the facts were different as ms. lopez told ms. madison and ms. williams, it was a much more serious conflict between her and the sheriff. every piece of evidence that bears on her demeanor and mental state and the credibility of her statements at different times is relevant to the determination about what happened between the sheriff and ms. lopez. chairperson hur: why would we need the inspectors? >> we may not. chairperson hur: if you have to choose one of them, who would it be? >> without looking a great deal, we can go with one of them. we can select the one that has the most information about the conduct of the investigation and the observations of ms. lopez and others. chairperson hur: at least one of these witnesses should be removed from the list? >> could become a yes. -- could be, yes. chairperson hur: it is important for the commission to reach resolution on this. for each witness, i will some -- solicit views of the commissioners and so we can do with them one at a time. views on the commissioners on inspectors becker and danielle? co

but i do think that statements made to ms. lopez -- made by ms. lopez to ms. madison should be considered to the commission. mr. kopp? >> i'd just like to respond briefly. i'm cog any santa of the rulings that were -- i'm cognizant of the rulings that were made by the court on the issue. i would say that that determination does not bind you. there's no es stoppable effect because there's no preview to the parties. an excited utter rans or spontaneous statement exception typically, it duds not apply when the -- it does not apply when the statements made a daph after that caused the excitement their caution is urged when it is a statement made in anticipation of litigation. some of this explicitly states by ms. lopez is considering divorce proceedings. more over in this particular paragraph there are numerous references to questions being asked by ms. madison of ms. 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 exc

ms. lopez related the incident and told ms. williams some of her intentions that she had, coming out of the incident, that she was thinking about reporting it, about going to her document -- to her doctor. it is clear what her plan was. as we laid out in the brief, ms. lopez underwent a big change in her state of mind, from being ready to report this incident in the morning to around noon still wanting to report it but being iffy. and later in the day, is essentially recanting, trying to stop anybody from reporting it. our argument is that on the fourth there were intervening communications with ms. haines and the sheriff which are relevant to our charges. what is relevant is how that may have changed ms. lopez's mind about how she was going to behave. chairperson hur: who is going to create that link for you? who is going to testify? i am following your argument, with respect to, you want to set up the state of mind and the activities. but who'll should i expect will testify that there was coercion by the sheriff to ms. lopez?

the sheriff, mayor lee, ms. lopez, ms. madison, ms. haines, mr. mertins, and mr. hennessey. i think the last few people are people who i could see potentially coming in by declaration if they must testify. here is how i would like to proceed with this. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners on first, whether there are folks i have mentioned who we think there is no need to hear testimony from. secondly, if there are people who why it -- who i committed to and i would like -- who i omitted. when the parties address this, i would like to hear from any witness you think we need testimony and who is not on the list that we discussed, i want to know what charge that testimony would relate to. let me open it up to my fellow commissioners. anybody on the list who you think is -- we do not need to hear testimony from or it is an open question that we should reserve until later. commissioner renne: when you went through this list and said the witnesses who you thought would possibly -- we possibly should receive testimony, were you referring to live testimony or by declaratio

any other edits ms. lam? >> after ms. tidwell adds hers, i want to make it consistent with the format. >> very good. anyone else? >> yes, we still have the question of district seven, drafted by member tidwell? >> we'll come back to that that moment. we just need for ms. tidwell to catch up with us. she's entering her two districts. while she's doing that on the heading, on the reasons for adoption, that should not be there. we aren't offering reasons for adoption. >> i propose that sorry, district considerations as opposed to findings, which would more suggest the one to five. >> sure. >> ok, so going one, typing in four also -- >> hold on. is there anything in three? ok, you're going to begin to type in four? that's fine. >> yeah. >> five is fine and then when you're ready, there are edits to six, so that, again, it is parallel in construction and consistent. >> and are you going to want seven too? >> yes. >> ok, let me do that. >> thank you. >> ok, sorry, i'm ready. >> it's ok. so that was four -- you finished with fou

