mr. florez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the only side show is the comments on the other side to try to change the subject. this hearing is not about auto mileage or coal or natural gas. it's not about the bill or cap and tax or cap and trade or anything else. it's the bureaucrats who changed the rules after the rules have been passed. it's about bureaucrats who are not following what the law said passed by the people that elected the congress. that's what this hearing is about. i had firsthand experience with this. before i came here to fantasy land where people changed rules whenever they see fit, i worked in the real world and created jobs. i set up operations all over the world. when i did it, i used to enjoy getting on the plane to come back to the united states of america. i knew we had a clear transparent, fair, and stable regulatory structure. we have become a third world banana republic. that's not what this is about. we have bureaucrats that invent junk science and bogus analysis and change the rules to fit whateve

mr. keith? do any members of the commission have views on this floor aztecs -- ms. florez? commissioner renne: i have serious questions as to whether it is relevant and should be admitted. i am not convinced at this time that it is relevant to the issues we have to decide, in spite of the fact that you say may be in a trial of domestic violence it might come in. i am not sure, in view of what will be the sheriff's testimony, i think it is more prejudicial. the testimony, as i understand it, was taken in camera, because the judge felt it was something that should not be a public record, at least at that point. maybe you can answer the question. was it ever released to the public? >> it was. the hearing occurred over two days, and it was a 402 hearing, which is fairly standard, when this type of evidence is permitted. the judge had initially had it closed. he opened it on the second day. the materials did become public. we have checked with ms. flores. she was comfortable with us submitting this. the judge did not necessarily -- the judge, i think, held an in camera hearing f

mr. mirkarimi i think we can skip. ms. [unintelligible] >> would only call her potentially as a rebuttal witness to miss florez or ms. lemon. >> i see your point with florez. lemon is an expert. why does nyevez rebut lemon? >> my understanding is that ms. lemon would testify that there must have been some other conduct at issue, or some other instances that would qualify as official misconduct regarding how the sheriff has interacted or interact with other people in his life. she lived with the sheriff for many years and could provide evidence to the contrary. >> ms. lemmon is not going to be providing testimony about other acts of misconduct. she is going to be providing testimony about the nature of domestic violence, and specifically the facts elicited in this case, and how they do or do not relate to what is known about the most violent. we do think ms. neves should not be a rebuttal to the expert. we would have no objection to her putting in a declaration. that should be part of what ms. lemon of pines about. why would you see it here and not there, for example? >> consistent with commissioner renne's point earl