chairperson hur: mr. keith? >> this is actually relevant to show ms. lopez's state of mind and to show her hesitancey to call the police and this of course part of the conversation. again, we're trying to ascertain why and how this investigation started. so it's relevant for that purpose. are we talki and three on page even? >> yes. >> oh, that's not miss -- that's as i understand it ms. madison speculating as to why she -- she says it's my impression. how is her impression -- how is that a factual evidence? >> i -- i think it's her interpretation of what ms. lopez was saying. she may be shearing her gloss on that. it's not clear from the declaration. so i think in light of the fact we can't ask her for clarification on this point, i'm not sure how to proceed on that. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection. any decenting view from the commission? hearing none, paragraph 15. >> yes, again heresay sazz to the entire paragraph onlines 10 through 13. the entire sentence beginning with "she" and ending with "

. >> mr. keith? >> we think that this does not offer -- well, this is offered to show the relationship between ms. lopez and ms. madison that is really relevant to why ms. madison chose to make the report and the kind of advice that she was giving to ms. lopez later. for that purpose, it is relevant. i mean, i think there is a lot of details in here that are probably not necessary. but it's offered simply to show the course of the relationship and the motivation for reporting later on. >> i would sustain the objection, the entirety of paragraph six. any decenting views from the condition? -- commission? >> i'm sorry, if i could just ask the commission to keep the first sentence simply that this was something that they discussed at this time without reference to the content or ms. madison's reaction to it. again, that just goes to the relationship. >> any objection to that mr. kopp? >> i'm sorry. i'm ok with this. >> so six will be stricken ex-cement for this first sentence. >> commissioner could i ha

mr. keith? >> our response would be that this explains her mental state and motivation and why she's so emotional about this. we're not offering it for weather the child actually understood what is being said. but rather from ms. lopez's reason for her concern. chairperson hur: i'm inclined to allow the -- that -- that. any oks? >> no. >> and then the last sentence on page five beginning online 26 with the word "ass," all the way until the end of the sentence. we think there's no foundation and speculative and prejudicial. >> it pro ports to be a court. so when you say no foundation it's what she's saying this is what iliana said to her. whether it's true or not it's another question. but it's not being offered for that purpose at all. it's been offered saying this is what she said when she spoke to her. i was a little unclear as to the reason why it's being offered. >> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any hundreding view -- any more questions from the commission? >> paragraph 12?

mr. keith, you orally advocated, but if you would like the opportunity to submit written objections, given that mrs. flores is not coming in to testify, we could wait for written objections, if the commission agrees and the parties agreed. any comments on that? commissioner renne: written objections by who? by the sheriff? chairperson hur: they would be submitted by the sheriff, and the mayor would be able to respond. commissioner hayon: commissioner liu: -- commissioner liu: i do want to see the briefings. it does seem like until the sheriff has testified we may not really know the extent and the parameters of the fact we are looking at. i do not think i would be comfortable out right excluding this. not before we know the scope of the facts, or what the concessions are. chairperson hur: i agree with that. if the parties -- if you feel you would like to add to your aural objections in writing, that is fine. how we would ask for a response within three days of receiving the objections, or three

>> thank you, mr. keith. >> my concern when you say that you didn't have control over the witness and that she had her own attorney but you were the one that submitted the declaration. so you had to have looked at it. so you could have said to her attorney, these paragraphs are not relevant or they're prejudicial and they don't relate to the issues but i accept the difficult you have under those circumstances. but again, the problem i have with going over paragraph by paragraph is that if -- in order to do that we simply have to repeat the same things that are being said and out into the mass media. the mass media can look at it now. in fact, when this was filed, the next day the chronicle had portions of what was in there -- in their story. fortunately, they didn't go into all the details but that's the very thing that -- and when i saw that i thought to myself, maybe this idea of going by declarations was not necessarily the most protective of the interests of everybody because if you had asked or if the w

