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

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 two off

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 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. >> th

ms. lopez's story. areas important that her testimony be heard on that matter. -- is important that her testimony be heard on that matter. chairperson hur: what is she going to say that is related to the dissuasion allegation? >> she received either e-mail or text messages telling her to not go to the police, what i told you earlier was confidential which is different from the conversation she had with ms. lopez at 1:00 p.m. >> what is the connection between the statements and the allegations against sheriff mirkarimi? >> that he encouraged ms. lopez to dissuade ms. williams. chairperson hur: please. we welcome the public here and many of you waited to get in. it will have your opportunity to speak. please allow us to go through our proceedings. i would appreciate it. you have a witness that is going to make that connection? between suggesting that the sheriff' encouraged ms. lopez to dissuade other witnesses? >> it would be the inference that would be drawn from the fact that ms. lopez so dramatically

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 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?

madison says that ms. lopez told her at any point in time. >> ok. >> and then there are going to be numerous other objections. chairperson hur: let's take it paragraph by paragraph then. paragraph seven, is there a -- mr. keith can you object to the strike in paragraph seven? >> yes, i mean, i think i can talk about a few of these paragraphs together. paragraphs seven through nine. these are paragraphs that describe what eliano lopez is telling ms. madison about her relationship. this is foundational or information that's relied on by nancy lemon in analyzing the state of the relationship that they have. it's well accepted that expert opinions regarding domestic violence situation and relationships can and do rely on this kind of confidences given to friends and other people close to -- close to the victim even if they are here say. we're not offering this for the truth of the matter. we're offering this to establish the nature of the relationship so we can figure out what it is that's going on. and to some exte

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 this proceeding, and wanting to minimize that. ok

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, the w

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 laws were powerful. questions for mr. keith. comments from the commissioners? you know, this paragraph to me starts to get to statements that occurred on january 1st but we're reflecting -- it's getting closer to heresay, clear heresay to me. >> we'r

relevant for a non-hearsay purpose is that there are substantial similarities between the account that ms. 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 r

it tends to show that ms. lopez had the impression from what sheriff mirkarimi told there was he was trying to intimidate her with his personal power. it may be prejudicial but it is not unduly prejudicial. it is not to for the sheriff's case but that does not mean it is inadmissible. chairperson hur: i would be inclined to overrule the objection. i think we're getting close to the line but i think it should be admitted. for its limited purpose. any dissenting view from the commissioners? hearing none, the objection is overruled. paragraph 11. >> yes, i made the objection that this entire paragraph was irrelevant. i find it also to be prejudicial. excluded on those grounds. >> again, sheriff mirkarimi's public statements have been that when he is referring to a child custody, this is an instance in which a sheriff mirkarimi speaks for itself. he threatened to have dbi shut down the building because he was angry with miss williams. that tends to show the presence of intent or the absence of her mistaken interpretatio

ms. williams. if miss lopez does appear and tries to testify contrary to this, these will be admissible to prior inconsistent statements. chairperson hur: other views from the commissioners? >> i think it would be fine to take a look at the transcript and give it what weight we think. beyond that, we would have to take a look to see if there is any probative value, at any value as a rebuttal witness for any reason. right now, i cannot see a reason how it ties cin. >> i am concerned that if we allow the transcripts, and consider it as evidence, it seems difficult for me to figure out how he would not have a right to cross-examine that witness. and so, i think if we consider it at all, we need to have some basis for why we think it is relevant. i am not sure we would able to base a decision just on the transcripts. >> one of the other witnesses we have is a recognized expert in domestic violence. her testimony would be that it is relevant whether there have been past instances of domestic abuse because abusers rep

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

how ms. lopez testifies will affect many logistics, so it would be helpful to know that. >> if it turns out we want to pursue the remote testimony route, do we have permission to contact staff directly to talk about facilitating that? chairperson hur: you do. and i would ask for availability for that kind of consultation. thank you. something looming on the horizon for us, as we get through this testimony, is the practical matter of how a five member commission is going to rule. we are not in a position to receive a list of 200 proposed findings of facts and rule on each one. you can imagine that would be impractical. i welcome proposals from the party's on how to deal with that -- parties on how to deal with that. i have some ideas myself, but i would love to hear yours, if you have any. >> will try to keep it short. it is hard to say we will only need 30 findings, only 10. i think we would probably state the actual factual conclusions we would propose, and then the supporting evidence, just to ke

the notion of doing eight remote deposition for ms. lopez is a different issue. i know she is not your client. she is outside the country. i think it is a different issue. it is not particularly easy to take a deposition over skype. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. but i would be inclined to require him to show up, if you want to rely on him. any dissenting view from my fellow commissioners? >> could you just explain to us what the consequences are if he does not testify? just amplify your phrase about reliance. chairperson hur: any witness who submits a declaration but does not submit to cross-examination, we would give it whatever we thought it deserved. that weight, to me, would be almost nothing. to me, if the party wants to cross-examine a witness, they should have that opportunity. to me, it would be dangerous to rely on a declaration of someone who the other party did not have the opportunity to cross- examine in person. >> the party -- it remains in, but it is up to us what weight to give it, and it may be very little? chairperson hur: yes.

