ok, moving along to nancy lyman. unlike ms,. lopez's declaration, you were more successful narrowing your scope of the disputes. unless i misread it. >> no, but i did not mean to give you the impression we had to go through this paragraph by paragraph. we have an overarching objection because, repeating myself, we don't think a domestic violence expert is needed to understand the situation and make a decision. i am aware from past comments that some of you have made to that. i am probably in the minority here, but really, they agreed to take out those paragraphs. i alluded to 185 to 190, inclusive. other than the overarching irrelevance objection, really the only outstanding point that is in dispute is the bullet point number 6, or vi. >> i took your objection seriously and went through this paragraph by paragraph to determine what i thought was relevant. should i have not done that? >> i'm very sorry, the relevance objection is not too specific individualize paragraphs, but to the expert opinion. >> i don't know what that means

domestic violence as placed within properly understood within the context that was supplied by nancy lyman and again by linnette peralta haynes. i have to agree with mr., bu ko that whether we leave that, neither of us really want that. we want you to understand and explore the significance of the act. to do that, we are permitted to submit this relevant evidence, and it is relevant. >> ok, but what fact in dispute are using miss florez's testimony to help prove? >> we are trying to prove that this is not an insignificant -- >> ok, i don't want descriptive words. i want what fact, the actual piece of evidence, the thing that happened that will -- that this will help us decide. >> well, it will help you determine whether or not the act was more likely just a crab and indignant pull, or more likely in fact a grab and a push against the wall. if i cannot attach significance, i can point you to that factual dispute. i believe the dispute is very significant. that happens within context. we have various descriptions, one minimizing, and one -- >> any question for ms. kaiser? ok, my view it is i

nancy lyman? -- lemon's declaration? i am sorry. was there something about lansdowne? >> about michael hennessey. we are trying to work up a scheduling issue. chairperson hur: while we are on it, that is on my list. what is his status? >> as i discussed on a conference call, the sheriff and the seat is more than willing to submit to cross-examination remotely. however, he will not appear in person, primarily because he has a family member who is severely disabled, for which he is responsible, and he is currently living 3.5 hours away. we have offered repeatedly to make him available for remote testimony. chairperson hur: is he available june 19? what is your view on this? >> i do not know the availability of care givers for this issue. to me, experts are a little different than regular witnesses. the party hires them and retains them. one of the jobs of an expert is to show up. for me, i do not think it is right or fair for him not to show up. i think it is very difficult to cross-examine an expert, where you are going to be using a lot of exhibits, while they are on t