ms. melara: no. ms. lam: no. ms. mondejar: no. mr. schreiber: no. ms. tidwell: the group has spoken. no. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. moving to district 5. additions to district 5? >> can i ask a question of the city attorney and whether the consultant definition specifically around that japan town fillmore areas, is that sufficient for the neighborhood versus listing japan town somewhere? do we list out those institutions? >> in terms of recognize neighborhoods, we reference them both in the neighborhoods. i don't think -- it is helpful to have documented. those institutions are part of the neighborhood. i don't think we need to list them separately here. >> there is an item proposed -- i think there is sufficient public testimony to support what those institutions are. mr. mcdonnell: and be consistent with the use of neighborhoods versus institutions. we remove the institutions. ok. we remove the institutions. we will include japan town- fillmore. north of panhandle association, include? it is not an area. it is an association. mr. pilpel: i suggest repl

that is i think the substance of what ms. madison and ms. williams will tell you that ms. lopez told them. i am not convinced they have anything that you would need to hear. chairperson hur: thank you. >> before you leave. in view of what you just said, have you asked the city attorney, if we stipulate to those facts that you just said, will the city attorney agree that there is no need to put on witnesses who presumably are primarily going to testify to what ms. lopez told them happened? >> not in so many words. but just to give you a sense of what is happening. i believe it was last monday or tuesday. mr. keith and ms. kaiser sent us a fairly -- a fairly long stipulation. we look to the that over and gave them our response. end of last week. that fact was included. i did not say, if we -- the commission does not need to hear from ms. madison or ms. williams. we have not fleshed out to that extent yet. i'm not going to leave. >> i am sure you will be back appear again. -- up here again. >> we should take up the issue of witnesses by declaration. i appreciate that declarat

>> ms. madison is stating her interpretation of what ms. madison said. sometimes we have a conversation and we get an impression. she's repeating her impression. obviously, she wasn't there. but she is certainly able to get her interpretation of what somebody else said and the gist of what was being conveyed. i mean that was -- that's standard conversation and communication. >> i would be inclined to overrule that objection. any decenting view from the commission? >> no. >> mr. kopp? >> yes. then online seven to line eight, the sentence beginning with i and finishing with the word am more prejudicial than probative, irrelevant. >> well, i actually don't have a problem with striking the last block of the sentence. three minutes over? the micro phone. the part whether and i still am. that's not relevant. but what i do believe is relevant, i is it explains why ms. madison took the action that she did, the concern that she had and that prompted her to take the actions that she took. >> i would be inclined to sustain the objection. the last part of line seven

ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. >> i just wanted to thank tidwell, melara, and leigh, and really, thank you for taking the time to pull all lavar reports together -- pull all of our reports together. mr. mcdonnell: thank you very much. it moving again, item number six. a press conference. based on lots of discussion and exploration with the city attorney around options, they are fairly limited in that while we do want to find a suitable, formal moment of issuing of the report, the problem is if we do it collectively, that it constitutes a meeting. once it constitutes a meeting, we are back where we started again. so our options are, a, we hold a press conference with less than a quorum present, which therefore does not constitute a meeting and we issue it, or to report its issued and a less public, less formal, less visible way and just gets distributed to committee and habitants. discussion? >> i have a suggestion. i suggest we hold a press conference with share mcdon

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 have clearance with paragraph five? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm just waiting. >> oh, yeah, i'm waiting for you mr. can kopp. i thought everybod

ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. pilpel: no. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. sure. do i leave it in the paris laugh -- paragraph form? mr. mcdonnell: be consistent and line it up. ok. moving into district 3. ms. tidwell: i am just cutting and pasting the consultants on the bottom. mr. mcdonnell: yes. in district 1, we did not use consultant. mr. pilpel: couple of things i am confused about now. if we are using the consultant language, i think this is two words. i do not know about keeping the parentheticals, and we receive somewhat different testimony about russian hill. i'm not sure we are saying we kept it together in district 2. ms. tidwell: that was part of my note-jotting-down. i was quickly taking notes when i put neighborhoods into a district. russian hill came from a prior notes, which was rejected. mr. pilpel: ok. >> for district 3, that is the publicly-submitted boundary for the russian hill community association, not for the russian hill neighborhood as a whole. >> so the task force is aware, there is a conservative approach, which wou

