow that question. overruled. >> every person has been working with ross, knows that ross just take coffee in the morning and work until late and can be working for hours without to eat and he never stop for eat, and i'm completely different. i have to have -- i need to have breakfast, snack, lunch, a snack, and dinner, as theo, and for him in the beginning was very hard. like i told him, if you are just going to take coffee, anyway you have to sit down, not with a computer, and sit down in the chair and have breakfast with us. and if you are home, even if you don't want to eat, please sit down and have lunch with us as a family. that is family. i know he grew up without that kind of -- but that is not my case and i want to teach theo that case so if we are traveling, i'm not in my kitchen so i cannot run to the kitchen and pick the things that i want so i told him, ok, we are going to monterey, but you know that how i am and theo so we are going to stop every two hours and we have to eat. and he did an

chairperson hur: that is fine -- >> that is fine with us. chairperson hur: ok. that is fine by me. >> this chair will be called by you and your case and chief. is it agreeable, mr. kopp, that you or whenever council is handling it, are you going to wait and put him on when you put your case on? >> we will do it at the same time. chairperson hur: in that case, we would allow some leeway on the redirect. >> the objections to the exhibits will be submitted by the end of the day tomorrow are due when? chairperson hur: the objections should be due by monday. the 25th. again, the point is to give you guys a chance to stipulate where stipulation is opprobrious so that we do not have to deal with an objection every single exhibit. is that acceptable to the commission? anything else that we need to deal with? >> not on our part. thank you. >> nothing for us. >> i do not think so. chairperson hur: commissioners, do we need a motion to adopt the interim decisions that we made throughout the evening? >> it is a custom. you do not need it but you usually do it. chairperson h