i don't know if mr. keith, you want to address that or mr. kopp -- >> think it's a little different in terms of trying to assess ms. lopez's attitudes and state of mind. regardless -- paragraphs can relate to various concerns she had about theo and his welfare. whether or not any of these incidents actually happened, she had that concern and that concern is relevant to the actions that she later took. so, in that sense, that is why this information is offered. it's not offered to show that all of these things actually occurred. it's offered to show her concern for theo which explains her actions from the 31st through the fourth. >> any questions for mr. keith with respect to paragraph 10? mr. kopp? >> thank you, again. we object on heresay and relevance grounds, also that again this information is more prejudicial than it is probative. i would like to just address one comment made by mr. keith a moment ago which is their expert witness wants to rely on this stuff assuming the truth of it. i mean, why would you rely on it if it wasn't true. th

chairperson hur: mr. keith? >> i agree, it may not be relevant. >> so, can you give me the line numbers again? mr. ko prving p, i didn't mark it. >> it would be lines 13 to the end of that paragraph which is on line 22. chairperson hur: so beginning with "i" online 13. >> and ending with "ok." chairperson hur: ok that objection is sustained. ok. i mean -- >> i'm sorry. i would like to keep the last sentence just as it says. it's the course of the communication. i think i spoke to -- i spoke quicker than i should have. no problem. >> you're talking about the sentence -- >> i asked her to let me know. it just described the course of what happened next in the conversation. any objection to that, mr. kopp? >> yes. i don't think it's irrelevant. chairperson hur: i'd be incline to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? ok. , we'll literally be here all night if we do this and we have other declarations. so, i welcome views from the parties on how to handle this and from my fellow commissioners

mr. keith gets up, to your point, we are trying to provide both parties the opportunity to give their views on the evidence. i think we did that. the objection that was sustained was the one that was put in on the papers, which was the irrelevance. i think you had adequate opportunity to respond to that. we provided you with that opportunity. i am sorry that you feel that way. we will certainly endeavor to provide both parties the opportunity they feel they need. we also are trying to conduct these proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. mr. keith? >> the objection to the declaration of inspector danielle, i will take the objections to the exhibit separately from the objections to the testimony. there were objections to paragraphs 27 through 32 of that testimony. 27 through 31 relate to the handing over of the sheriff's firearms. it begins with the service of an emergency protective order on the sheriff at the time of his arrest, an agreement made by the sheriff and his attorney with the po

. >> mr. keith, isn't it your position that the mayor -- that the sheriff having pled guilty to false imprisonment, that was pleading to domestic violence? >> yes. >> that's your position, isn't it? >> it is. >> why do you need anything about conversations or incidents that happened back in october if it's your position the official misconduct is proven by the mere fact of entering a guilty plea. >> commissioner, it's the mayor's position that the conviction alone, when we put it together with a sentence and probation consideration, et cetera, that's official misconduct. but we -- but there's also an argument to be made and we expect the other side to make it, that it's not official misconduct. at which point we then have to start getting into questions of degree, where we might look at the facts and circumstances of the conduct that led to the conviction. and my concern again is i -- i think we would argue for categorical rule that whenever a tough law enforcement officer is convicted of it any kin

mr. keith? >> the objection to the declaration of inspector danielle, i will take the objections to the exhibit separately from the objections to the testimony. there were objections to paragraphs 27 through 32 of that testimony. 27 through 31 relate to the handing over of the sheriff's firearms. it begins with the service of an emergency protective order on the sheriff at the time of his arrest, an agreement made by the sheriff and his attorney with the police inspectors to turn over weapons, and statements by the sheriff with regard to the number of weapons he had, which ended up not being true. the objection that is made is relevance. the reason this information is relevant is that it is relevant to whether sheriff mirkarimi met the standard of conduct expected by a public official, and specifically by a law- enforcement officer. the law enforcement officer is inspected -- is expected to be honest in all aspects related to an investigation. it includes a declaration by chief lansdowne. not be

mr. keith or ms. kaiser? >> chairman, if i might suggest, i think a lot of the admissibility arguments may turn on the arguments about the admissibility of the ivory williams decoration. the argument might be too abstract if we do not go first to ms. mattison. chairperson hur: here is my concern. we received that declaration only recently, and i do not believe the sheriff's team has had an opportunity to submit written objections. in scheduling discussions i had with the parties, i did ask if the council could be prepared to orally discuss the objections, if any, to ms. mattison. are you prepared to do that? ok. why don't we -- >> i am. chairperson hur: thank you. [inaudible] chairperson hur: before we get to -- i think it is a good suggestion. before we get to ms. madison and ms. williams, i have a couple of questions, in light of the rulings on the other witnesses. do i understand that you will not -- obviously, you will not have any need to cross-examine paul henderson. do you have any need