chairperson hur: with respect to the statements made to ms. madison by ms. lopez of coffee -- ms. lopez, we have under rule that a lot of those. you are saying you would not want to cross-examine? >> yes. chairperson hur: ok. the proposal to simply permit ms. mattison to testify and handle commission views on her declaration -- i would welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners on that. >> i would be fine with that. that would be a fine way to proceed. that would be a fine way to proceed, we think. >> if mr. kopp does not want to cross-examine ms. mattison, given what is in and what is out, we may not need her to come in at all. chairperson hur: that is kind of what i was thinking, mr. keith. >> i think we can try to do this on paper. if we come back, we can go to the rest more quickly. >> i should relate to the commissioners that i, about a half an hour before the hearing, received a call from an attorney who identified himself as ms. madison's attorney. for what it is worth to the commission, he expressed a concern by ms. madison about her continued public involvement in th

madison of ms. 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

ms. lopez has submitted a declaration, that the sheriff has submitted it. is she willing to come to san francisco to testify? when can she be available? >> when the commission needs her to be available. there is the matter of how she is going to get here. >> what is the matter of how she is going to get here? >> it costs money. i am not trying to be flip. who is going to play -- going to pay the airplane ticket? >> you would like the city to pay? >> i would. >> what do the costs in tailbacks -- entail? is this a round trip? >> do i address you as your honor? >> commissioner is fine. >> if there could be advanced notice, the airplane ticket would be cheaper. with two weeks' advance notice, a regular coach ticket round trip from caracas, you are looking at roughly $1,500. it is an approximate figure. my request would be that if she were to come and testify, a tuesday evening or thursday evening, she would fly in wednesday. she would testify that day and then return home after her testimony.

ms. tidwell: i guess it was not clear to us at that time. >> i am trying to get to the member proposal. >> i'm sorry, what did you say? >> it was not clear to us that was a neighborhood a proposal, so we did not digitize it. >> so, how are we -- how can we resolve that? >> is it a neighborhood or more properly a committee of interest? >> i thought it was a neighborhood, the way the map was submitted, but i realize that was not digitized. >> so, yeah, do you have the map with you? >> i do. give me a few minutes, though. mr. mcdonnell: we can't want to hurry up and slow down at the same time. it does not work that way. for the purposes of ms. tidwell and the edits that need to be made, there is the adding of the individual member submissions as agreed upon in to the lessons and recommendations section. there is one area of editing. there is also the editing that member pilpel has to do with respect to district 7 that has to happen during the break, as well as -- sorry, there was a third pie

lopez, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes, and likewise communications between ms. lopez and the sheriff, ms. williams, ms. madison, mr. merritten and ms. peralta haynes. it's a conferencelation taken from the telephone records from at&t as well as those text messages that the mayor's office has. so that is exhibit 83. >> so the names have been substituted for phone numbers? >> that is correct. so sheriff, i'm going to ask you to turn to page two of exhibit 83. now sheriff, can you see on the top line of that exhibit? >> yes. >> does that reflect the text message that you sent to your wife at 12:03 p.m. on january 4? >> on page three, i have here. page 3 of 17. >> sheriff, you should be on exhibit 83, not 82, sorry. >> yes. >> ok. are you on page two of exhibit 83? >> yes. >> you see that top line reflects that 12:03 p.m. text message? >> yes. >> and that's referencesing a voicemail that you left for your wife? >> yes. >> ok. looking at page one of exhibit 83, >> yes. >> you have communications on january 4 tha

ms. lam? >> no. >> mr. schreiber? >> no. >> ms. tidwell? >> no. >> anything else in criteria section? page three. the continuance of the criteria section. make sure you didn't overlook anything. ok, thank you. moving into page four, section 3. description of redistricting task force process. ms. lam? >> i just wanted to be able to add that the task force had received more than 1,000 written and oral testimony? >> where? >> i'm sorry, second paragraph. page 4. >> sorry, i have the task force of over 1,000 written in oral testimony or public comment. >> i'm sorry, and 300 what? >> [inaudible] >> can you include that in? ok. madam clerk state what you just said. >> to add in over 300 public comments submitted at meetings and member lam with 1,000 emails via the email public comment. >> so do we want to just change it from 1,000 1,300? >> yes. >> good. >> i want you to know that you've been working hard. >> thank you. >> just for clarification, the 00 hours of meeting time that member leigh had ra

ms. tidwell's list. mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have s

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 to cross- examine wendy still? 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 misund

