ms. lopez, if they're untrue, they're meaningless, right? so you are -- you're trying -- you are arguing that what she -- what ms. madison says ms. lopez told her was in fact a true statement of facts. isn't that a classic here's? >> -- heresay. >> except insofar it claims that ms. lopez's course of conduct and why she was doing what she was doing at a later time. then it's permitted under the exception of the heresay rule. even if it is heresay and for the truth of the matter it is still permitted for an expert witness to relay on these types of confidence given to a friend about the nature of the relationship. >> i would strike paragraph seven, eight and nine in their entirety. i think they're more prejudicial than probative. i think none of the statements -- i mean there, can be some foundation -- we've discussed some foundation that there is a relationship but i don't -- i don't think this is probative of what -- of the allegations and charges that we're seeking to aadjudicate. -- adjudicate. i welcome comments from the commissioners or questions for mr. keith. ok. hearing no objection, we can vote at the end, but i take it th

say between sheriff and ms. 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. 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. in wanting to minimize that. chairperson hur: here

. >> to the extent that the objection is here say and relates to comments that ms. lopez made to ms. madison, consistent with our prior rulings, i would be inclined to admit those statements. the mayor is not introducing them for a hearsay purpose. they are going to show ms. lopez's state of mind. does that mean that if we disagree with your non-hearsay purpose, you do not want us to permit it? we are allowing here say into the record. you do not want it in for perce purposes? -- for here say purposes? -- for hearsay purposes? >> for this time friend, it is relevant for mind set. it is hard to say i would not want any of it admitted. i would offer it, but it is hard to say which of these is covered by other evidence. >> if we find it does not go to a non-hearsay purpose, there are things you would not want to come into the record, which you otherwise want to come into the record? >> i want to be frank about the other evidence the hearsay evidence might supplement. since we are covering different topics, we would offer a generally. as far as the truth of the matter, i think the state of mind

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 paragraph 4. the objection was relevance. mr. keith, what is your view, with respect to pare graph for? -- paragraph 4? >> this is basically recording the past relationship, e

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 "argument," that's irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. chairperson hur: line 10 begins with "she" and ending with "argument." ok. mr. keith? >> just a moment. chairperson hur: sure. so this is relevant for this reason -- sheriff has claimed in his public statements that she's refered to the custody laws as being powerful that he never called himself a very powerful man. 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.