mr. keith? when can you respond? >> i am trying to build in time for us to meet and confer, and bundle the objections, so we can hopefully bring five or six for the commission to rule on, instead of 20. chairperson hur: it would be greatly appreciated. >> it will be hard, if i do not get them until the 25th. but i understand that we all have other cases. if i get the objections by the 25th, i could probably respond to them. if the commission is going to decide these on the 28, i think i need to get them on the 27th. and we would meet and confer. we would have something to say, here is the package of objections. >> but if you got them at 9:00 a.m. on the 25th? could you get them to us by close of business on the 27th? >> sort of an objection, response? that would work. commissioner renne: why is it that you cannot sit down tomorrow with a declaration in front of you, cross out all the lines you do not want in, i mean -- i practice law a lot longer than you. my sense would be that you could do that in the space of an h

this is on her -- her own perception. >> mr. keith? >> if this is only offered to show why her state of mind and why she decided to do whatever she did, we do not have an objection for that purpose. we have an objection to it being an assessment about whether she was actually in danger. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule this objection. i do not think this is being offered as an expert. it is being offered as her opinion. what value that has, there is some, -- >> we were not given on -- any of the facts on which she relied. we get none of the information. of course whatever she relied on would be here say. -- hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to allow it. questions from the commissioners? the objection is overruled. mr. kopp, do want to address the second objections? >> yes, in the third paragraph, and leave the portion objected to was the italian sized portion that the woman responded know. -- italicized portion that the woman responded no. that shows that she had not contacted any agencies or tried to connec

>> actually, yes, but i probably should put it to mr. keith, because i want to know -- because we allowed it for miss madison to some extent, i would like to be cautious about strike ing it from mr. murton's if it is there. >> so there's basically three different things or categories of harassment mr. murtons is discussion in this portion of the declaration. have you in paragraph 21 he's getting phone calls from journalists who are basically telling him things that he knows to be untrue and are offensive and that essentially he's being pursued with these story ideas by these journalists getting them from somewhere. that's what's in paragraph 21. and also just a general view of here's all of the things that are being said about me minute wife and how it's affecting us. paragraph 22 is about a subpoena received in the criminal action by their business and paragraph 23 is the cease and desist letter we already discussed earlier with regard to miss madison. those are the three -- those are the three main acts that are discussed there. with the rem

mr. keith had mentioned discovery. what about taking the evidence on june 19? >> we do not think we need anything. we think this case should have been prepared for presentation prior to filing a written charges of official misconduct. i actually did some historical research to date to find out that in the mazzola case, it was prepared prior to mayor moscone bringing those charges. that is apparently what should have been done, but i do not think they need to countenance that preparation. we have already got a significant burden in front of us to prepare for the 19th. we do not need to complicate that i have a discovery, in our case. chair hur: mr. keith? >> well, i think this goes back to an issue we raised at the last hearing, which is the duty of a representative to cooperate, and these materials would have normally been provided to us. they would have been given to us by the employee, and if the employee did not want to cooperate, they would resign. this is typically the way these things go,

chairperson hur: i will say, and give mr. keith an opportunity, i think that is right that it could not come in to prove that the sheriff was actually scared. but it could come in to say that missez

it seems to me that if i can get it to mr. keith by sometime on friday, sooner rather than later, that would solve the timing problems, would it not? chairperson hur: in light of that, when would you be able to get us in the -- >> if mr. kopp is available to meet on monday afternoon, we could try to get it on tuesday the 26th. chairperson hur: do we have a midnight deadline in this case? the same midnight deadline applies. that is for both. >> understood. chairperson hur: does that cover all of the -- >> i am not clear whether you would like me to prepare a subpoena for ms. mattison and ms. martin to appear next week, in light of what you've just heard. chairperson hur: i understand they are represented by the same party. the same lawyer. is that correct? and he is with a firm, correct? i think we can handle this one of two ways. i think the commission can subpoena these witnesses. i appreciate the attorneys desire to be there. but if he has partners at the firm, i do not have qualms with requesting the appearance of the witnesses w