>> no. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> ms mondejar? >> i thought this was about a non population moved. >> that is correct. you are tracking correctly. [laughter] >> so for now, i will say no. >> ok. mr. pilpel? >> no. i think this potentially affects the woods area, and we have heard some testimony on that. i hadn't and seven previous meetings to put all of this into five, and i explained before the road that is not there, so i am not with doing this at this time. i am sorry. >> thank you. mr. schrieber? >> no. >> i am actually leaning towards yes. i was trying to clarify, so i am actually going to say yes, based that this does not really encroach on the area. yes. >> excuse me. so it is -- -- >> can we just overlay public testimony? i think the council submitted boundaries. i am sorry. do you guys set boundaries for that amount? >> no, i do not think we do. >> and do we have the council met but they submitted in the entirety? >> i believe that we have one large, like one large layer for that. >> yes. please? >> this is not in the ind

ms. mondejar. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: no, never? >> no to this proposal. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. ms. lam, for clarification, the stoney ford for stony brook move for the 9-11 border would go into -- >> from nine -- >> from 11 to nine. >> right. >> and then bringing the tingley out of eight into 11. we need to see the population variance for those two moves. i am not interested in the st. luke's move. i don't know if that would get us close enough. >> what he identified in the rotation were three, relatively-speaking approximately 800 populations. that is the puzzle move. >> no. chairman mcdonnell: thank you. mrs. mondejar. -- m's melara. i am not interested in changing our decision we made last time, primarily we made it very deliberately. when the community comes tonight and says you took away this piece, they were not taking into consideration what it would cost elsewhere in their district. we moved something in their district, and next week the people will come back saying yo

lopez gives to ms. williams and gave to ms. madison on the first. that tends to defeat the claim,, a claim of fabrication are in accuracy. it essentially gives greater weight to their testimony, in that they independently say that ms. lopez was relating to them the same basic facts about what happened. it tends to corroborate the credibility of these witnesses. the third reason we think it is admissible is we already have evidence that there was an incident on the 31st. we have other admissible evidence about what happened in that incident, in the form of the statement to ms. madison on the first. this is basically under the administrative hearsay exception. it is here say that is allowed to be considered. there is no fact exclusively based on it, but it can be considered by the commission, to add greater weight to the evidence that is admissible. those are our major arguments. chairperson hur: although this may not make me popular, i do think we have to go through this, particularly with respect to four through 18. there was an objection lodged to

ms. as a reminder, we combined the enterprise department budgets. and the aso. a couple of actions to take. right before, i want to say that i want to thank people for the work they've done for the budget analyst. mr. victor young and cheryl adams. i want to say thank you for supporting us in this process. the controller's office. i appreciate the work you do. i don't think we could do it without you. kate, congratulations on your first budget. thank you for making the budget what it is. a place that we can come to an agreement. for having conversations with us. to katie tang -- she is a wonderful person, smart as a whip. really helps to get this smooth as possible. it is her who made this a good process. supervisor wiener: i want to congratulate the chair for another great year. this process is always difficult and challenging. you did a great job as always. commissioner chu: coleaguesllea, we need a cut on the budget for the adult probation department, $4,000 -- and $2015 in 2013, and t

ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24 printed in house report 112-540 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 691, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this amendment adds to title 3, the graud renial federal onshore energy production strategy, by -- quadrennial federal onshore energy production strategy which addresses the indian tribe lands, and this particular amendments -- amendment includes the hawaii home land. hawaii is a unique situation in that in 1920 this congress created the hawaiian homes commission act and there was a special body of land 203,000 acres, approximately, which are the control of congress. congress approves whether or not things can be amended in the act ev

madison taking calls from ms. lopez and over during that conversation. -- overhearing that conversation. hearing his madison's account of that call. that intense to show that dissuasion is occurring. >> ms. madison would testify to that? >> we expect her credibility to be attacked. >> iac. -- i see. >> the observations of the call coming in from ms. haines as the inspectors were coming to the house, ms. madison was getting off of the phone. that is an observation they made that tends to support the credibility of the testimony. commissioner studley: i thought it was a reasonable balance to have one of these officers provide declaration. the fact that we have this many questions means there may be something and i would rather have us argue after what that we did not have before us. >> [inaudible] commissioner studley: i apologize. all of us are hearing the feedback. we're also trying to speak to the person -- i will repeat what i said. i think the earlier suggestion that you made that the city's select one of the t

