ms. flores? >> yes. again, i was not anticipating we would raise the subtraction, but i think i can outline the issue. we're certainly happy to provide further information. this is an important issue. in domestic violence-related cases, the evidence code permits the admission of other acts of domestic violence. the legislation has recognized that battering conduct happens repeatedly by a better. they have made a special determination that this type of evidence can be admitted to be considered about whether the domestic violence incident actually occurs. in addition, this evidence is relevant to nancy lyman's declaration because of the severity of the incidents as described. those are the basic reasons we believe this is invincible. -- admissable. chairperson hur: what about the argument that the physical abuse is not being disputed in this case? >> i think it is. we will find out, perhaps -- when we do hear from the sheriff, we might find out more information than the sentence or two in the declaration.

ms. flores' testimony gary >> we reserve on that but that is foreign testimony, correct? >> yes. you do not have to admit them. we do intend to submit them. then you can make a decision whether or not you want to admit them as admissible. >> under your scenario, would we get them in time to allow us to have the witness in person to reconcile the documentary offer for the previous interview transcript with live testimony? if it came in late in the process, that could make it difficult. if we knew it was coming early on, it might signal that we wanted certain witnesses available. or we might feel that it did not trigger that and it was reconciled without them. >> i am not sure the question that you ask, but i can say that i will get the closing party and the commission, our exhibit list by the close of business tomorrow. chairperson hur: that would be great. if we could have objections by the end of friday. is that possible? >> i am a little confused and seeking clarification. in the scheduling conversations we had had with commissioner hur, we discussed all together submitting a e

ms. flores, which runs the risk of taking us into very distracting and while i would like to have as few of them as we need, i think -- i for one and others may disagree, may be more open to receiving these declarations, allowing the share of's rep -- sheriff's representative and not to delay in order to get a lot. it may be fair to move toward resolution. i would not delay for the purpose of securing these offers of these declarations. on balance, i would narrow rather than exclude all together. there are some points that are important to understanding whether the fifth the definition in the first place. and my own effort would be to try to slim the list and schedule thing so we move forward and the city can pick the ones that are most valuable or execute them so that we can stay on track. chairperson hayon: hur: the majy think paul henderon should come in. michael hennessey was on the list so i do not think there is a dispute about him. acting sheriff vicki hennessey. >> we can't compel a retired sheriff to give us the declaration. the point is to play at the duties of what a sheriff d

ms. flores. chairperson hur: views of the commissioners? commissioner renne: i find myself, i guess, in a view that at this point i am not prepared to say if that testimony would be admissible. but i can only make that decision, i guess, if he introduces the transcript. it seems to me it should be limited to the transcript. at that point, i would be prepared to make a decision. >> i have not heard anything about this witness that makes me think she would be relevant here. if the underlying actions are not disputed, you know, there are lots of witnesses for whom we time you're very important testimony from. to me -- >> and the underlying actions are disputed. the extent of the of this is far greater than what the sheriff has admitted to. and we dispute that. this is a witness who has testimony relevant to that. chairperson hur: ok, let me stop you there. other than -- i want to set aside the witness dissuasion. that is part of the charges. other than the grabbing of the arm, what other actions are you alleging that took place that constitute

ms. christofor--a flores and ms. lopez may have testified extremely briefly. generally speaking, i do not think there was any testimony. on the merits during these proceedings in the criminal action. commissioner renne: thank you. commissioner hur: other views of the commissioners on this issue? chairperson hur: perhaps we shiould -- should invite the parties to address this. we welcome other side -- either side to come up first. >> thank you, chairman. from our standpoint, we do not want to have so many witnesses and by stipulation, we may be able to eliminate a few of them on background matters and we have been working toward doing that. our other proposal would be to speed along the proceedings by proceeding by declaration. rather than having a ruling from the commission that we do not want to hear from this witness, perhaps what we would like to see it would be that witness simply testified by declaration and there be an opportunity to cross-examine but perhaps a time limit on cross-examination so we could move things along and stay focused. there was one

ms. christofor--a flores and ms. lopez may have testified extremely briefly. generally speaking, i do not think there was any testimony. on the merits during these proceedings in the criminal action. commissioner renne: thank you. commissioner hur: other views of the commissioners on this issue? chairperson hur: perhaps we shiould -- should invite the parties to address this. we welcome other side -- either side to come up first. >> thank you, chairman. from our standpoint, we do not want to have so many witnesses and by stipulation, we may be able to eliminate a few of