. >> can i hear from mr. keith or ms. kaiser on this? does the mayor have a position on the costs of bringing ms. lopez to san francisco? >> she is a defense witness. normally, we would expect a defense witness to pay for it. we would consider their request. i will take it to the mayor. this is the first i have heard of it. i am happy to take it to the mayor. >> i am sorry. i have a couple more questions. if there is not an agreement for ms. lopez to appear live, is she willing to appear by video testimony? >> it is interesting. i have thought about it. i do not think skype would work. my preference is that she would come here to testify. i have never seen the president of skype testimony. i have a difficult time in my experience. it drops. sometimes it works. sometimes it does not. ms. lopez was also listed by the mayor's office as a witness. >> the sheriff has submitted a declaration in support of the defense. she is here to be cross- examined by the mayor. any witness who does not appear for testimony, the declaration is going to rece

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 response was no. it sounded like he was on another phone call together. this has been a complete waste of time and an effort to publicly tar the sheriff with something that is not just on provable, it is false. -- unprovable, it is false. chairperson hur: cat i invite you back up? -- can i invite you back up? the list you provided was longer than the list i provided. i apologize if it was not clear. who we need live are -- i put together a list of 3 witnesses we would need. the mayor, the sheriff, and miss lopez. -- ms. lopez. council has added mr. mertons and ms. williams. who i want to address, lynette haines, and ivory madison who was also on your list. do we need to hear from ms. haines live? >> i am not sure can answer that question. it depends. we're hopeful that ms. hens will provide a declaration. we know that she has been conce

about that it testimony goes to is one where i was interested in inquiring about exactly the witness mr. keith referred to. >> the witness chief lansdowne. >> but it led know have that very same question about whether we are -- how closely we must view to the, call it a charging document or statement of concerns if we -- and it's extreme if we found that there had been behavior that we felt fit within the initiative definition but hadn't been -- the definition -- the definition in the initiative but not in the charging documents, whether we would be precluded from considering it. that's a hypothetical we don't have to address right now but we're on that line of how closely or how specifically these issues need to have been identified or put another way, what room and responsibility we have to determine whether there's behavior that fit the definition or behaver that fit the definition and was raised by the mayor's charge. >> i think that's a fair point. the charges are, this is the bill of particulars so this is actually more detailed than the charging document and we provided the mayor with t

mr. keith? >> well, i think this goes back to an issue we raised at the last hearing, which is the duty of a representative to cooperate, and these materials would have normally been provided to us. they would have been given to us by the employee, and if the employee did not want to cooperate, they would resign. this is typically the way these things go, and this one has not gone that way. we have been going to the court. from our standpoint, most significantly are the telephone records described in the criminal action. our hearing is not until june 5, so we are on a very tight timeline. what i would like to do is get discovery of this telephone records. chair hur: a stick, hold on, before he speaks. -- ok, long on. you are willing to go to the evidentiary hearing based on the -- >> quote-unquote, they used the term "discovered." it should be a package of information that they have. they should not have to search their records. it is there. we but like to get that. various witnesses. it is imp

chairperson hur: i will say, and give mr. keith an opportunity, i think that is right that it could not come in to prove that the sheriff was actually scared. but it could come in to say that miss lopez said that. >> in addition it is talking about the fact that there the sheriff was on that time and on that day, which is not hearsay. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule that objection with the same caveat with respect to hearsay. and the dissenting view? that objection is overruled. >> on paragraph 16, this is irrelevant and up fight to expand on that, -- if i can expand on that, you have heard this allegation that the sheriff persuaded either his wife or peralta hanes to persuade witnesses from talking to the police. there is not going to be any evidence before you now or in the future that he ever did so. whenever these communications were between miss lopez and ms. williams, unless that can be linked to something sheriff mirkarimi did that was inappropriate, they are irrelevant. >> you agree there may not be direct