have ms. lopez review the transcript and sign it, under penalty of perjury of the state of california. >> i have no problem. i apologize. i should have figured that out, that it should have said under penalty of perjury of the state of the laws of california. i am sorry. >> i know this may sound mechanical, but is there a way for you to resubmit the declaration? >> i am going to, absolutely. it may not get resubmitted until monday, but i will have an appropriate signature page. >> it should be re-signed. >> it will be. >> thank you. ok. other declarations? i want to commend both sides for the helpful work he did on the madison objections. i think that while we can disagree with certain positions you may have taken, i appreciate both of you working to come to resolution on things, and having us focus on what is likely the more important portions of these. >> thank you. it did take more than an hour, though. [laughter] >> i would join in the chairman's observation. i did find it is very helpful,

leigh, yes, ms. melara, yes. ms. mondejar, yes. mr. pilpel, yes. -- not at this time. >> could i ask a process question? at the appropriate time. please make this change. commissioner leigh: the process question or suggestion that i would offer is, is it possible for us to use where we were prior to this move as a starting point or launching point that we could possibly revisit if we wanted to? our process we have made one move at a time and that is -- has worked very well but given the delicate place where we find ourselves, not having a lot of time in all these dominance. i am wondering if we could remember where we were prior to making this move. explore and continue and finish the remaining -- deliberations about the dominos we need to consider within our permitted variances. and see how we each field boulware week and up and perhaps consider whether we prefer that place or that the outcome where we were prior to the vote we just took. i do not want to overly complicate things. i am concerned that we are going to end up with anothe

. >> taking shots at ann romney and her therapy for ms. one more nbc blunder, the interview bob costas had left one thing out, the evidence. what's going on over at 30 rock. h.b.o. has a new series, the news business. is there a bias. >> you, too, you, too. >> and the crazy guy-- >> and on the panel this week, fox news contributor jerry miller. the columnist barelli. jim pinkerton, the editor conservative magazine and bureau chief, ellen ratner, i'm rick fulbaum. fox news watch is on right now. now. >> to advise you, i think perhaps you and others have the interest in this at your network knows the administration, principally the department of justin has cooperated extensive with investigators. extensive documents and administration provided even documents related to an interest in whether or not people in the white house knew of this operation at the time and provided that, provided that -- let me finish please, ed and provided that last fall. >> jon: the white house press secretary jay carney this week giving us take on the fast and furi

in the respect that ms. madison had been either contracted or that there was an arrangement for her to act as an attorney with my wife. and my wife was suggesting to me that you know, she was asking me, because she was not familiar with the system of what can we do about this? and i was just trying to absorb it all, process what was happening. but i was very clear with my wife that -- and i remember the quote that i said to her. i said this bell. you can't unring this bell. and we must follow through with this process.

resist making fun of making fun of someone who has to live with ms every day. ann romney doesn't need their pity, just their accuracy, she has a lot of money, but clearly has not bout her a pass from a lot of hell. take it from me i'm not horsing around, these guys taking pot shots at ann romney are horse's asses, ache it from the multiple sclerosis society. ms research center, the child newerology society and so many others, who devote so much to ailness that is so bad and chronicle the real benefit of horseback riding that they all report has a proven history of doing some good. hippo therapy, dressage, working with horses whatever the hell you want to call it you don't have to lean forward to appreciate it, just check your facts before you joke about it. because right about now, you condescending sanctimonious twits who are allegedly healthy, you have proven that you do not know the benefits of horseback riding one bit. but you sure are good at piling on the lies and shuttling what announced to unadulterated horse-- well, stuff. >> very good to hold his tong

>> ms. miller is expected to testify by declaration as to her knowledge of sheriff mirkarimi's presence at a lafco event. >> why is that relevant? >> the mayor has alleged that on that date the sheriff was in gauged in encouraging others to destroy evidence. -- engaged in encouraging others to destroy evidence. >> is she going to be able to identify specific times? >> yes. >> commissioners, ms. miller? >> in anticipation of that offer, i cannot see how that would cover the whole time frame. an earlier point about letting the defense put on the defense they want -- i would not object to receiving that for whatever weight. >> i agree. 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