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 that occurred before 12:03 in the afternoon. these are in chronological order. do you see those? >>

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 evidence but we consider circumstantial evidence. >> i believe you can consider circumstantial evidence. but before you could to draw, there would have to be some kind of a link before you could draw the conclusions that he engaged in any of these allegations. i do not believe there is going to be any evidence upon which you could draw such a link. >> i'm not sure where to begin. let me clarify what the serious. it is not just that the sheriff tried to get miss madison to not go to the police and was not successful. he dissuaded miss lopez and was successful. that is a claim in this klees and the other claim is that -- case and there were other attempts that were unsuccessful. with regard to the objection, the fact that miss lopez is sending an e-mail saying to not talk to anybody, that shows her state of mind and shows how different

there is the action others assert ms. lopez took, and her own testimony. i think ms. lemon's testimony may be helpful in that regard. i do not feel we need the conclusions of law that she offers us. i think that is our responsibility. 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

there was also ms. lopez. >> we hope to offer her testimony live or remotely. we hope to get a declaration from her. >> ms. -- >> we hope to at least submit a declaration. ideally, we will have her testify live. >> does that answer your question? is there anybody else, mr. kopp, you intend to offer? >> we are not going to foreclose getting declarations from the other witnesses on our list. it is going to depend on the declarations from the mayor. >> my understanding is you are not offering testimony. many of those people were redundant. the decisions we made about people who were excluded are going to apply equally to your list. >> i think we should go over them. i did not understand that to be the commission. >> ok. >> do you intend to call art agnos? >> i would request a few minute recess before we go into our witness list. >> ok. we will >> we are back in session, if people can please take their seats. mr. wagner, you were going to address the sheriff's witnesses. i am a little surprised. when mr. kopp stood up, he clearly said he only needed two witnesses, t

they have not spoken to each other about the substance of what ms. lopez told them. chairperson hur: how does it show that? >> that is what it says. i did not need to have a sharp response. chairperson hur: i was focusing on the other portion. but what about the other portions of paragraph 19? >> part of me wanted to include everything that might be brought up on cross-examination including this idea, have you spoken with other witnesses? so that is why it is included. is there for a complete picture to evaluate the credibility of the witness. chairperson hur: i'm sharing your concern with respect to paragraph 19, 25 through the end of the sentence. in fact the last sentence of paragraph 20, should be included. commissioner renne: i agree. chairperson hur: is there dissent from the commission with respect to paragraph 19, 25 through the end of the sentence on page 6, line 1? >> would then include exhibit two? chairperson hur: yes. the objection is sustained. paragraph 20. my recommendation was to overrule the objection. does anyone have a dissenting view? the objecti

. >> did you ever speak with ms. lopez? >> no. >> ok. when you brought the sheriff in, your mind was made up? you were going to give him a choice -- either resign or we will file the written charges? >> i have determined the direction pass i gave him an opportunity to meet with me and talk with me. i had an opportunity to tell him what we were going to do and to give him some time to think about it. >> one day, right? >> yes. >> is your testimony that when he came to meet with you, you had an open mind about what you were going to do? if he could persuade you that this kind that did not want him being removed from office, you might not have done that? >> i was open to listening to him. but i was also clear that i wanted to indicate to him what i was considering doing. >> ok. as of the day before you file the written charges, you had not decided what you were going to do? >> objection. misstated testimony. >> the witness can clarify. you may answer. >> can you read back the question? >> you had two meetings, one was on one day and one was

certainly, the account ms. lopez gave signified an incident which looked a lot more severe than an arm grab at the end. this is certainly relevant. chairperson hur: i think he might -- the commission might benefit -- to the commissioners have questions for 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 fairl

>> ms. lopez, with her being in venezuela, i do not see us being able to subpoena her. ms. haines, and the other witnesses, we can telephoned them, of course, but i think from our perspective, we would like to be able to subpoena them to make sure they can show up, and that would be madison, williams. >> -- chair hur: ok, so it sounds like from your list, lopez and haynes -- ok, why do we not do this. why do we not do this by the 13th? and are the parties, and i will ask the commissioners, too, are the parties an agreement that the chair can actually -- does the chair need to sign a subpoena? the commission? >> no. chair hur: ok, good. so if the parties would agree to delegate authority to the chair to approve subpoenas being issued, then i think we can get that out very soon thereafter. is that acceptable? >> yes. >> yes. chair hur: ok, so by the 13th, you will tell us who you want to subpoena, and we will notice them. ok. anything else? >> no. chair hur: mr. keith? >> mr. waggoner had made a request for a bill of particulars. we would file charges that look more like coun