waggoner. >> mr. keith is correct, in that the superior court did determine that the spousal privilege did not apply to very specific communications between the sheriff and his wife, specifically text messages. however, simply because the sheriff and his wife may have waived the privilege as to one set of communications, it is not a waiver of the entire privilege on any subject, for every other communication. it is limited, and should be construed as limited. on that basis, i will submit. chairperson hur: i agree that the spousal privilege does not waive all communications between the sheriff and his wife. however, this seems to be in line with the text messages stipulated as admissible. i would overrule the objection to that question. >> if i could ask the court reporter to read back the question? >> did you make any suggestions to your wife as to who she might contact? >> we both discussed counseling. that was the only suggestion that had been exchanged. >> what they did you have that discussion? >> over

mr. keith? >> the objection to the declaration of inspector danielle, i will take the objections to the exhibit separately from the objections to the testimony. there were objections to paragraphs 27 through 32 of that testimony. 27 through 31 relate to the handing over of the sheriff's firearms. it begins with the service of an emergency protective order on the sheriff at the time of his arrest, an agreement made by the sheriff and his attorney with the police inspectors to turn over weapons, and statements by the sheriff with regard to the number of weapons he had, which ended up

-- a fundamental disagreement with mr. keith about what the duties are? >> i suppose so. 6.102 -- i have to go back and check. i will give these to you in just a moment. only those, nothing more. commissioner liu: can you respond to that, please? >> certainly, the scope of the duties are disputed. there also contained under state law because the sheriff is also a state officer. with the recent realignment that has passed at the state level, there is a lot more discretion locally with regard to offenders' sent back to this jurisdiction. there's a lot of policy decisions, budget decisions. it is our position that if the ability to perform those duties is affected, in addition to his core duties, all of those duties are important that he be able to perform well. the share of is an elected official is expected -- sheriff is an elected official. we differ very much on that point. >> i apologize. i do not understand whether he can perform his job going forward is relevant to whether he engaged in a wrongful behavior relating to the duties of his or her office i

mr. keith committed to the point. >> part of your criminal strategy was a double- >> objection. >> share of, during the time to urges are pending against you, you spoke with political consultants outside the presence of attorneys, didn't you? >> maybe. >> in those conversations with the political consulting, you discussed media strategy? >> sure, yes. >> and the the media strategy was part of your defense strategy? >> i do not know if i can say it was or not. >> that question was asked and the objection was sustained. >> now, ms. madison reported an incident that occurred between you and your wife on the december 31. >> yes. >> and that is an incident in which you committed a violent act against your wife. >> objection. >> sustained. you have gone well over your time estimate. if you're going to ask the same questions, it is problematic. >> sheriff, but -- before march 12, did he make any public statement to disavow any of these portrayals of ms. madison that were in the media? >> objection, re

mr. keith and mr. kopp, do either of you have an objection to ms. lopez appearing by skype if payment of her plane ticket cannot be worked out? >> no. >> commissioner, i do not know if we have an objection. the reason is this. when this issue was raised by the other side, we did some research into the validity of oaths and testimony given from abroad. it is not clear to us that, under the various treaties that govern these, that the oath would be valid. i do not have any other problem with the testimony being by skype. we are not convinced that the of itself would be valid, and we are not sure if that is a risk we want to take, given the validity of the oath. >> let us say that we take the testimony. we get the transcript. we send the transcript to ms. lopez. she signs the transcript, under penalty of perjury. does that obviate your concern? >> i think it would. >> great. thank you. i apologize. this is the third time i have asked you to come up, and i appreciate your willingness. indeed. do you have any objection to bringing the transcript, if this

chair hur: mr. keith? >> mr. waggoner had made a request for a bill of particulars. we would file charges that look more like counts for him to deal with that, the amended set of charges, count one, count two, count three. we can do that shortly, is essentially, provide them with the notice that they are complaining that they do not have. chair hur: ok. when can you do that by? >> by the end of this week. chair hur: is that acceptable, mr. kopp? >> yes. chair hur: great. thank you. >> i would only say for the record that that does not cure the defect for not having spot -- filed specific charges at the outset, and we would like to make that for the record. chair hur: your objection is noted. thank you. mr. m milledge -- mr. emblidge commissioners, anything else we need to address tonight? ok, then we will take public comment. public comment will be limited to two minutes. i will leave it to officers to identify where people should stand. ok, i have been told that everyone needs to line up on that side. officer, i am going to leave it to you to manage that process. ag